Rep. Tom Tancredo’s comments on terrorism
Re: “Tancredo: Bigger sins than offending,” July 24 Tom Tancredo guest commentary.
In a recent interview on a Florida radio show, Rep. Tom Tancredo suggested that the United States bomb holy Muslim sites in response to a terrorist attack on the United States. Despite calls from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Arab-American Institute, and heads of several U.S.-friendly countries, Tancredo has refused to apologize.
On a completely different yet related note, Tancredo had this to say about a Chinese official who made threatening remarks about the United States: “For a senior government official to exhibit such tremendous stupidity by making such a brazen threat is hardly characteristic of a modern nation … .”
I couldn’t agree more, Congressman.
Arsalan Rizvi, Greenwood Village
…
What is refreshing about Tom Tancredo is that, unlike other politicians, he is not afraid to take a stance and speak his mind. Once again, he is coming forward and taking a strong stand in a not-politically-correct manner. I have to say, as usual, I think Congressman Tancredo makes sense.
Robin Hvidston, Upland, Calif.
…
Last Sunday, Congressman Tom Tancredo asked us to consider whether we should nuke the holy city of Mecca if Islamic terrorists detonate a nuclear weapon on our soil. The theory is: If someone hurts you, strike hard, and strike indiscriminately. At first glance, it’s really not a bad idea. Problem is, it’s already been tried – by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
Most people don’t become “terrorists” by choice. They are forced to resort to violence in an effort to redress legitimate injuries because the rule of law has become meaningless. They’d probably prefer to use laser-guided cruise missiles against military targets if they had the choice, but they are forced by necessity to improvise.
It is an indisputable fact of history that, over the past 50 years, we have meddled in the internal affairs of almost every country from Australia to Zaire. We’ve installed an impressive list of dictators, including Mobutu, Somoza, Manuel Noriega, and “Papa Doc.” Just in the Middle East, we have overthrown a democratically elected government in Iran, and put Saddam Hussein’s Baathist Party in power in Iraq. We gave Hussein chemical weapons, which he used to terrorize his own people. In short, we’ve struck these people pretty hard. Don’t they have the right to strike back – and strike indiscriminately?
Congratulations, Tom! I think you’ve just morally justified Sept. 11.
Ken Smith, Golden
…
I did not find Congressman Tom Tancredo’s remarks “offensive,” as seems to be the thrust of his defense to his recent critics. I find them stupid, reckless and irresponsible. His comparison to some Western arguments, such as the London mayor’s, that we bring these attacks on ourselves is also invalid in this particular instance. Western influence in the Middle East has been around, in one way or another, for many centuries.
The terrorists conducting jihad, and their supporters, constitute little more than 1 percent of the 1.3 billion Muslims around the world. Attacking Mecca and Medina would be a massive strategic blunder, have no military value whatsoever and would inflame the entire Muslim world. If you wanted to pick one thing that would dramatically increase terrorism around the globe, attacking Muslim holy sites would be on the top of the list. For Tancredo to suggest this is a viable “option on the table” brings his judgment into serious question.
Steve McCombs, Chatsworth, Calif.
…
We living in Colorado do not find Tancredo to be an embarrassment. On the contrary, we find him to be a patriot.
If bombing innocent Christian and Catholic civilians speaks the loudest to us, then I suppose bombing mosques will speak the loudest to the Muslim terrorists – whose very reason for killing families is based on their faith.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. That is biblical, and I believe fully in the principle.
Marty Lich, Gypsum
…
Tom Tancredo and his followers offer the following solution to terrorism: Moderate Muslims, “crack down on the extremists in midst” or face the possibility of us committing heinous war crimes against you. Notice the proposition is not phrased: “Moderate Muslims, what can we do to help you minimize the influence of extremists in your midst?” This proposition might actually have the possibility of opening dialogue and avenues of cooperation.
The most obvious steps in this direction require the United States to do next to nothing – that is, leave the Middle East alone. Stop supporting vicious thugs, stop overthrowing secular governments, stop supporting terrorists, stop supporting corrupt tyrannies, support a just solution for Israel and the Palestinians, and, finally, quit arming various states in the region to the teeth.
The fact that these suggestions, which would enjoy overwhelming support in the Arab world, are not even comprehensible to Tancredo, his supporters or the Bush administration show what a low priority ending terrorism has for them.
Ben Harnke, Denver
…
As an American Muslim, while I am obviously disturbed by Rep. Tom Tancredo’s comments, I have to admit I am hardly surprised. Our political leaders have hardly been the best role models of rational words or behavior. In light of all this, what’s another congressman making stupid remarks?
However, the comments might just be smoldering embers. To use an analogy: In many locker rooms, comments made by opposing players are often posted on the chalkboard as motivation for the upcoming game. It would be little wonder if Tancredo’s statements won’t soon be found taped up on the wall of some terrorist’s basement or cave (or website), serving as similar motivation.
Taj Ashaheed, Denver
…
It is with some amusement that I note the outrage against Congressman Tom Tancredo for his remarks about the possible retaliation against Muslim holy sites. I think the outrage should be focused where it belongs – directly at the religious Muslim leaders themselves. Where is their fatwa condemning all terrorists and their acts? Where is the fatwa ordering the death sentence against these terrorists? Until they issue such a fatwa, I guess I’ll remain what they refer to me as – a crusader and infidel worthy only of extermination.
Leo Leamy, Aurora
Supreme Court nominee
Re: “Nominee an enigma – briefly,” July 24 guest commentary.
How wonderful to read a nuanced, clear and obviously studied view of constitutional interpretation. We now know that there are conflicting and legitimate differences in how judges can approach the Constitution and legal precedent without merely labeling them as a “conservative” or “liberal,” or “strict constructionist” or “activist.” Just as with the Bible, which is a complex historical as well as inspired spiritual text, there can be different emphases and understandings.
I am so tired of the polarization and spin that characterize today’s politics, religion and media coverage. Politicians and their followers seem to think that using emotional buzzwords furthers democracy, when it ends up weakening it. Bring on more people who know what they are talking about to help us become an educated and well-reasoned populace.
Lois Vanderkooi, Broomfield
Response to criticism of environmental movement
Re: “Extreme agendas harmful; Environmentalists have lost their way,” July 24 Perspective article.
In his Perspective article, Patrick Moore accused the environmental movement of having “extreme agendas.”
He insinuated that environmentalists are opposed to progress and that we would deny Vitamin A to children and it is our policies that are contributing to world hunger and energy shortages.
He uses his status as co-founder of Greenpeace to give credibility to his accusations.
I am also a co-founder of Greenpeace and I have known Patrick Moore for 35 years.
Moore makes accusations that have no basis in fact. The environmental movement is a diverse and complex international movement, and blanket generalizations are simplistic and also sensationalist.
Environmentalists do not have zero tolerance against genetic manipulation. It is a practice as old as agriculture. What we do have is a problem with irresponsible gene splicing that could lead to the development of dangerous species of bacteria or viruses. We have a concern about splicing animal genes with plant genes and we do not believe the problem of overpopulation will be solved by simply engineering more food.
Environmentalists are opposed to dams because dams prevent the flow of nutrients to the land and wetlands below the dam and accumulate salt and toxins behind the dam. Cutting off the flow of water in a river is akin to tying off a blood vessel in your arm. The river and the blood vessel perform essentially the same function.
Moore argues that environmentalists oppose wind power. This is an amazing spin. The environmental movement has been promoting wind and solar power for decades.
Moore is right when he says that the environmental movement opposes nuclear power. He asked if we preferred coal-powered generators. No, we don’t prefer coal, we are just concerned about a little thing called radioactive waste and the fact that nuclear power stations have limited lifespans, after which they cannot be deconstructed but will need to be isolated for thousands of years.
Environmentalists are accused of being sensationalist, yet those who criticize the environmental movement themselves employ sensational accusations that demonize us as being anti- children, anti-people and anti- progress.
The environmental movement is one of the fastest-growing social movements in the world today, because people are seeing the problems and seeking solutions.
Paul Watson, Friday Harbor, Wash.
The writer is founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and a national director of the Sierra Club.
…
It appears that Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore is the one who has “lost his way.” He now appears to be more of a lackey for industry and the administration than the environmentalist he continues to claim to be.
After all, it has been 19 years since he broke ranks with Greenpeace and apparently gave away his environmentalist credentials. Moore now feels that the environmental movement supports policies that “ignore science and result in increased risks to human health and ecology.”
His arguments supporting polyvinyl chloride, genetic engineering of foods, nuclear power, salmon farming, forestry clear-cutting of trees, and hydroelectricity sound more like the public relations releases being issued by the industries involved.
Moore’s conclusion – that “Environmentalism is anti-globalization, anti- industry and in favor of sensationalism” – is a sad commentary on his own personal conversion to that of an anti-environmentalism mouthpiece.
Jack F. Salter, Evergreen
Pax Christi Catholic parish
Re: “Far from Rome,” July 24 special report.
Thank you for your article in last Sunday’s Denver Post on the Pax Christi Catholic parish. The article showed the true faces of the Catholic faith and not one narrow view that we have often read in your paper from Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput. Bravo to women like Thoy Smith and Mary Schannfit. I thank them for their candor. We need women like them to show us how to stay in the church and be part of what makes us “universal.”
Karen Cloud, Denver
…
As members of the Pax Christi church, we were pleased how accurately The Post captured the sense of welcome that our parish extends.
The two of us joined Pax Christi and were married there after we were engaged two years ago in the church parking lot. We had considered several churches in the area, and chose Pax Christi because of its strong sense of community and the positive messages delivered by Father Ken every Sunday.
Your stories realistically portrayed the variety of decisions that one faces when choosing a new faith community in today’s mobile society as well as dilemmas that confront Catholics when applying church dogmas to their daily lives. The authors did an excellent job of addressing these complex issues as well as sharing their insights into the human side of our loving church.
Gwen and Jonathan Feifarek, Lone Tree
…
The Vatican requires all Catholics who do not have a physical impediment to kneel during the consecration. The American bishops, for almost 30 years, have extended the period of kneeling from after the Sanctus until after the minor elevation before the Lord’s prayer. To do otherwise is direct disobedience to the church and disrespectful to the real presence of Christ. Moreover, the pastor at Pax Christi – who in your story was not pleased with a parishioner who chose to kneel during consecration – has obviously either not read, misunderstands or is willfully disobedient to the Second Vatican Council in the concept of “people of God.”
The people are the church, the people of God, when they are in communion with the Holy Father and the bishops in communion with him. The Holy Spirit is with the “sensus fidelium” or sense of the faithful when and if they remain the faithful. Perhaps Bishop Michael Sheridan can enlighten the Rev. Ken Przybyla on Catholic teaching.
Allen Murphy, Westminster
Acceptance of new drugs
Re: “Profits and the development of drugs,” July 24 guest commentary.
If Congress limits the profits of drug companies, we can kiss our hopeful expectations of the Biotech Age goodbye. In a capitalistic society, profits are the motivation for businesses to develop new products for the marketplace. Just because the product meets a public health need does not obligate drug companies to become philanthropic entities. Drug companies must show profits in order to lure investors, and the investors provide the capital to develop more new drugs.
The public is tired of waiting for new drugs to be approved. Aging baby boomers expect health-care innovations to keep pace with their mounting physical problems. They are unwilling to wait 10 years for a new drug to be approved when other industries are benefiting from advanced technology at historically unprecedented rates.
As a result of public demand, the Food and Drug Administration has expanded its mission to not only protect the public, but to also “advance the public health by helping to speed innovations.” Out of this newly expanded focus, the FDA developed its Accelerated Approval process for certain new drugs. This is a clear indication that Americans want to move in the direction of faster government approval. The process will only be slowed down if we add another layer of government involvement.
Rebekah Fisher, Denver
TO THE POINT: Short takes from readers
Payola vs. lobbying – what’s the difference? Offer money or expense-paid vacations to a radio DJ for favorable play of your song and you violate the law. Offer money (campaign contributions) or expense-paid vacations (fact-finding trips) to a member of Congress in exchange for access and favorable legislation and you’re a well-rewarded power player in D.C.
William Autrey, Boulder
Soldiers who are questioning whether the average American is being asked to sacrifice for the war have a very valid point. The July 27 Denver Post has an article on Page 16 about four U.S. troops being killed. We’re not even made to feel uncomfortable by front-page headlines, which is the only thing some people look at.
Gloria Gabossi, Golden
I admire the Brits. They quickly and openly admitted to the unfortunate killing of an innocent man within a few days. In our good ol’ U.S., I’m positive there would have been days, weeks or even months of debate, finger-pointing and investigations (maybe even a cover-up or litigation) before any such admission.
Richard McCormack, Denver
Was Rep. Tom Tancredo so poorly raised that he believes the answer to fanatic behavior is fanaticism? It’s like throwing a lit cigarette from a car here in Colorado – a really dumb and dangerous idea.
Martha Long, Denver
Woodrow Wilson thought winning World War I could make it the war to end all wars. Instead, it gave Hitler issues on which to lead Germany into World War II. Now comes George W. Bush with a “vision” to impose freedom and Democracy on the Middle East.
Bill Wortman, Denver
To have your comments printed in To the Point, please send letters of no more than 40 words to openforum@denverpost.com (no attachments, please) or 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202. Writers are limited to one letter per month.
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
