Matt Corley already commented on a section of this clip, in which Sen. John McCain treated Iran’s Supreme Leader with the same “abject solicitousness” that Charles Krauthammer condemned from the president. But I think the segment is worth seeing in its longer form, as it neatly encapsulates the conservative attempt to use the Iranian protests as an instrument to regain control of the U.S. foreign policy conversation, inconsiderate — indeed, proudly defiant — of the potential negative consequences for the protesters’ cause, or for the protesters themselves.
McCain states that any consideration of the historical context within which an American intervention might be viewed in Iran amounts to “a betrayal of what was declared on the Fourth of July, 1776.” He then launches into a remarkably incoherent mishmash of shopworn Cold War romanticism, half-remembered historical references, and shameless grandstanding, after which Neil Cavuto asks the obvious question:
CAVUTO: All right, so let’s say the commander, supreme leader, ayatollah hears that, Senator, and says yeah that’s all well and good but I’m going through with this, I’m cracking down on these guys, and it could be a very ugly, bloody weekend. What is the United States to do then? What is our posture going to be? How do we move forward? Because this could get very bloody.
MCCAIN: (Pause) Well, you know, and there may be those indications, since the Supreme Leader said they were not gonna tolerate further demonstrations in the street. If they do, we have to judge it by what the situation is as it unfolds, and by the way, the French president, the German chancellor, and the British prime minister, far more strong in their words in support of these protesters than the President of the United States. Interesting turnaround.
…After all the wind, a politician’s dodge. The potential consequences to Iranian demonstrators? Not McCain’s problem.
Full transcript below. Read more