My original post on Congressman Tom Tancredo's blunder, in pondering the bombing of Mecca and other Islamic holy sites, is here.

Donald Sensing (via Hugh Hewitt) weighs in as well:

"As for a conventional attack on Islam’s holy sites in repsonse to a WMD attack against an American city, I say no also. But I would also caution the Islamic world’s political and religious leaders that such an attack, especially if repeated, would result in most Americans deciding that even if America is not at war with Islam per se, Islam per se is certainly at war with us.

For that reason non-Islamist, non-jihadist Muslims need to understand that al Qaeda et. al. is their enemy as well as ours."

Rick over at Stones Cry Out:

"Ultimate response? What, nuclear? Nuclear weapons, with a few tactical exceptions, are meant to serve as deterrents. The threat of mutually assured destruction kept the bombs from falling for almost 50 years during the Cold War. To whom was Tancredo’s threat directed? What deterring effect could the threat of nuking (or even bombing) Mecca in response to a terrorist attack on our soil provide? It might make a certain Congressman and his redneck followers feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but that’s about it."

Indeed.

I'm startled by this post from La Shawn Barber:

"Republicans and Democrats are jumping all over him, mischaracterizing his remarks. They believe Tancredo should apologize. He said he won’t, and I hope he doesn’t. I stand behind him 100 percent, even as Republicans and so-called conservatives demand an apology. We need tough talk and tough action on global terrorism, and what Tancredo said was actually mild in comparison to what Islamofascists have in mind for us.

Most politicians are faint-hearted, weak, ineffectual, disconnected, and desensitized pencil-pushers, so when one comes along and says what should’ve been said eons ago, his own party wants to see his head on a platter because he dared “offend” someone. Numbskulls.

It’s becoming painfully clear to me that I’m moving farther to the right than so-called conservatives, including bloggers. As they cave to PC pressure and become indistinguishable from liberals, I’ll take up the slack and remain as un-PC as I can get."

The problem here is that Tancredo's remarks were not mischaracterized. Here is what he said:

"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

This is what has been reported by the blogosphere. I have not seen any mischaracterization of the congressman's remarks in any of the blogs that I have perused. There was some dispute as to whether Tancredo actually meant using nuclear weapons, or conventional weapons. It is, as noted in my original post, within bounds to characterize Tancredo's remarks as contemplating the potential use of nuclear weapons to "take out" Islamic holy sites.

It is not a matter of talking tough in an effort to dissuade a WMD attack on the United States. It is a matter of the United States undertaking a deterrent policy of measured and appropriate response. As was noted by others yesterday, that might include regime change in Syria, Iran, North Korea and Saudi Arabia, or other states that support or provide WMD materials to terrorists, in the aftermath of a major WMD attack on an American city.

Taking out Mecca, and other Islamic holy sites, is NOT a measured and appropriate response. That which Mecca is truly representative - Islam in its totality - does not condone the type of attack on the United States that Tancredo was talking about, and therefore an attack (or threat of one) on it is not justified. It would instantly and unnecessarily turn every Muslim in the world against us - some of who have deliverable nuclear weapons. It would achieve the exact opposite from its intent. Rather than deterring another such attack on our country, a retaliatory attack on the epicenter of Islam would virtually guarantee many more attacks on us by a reinvigorated Al Qaeda, and other Islamo-fascist groups that would have an almost endless supply of enraged and energized recruits. It would greatly heighten the chance of a nuclear war with countries that possess such weapons, and that very well might not be able to resist the total, unmitigated and profound outrage of their Muslim populations.

If the rationale for my view, just laid out above, that Tancredo's remarks are ludicrious is considered caving to PC pressure, then I'll cave any day of the week.