words at war

Tom Tancredo goes Freeper:

"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.

Hugh Hewitt volleys back:

Such speculations send the message that we are at war with all of Islam. We are not. We are at war with a slice of Islam that is radical and violent. Statements like Tancredo's invite all of Islam to think they are our enemy.

Every media voice that was raised against Dick Durbin's asinine comparison of Gitmo practices to those of Nazis and Pol Pot should speak with equal pointedness against Tancredo's speculation. There is no defending this type of speculation, and no excuse for airing it.

Yet the sentiment is pervasive, and ironically so; Christians who would decry being confused with "a bunch of snake-handling mountain evangelists" are quick to blame Islam as a "religion of violence," glossing over their religion's own militaristic rhetoric.

Hewitt is right. Freeper logic has no place in American politics on either side of the aisle.