Congressman Tom Tancredo, a Republican from Littleton, CO, recently said that [he thinks bombing Islamic holy sites](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162795,00.html) would be a good response to a nuclear terrorist attack by Muslim fundamentalists. And though he didn’t say it in as many words, he clearly implied that he thought nuking Mecca would be a good idea.
Tancredo’s been in other news lately, as he’s been [mulling a run](http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2005/06/12/tancredo_immigration_reform_may_push_him_into_presidential_race/) for president. I first head about his comments on the Hugh Hewitt radio show yesterday (he also is covering the the Tancredo comments on [his blog](http://hughhewitt.com/#postid1815)). I thought they sounded familiar, but I wasn’t sure why. Then, as I was going to sleep last night it hit me. This exact scenario is straight out of Tom Clancy’s 1991 novel, *The Sum of All Fears*. And Clancy deals with it in the sensible way, as usual for him.
The scenario is that Palestinian terrorists have set off a nuclear bomb at the Super Bowl and it’s pushed the world the brink of nuclear war. After being convinced it’s not the Russians, President Fowler decides to bomb Qom, the holy city in Iran, because the Ayatollah there may have been connected in some way. Jack Ryan, the protagonist in the book, convinces everyone that this is a really bad idea, and President Fowler is relieved of duty by his subordinates as unfit for command.
If Tancredo really believes this, I think that he is completely disconnected from reality. But it’s actually disturbing even if it was just an off-the-cuff remark. “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks”. It is a sign of an emotional response that lacks critical thinking. To me it shades his judgement on other issues, especially his focus on illegal immigration. How much of his railing against illegal immigrants is this same time of emotional response?
