Prompted by Wash. Times' McCaslin, Monica Crowley says if Iranian "bloodshed" escalates, "the blood will be on the president's hands"
From the June 19 broadcast of The Washington Times' "America's Morning News":
JOHN McCASLIN (co-host): Well, then, Monica Crowley, could we see a Tiananmen moment in Iran with massive bloodshed and, you know, if so, is -- could that blood be on Barack Obama's hands?
CROWLEY: I think you are going to see a major crackdown of the kind we saw in Tiananmen Square in 1989, where those especially young people were agitating for greater freedoms in China. The Chinese communists rolled in the big guns, fired on the crowd, and you had death and blood and mayhem in the streets. We already in Iran have death and bloodshed and mayhem. The question is, is it gonna get worse? And based on what I saw with the Ayatollah this morning and his statement, which was completely tone-deaf and completely out of it, with no grasp on what was happening right under his feet, it tells me that, yes, in fact, violence is gonna escalate. They will encircle the capital with these 20,000 Revolutionary Guard troops from outside Iran and perhaps even outside -- outside of the country, meaning foreign troops that they're bringing in, Hamas and Hezbollah, who have no qualms about firing on the Iranian people.
Your question about blood on Obama's hands? I think this is a very serious question because in the early days of this crisis, Obama was exceedingly cautious, and everybody said, "Well, let's see how the dust settles. Let's see how it shakes out." Now we know how it's shaking out, and it's not good. And for the president of the Untied States, who represents a country that is a shining beacon for light and democracy in the world, where those protestors are looking toward us with pleading eyes. For the president to remain silent on this or morally equivocal, meaning that the people on the street are just as equal as the Iranian government and those prehistoric Islamic thugs who run that government. That, I think, is a grave injustice to what is happening here. And if there is increasing bloodshed, yes, I think in fact that the blood will be on the president's hands.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Did I miss that one? Until someone provides proof that common Iranians are "pleading" for our intervention, then Crowley remains a LIAR.
I would hesitate to call Crowley a LIAR until you've exhausted all possibilities that the Dean of the University of Iran has signed a foreign alliance agreement with the U.S. Government.
Didn't I hear that they were part of NATO?
Our history with Iranian politics is not so good.
What could the President have done to NOT have blood on our hands? Commit military troops? Embolden the demonstrators to insure that the Iranian hardliners really crack down.
What would they be saying if President Obama openly supported the insurgents before the recent crackdown. Wouldn't they be saying that the blood is on Obama's hands now.
What if the Iranian protesters do not want our support?
This is such a nuanced moment with cultures and histories that we really don't understand. It used to be that partisanship ended at the water's edge... I guess those days are gone.
This is coming from the same teabagging scum that want to drop nuclear bombs on Iran and, now, suddenly they actually care about "the people". What scum.
I hope they are paying her enough so she can sleep at night.
As for the "pleading eyes" of Iranians... that's just bs. Despite their terrible situation, I doubt if any Iranians want America involved to any extent. That would make things a lot worse for them.
Mr. News
Instead, he was chastised for even suggesting that he speak to Iran in any way, shape, or form. It amazes me that NOW these folks are all about helping Iran, and as others have said, not even 2-3 weeks ago, they were talking about bombing them.
Ah, the genius of the right wing, on full display.