S tate Department officials are cringing over the tenor of the foreign policy debate among presidential candidates and warning them to tone it down.
A department spokesman lashed out last week after Republican candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado suggested that bombing the Islamic holy sites Mecca and Medina would be a deterrent to a terrorist strike.
"To somehow suggest that an appropriate response to terrorism would be to attack sites that are holy and sacred to more than a billion people throughout the world is just absolutely crazy," State Department spokesman Tom Casey said.
Diplomats fear the international response to such irresponsible rhetoric, noting that the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, was stormed in 1979 after rumors that Israel was going to bomb Mecca and Medina.
The State Department's reaction to Tancredo's misguided remarks is understandable.
However, candidates should not be stifled from airing their views on foreign policy. It is important for American voters to understand what the candidates think and plan to do, especially with regard to terrorism.
The State Department's reaction was also spurred by the foreign policy debate between Democratic candidates Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who have exchanged jabs about invading Pakistan to capture terrorists and the use of nuclear weapons. That, however, is just what the candidates should be doing - explaining and debating their views.
Without candidates openly addressing foreign policy, the extremist, dangerous views of Tancredo would never emerge. If candidates feel restrained and withhold their thoughts about foreign policy, America could be left with a president who has radical plans for the world.
archive