Tucker Carlson appeared on Red Eye last night and announced that the 74 million or so people in Iran deserve “to be annihilated.” This from a guy who fashions himself as “pro life.” UPDATED - Carlson says he didn't mean it the way it sounded and he's actually not in favor of attacking Iran.
Carlson told Red Eye’s Andy Levy that the United States is “the only country with the moral authority” to make pre-emptive strikes. He added, “I think Iran deserves to be annihilated. I think they’re lunatics. I think they’re evil.”
He went on to say he thinks we’d need to “assess” what would happen to the price of energy because it could “tank our economy” if we did such a thing.
OK, it’s not the complete segment so it’s possible Carlson later expressed some concern about the death and destruction it would cause to millions of innocent people. But it’s telling that his first concern about causing such devastation is the price of energy in the U.S.
(H/T Think Progress)
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald had some email correspondence with Carlson about this. After some back and forth, Carlson wrote:
It's my fault that I got tongue tied and didn't explain myself well last night. I'm actually on the opposite side on the Iran question from many people I otherwise agree with. I think attacking could be a disaster for the US and am worried that Obama will do it, for fear of seeming weak before an election. Of course the Iranian government is awful and deserves to be crushed. But I'm not persuaded we or Israel could do it in a way that doesn't cause even greater problems. That's the main lesson of Iraq it seems to me.
That's my sincere view, but I'd rather take some lumps and be misunderstood than seem like I'm reversing myself due to pressure from Twitter.
Earth to Bowtie: don’t worry your pointy head, that won’t happen for two reasons: 1) Obama ISN’T weak, and 2) he’s not an idiot like his predecessor.
You gotta love how Carlson just HAD to sneak in the obligatory rightwing reference to President Obama’s supposed “weakness”, even as he clarifies his opposition to attacking Iran — his opposition to a US strike on Iran, of course, puts him in direct conflict with his fellow wingnuts, so a slam of Obama was needed to keep him in their good graces . . .