To Michael Medved:

Michael, I find your analyses are usually objective and skillful. In the case of your August 8 Townhall column, “Talk of Bombing Mecca Undermines US Security”, I don't think you responded to Tom Tancredo's ultimate point. You say, accurately, that Tancredo suggested "that such threats against Mecca and Medina could serve to deter Islamic Terrorists from staging nuclear attacks on the United States." You don't talk about the pre-requisite nuclear event implicit in Tancredo's promised retaliation.

So, to me, your analysis fails to address 2 critical points: (1) How should the U.S. respond IF a stateless Terrorist Group succeeded in a nuclear attack which killed, say, 100,000 Americans? And, more importantly, WHAT should the U.S. do to prevent such a horrendous loss of innocent American life in the first place?

Now I can agree that the choice of a nuclear attack on Mecca may not be the best strategic weapon or target.  But a deterrent policy that promises swift, devastating conventional bombing RESPONSE -- on the infrastructure of Countries known to be now coddling Terrorists -- strikes me as little different than the M.A.D. policy announced and implemented by America with high credibility against the Soviet Union during the multi-decade-long Cold War. You could say that was equally irrational and would only serve to enrage the Communists.  But you may have noticed that this “M.A.D.” deterrent apparently succeeded.

Moreover, the sworn duty of our President is to protect this Nation.  Losing 100,000 Americans -- after already losing 3000 Americans on 9/11 to the same enemy -- would certainly have to be regarded as a colossal failure to perform that duty.

So I believe that a "new M.A.D. policy", adapted to the current/future asymmetric warfare that we are likely facing for several decades -- is not that irrational. Clearly, there should be some associated threshold of American lives lost in the pre-requisite attack on us: [100 lives lost? OK, too small. 5000 lives lost? OK, perhaps still too small. 100,000 lives lost? Perhaps including my children and grandchildren? Perhaps including your children and grandchildren? NOT TOO SMALL a threshold in my book !]

Such a policy begins to hold accountable those Nations who currently get a free ride for coddling Terrorists, a situation which is enabling the continued slaughter of our best and brightest. If you attack Tom Tancredo as "unhinged and wildly irresponsible", I think you are at least required to offer your own solution to both the (1)deterrence issue to avoid slaughter of American innocents, and (2)the issue of holding accountable those nations which permit the stateless al-Qaeda-like groups to hide behind the sanctuary they provide.

An unhinged and irresponsible strategy? Well, perhaps to some. But then, what is your strategy to prevent al Qaeda's promised "American Hiroshima"?