CNN Fact Checks Tancredo, Proves He Once Suggested Bombing Mecca
CNN Fact Checks Tancredo, Proves He Once Suggested Bombing Mecca
In a recent interview on CNN, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) claimed that it was “absolutely untrue” that he once said we should “take out Mecca in order to send a message.”
After airing Tancredo’s remarks, host Anderson Cooper said, “As always, we care about the facts on 360″ and proceeded to display Tancredo’s statements from an interview he conducted with Pat Campbell in July 2005. A review of the transcript showed Tancredo arguing that if terrorists were to use nuclear weapons in the U.S., we should respond by nuking the Muslim holy city of Mecca. Watch it:
Transcript:
GUEST: Congressman Tancredo is the same man who a few years ago said that we should consider taking out Mecca in order to send a message to the terrorists.
TANCREDO: Whoa — that is absolutely —
GUEST: This gentleman is not the man to be –
TANCREDO: You have no respect to say a thing like that.
GUEST: — to preserve all human life.
TANCREDO: That is absolutely untrue that I said we should take out Mecca in order to send a message.
GUEST: Sir, you said we should consider it.
TANCREDO: It was never to, quote, send a message. That is an entirely inaccurate way —
GUEST: Sir, did you say that we should consider taking out Mecca?
TANCREDO: What I said was, well, do you want to fight that battle again? I’m happy to. But what I’m telling you what you just said is not only inaccurate, but I think it’s disingenuous.
COOPER: Well, as always we care about the facts on “360.” We checked the transcripts of Congressman Tancredo’s interview with Pat Campbell. When asked how he would respond to nuclear weapons, he said, quote, If this happens in the United States and it would be determined it is the result of extremist fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites. When asked, you mean bombing Mecca? Tancredo answered, yeah.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
And “We’ll nuke the Vatican if one more altar boy is abused!”
February 24th, 2007 at 8:46 amThose pesky facts keep intruding on the pathetic, uninformed Republican coocoo land. Just what America needs–more Muslims with reasons to hate us even more. Thanks, Tancredo.
February 24th, 2007 at 8:47 amYou know if any other Government worldwide had said such a thing they would be fired from their job , you cannot go around putting these thoughts into the minds of right wing people , it feeds them they automatically repeat these phrases over and over again in their heads
February 24th, 2007 at 9:05 amhe lies with such enthusiasm…he gets an A for effort, but an F for being a moron…
February 24th, 2007 at 9:06 amWow, follow-up on a conservative’s lies! What on earth is going on?
It’d be great if they would do this with guys like Cheney, Bush, Alberto and anyone who opens their mounth on FNC.
February 24th, 2007 at 9:29 amShocking! Another Republican triped up by the Facts of his own statements? Did he get that From Dick Cheney??
February 24th, 2007 at 9:35 amAll people like Tancredo have to do in situations like this is say something like, “I don’t remember saying that, but if I did, I was wrong at the time and I apologize.”
A simple CYA move that would end any debate about what he or she did or didn’t say.
But noooooo. People like this idiot (i.e. Bush, Cheney, Rummy, etc.) just can’t admit they are/were wrong.
Nice that Anderson did a fact check, but did he follow up with Tancredo’s office to get a reaction? I’m betting “no.”
February 24th, 2007 at 9:44 amI agree with this woman 100%. Next time she should cover her fac or be persecuted by Sharia Law.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:02 amShocking! Another Republican triped up by the Facts of his own statements? Did he get that From Dick Cheney??
Comment by S.D. — February 24, 2007 @ 9:35 am
Actually he learned it from the Clintons. You know, talking out of both sides of your mouth! They’re just such a tough act to follow.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:28 am#3 Tobey Tall
That is why they are saying dumb things, because they are pandering to a goose stepping audience … they just forget that everyone with any amount of decency is also hearing it, or hope that those people will just forget or ignore it. They become flabbergasted when the whole thing comes back to blow up in their face.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:28 amWhat’s the problem ?
It seems to me that all options should be on the table. The Muslim terrorists should understand in no uncertain terms that we will consider using nukes against them and those things they hold dear if they attack us again.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:30 amyou’d think a good racist would stand by his lies. Klansmen everywhere weep.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:33 am#11 Dave Reader
That would cause deaths of innocents and would just create more terrorists. If we want to let the steam out of the terrorist organizations, then we have to treat the people of those regions fairly and not rape their lands of natural resources. If allowed to develop economically in a way that is advantageous to the people, and not to our corporations, then they will have wealth which means they will have something to live for.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:36 amIf Tancredo doesn’t “have the stomach” to stand by his own statements without this pathetic flip-flopping and reality denial-saying something, then claiming he never said it-then how could Tancredo possibly handle the pressure of being President
One reality-denying fool & blithering ally of the Nutty Nattering Neocon Nabobs as President is enough, time to put a stake through the heart of Tancredo’s Presidential aspirations now and be done with it
February 24th, 2007 at 10:37 amCatholics and the H.R.Catholic Church have been responsible for more murders, torture and terrorist acts over the centuries than any we have suffered in the U.S. at the hands of fanatical muslims. If Mr. Tancredo, who being of eyetalian extraction is probably catholic, he should start his bombing campaign in Rome.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:39 amThis is no longer amusing. The poison has spread throughout the USA. You have public officials like the newly elected woman from MN or many many conservative hate speech radio commentators who espouse the need to ahnialate the muslim as a whole. These ignorant Christian Taliban are beyond de-programming. They espouse a zealous hatred and ignorance that is rotting the discourse in this Country.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:12 amWhat can we expect from an unrepentent moron like Tancredo? Meh.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:19 amOption a)If you use nukes against the US, we will nuke Mecca.
Option b)If you use Nukes agains the US, we will give you aid, along with a 2 year supply of milk and cookies.
Sorry, I chose option a. And I am anti-nukes.
If you harm me, I will retaliate 10 fold.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:32 amRobert,
If anybody uses nukes it won’t even matter. Those who don’t die right away will be praying for death soon enough.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:57 amIt’s pretty simple really, four fifths of the worlds oil reserves lie in BFE.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:59 amJT8D-15A,
BFE?
Nice new name, btw. :)
February 24th, 2007 at 12:05 pmIf anybody uses nukes it won’t even matter. Those who don’t die right away will be praying for death soon enough.
Comment by Zooey — February 24, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Low yield tactical nukes limit the exposure area.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:14 pm#18 hacker bob
thats a dumb set of choices. Are we going to bomb any christian church because one of their members bombs an abortion clinic? no. You single out those responsible and punish them. Not every Muslim is against us. If we ever nuked Mecca, then every Muslim would be against us.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:15 pmIf you want simple choices these are it:
1) If you leave us alone, we will leave you alone.
2) If you nuke us, we won’t just have a knee jerk retaliation, we will hunt down the criminals responsible and annihilate their little terrorist organization.
Low yield tactical nukes limit the exposure area.
Comment by hacker bob
Nukes are like potato chips — nobody uses just one.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:23 pm#22 – hacker bob,
February 24th, 2007 at 12:24 pmLow yeild like Chernoble?
Comment by AshenShard — February 24, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
I do prefer choice #1 over all the other choices mentioned.
Now, how do you track “criminals” when you do not have access to them? Anytime we would try, we would run into “diplomatic issues.” Here is a scenario:
Someone organizes a bombing in the US. The bombing is carried out. We find that the bomber is hiding in Egypt. When we try to go after the “criminal”, we run into issues of sovereignty, and jurisdictional issues. Remember, the CIA, FBI, etc do not have rightful jurisdiction outside of the US. So, we have to rely on the Egyptian government to track the person/group. AS we all know, governments around the world are filled with corrupt people. The government could easily “not be able to locate” someone, as they whisk them away in the dark. What is the solution? To leave it unsolved?
OR
If you drop a nuke on us, Mecca goes bye bye. Now, Muslim countries, If you do not want to be the one responsible for losing Mecca, you will hunt, track, prosecute, FIGHT, terror organization.
And yes, many Muslims would be pissed at us. I know. But what are they now?
February 24th, 2007 at 12:33 pm#22 – hacker bob,
Low yeild like Chernoble?
Comment by WaltTheMan — February 24, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
No, lower. Like tactical nukes for battle field use. You are in science, corrrect? Maybe you could tell us what the small yield would be. Somethign that destroys about 15 city, blocks.
Again, I am not advocating using nukes on the battlfield. I am talking about “what if”.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:39 pm#27 – hacker bob,
February 24th, 2007 at 1:09 pmThe poof at Chernoble was equivalent to half a ton of TNT. Any nuclear weapon has a limited dispersal range which is called the Earth’s atmosphere.
Dave Reader, please read comment #34 on the thread just above, because it applies to you too.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:25 pmThe sort of radically disproportionate response advocated by violence-loving freaks like Dave Reader is a clear indicator of deeply held racist beliefs.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:27 pmAndrey Sacharov was a Soviet top physicist, creator of the H bomb in the fifties. He lived in a secret city, pretty isolated from the rest of the world… but still started thinking of the secondary effects of testing nuclear weapons. This was done in remote areas, but radioactive particles were spread in the atmosphere – he came to the conclusion that testing NW statistically increased the chance of a person dying of cancer anywhere in the world, like someone dying in Australia 10 years after a nuclear test in Siberia.
In his memoires, this concern appears to be the first factor that “turned him around” – after a few yers he became the most well known dissident in the USSR, being granted the Nobel prize for Peace – again, this is the creator of the H bomb.
He must have been really impressed of the secondary effects of nuclear weapons, and he sure was in a position to know.
I personally don’t think that the price of a LYNW blast is worth paying. One can argue that this or that situation (sarin etc.) would be solved only by these means. Still, I don’t think that the person that has the decision should have the means of going the easy way – whenever human life is at stake. Of course, the prospective of getting cancer is hypothetical (maybe it won’t be me, maybe it will be you), but the necessity of using any form of NW is even more hypothetical.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:30 pm__________________
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn’t.
~~Leonard Cohen
Robert,
I expect the “ill-effects” to both Iraqis and our troops will be borne out in about 15 years. Just Like Gulf War I
The results are just starting to “come-in” with our troops in Gulf War I.
We are using DU rounds EXTENSIVELY and for LONGER and more SUSTAINED periods in this war. I expect the mortality figures to really skyrocket for that region and for our troops as a whole.
Look at the “small number” of DU rounds we used in Gulf War I as compared to what we are using EVERYDAY over there, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the longer the exposure, the more frequency of use of these weapons, and the close proximity to our troops in which they were used, factor all of these things into account and we are headed for a next generation “genocide” of our own troops.
You don’t think the US Govt. knows these troops over there now ARE NOT going to be here in say 20 years?
Of course they do.
Wait and see.
————————————————————————-
Tuesday, November 12, 2002
Iraqi cancers, birth defects blamed on U.S. depleted uranium
By LARRY JOHNSON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER FOREIGN DESK EDITOR
SOUTHERN DEMILITARIZED ZONE, Iraq — On the “Highway of Death,” 11 miles north of the Kuwait border, a collection of tanks, armored personnel carriers and other military vehicles are rusting in the desert.
They also are radiating nuclear energy.
Paul Kitagaki Jr. / P-I
Six-year-old Fatma Rakwan, being held by her mother at the Basra Hospital for Maternity and Children, was recently diagnosed with leukemia.
In 1991, the United States and its Persian Gulf War allies blasted the vehicles with armor-piercing shells made of depleted uranium — the first time such weapons had been used in warfare — as the Iraqis retreated from Kuwait. The devastating results gave the highway its name.
Today, nearly 12 years after the use of the super-tough weapons was credited with bringing the war to a swift conclusion, the battlefield remains a radioactive toxic wasteland — and depleted uranium munitions remain a mystery.
Although the Pentagon has sent mixed signals about the effects of depleted uranium, Iraqi doctors believe that it is responsible for a significant increase in cancer and birth defects in the region. Many researchers outside Iraq, and several U.S. veterans organizations, agree; they also suspect depleted uranium of playing a role in Gulf War Syndrome, the still-unexplained malady that has plagued hundreds of thousands of Gulf War veterans.
Depleted uranium is a problem in other former war zones as well. Yesterday, U.N. experts said they found radioactive hot spots in Bosnia resulting from the use of depleted uranium during NATO air strikes in 1995.
With another war in Iraq perhaps imminent, scientists and others are concerned that the side effects of depleted uranium munitions — still a major part of the U.S. arsenal — will cause serious illnesses or deaths in a new generation of U.S. soldiers as well as Iraqis.
THE DANGERS
Depleted uranium, known as DU, is a highly dense metal that is the byproduct of the process during which fissionable uranium used to manufacture nuclear bombs and reactor fuel is separated from natural uranium. DU remains radioactive for about 4.5 billion years.
Uranium, a weakly radioactive element, occurs naturally in soil and water everywhere on Earth, but mainly in trace quantities. Humans ingest it daily in minute quantities.
Paul Kitagaki Jr. / P-I
Dr. Khajak Vartaanian, a radiation expert, holds a Geiger counter next to a hole in an Iraqi tank destroyed by depleted uranium weapons in the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The shell holes show 1,000 times the normal background radiation level.
DU shell holes in the vehicles along the Highway of Death are 1,000 times more radioactive than background radiation, according to Geiger counter readings done for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer by Dr. Khajak Vartaanian, a nuclear medicine expert from the Iraq Department of Radiation Protection in Basra, and Col. Amal Kassim of the Iraqi navy.
The desert around the vehicles was 100 times more radioactive than background radiation; Basra, a city of 1 million people, some 125 miles away, registered only slightly above background radiation level.
But the radioactivity is only one concern about DU munitions.
A second, potentially more serious hazard is created when a DU round hits its target. As much as 70 percent of the projectile can burn up on impact, creating a firestorm of ceramic DU oxide particles. The residue of this firestorm is an extremely fine ceramic uranium dust that can be spread by the wind, inhaled and absorbed into the human body and absorbed by plants and animals, becoming part of the food chain.
Once lodged in the soil, the munitions can pollute the environment and create up to a hundredfold increase in uranium levels in ground water, according to the U.N. Environmental Program.
Studies show it can remain in human organs for years.
The U.S. Army acknowledges the hazards in a training manual, in which it requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and states that “contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption.”
Just six months before the Gulf War, the Army released a report on DU predicting that large amounts of DU dust could be inhaled by soldiers and civilians during and after combat.
Infantry were identified as potentially receiving the highest exposures, and the expected health outcomes included cancers and kidney problems.
The report also warned that public knowledge of the health and environmental effects of depleted uranium could lead to efforts to ban DU munitions.
But today the Pentagon plays down the effects. Officials refer queries on DU munitions to the latest government report on the subject, last updated on Dec. 13, 2000, which said DU is “40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium.”
The report also said, “Gulf War exposures to depleted uranium (DU) have not to date produced any observable adverse health effects attributable to DU’s chemical toxicity or low-level radiation. . . .”
In response to written queries, the Defense Department said, “The U.S. Military Services use DU munitions because of DU’s superior lethality against armor and other hard targets.”
It said DU munitions are “war reserve munitions; that is, used for combat and not fired for training purposes,” with the exception that DU munitions may be fired at sea for weapon calibration purposes.
In addition to Iraq and Bosnia, DU munitions were used in Kosovo and Serbia in 1999.
Paul Kitagaki Jr. / P-I
Hamdin and his brother Amhid are receiving follow-up treatment after being treated successfully for leukemia two years ago at the Basra Hospital for Maternity and Children.
Also in 1999, a United Nations subcommission considered DU hazardous enough to call for an initiative banning its use worldwide. The initiative has remained in committee, blocked primarily by the United States, according to Karen Parker, a lawyer with the International Educational Development/Humanitarian Law Project, which has consultative status at the United Nations.
Parker, who first raised the DU issue in the United Nations in 1996, contends that DU “violates the existing law and customs of war.”
She said there are four rules derived from all of humanitarian law regarding weapons:
Weapons may only be used in the legal field of battle, defined as legal military targets of the enemy in war. Weapons may not have an adverse effect off the legal field of battle.
Weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict. A weapon that is used or continues to act after the war is over violates this criterion.
Weapons may not be unduly inhumane.
Weapons may not have an unduly negative effect on the natural environment.
“Depleted uranium fails all four of these rules,” Parker said last week.
On Oct. 17, 2001, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., introduced a bill calling for “the suspension of the use, sale, development, production, testing, and export of depleted uranium munitions pending the outcome of certain studies of the health effects of such munitions. . . .”
More than a year later, the bill — co-sponsored by Reps. Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico; Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.; Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Barbara Lee, D-Ca.; and Jim McDermott, D-Wash. — remains in committee awaiting comment from the Defense Department.
THE STUDIES
Gulf War veterans faced a wide array of potentially toxic materials during the war: smoke from oil and chemical fires, insecticides, pesticides, vaccinations and DU.
Of the 696,778 troops who served during the recognized conflict phase (1990-1991) of the Gulf War, at least 20,6861 have applied for VA medical benefits. As of May 2002, 159,238 veterans have been awarded service-connected disability by the Department of Veterans Affairs for health effects collectively known as the Gulf War Syndrome.
Paul Kitagaki Jr. / P-I
The woman in the foreground shares a room with four other cancer patients at the Saddam Teaching Hospital in Basra. The patient lying on the bed behind died earlier in the day on which this photograph was taken.
There have been many studies on Gulf War Syndrome over the years, as well as on possible long-term health hazards of DU munitions. Most have been inconclusive. But some researchers said the previous studies on DU, conducted by groups and agencies ranging from the World Health Organization to the Rand Corp. to the investigative arm of Congress, weren’t looking in the right place — at the effects of inhaled DU.
Dr. Asaf Durakovic, director of the private, non-profit Uranium Medical Research Centre in Canada and the United States, and center research associates Patricia Horan and Leonard Dietz, published a unique study in the August issue of Military Medicine medical journal.
The study is believed to be the first to look at inhaled DU among Gulf War veterans, using the ultrasensitive technique of thermal ionization mass spectrometry, which enabled them to easily distinguish between natural uranium and DU.
The study, which examined British, Canadian and U.S. veterans, all suffering typical Gulf War Syndrome ailments, found that, nine years after the war, 14 of 27 veterans studied had DU in their urine. DU also was found in the lung and bone of a deceased Gulf War veteran.
That no governmental study has been done on inhaled DU “amounts to a massive malpractice,” Dietz said in an interview last week.
THE ACTIVIST
Dr. Doug Rokke was an Army health physicist assigned in 1991 to the command staff of the 12th Preventive Medicine Command and 3rd U.S. Army Medical Command headquarters. Rokke was recalled to active duty 20 years after serving in Vietnam, from his research job with the University of Illinois Physics Department, and sent to the Gulf to take charge of the DU cleanup operation.
Today, in poor health, he has become an outspoken opponent of the use of DU munitions.
“DU is the stuff of nightmares,” said Rokke, who said he has reactive airway disease, neurological damage, cataracts and kidney problems, and receives a 40 percent disability payment from the government. He blames his health problems on exposure to DU.
Rokke and his primary team of about 100 performed their cleanup task without any specialized training or protective gear. Today, Rokke said, at least 30 members of the team are dead, and most of the others — including Rokke — have serious health problems.
Rokke said: “Verified adverse health effects from personal experience, physicians and from personal reports from individuals with known DU exposures include reactive airway disease, neurological abnormalities, kidney stones and chronic kidney pain, rashes, vision degradation and night vision losses, lymphoma, various forms of skin and organ cancer, neuropsychological disorders, uranium in semen, sexual dysfunction and birth defects in offspring.
“This whole thing is a crime against God and humanity.”
Speaking from his home in Rantoul, Ill., where he works as a substitute high school science teacher, Rokke said, “When we went to the Gulf, we were all really healthy, and we got trashed.”
Rokke, an Army Reserve major who describes himself as “a patriot to the right of Rush Limbaugh,” said hearing the latest Pentagon statements on DU is especially frustrating now that another war against Iraq appears likely.
“Since 1991, numerous U.S. Department of Defense reports have said that the consequences of DU were unknown,” Rokke said. “That is a lie. We warned them in 1991 after the Gulf War, but because of liability issues, they continue to ignore the problem.” Rokke worked until 1996 for the military, developing DU training and management procedures. The procedures were ignored, he said.
“Their arrogance is beyond comprehension,” he said. “We have spread radioactive waste all over the place and refused medical treatment to people . . . it’s all arrogance.
“DU is a snapshot of technology gone crazy.”
BIRTH DEFECTS IN IRAQ
At the Saddam Teaching Hospital in Basra, Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, a British-trained oncologist, displays, in four gaily colored photo albums, what he says are actual snapshots of the nightmares.
This picture is from one of four albums shown by Dr. Jawad Al-Ali that are filled with photos of deformed infants — examples, he says, of the surge in birth defects in southern Iraq that he blames on depleted uranium.
The photos represent the surge in birth defects — in 1989 there were 11 per 100,000 births; in 2001 there were 116 per 100,000 births — that even before they heard about DU, had doctors in southern Iraq making comparisons to the birth defects that followed the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII.
There were photos of infants born without brains, with their internal organs outside their bodies, without sexual organs, without spines, and the list of deformities went on and on. There also were photos of cancer patients.
Cancer has increased dramatically in southern Iraq. In 1988, 34 people died of cancer; in 1998, 450 died of cancer; in 2001 there were 603 cancer deaths.
On a tour of one ward of the hospital, doctors pointed out boys and girls who were suffering from leukemia. Most of the children die, the doctors said, because there are insufficient drugs available for their treatment.
There was one notable exception, a young boy whose family was able to buy the expensive drugs on the black market.
Al-Ali said it defies logic to absolve DU of blame when veterans of the Gulf War and of the fighting in the Balkans share common illnesses with children in southern Iraq.
“The cause of all of these cancers and deformities remains theoretical because we can’t confirm the presence of uranium in tissue or urine with the equipment we have,” said Al-Ali. “And because of the sanctions, we can’t get the equipment we need.”
To learn more …
For earlier stories on the P-I’s trip to Iraq, go to seattlepi.nwsource.com/iraq2002/
OTHER LINKS
U.S. Department of Defense: http://www.defenselink.mil/
The National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc.: http://www.ngwrc.org/Dulink/du_link.htm
Uranium Medical Research Centre: http://www.umrc.net/
Dr. Doug Rokke, a U.S. Army health physicist assigned to help clean up depleted uranium after the Persian Gulf War, will speak in Seattle on Saturday from 2 to 4 p.m. at University Baptist Church, Northeast 47th Street and 12th Avenue Northeast. Rokke is on a six-state speaking tour sponsored by The Interfaith Network of Concern for the People of Iraq, and co-sponsored by the Traprock Peace Center in Deerfield, Mass.
P-I foreign desk editor Larry Johnson can be reached at 206-448-8035 or larryjohnson@seattlepi.com
February 24th, 2007 at 1:52 pmIf we do decide to nuke Mecca, can we make Tancredo ride SHOTGUN along with the resuscitated corpse of Major T.J. “King” Kong atop the H-Bomb dropped thereupon? BANZAI Tancredo! In the best tradition of the Kamikaze Fighters!!!!!
February 24th, 2007 at 1:59 pmIs there anyone at TP with a brain? On the tape, Tancredo complains about being taken out of context. And, he was taken out of context.
His original comment was that he’d only do that under certain conditions: if it was determined that terrorists had struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons and it was determined that it had been “extremist, fundamentalist Muslims” that it had done, only then would we bomb their “holy sites”.
On the tape, the woman falsely accused Tancredo of suggesting that “to send a message”. She did not mention Tancredo’s pre-conditions, and her comment as well as TP’s complaint are completely disingenuous.
February 24th, 2007 at 2:09 pmSleazy Think Progress, Anderson Cooper lie about Tom Tancredo…
Think Progress continues their reputation as illogical smear merchants – and Anderson Cooper continues his reputation as a fluff “reporter” – with “CNN Fact Checks Tancredo, Proves He Once Suggested Bombing Mecca”. He did suggest……
February 24th, 2007 at 2:25 pmTancredo would ONLY nuke mecca if “extremist, fundamentalist Muslims ” had struck the US with nuclear weapons. There are a billion muslims in the world , and the vast majority are not extremists or fundamentalists…unless something insane like nuking Mecca were to occur. Remember…only one country ever USED nuclear weapons.
February 24th, 2007 at 2:43 pmThis kind of rhetoric only adds fuel to an already dangerous fire.
You can’t be a republican and against killing innocent civilians. Especially if you can mix vengeful vendetta’s somewhere in there.
I suppose if radical Christian terrorists set off a bomb…we would bomb the Vatican? or what if radical Jewish terrorists set off a bomb, should we bomb Israel?
You republiklans defending the words of this wanna-be terrorist are a joke.
February 24th, 2007 at 3:24 pmTancredo needs a nuclear enema. Stick tip in nostril and squeeze while he prays with his rosary beads. Amen.
February 24th, 2007 at 4:12 pmTancredo (like hacker bob) is a typical racist right wing al Crackkker DEMON coward…
…no integrity, no conscience, no brain…
…they are going to hell…
…let’s all hope it’s REAL soon…
February 24th, 2007 at 4:20 pmAgain, I am not advocating using nukes on the battlfield. I am talking about “what ifâ€.
Comment by hacker bob — February 24, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
So it’s OK for you to what if we blew up Mecca, but the what-if of Iran getting nukes is unacceptable?
You people are hypocritical freaks. You’re no different from Osama, another right wing religious murderer.
February 24th, 2007 at 5:03 pmI’ve seen this lady on other shows.. she’s a liar of the highest order.
http://www.exmuslim.com/
February 24th, 2007 at 5:48 pmIslam is a religion of group identity , not of individualism. All work for the state and must submit to every whim of the state. It’s the epitome of Left wing.
February 24th, 2007 at 5:54 pmIslam is a religion of group identity , not of individualism. All work for the state and must submit to every whim of the state. It’s the epitome of Left wing. Comment by Vince P — February 24, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Actually the left wing believes in individual rights and democratically controlled state. The strong authoritarian control of the state over the individual is right wing, just like Nazi Germany, Fascism and George Bush. Go look it up, dum bass.
February 24th, 2007 at 6:00 pmI’ve seen this lady on other shows.. she’s a liar of the highest order. http://www.exmuslim.com/ Comment by Vince P — February 24, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
So then, she must remind you of yourself? You’re a liar of the highest order as well, right wingnut.
February 24th, 2007 at 6:01 pmComment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus #42
VVGFU,
You must keep in mind that…
…when countering Vince P’s bullsh*t posts…
…you’re dealing with a “WILLFUL” idiot…
…he’s a demon and…
…the demon is a liar by nature…
February 24th, 2007 at 6:05 pmI do not advocate using nukes for any reason. As we remove toxins from our environment (When I was a child, a mercury barometer was in every science classroom – try to find one now. Lead paint – you can’t even find it in the half-price bin, and leaded gasoline – priceless. Reducing arsenic levels in our drinking water is two years off.). Two tactical nukes will inject as much radioactive material into the atmosphere as that that is still present from the nuclear tests from 1945 on. I have grandchildren and hope to have great grandchildren as well.
February 24th, 2007 at 6:14 pmW does not want to emulate Hitler. Hitler died, but his nation recovered. W does not wish to repeat that error.
So it’s OK for you to what if we blew up Mecca, but the what-if of Iran getting nukes is unacceptable?
You people are hypocritical freaks. You’re no different from Osama, another right wing religious murderer.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 24, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
douchebag,
Umm, I guess ou missed when I said I am against anyone using nukes the other day, and that includes the US. Where is the hypocricy? We are talking about hypothetical situations.
Guess what, if we wanted to blow up Mecca, we could do it without NUKES. Ever heard of the MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs)
Seriously, Jason, get a grip.
February 24th, 2007 at 6:34 pmComment by big papa
I guess it is ok for you to use racist language. After all, you are the moral one.
You are a racist f*ck.
Try using facts instead of your bulls*it “hate the white man” rhetoric.
February 24th, 2007 at 6:37 pmTom Tancredo = CUA (Completely Useless American)
Name one thing this ph*ck has done for this country!!! Useless!!!
February 24th, 2007 at 6:49 pmFrom memory, Tancredo was asked a hypothetical question of what the US should do if it suffered a nuclear attack. Now, I think he was stupid to have answered it when he could have dismissed it as something that will not happen. But having said that, was his answer that wrong? It’s what the nuclear doctrine is about: nuclear weapons should not be used unless one has suffered a nuclear attack first, or one’s existence was threatened. I seriously doubt the US will not respond with a nuclear retaliation if one of its cities went up in a mushroom cloud. They’ll have every right to retaliate. And I’m not an American.
February 24th, 2007 at 6:52 pmAs soon as a Christian nation uses a nuclear weapon, we should nuke the Vatican.
(Wait, never mind).
February 24th, 2007 at 7:05 pmhacker bob,
I’m sorry, but you are a callous dick. Don’t play with yourself so much.
February 24th, 2007 at 7:12 pmComment by BushYouth — February 24, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
Ok, I’ll take that. I guess I am a callous dick in a hypothetical situation.
Now, what makes me callous? Seriously.
February 24th, 2007 at 7:17 pmHacker Bob,
Posts 31 & 32 are for you. Not Robert. Unless of course you ARE Robert, then it apllies to “both” of you.
February 24th, 2007 at 7:17 pmComment by rachel rj kinnardi — February 24, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
Thank you for the well researched posts. You and WalttheMan have put information on this thread for all to read.
Again, I am not an advocate for the use of nukes at all.
February 24th, 2007 at 7:40 pmI agree with Tom.
February 24th, 2007 at 8:04 pmNice to see someone on CNN calling Republicans on their bs.
February 24th, 2007 at 8:05 pmA Republican lying on national TV? Whoda thunk it?
February 24th, 2007 at 8:26 pmThat picture is classic Tancredo — mouth open, ears just hanging there on the sides of his head.
February 24th, 2007 at 8:51 pmComment by hacker bob #47
…I find it interesting that in the two posts I have read from you…
…concerning racism (on my part as you’ve not-so-cleverly sought to project)…
…you’ve not denounced BEING a “racist” yourself…
…ME, I just calls ‘em like I sees ‘em…
…if the shoe fits…and all that jazz…
…Now you be sure and stop me when I lie…y’hear?
February 24th, 2007 at 9:08 pmComment by big papa — February 24, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
I am waiting for you to post a single racist statement I have made. You can not find one, can you? I should not have to defend myself against something I am not. You should have to prove your charge against me. Burden of proof is on the prosecution.
If it will make you feel better, I will openly, honestly denounce racism. ANYBODY, regardless of race that harbors a view that their race is superior to another is a complete moron. I guess you miss the several time I have said what a trgedy it is that innocent Iraqis die. that is a real racist attitude I have, isn’t it? You have missed the number of times I have made posts saying that everyone needs to be judged by their merits and not their skin color or nationality. Real racist of me, isn’t it?
Your problem is that it is easier for you to call someone that disagrees with your politics a racist, rather than listen to their reasons for differing.
When you paint with a broad brush, you get a little dirty yourself.
Really, we have gone around this tree time and again.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:29 pmI’m sure most of the tough talking Bozos who are all for indiscriminate nuclear retaliation against entire cities full of people are old enough to enlist. In fact They are now taking people up to 42 years old. So if you haven’t volunteered yet, don’t accuse anyone else, not even liberal Dems, of being soft. Nobody is softer than a tough-talking chicken hawk who is all for violence as long as it’s only other people doing all the actual dying and bleeding. I never want to here another 30 year old Republican hawk talk about cut and run Democrats again unless that 30 year old is in uniform. If you never go in the first place you never have to worry about cuttong and running, do you, tough guys? Most of you would soil yourselves if you ever had to put your ass where your big mouth is.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:22 amfelinex:
The thing the rightwing doesn’t understand, and never will, is that the best historic figure one can use to illustrate what a Liberal is, is Koos Delarey.
This guy is commonly considered one of the greatest generals in the Boer War. He argued against the war when it first started, and was called a coward for being against the war, but when it became necessary for him to fight he was also the last general to surrender.
He was the sort of guy who led from the front, and who acted with absolute honour – he was not the sort of guy who excuses torture simply because the other side are bad people.
After the war he entered Parliament and fought against both Hertzog, both for his racism and his wish to divide the country, and against South Africa entering into WWI – because he believed strongly, that you only enter a war if you are attacked.
Currently the ANC is calling the song a rallying cry for the rightwing, bullshit, it is a rallying cry for the true left, that doesn’t accept it when incompetence and corruption, ruin our best efforts to make things better.
February 25th, 2007 at 1:58 amComment by hacker bob #60
hack,
You alone know your heart…
…if what you say is true that is in your favor…
…therefore, the term al Crackkker should not have affected/offended you in such a way…
…unless you feel a connection (some guilt) to it…
If someone calls me a murderer and I know that I’ve not committed such an act it would be like water off of a duck’s back…
…I HAVE developed a reflexive attitude towards ANYONE who condones this illegal invasion and occupation as being racist…
…I do believe that all right wing conned’self-servatives are racist, misogynist, homophobes and xenophobes…
…Rightly or wrongly, I have no compunctions about freely admitting this…
…and I truly believe that I’m not far off the mark…
February 25th, 2007 at 2:15 amComment by big papa — February 25, 2007 @ 2:15 am
My beef is that you can not denounce racism by using a racist term. If I were to say something like “lazy hispanics”, should the hispanics that are not lazy not be offended? After all, the term does not apply to them.
The great thing about this internet thing is the fact that it is “blind”. Race should not be an issue, and no form of racism should be tolerated.
February 25th, 2007 at 10:31 amWhat is the point in bringing this up again? We all know he said this.
This is just a pathetic attempt to smear the next President.
February 25th, 2007 at 11:18 amComment by hacker bob — February 24, 2007 @ 11:32 am
At least now we know you’re not a Christian.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:37 pmAnd yes, many Muslims would be pissed at us. I know. But what are they now?
Comment by hacker bob — February 24, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Kidnappers frequently employ this tactic. ‘If you don’t do as I demand, I will kill you loved one, and you will be responsible.’ Yet, who is the one who actually does the killing? The kidnapper.
Here, who would actually decide to nuke Mecca? The U.S. How can you shift responsibility away from the country that actually commits the crime?
If you’re argument is so sound, why don’t we employ it to get Bin Laden? Oh, that’s right your hero, Bush, doesn’t think getting Bin Laden is all that important now.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:43 pmComment by Briseadh na Faire — February 25, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Hey, get over it. You really need to quit confusing my loyalty to service with being loyal to a man. You really don’t know the difference, do you?
February 25th, 2007 at 6:30 pmIf you harm me, I will retaliate 10 fold.
Comment by hacker bob — February 24, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Curiously, it’s exactly the same tactic used by the SS against the french resistance in the WWII.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:13 am[...] Think Progress reports on Rep. Tom Tancredo’s most recent appearance on CNN’s 360 with Anderson Cooper. He falsely denied ever saying the United States should consider “tak[ing] out†Muslim holy sites in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States. [...]
February 26th, 2007 at 3:57 pmCathy
I just wanted to write to say that you have a great site and a wonderful resource for all to share.
March 15th, 2008 at 7:24 pm