Bingo! We have a winner!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 16, 2007 3:20 PM

When Tom said that, I held my breath for a second expecting some backlash from the other contestants, the moderators, the audience, somebody, but it passed like he didn't even say it.

The highlight of the debate as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: walterc at May 16, 2007 3:28 PM

Tancredo, Brownback or Paul, but the main candidates are the immoral Guliani or the dhimmi Mc Cain. It´s sad, the conservatives are dissapearing.

Posted by: Franze at May 16, 2007 3:32 PM

Thank God somebody gets it.

Posted by: Stand fast in the liberty at May 16, 2007 3:32 PM

Mr. Tancredo is absolutely right on this!

Those in dispute of this historical argument would do well to remember that the Ottoman Empire attacked US cargo vessels plying the Mediterranean Sea during the late 1700s on numerous occasions (the US was trading with such nations as France and Italy). There was no Israeli state in existence at that time and if there had been the US probably wouldn't have been a trade partner with it anyway. The Israel excuse for Islamic terror attacks against America do not apply to these events. They were ostensibly a result of Islamic ideology to attack and destroy the "infidels", pure and simple.

The situation of the Ottoman Empire attacks on American vessels became so serious that the US went to war and launched a military invasion into the region to retrieve US citizens who, having survived the initial attacks at sea, had been enslaved by the Muslims.

"From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli we will fight our nation's battles..." are well-known lyrics, needless to say. They were inspired by this historical episode in the late 1700s. (Tripoli was the capital of the Ottoman Empire at the time).

Posted by: pythagoras at May 16, 2007 3:32 PM

"Yeah, where did he get a crazy idea like that?"

.....obviously he pays attention to current world events unlike the dhimmicrats and the leftist pc crowd....

dhimmicrats, like the muslims, hate the truth, especially when the infidels know it....

Way to go Tom....!

Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 16, 2007 3:36 PM

This is interesting. Thanks guys I missed the debate.

I keep hoping Newt G. will get in the race. Anyone else?

Posted by: Abrog8 at May 16, 2007 3:43 PM

"I keep hoping Newt G. will get in the race. Anyone else?

Posted by: Abrog8"

....He is thinking about it....He is an interesting prospect....at least he reads the news...and he studys history....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 16, 2007 3:48 PM

Rudy was great last night, too! He got on Ron Paul's case about his statement regarding the cause of 9/11. You know, the one about Us in Iraq caused 9/11. Yeah. Riiiiight.

Rudy was on some social program topic, then just stopped. You could just see his face change to anger, then he ripped Paul a new one!

Beautimus. I cheered...who wouldn't? Except Lefties and Islamofascists, I mean.

I thought Tancredo rocked last night, but also was happy with the way all of them addressed the GWOT. Except the turtle Paul.

I think this is one of the best groups running for the party. Of course, the polls on Fox showed Ron Paul in the lead, while Hannity & Colmes both talked about that crock.

Just how many Lefties texted for Paul last night???

Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at May 16, 2007 3:49 PM

It's amazing Tancredo said those words and it's even more amazing that the media lynching of him lead by CAIR hasn't started yet.

Posted by: Witch-king of Angmar at May 16, 2007 3:55 PM

Ah, finally, a thread on which to discuss last night's debate - which was far more substantive than the first one. For those who missed it, check out the link above.

Greatcomet

I agree with you. I also think that of the candidates, Tancredo should have moved to the top tier, McCain should have moved down, and that the other lower tier candidates pretty much showed up as having nothing to offer. I agreed with Duncan Hunter on trade with China, but that isn't the biggest threat to the US, although long term, it is. And no - I'm not interested in Fred Thomson coming in - he doesn't have the same clarity that Romney or Tancredo do, or even Giuliani. Newt would be fine, but I'm happy with the current candidates.

In addition to pointing out the obvious above, on the war itself, Tancredo pointed out that best policy would be for the military to stay in the region, but disengage i.e. avoid being a constabulary force there. In that, he was pretty much on a similar page as those of us here who want out of there. Of course, he cannot openly say that a civil war in Iraq is good for us the way we can. I also thought it was very smart of him to deflect the global warming question into a security issue i.e. reduce consumption of petroleum to stop funding our enemies. The converse of what Hugh does when he suggests that we hop on to the Global Warming bandwagon.

The revealing part of the debate was in the penultimate round, where Brit Hume drew an imaginary but plausible scenario of multiple terror attacks leaving thousands dead, and whether to use torture against enemy captives in Gitmo or not. On this one answer alone, McCain should have been eliminated from the race. Romney did well here, pointing out that we have to work on preventing such an attack, aside from just reacting to it. Of the other candidates, I was amazed that anybody would think that it would be relevant to go to the UN for any reason whatsoever - just formally declare war on the offending West African country (which was the source in this scenario). On this question, Romney apart, I thougth that Tancredo was the hands down winner - he said that he'd put a Jack Bauer on the job to do whatever's needed.

An interesting aspect of the language in last night's debate - all the candidates - McCain included - used the term 'Jihad' rather than 'Terrorism' to address the threat - evidently, they've been hearing field polls that show that the public is more concerned about Islamic threats than a nameless act called terror. Only problem - they kept justifying the continued presense in Iraq on the grounds of fighting a Jihad, using Fort Dix as an example. These guys need to read up more, instead of just react to polls.

The post debate text poll on FNC showed Ron Paul the winner for a good portion of the evening, until he was overtaken by Romney - like Miss Anthrope notes, I believe a lot of Leftists polled for him. I however thought that by blaming historical US policy rather than Islamic supremacy, he pretty much ended his campaign right there. Anyway, on the basis of last night's debate, Romney and Tancredo are my candidates - can't choose between them - with Giuliani a close third.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 16, 2007 4:00 PM

Glenn Beck stated this AM while parsing Ron Paul's remarks State " We were attacked by radical Muslims who want to kill us at take over the world", with that understanding and with what is in the Quran and hadith , I dont know how he reconciles it all ,I guess with has to do with a paycheck.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at May 16, 2007 4:04 PM

I will give a donation to Tancredo.

Posted by: Ruebacca at May 16, 2007 4:11 PM

Tancredo, Brownback or Paul, but the main candidates are the immoral Guliani or the dhimmi Mc Cain. It´s sad, the conservatives are dissapearing.

Posted by: Franze

Paul said that we pretty much deserved 9/11, that we had it coming after our many actions over the prior ten years. He's off my list.

Tancredo is my man but he is unelectable.
That's what the media tells us and it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Too many people want to pick a "winner". Republican primary voters think Tancredo can't win and so they're going to give us either McCain, Giuliani or Romney.

Posted by: PMK at May 16, 2007 4:28 PM

I agree with Tancredo on this issue. I look at both the Barbary Pirate incidents and the cartoon riots as situations which generally prove Tancredo's statements.

(1) The Barbary Pirates incident because it indicates that Muslims will always try to take advantage of weakness of infidels and

(2)the cartoon rage because Muslims can turn their rage on anyone at anytime as the Danes found out. It is total nonsense that the publication of cartoons by one paper can justify burning embassies and other crimes committed.

I don't see the Iraq war as any assistance in fighting Islamic supremacism though.

Posted by: DavidE at May 16, 2007 4:28 PM

He would be the best thing that could happen to America.

The video for the quote above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbC3UfQEj44

Posted by: Daniel at May 16, 2007 4:37 PM

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 16, 2007 04:00 PM

Thanks for the link time warp an all

Posted by: Catherine at May 16, 2007 4:57 PM

sorry can't help myself just can't stop ROTFL ROTFL!!

A place where spiders nest, m'lord

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 16, 2007 04:03 PM

ROTFL!!

Gold Star for you today!!!

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER AMEN

Posted by: Catherine at May 16, 2007 5:00 PM

Tancredo shows repeatedly that he understands the critical issues involving islam and national security via our borders.

Trouble is, he hesitates, has false starts, almost stutters with many responses, implying insecurity. I'd like to see him tackle this ASAP since we are all aware of how devastating weak communication skills have been to Bush.

Mentioned above is Fred Thompson. Now Fred IS a potential candidate with considerable communication skills. I've read many of his published statements and viewed quite a few of his non-campaign videos . . . very impressive.

Both men clearly have vision and some understanding about the threats facing this nation today.

Combine the two for '08 - Tancredo/Thompson - Thompson/Tancredo. Oh, and add Hugh Fitzgerald for Secretary of State in '08.

Posted by: justamomof4 at May 16, 2007 5:21 PM

Tom Tancredo has come in first on a number of 'straw' polls. Unfortunately, he isn't a billionaire, is not a media darling, and doesn't seem to be bought out by the corporate world. Still, at this point, if he stays in, I would give him my vote in a primary. He gets it, and is even more frank with smaller audiences.

Posted by: maryrose at May 16, 2007 5:24 PM

My second choice - Romney/Tancredo 08.

Also, justamomof4, I'd like to know what Fred Thomson knows and thinks about Islam and Jihad before I start rooting for him.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 16, 2007 5:32 PM

I think Tom Tancredo must be reading this webiste and really understands islam. l hope he can at least get to be VP and Guiliani for President!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 16, 2007 5:36 PM

I almost jumped into the TV screen last night when I heard Tancredo's comment that ended with a... ding ding ding...timesup.

This statement tells me he gets it where there others all fail.

I agree Tancredo is "unelectable". He is, basically, a single issue candidiate. But I cannot in good conscience vote for any of the others while Tancredo is still a candidate. If he is still in the race come primary time in SC, I will vote for him, unless...

Newt's belief in history as a guide to the future is an incomaparable asset. On all other issues his knowledge of American history are of great benefit. He is creative, loves to find new ways to let technology drive policies and program changes.

He is very unpopular to the left, and to many in the center and the right. He has a tendancy to be quite divisive.

I think he is a great speaker. He probably would have "won" the debate last night. And most importantly, IMHO, he can inspire and lead.

I have visited his website to read his recent opinions on the Global Jihad issue. He still thinks that Iraq and Afghanistan can become a democracies with our help. He dwells on the fact that so many Iraqis and Afghani's risked their lives to cast a vote.

I just sent a long e-mail to him agreeing on the importance of studying history PARTICULARLY when it comes to the history of Islam and Global Jihad.
I asked him to visit this site and to read the books of Spencer, Y'eor. Hirsi Ali and the essays of Hugh Fitzgerald.

His new book on Pearl Harbor just came out. He talks alot about the intelligence failures of WWII and questions total reliance on intelligence agencies in making hard decisions. I think he is trying to prepare us for an attack on Iran. He certainly understands Ahdminejad and knows we can't wait for Iran to get the bomb and then strike.

There is a blog on his site too. I can't tell if he ever posts his own articles or monitors comments. But somebody working that blog probably has Newt's attention. I intend to visit that site often and hope to engage other Newt fans on the issue of Global Jihad and see if I can get a message that may flow over to Newt. Perhaps some of you here who admire him might try this with me.

I feel that something else has to be tried. Hillary will be satisfied trying to impose a new health care system on us all even if it takes 4 years to complete and nothing else is accomplished. If we leave Iraq she will open our borders to all those refugee Iraqi's trying to flee from the mayhem sure to follow an exit. She will blame Bush for the mayhem and will "feel their pain" so much that waves of new muslim refugees we be in our midst. And what about Europe? Where will all those europeans want to flee to when it becomes apparent that muslim majorities in major cities are imminent? They'll want to come here too.

I think it worthwhile to do whatever can be done to get Newt to see the light. None of the other candidates except Tancredo get the picture. We will be doomed if we stay in Iraq becuase it will be impossible to first strike Iran while Iraq is still such a freakin' mess.

Newt is really close to getting it. I beleive that even I, with the knowledge gathered in 4-5 months of reading the books and essays and articles found at this site and similar, could get Newt to at least tell me what he knows of Islam and show him where he can find what he doesn't know and why it is important for him to at least research more than he has already.

You can send an email here: http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=2709

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 16, 2007 5:37 PM

I am surprised Bay Buchanan did not get Mr. Tancredo to lessen his words as she runs his campaign and the Buchanans are not exactly pro Israeli and refer to people in government and people like Mr. Spencer as "the amen crowd" for their complete support of the Judean state.

Mr. Tancredo is a good candidate, but with Fred Thompson about to join the fray the Democrats have already sent Michael Moore after him as they know he is the one who will carry the Tancredo message to the White House.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at May 16, 2007 5:42 PM

Paul said that we pretty much deserved 9/11, that we had it coming after our many actions over the prior ten years. He's off my list.

He should be replaced with RU PAUL. Couldn't be worse than this dhimmified goof.

As for the quote:

He would be the best thing that could happen to America.

The video for the quote above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbC3UfQEj44
Posted by: Daniel

There were 10 views and noone rated the video. Guys, you HAVE to RATE every time you view a positive video on Youtube or it can be made to vanish by moslmes who come in in droves and give it a poor rating!

Please.. go back and RATE it.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at May 16, 2007 5:43 PM

All of you that are applauding Tancredo need to go here: http://www.teamtancredo.com/

And, make a donation. I just gave $100 with a message thanking him for his statement on Islam.

Posted by: elcordobes at May 16, 2007 5:48 PM

I just checked Gingrich's website. He names this as the number one challenge:

http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=2645

Have a look. He gets it. Sounds pretty much like Spencer and Hugh.

I have a feeling others get it too but they're afraid to speak up.

They still think mentioning islam and jihad is tantamount to career suicide.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at May 16, 2007 5:50 PM

Okay, can I conduct a poll of my own here? Who did you think was the worst candidate last night

• Ron Paul, for suggesting that the US brought 9/11 on itself?
  
• John McCain, for stating that if in a hypothetical emergency situation, we had to torture enemies to extract info about an impeding attack, we wouldn't, since the rest of the world would have a negative perception of us?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 16, 2007 5:55 PM

Newt Gingrich "gets it" on Islam, but couldn't get elected to president - he's a long shot for VP, maybe a cabinet position if it is Republican win in 2008.

Posted by: elcordobes at May 16, 2007 5:58 PM

"You can fool all the people some of the time; and some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all the people all the time." - Abraham Lincoln

It showed not all the candidates are fooled, and it was said to be heard by the whole nation and the world. More of them need to say what Tancredo has said - and then what they are going to do about it!

Posted by: elcordobes at May 16, 2007 6:02 PM

Each of the candidates should have asked "What constitutes torture?". Drilling holes into someone's body or waterboarding? What constitutes torture today is not what it was 50 years ago, when the Geneva Conventions were drawn up. Things like sleep deprivation and stress positions are just aggressive interrogation tactics, not like what the North Vietnamese did to John McCain and others at the Hanoi Hilton.

Posted by: wrathofasma at May 16, 2007 6:05 PM

It is a sign of the times that Jason Easley of 411mania.com (thanks to Kaosktrl), who reported these words, thinks they're loony. Why?

Very good question. I also read that. LiEberals are simply stupid. Dangerously stupid.

Hopelessly liEberal.

Dangerous to the Rest of US.

He simply states that Tancredo's statement that islam is a violent religion that seeks to kill us is lunacy.

As if that were a *fact*.

WHY is thinking that islam is inherently violent lunacy?

To think anyting BUT is lunacy. One that is costing us dearly already.

The Easlies and the Ron Pauls of the world are the problem.

They are worse then the mahometans. They are the enablers. They are the ball and chain around all our necks.

They keep us from fighting by using our superior military as it should be used.

They keep us from 'profiling' and from excluding violent 'refugees' from violent countries.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at May 16, 2007 6:18 PM

I bet CAIR is having a stroke over this one (in addition to other anti-american 5th columnists).

Posted by: jcom972 at May 16, 2007 6:22 PM

Lame Cherry, here's Thompson's response to Moore

Infidel Pride . . .here are a few links where Thompson touches on the subject . . .

Rewriting History a Classroom at a Time

By now, we're used to people like Iranian President Ahmadinejad denying that the holocaust ever happened, even while he and his regime promise not only the destruction of Israel but the elimination of Jews internationally.

It's bad enough hearing from a distance about the bizarre anti-Semitic theories taught by heads of state as well as schools and religious leaders. Now, according to a study funded by the British government, we find out that some schools in Great Britain have stopped teaching history that is offensive to Muslim students. The topics that have been erased from the curriculum, the study found, include both the Nazi genocide and the Crusades.

This rewriting of history through omission wasn't some government policy. It was the result of individual decisions in local schools by teachers with large populations of Muslim students. Unfortunately, many of these students have been taught by parents and mosques that the holocaust never happened and that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack on Islam by European Christians. History books that present these events in any other light, they believe, are part some giant conspiracy designed to attack their very religion.

The Pirates of Tehran

Originally posted at Redstate.com Oil prices fell. The stock market rose. Video images of smiling British soldiers with Iranian President Ahmadinejad were everywhere. So were pictures of the 15 freed hostages embracing family members back home. The relief over the return of the Brits was so tremendous; you could almost hear birds singing.

Unsafe in America

Originally posted on 3/30/07 Ayaan Hirsi Ali can't leave her Washington D.C. home without guards.

Born a Muslim in the African nation of Somalia, she was treated as property. Hirsi Ali, though, escaped a marriage, arranged by her father, to a cousin in Canada she'd never met.

Suing for Silence

Originally posted on 3/29/07 You might have heard about the lawsuit brought by a radical Islamic advocacy group against passengers on a U.S. Airways flight. Their offense was reporting suspicious behavior to the flight crew. According to reports, six Muslim men took up positions inside the plane similar to those taken by the 9/11 hijackers and vocally condemned America.

Gandhi's Way Isn't the American Way: Collective Suicide is No Foreign Policy

Originally posted on 3/15/07 I feel bad for Nancy Pelosi, AND her neighbors. Anti-war activists from the group Code Pink have been giving her the same treatment the president gets at his Crawford, Texas, ranch. Camping on her San Francisco lawn, they're demanding she cut off funds to the troops in Iraq.

Thompson's blog

Click here to launch the Fred Thompson Player and listen to today's episode from your computer. You can also hear all the archives.

Posted by: justamomof4 at May 16, 2007 6:30 PM

Allahfanculo:

Maybe our definitions of the term "gets it" are different.

Newt gets the idea of slow-long-violent Jihad. I don't see any indication that he is aware of the slow jihad. The non-violent one purpertrated by Saudi's billions, CAIR and your friendly neighborhood outwardly tolerant, inwardly hateful Iman at your local mosque.

He still thinks we can establish democracy in Iraq. Do you? How is that being consistent with Hugh and Robert who have both declared what folly it is to think that project democracy can succeed?

IMO, someone who gets it says something like Tancredo said. "they are trying to kill us becuase it is a dictate of their religion...".

Some one who gets it in my opinion calls out Islam for what it is and what threat it poses to all of us as a religion until and unless it is reformed.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 16, 2007 6:42 PM

I think Ron Paul was treated unfairly at the debates, especially by Giuliani who just wanted to make a phony emotional grandstand over Ron’s unwise remarks about the causes of 9/11, which Ron just expressed badly. He didn’t mean that our mid-east interventions (and support for Israel) justified the 9/11 attacks, but that these interventions (and support for Israel) are the reasons for these attacks - and this according to ben Laden himself (and other terrorists) . Ben-Laden expressly said all this in his “letters to America”, and he predicted attacks in his pre-9/11 interviews for these mid-East policies.

Now the Islamofacists do plan on taking over the world, as Islam calls for, but this is expected to happen by Muslim immigration and high birth rate while the sucker-hearted, sensitive and multicultural West watches and pats itself on its back for its liberality. But the terror attacks are just a sideshow in their scheme: they are only punishment and deterrence (not really working) for the mid-east policies that the Islamicist perceive as violent attacks on the ummah; and yes they do hate our culture as well. But Immigration, birthrate, and putting down any politically “moderate” Muslims interference during the python like takeover, are the real show.

Ron Paul is too honest and straightforward for this kind of beauty contest & show biz that is our Presidential elections. The professional bullshiters will play him like a fiddle.

Where I think Ron Paul is wrong is in his apparent belief that if we became more isolationists and stayed out of mid-East conflicts & abandoned pro-Israel entanglements, the fundamentalist Muslims would not be a real problem.

At least the unwise terrorist attacks have spurred many in the West to find out the ugly truth about Islam and its real long term takeover threat. Unfortunately not enough of the West is so informed. I’m hoping Tom Tancredo (my favorite) can at least help inform by his campaigning.

Posted by: FM at May 16, 2007 6:45 PM

justamomof4 wrote (about Tancredo):
"Trouble is, he hesitates, has false starts, almost stutters with many responses, implying insecurity."

Agreed 100%. The substance is there, but the delivery just won't do.

"mom" also wrote (about Tancredo):
"I'd like to see him tackle this ASAP since we are all aware of how devastating weak communication skills have been to Bush."

Bush's weak communication skills pale by comparison to his policy decisions. His sub-standard "use" of the English language merely exemplifies his sub-standard decision-making.

Tancredo will ultimately suffer for his similarity to Bush in terms of his public speaking "skills".

Posted by: awake at May 16, 2007 6:48 PM

justamomof4

Thanks. Actually, Pirates of Teheran doesn't make much sense - democracy in Iran won't inspire anything in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kurdistan, Iraq or Lebanon, as he contends below:

If we retreat precipitously, the price for that betrayal will be paid first in blood and freedom by the Iranian people, the Kurds, the Afghanis, the secular Lebanese, the moderates in Pakistan and the Iraqis themselves. And America's word may never be trusted again.

However, anybody who recognizes Gandhi as a world class f_c#er is a hero of mine, and Thomson seems to recognize that. However, that's by no means good enough for me to support him.

And that's a pretty good question. At what point is it okay to fight dictators like Saddam or the al Qaeda terrorists who want to take his place?

It turns out that the answer, according to Gandhi, is NEVER. During World War II, Gandhi penned an open letter to the British people, urging them to surrender to the Nazis. Later, when the extent of the holocaust was known, he criticized Jews who had tried to escape or fight for their lives as they did in Warsaw and Treblinka. "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife," he said. "They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs." "Collective suicide," he told his biographer, "would have been heroism."

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 16, 2007 6:49 PM

Infidel Pride -

. . .democracy in Iran won't inspire anything. . .

Of course, that's the reason for my suggestion of "Hugh Fitzgerald for Secretary of State in '08".

With the limitations offered within this field of potential candidates, Tancredo/Thompson (perhaps Romney or Giuliani) none offer the rational scholarly details needed for meaningful long term success against islamic hegemony. There is none better than Mr.Hugh Fitzgerald to suggest the much needed scholarly considerations not yet fielded within the presidential office.

Ron Paul is done. He brings total ignorance of islamic hegemony to the table, and we have had our fill of that already. Fini.

Posted by: justamomof4 at May 16, 2007 7:52 PM

Mr. Tancredo may indeed read Jihad Watch. I sent him an email when he won American Anti-Dhimmi of the Year.

Posted by: No_Mooselimbs at May 16, 2007 8:07 PM

Yes, he knows about Jihad Watch.

Posted by: Hugh at May 16, 2007 8:22 PM

Just some thoughts-

Rudy Giuliani scored big points with me back when he refused the Saudi $10 million "blood money". There he was, with a cash-strapped, devastated city, and he said "No". That had to have been moral conviction, not "playing to the polls". I lament his 3 marriages, but I don't think - in this next election - that any candidate's personal life is going to affect my vote. (I lament Newt's and McCain's serial marriages as well.)

Tom Tancredo's positions on immigration and now Islam impress me. I'm also inclined to believe this is true moral conviction, since he's gotten so much "hate-filled racist" press for his stance.

For what it's worth... (yes, I have a long way to go before I decide who's worth my vote!)

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at May 16, 2007 8:28 PM

Has anyone sent polite feedback to Jason Easley on his perverse assessment of Tom Tancredo's assessment of Islam?

It is the bottom link on the page

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at May 16, 2007 8:36 PM

Some of you advocate Gingrich or even Romney for President based on the fact that they understand that we face a global jihad and Islamic religion is the driving force behind it. Most of the other candidates, unfortunately, simply see terror as the enemy rather than a tactic.

The problem with Gingrich and Romney, in my opinion, is that they believe that the US should continue to promote democracy in Islamic countries, and continue pouring US funds into regimes that renounce terrorism (but not Islam). They believe that if "good Muslims" are empowered with freedoms and "the vote" that extremists will be held in check. I think we're seeing that this is erroneous. Lebanan, Gaza, and even Britain for that matter, provide examples that jihad flourishes where freedom is granted to Muslims. In short, both men aspire to "defeat" terrorism via influence.

Hugh, on the other hand, believes that Islam should be isolated and all funding cut off. By isolating, punishing, and impoverishing Muslims, Hugh believes eventually there is a possibility that Muslims might challenge their belief system and perhaps a number of them eventually denounce Islam. Even the well-meaning strategies of Gingrich would only serve as a life-line that continues to sustain the dangerous ideology.

Tancredo appears to see things much the same as Hugh does. Namely, secure the borders and keep aliens out of the ocuntry; use the military to confront immediate threats (Iran, a nuclear Pakistan assuming a coup), abstain from democratizing Islamic countries, and discontinue tax expenditures on Islamic regimes. None of the other candidates see things this way.

The fact that Tancredo's comments received virtually no press coverage - even on FOX - is alarming. Perhaps Newt or Romney will evolve their thinking to eventually confront the ideology of Islam rather than trying to champion a non-existant tolerant version. Otherwise, our failed policies will not change.

Posted by: Musburger at May 16, 2007 8:43 PM

Does anyone know of any poll pre- and post debate results so we can see if Tancredo got a jolt upward last night?

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 16, 2007 8:44 PM

Musberger,

Perhaps a reason why the MSM does not discuss Tancredo's statement is because the "dictates of the religion" statement was made during and after that annoying buzzer. It was not as clear as it should have been.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 16, 2007 8:52 PM

Musberger says:

"Tancredo appears to see things much the same as Hugh does. Namely, secure the borders and keep aliens out of the ocuntry; use the military to confront immediate threats (Iran, a nuclear Pakistan assuming a coup), abstain from democratizing Islamic countries, and discontinue tax expenditures on Islamic regimes. None of the other candidates see things this way."

Can you point me to any of Tancredo's statements where he declares opposition to installing democracy in Iraq? discontinue tax expenditures on Islamic regimes?

Thanks.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 16, 2007 9:00 PM

I can assure you that Tancredo is no fan of the Iraq folly.

Posted by: Hugh at May 16, 2007 9:40 PM

A country that tolerates islam is already conquered. The muslims have us by the b#lls, and they know it.

Posted by: savitch at May 16, 2007 10:02 PM

"Can you point me to any of Tancredo's statements where he declares opposition to installing democracy in Iraq? discontinue tax expenditures on Islamic regimes?"

Tancredo said (I'm paraphrasing), although we must keep a strong military presence in the Mid-East for many years, we should withdraw from the fray.

That doesn't sound anything at all like the concensus we hear of "having to win" in Iraq, where by winning, it means supporting an Islamic government that allows citizens to vote.

We're "winning" in Afghanistan. Yesterday I read an article where we're refurbishing mosques and building madrassas for the children. I'm sure victories like this will ensure our safety for decades to come.

Posted by: Musburger at May 16, 2007 10:36 PM

Infidel Pride

I don't think Tancredo can win but who needs to win when you start the process by which he could win down the road or begin a new movement within the Republican party. The point is Tancredo appears to realize the number one threat to this nation is Islamic aggression and the number one way that islamic jihadis can hust Americans is through immigration (both illegal and legal).

If we can't get control of that nothing we do will matter.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 16, 2007 11:08 PM

Tancredo needs to get the veep position, where he can influence without needing to convince in public, because he doesn't have the skills needed to carry across in language what he clearly knows.

We need someone who can speak strongly, and who knows the value of historical metaphors to win the Great Argument.

At present it is between:

Theocratic Terror on the March

verus

The Defense of Human Liberty.

We need someone with the motivational potency of an FDR, a JFK, a Churchill or a Reagan.

Bush's second-worst failing has been his inability to convince. (Coming from his congenital tongue-tied-ness.)

His first failing was NOT to do his homework on Islam.

Tancredo knows the primary enemy. And understands the need to secure the borders against the secondary enemy.

At least there is some hope from the Republican side. (I could vote for a Guiliani or Romney...)

The Dems are so busy sewing white flags it's hard to notice anything else about them.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 16, 2007 11:08 PM

"He didn’t mean that our mid-east interventions (and support for Israel) justified the 9/11 attacks, but that these interventions (and support for Israel) are the reasons for these attacks - and this according to ben Laden himself (and other terrorists) . Ben-Laden expressly said all this in his “letters to America”, and he predicted attacks in his pre-9/11 interviews for these mid-East policies."

FM,

WHATEVER the reason for 9/11, Paul was using it to justify withdrawal from Iraq. The clear implication was that if we just stayed out we would be safe. First, that's not true (we were being attacked by Islamists before the very first soldier set foot in Saudi Arabia) and second, it tells the Islamists how to push our buttons. It's not worthy of a man who aspires to lead the free world.

I think you're splitting hairs. I was willing to entertain Ron Paul (I won't vote for Giuliani, Romney or McCain) before this debate. Last night his name was scratched out.

Posted by: PMK at May 16, 2007 11:16 PM

"I keep hoping Newt G. will get in the race. Anyone else?

I like Newt, but I need to know a lot more about his "Wednesday Meetings" at Grover Norquist's house.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at May 16, 2007 11:38 PM

I’ve sent Tancredo a few emails over the last year or so, never heard anything back. But then I’ve never heard back from the multiple emails I’ve sent to my state and national legislators either, well except for the computer generated “Thank you for your interest...” automated stuff. One doesn’t make statements like “it is a dictate of their religion” unless they’re at least a little informed and I like that. The next President must be informed, aware of the Islamic threat. It’s a requirement for my vote, which leads to the reason for my post. A while back Romney was caught up in some “statements” that were posted here at Jihad Watch. I sent him an email thanking him for standing up for truth, actually saying the words that leaders who “know” say. Like all my other emails I expected nothing except the canned reply but to my surprise I received a signed letter thanking me for my support. He acknowledged the threat and let me know specifically that he was awake. To me it was very impressive and of course I was shocked, I’m not even a resident of his state and he took the time to write.

I like Tancredo. I’ve seen him on TV a few times other than the debate and he spoke well. I like Romney too. I’m an independent. I vote for the one who best represents my beliefs. I think the Democrats of recent years are lemmings, racing, panting, and not watching anything except the dust of fellow lemmings. Guess what’s up ahead.

Posted by: butterfly at May 16, 2007 11:44 PM

I'm sending my fourth contribution to Tom Tancredo after last night's debate.

He improves everytime I see him and listen to him.

Go to his website and listen to his talks. He's an effective communicator (in a humble way) and is getting better with the national press.

Ask yourself, of all the candidates last night, who would you want to hear more from? Well, go to his website and listen.

Posted by: LoneRanger at May 17, 2007 12:29 AM

I just shove weak minds aside and persist in my message.

Of course Tancredo is correct.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 17, 2007 12:46 AM

Yes, he knows about Jihad Watch. Posted by: Hugh

So one could reasonably expect him to be familiar with this site. Only thing I wonder - does he read our comments? Also, what about Romney - how familiar is he with Jihad Watch?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 17, 2007 1:20 AM

"Tancredo is my man but he is unelectable."

I'd love to see him get elected president. I like Romney too, a Romney/Tancredo ticket would be great.

Giuliani's statement about Ron Paul's remark was right on the money. Apparently Ron hasn't paid any attention to Islamic terrorism in Thailand, the Philippines, and Eurabia for the past five years.

Posted by: abad at May 17, 2007 3:48 AM

I voted 5 stars for that video and saved it to my favourites.

At least someone in America is paying attention!

Posted by: slimbimjim at May 17, 2007 6:19 AM

Those thinking of voting for Tancredo should do so irrespective of whether he could actually win. Tancredo himself is not so politically naive as to expect to "win". He is in there to make a point and get his ideas out of the shadows and into the public forum. In New York state, for example, Giuliani will win, but if Tom gets 20% of the vote it will be like a bomb dropped. The "first tier" candidates and the leadership of both parties would have to start to deal with the issues they would prefer to avoid. Also Gingrich believes that the next Republican convention might be the first in many years in which no one goes in as the preselected winner. If that is the case, then the more clout Tancredo has the better.

Posted by: RBLA at May 17, 2007 9:21 AM

Never have truer words been stated. Perhaps the silence from the peanut gallery was because it is fact.
I, as did many, turned away from those whom laid blame on America and Israel for 9/11. Unfortunately, these wankers continue to wallow in their lies and political-correctness.
Jews were attacked incessantly by the Arabs in Palestine, before the State of Israel was born. The Moslems and Arabs will not be content, until Israel is eradicated. Yet the censuring of Israel by the UN and other world bodies is unceasing. Frankly, the world, as it always has, loathes the Jews and, needless to say, Israel.
Anti-American, anti-Israel sentiment is a, must, for the leftist amoebas in the West and elsewhere.
Islam loathed the West centuries ago, and to this day, the perverse hatred continues. Islam needs no excuse; no warping of its vile tenet… it is inherent.

Posted by: Misanthrope at May 18, 2007 1:54 PM