Despite the criticism he’s getting, and some of it may be deserved, I don’t see that much difference between what Rep Tom Tancredo reportedly said, and what Cal Thomas writes in his column today:

Here’s what Blair should say to the Muslim leaders: “The onus is on you guys. You find and shut down the terrorists and their network. You turn those who incite, plan and encourage violence over to the authorities. If you don’t act, we will by closing and bulldozing the mosques and schools that incubate and instruct the killers, prosecuting the terrorists we find and deporting them and their clerics, and closing our borders to anyone from countries that harbor and teach terrorists. Those who are British citizens will be stripped of their citizenship.”

I’ve not even seen the interviewer’s question, so I’m not sure what the exact wording was, but here’s the Tancredo comment under fire:

“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.

Keep in mind that Tancredo’s point was a hypothetical threat, not a plan of action.

No, we shouldn’t bomb innocent people. No, we shouldn’t incite more hatred of the U.S. by being disrespectful of muslim places of worship.

At the same time, shouldn’t there be serious consequences for those responsible for a nuclear terrorist attack against the United States?

And if nuclear terrorists don’t consider even the loss of their lives too big a price to pay, why is it inconceivable that we should threaten them with the destruction of the one thing they do consider sacred… if indeed they do?

Furthermore, if it turns out that some of these “holy places” are actually breeding grounds for terrorism… how could we pussyfoot around them and still hope to protect our country?

War is war, and that means everything is on the table until the enemy is defeated. That means if Al Qaida goes nuclear, and a holy site is Al Qaida’s only Achilles Heal… perhaps it is time that Al Qaida is made to consider losing it.

UPDATE: Here is a partial transcript of the interview:

Campbell: Worst-case scenario - if they do have these nukes inside the borders and they were to use something like that, what would our response be?

Tancredo: What would be the response? (pause) Um, you know, there are things you could threaten to do before something like that happens and you may have to do afterwards (unintelligible) draconian.

Campbell: Such as?

Tancredo: 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 could take out their holy sites.

And Tancredo’s response to criticism:

“I’m not suggesting we do it. I have nothing to apologize for in that respect,” Tancredo said. “I’m simply saying to have a good discussion on this issue, a thorough discussion on what is perhaps the most serious kind of possible situation we could face as a civilization, that you cannot simply take things off the table because they are uncomfortable to talk about.”

…

“I simply throw that out there as something to think about, although it is horrendous to think about, I understand that,” Tancredo said. “So is having one or more cities destroyed in the United States. And that’s all I did.”

UPDATE: 12.13.2005 - Tancredo explains further in an interview with Hugh Hewitt.