'You need a BREATHER' Watch Trump supporters SOUR on the Iran war conflict — COMPILATION

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Tonight, the Pentagon has identified Sergeant Angel Rompersad of New York as the third service member believed to have been killed by an Iranian strike in Jordan last Friday. And this now brings the death toll of U.S. troops since the start of Trump's war with Iran to 18. And now this afternoon, 144 days into this war, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee and estimated that the total financial cost now sits at $37.5 billion. And while that number is $8 billion, more than what the Pentagon estimated back in May, it is dwarfed by the Pentagon's own internal estimates, which, according to NBC News, is anywhere between $80 and $100 billion. And these figures are made even more glaring by the fact that the reason Hegseth was on the Hill today in the first place was to ask for more money for this war without laying out any strategy or clear objective for the war. Well, at the same time, The Washington Post reports that the Pentagon is apparently running out of money. And so far, that has resulted in military exercise and trainings that help keep units prepared for combat being limited or canceled, according to four current and former officials. It's almost like a former Fox News weekend host wasn't exactly prepared to oversee the Department of Defense, well, at any time, but during wartime. And today, multiple senators questioned Hegseth's need for additional funds, the lack of any coherent strategy, the premature claims of victory, and also the ever-changing objectives of this war, including Democratic Senator Gary Peters, who channeled what I think millions of Americans are feeling right now. Take a listen. [00:01:34] Speaker 2: Senator Hegseth, despite your failure to win this war, you are back now before Congress asking for almost $70 billion in additional funding. You're asking the American people for a blank check, because once again, the Trump administration's efforts have been an utter and complete failure to win this war to this point. So my question for you, sir, is how is your strategy different than what we've seen in the past? [00:02:02] Speaker 3: I think your characterization of this incredible effort as a failure is reckless, and I think it's irresponsible. And I think it smears the sacrifice of the troops that are out there making on behalf of the American people to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. Shame on you and others who call this a quagmire and a failure, and then you want to turn around and say you support the warfighter. [00:02:20] Speaker 2: Secretary Hegseth, if you listened to my comments, you would have heard me say how amazing our warfighters are. [00:02:26] Speaker 3: I heard failure. [00:02:28] Speaker 2: I will tell you how I use the word failure, because I use the word failure to their leaders. You, sir, are the failure. [00:02:36] Speaker 1: Joining me now is Michigan Senator Gary Peters, member of the Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committee. And as I told you, I think really channeled what a lot of people were feeling who have been deeply worried about this war, which is the majority of Americans. Senator, I just showed people really a sliver of the hearing today. For people who didn't watch the totality of the hearing, give us your take on Secretary Hegseth's performance. Did he answer any of the questions you really needed him to answer? And where did you think he really fell short? [00:03:06] Speaker 2: He didn't answer questions. You know, he's a guy that can give out talking points, and the talking points are not based on any kind of reality of what's actually happening. We've heard from the president, we've heard from Secretary Hegseth that the war is over. Over the last few months, the war is over. We're winning the war. And yet, as we know, that we've got, tragically and sadly, we've got warfighters that are going to come back tomorrow to Dover who are going to be greeted by grieving families because they've lost beloved members of their family. People are dying. A war is not over when American service members are dying. The war is not over because, according to the Trump administration, they wanted to deal with the nuclear material that's in Iran. It's still there. That is still not secure. That material is there. They've said that, well, we've destroyed their missiles. We've destroyed their ability to strike. And yet, that attack showed that, actually, Iranian missiles are not only more lethal, they're actually more maneuverable. Something is going on. And then, of course, we have the Strait of Hormuz, which was fully open before the war. Oil was flowing. Gas prices were low. And then, after the war started, that was shut off. They did not prepare to protect the Strait, as they should have. And now, oil price or gas prices are going back up again. This war is turning into a forever war because there's not a strategy to win the war. And that's why I took on Secretary Hegsseff, is that it's a failure of leadership. I want to say again, as we're on air here, the men and women who serve in the military are absolutely amazing folks. They are heroes each and every day. But you have to have good leadership at the top. And that's the commander-in-chief, President Trump, and Secretary Hegsseff. And they are failing. And that's why they're coming back with looking for more money to continue this war and drag this out as American consumers pay more at the pump through all of their purchases. And we lose service members. It's unacceptable. And we are not going to give them more money until they come with a better plan than they have now. And I don't think they have one. [00:05:07] Speaker 1: And just to be clear, I listened to the entire exchange. You said that proactively before you even—he started answering questions about honoring the men and women who serve. Let me ask you about the cost here, because there is so much dishonesty that we're getting from the administration, as you've just outlined there. They're not being honest about the number of troops who have been injured. They're not being honest about operational challenges. They're not being honest about maybe they don't know what the goals and objectives are, how they're going to end this war. Hegsseff confirmed that the new cost of war, that it has cost $37.5 billion. That is significantly lower than what a bunch of journalists, including NBC News, have reported. What do you believe here? What should the American people understand about the actual cost? [00:05:50] Speaker 2: Well, it's got to be a lot more than that. We have to be able to find out what it is and check it. But there's a lot that isn't in that cost. If we haven't had a chance to really look at the breakdown of how they determine that. But they've also—we know the Iranians have hit military facilities. There are costs associated with repairing those facilities. I don't think some of that is in those estimates. So certainly it is a lot higher. But I think it's also what we're talking about cost. Remember, it's not just the cost to the federal treasury. It's the cost to consumers in America. What is the cost of paying considerably more at the gas pump? It's hurting people who already now feel they're drowning with inflation and the higher cost are paying more every single day for gas. Grocery prices are up. Farmers are paying tens of thousands of dollars more because of fertilizer that's not coming through the Strait of Hormuz. So the costs are certainly to the treasury. And now they're asking for more war, which, by the way, will just add to the deficit, which will also increase interest rates. So what you pay for a mortgage, what you pay to buy a car, all those costs are reflected because of this war and the tremendous cost both to the federal treasury and to the pocketbooks of Americans all across this country. [00:07:00] Speaker 4: I don't have wars. I had no wars. [00:07:04] Speaker 5: We are following breaking news this morning. Overnight, the United States has carried out what President Trump calls, quote, a large-scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolas Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured. [00:07:17] Speaker 6: Breaking news overnight and developing this morning. The U.S. and Israel launching major combat operations against Iran. [00:07:26] Speaker 7: Mr. President, there are no signs that Iran is ready to stop fighting. So what is the plan? Is the plan to just keep bombing until they give up? [00:07:33] Speaker 4: There are no signs. Why, do you know something that I don't know? [00:07:38] Speaker 8: You know, it's always been a traditional notion in Washington that a president's second term in office usually focuses more on foreign policy. In an attempt to solidify a global legacy. That's also true for President Trump. Despite his America First agenda, the war in Ukraine, global tariffs, battle with NATO allies, regime change in Venezuela, and the ongoing war in Iran, they've all dominated the Trump administration's focus since he returned to office last year. Let's talk about it with President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas. And, Richard, this keeps going, and I think we need to put some perspective on it for our friends that are watching every day, because things come at us so quickly. Let's step back and just say, here's an America First president who said, I'm not going to get you into any more wars. We're going to focus on home instead of away. And look what's happened. He started by threatening Greenland, threatening Canada, threatening Cuba, invading Venezuela, invading Iran, insulting NATO, insulting Maloney in Italy, insulting the prime minister of Spain, and insulting seemingly every other good ally that we have, you know, yanking troops out of Germany, threatening to take troops out of Poland, one of our best military allies. I know it's asking a lot, but tell us where we are almost two years in to Trump's second term globally, and how would you define his foreign policy? [00:09:27] Speaker 9: Joe, if I had to come up with a phrase, I would call it a kind of aggressive unilateralism, and I think that's the overriding characteristic of it. There's obviously an anti-allied, anti-European bias. As you know, when Donald Trump came into office, he really believed two things passionately. One was a real animus against allies, and second of all, a real animus against trade, that somehow trade was ripping up all. So I think some of that was predictable for Donald Trump. Some of the excesses, the thing you mentioned, Greenland, Canada, that's an odd thing. And I didn't see that coming. You know, traditionally, the United States, Joe, has run what I would call an imperial foreign policy. We were promoting a kind of order. This is more of an imperialist foreign policy. He's looking at things to acquire, whether it's access to energy in Venezuela or new pieces of real estate in Greenland or Canada. I think all of that. And then I put in a separate box, Joe, because it's hard to find a common thread, Iran. And the only way I can make sense of Iran, and I don't think you'll disagree with this, is that he got it dead wrong. Iran was going to be an easy cakewalk, another Venezuela. If you look at the national security strategy, you look at everything Donald Trump promised, it wasn't to get into open-ended, costly wars. So there's no way to make sense of Iran, except that the president and those around him totally, totally, totally, totally got it wrong. And now he's caught, and he's flailing because he's not sure whether to double down or to back out. And that's where I think we are. But the most common characteristic, again, is one of unilateralism. [00:11:22] Speaker 8: Unilateralism, which, again, doesn't really have too many parallels that you can connect Donald Trump with other presidents in the past. I will say so much of this has to do with legacy, if you're talking about seizing Greenland, even if it offends all of our NATO allies, calling Canada the 51st state, even though they're, you know, one of our closest, most important allies. This aggressive unilateralism and insulting of allies has put us in a very difficult position. I want to add to the discussion contributing editor at the Financial Times, Kim Gattas. And Kim, Richard was just talking about how both the United States and Israel find itself greatly challenged. The United States tied down in Iran, and Israel not only tied down across the region, but also more unpopular with United States voters than at any time since 1948. How is that impacting the direction, not only of this war, but also the region? [00:12:28] Speaker 10: Joe, it's very interesting to hear Richard speak about Israeli overreach and American overreach, because I also think the Iranians are overreaching at this moment in the conflict. And reading through the tea leaves of what Iranian officials are saying, including the foreign minister, Araqji, who was speaking just over the weekend in an interview, there's really a sense that, although it may look like they have the upper hand, closing the Strait of Hormuz, inflicting damage and casualties on the United States and its forces and troops in the region, they also feel quite stuck. It sounds like from listening to these interviews, the Iranian foreign minister was sounding quite demoralized, almost. So how this is translating in the region is differently in each country. In Lebanon, there's a real sense that we are stuck between the Israeli fire and Iranian fire. The Iranians using Lebanon as a battleground to fight their wars against America and Israel. And the Israelis, of course, establishing this depopulated, uninhabitable buffer zone in southern Lebanon. We have the Lebanese president in the United States meeting President Trump, and we'll have to see what that leads to in terms of any concessions that the United States can get from Israel for the Lebanese. And then across the Gulf, Joe, you have a sense of limbo. Of course, Arab countries, Gulf countries were not happy to be dragged into this war that they didn't ask for, that they cautioned against, but there's also a lot of anger at Iran. And I would not discount that as a factor in how things unfold going forward. [00:14:30] Speaker 8: Boy, that's so important. Let's bring in a columnist and associate editor at The Washington Post, David Ignatius. David, let's underline Kim's point right now, because obviously we're looking at this from a position of how this could be a growing quagmire for the United States. If you step back and just look over the past year or two, you have an Iranian regime, which you said was ready to fall under its own weight. The fact that Donald Trump may have given them a second life doesn't take away from the fact they still face the same economic challenges. They still face the same popular discontent there. But it is fascinating when Kim talks about the Iranian foreign minister being down over the weekend. It reminds me, again, as we talked about earlier this week, David, of the checks and balances in the United States. He might as well be the Senate majority leader who can't get a bill through, because as we've said time and again, between the Revolutionary Guard and the mullahs and the parliament and the president and the president's cabinet, there are a lot of checks and balances there in Iran. There always have been. They've just been made more scrambled and Byzantinian since this war began. Talk us through that. [00:15:58] Speaker 11: So we've been talking about how the United States is stuck, and I think that's equally true of Iran. Iran has been hit so hard, and that comes after years of economic neglect and decline. Let's not forget the Iranian people were so unhappy in January. They were in the streets by the tens of thousands risking their lives to protest this regime. The estimates at that time were maybe 20 percent. At most supported the regime. The rest of the country was really ready for change. And I suspect that remains true. The problem is that the people who have the guns in Iran are just intoxicated with their resistance to the United States and Israel. And you can understand why. They've stood up to bombardment. They're still going. They're still fighting. So they think this conflict is going their way. It's going their way only in the sense that they're still in the game. They're still able to fire drones and missiles, to hit targets in Bahrain and Jordan, inflict casualties, deaths on the United States. So that gives them a sense of power. But they're really playing a pretty weak hand. Week by week, their ability to project power declines. My own feeling is that the biggest mistake that President Trump could make is to deepen American involvement on the ground. I suspect that's precisely the thing that the Iranians would like to see us do. I'm reminded of bin Laden's strategy after 9-11 to suck the United States into a conflict, tract in conflict, on their turf. So there's a lot of that going on with Iran. In a month, if the U.S. is successful in choking their revenues, they're going to be in even worse shape, and they're going to have a population that says, hey, wait a minute, how are we going to beat the United States? And so I think Trump has to do the thing that's obviously hardest for him, which is to be patient. [00:18:20] Speaker 12: On the heels of a deeply unsettling performance from Pete Hegseth, yesterday on Capitol Hill, the commander-in-chief had a wide-open opportunity to change the tone. It's an opportunity he seems to have passed on. At Joint Base Andrews earlier today on his way to the dignified transfer for Lieutenant Tyler James Feehan, Sergeant Michael Emanuel Swinton, Private Isabella Gonzalez, and Sergeant Angel S. Rampersad, who were all killed fighting the war with Iran. Donald Trump was asked about the human toll of this war, about those service members and all who have been killed in action. Watch what he said. [00:19:00] Speaker 4: They are indeed great heroes, actually. They said, and all of them said very strongly, we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. [00:19:12] Speaker 3: Sir, what did you say to families of fallen soldiers, when Americans are going against this war, how did you ask them? [00:19:23] Speaker 4: Well, Americans aren't against the war. A poll just came out. Americans don't want to have gasoline prices, but they're not against the war. That just came out loud and clear in a poll. Nobody wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. You want Iran to have a nuclear weapon? You think it's good? [00:19:43] Speaker 12: All of them said strongly, we can't let them get a nuclear weapon. There's simply no historical precedent for that, for an American president discussing the death of American soldiers on his watch as the commander-in-chief. In terms of them, all the four who died saying something about Iran's nuclear program or saying anything for that matter about the price of gas in America. And it should never, ever become normal for a president to put words in their mouths or to talk about the men and women who have died for their country in the context of polls about gas. This is, again, a war he started. And, frankly, the numbers of those paying with their lives continues to grow. Yesterday, we learned the name of another casualty in the war with Iran. It was released by the Pentagon. It is Sergeant Angel S. Rampersad, 28 years old, of Ozone Park, New York. As we mentioned earlier, she was part of today's dignified transfer. It brings the total number of U.S. service members killed to 18. Sergeant Rampersad enlisted in the U.S. Army in March of 2019. Her awards include the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, and the Army Service Ribbon. And despite Donald Trump's claim that Americans' only objections to the sacrifice, these sacrifices like that of Sergeant Rampersad's, is the price of gas, the polls show that that is actually not true. Donald Trump could not be more wrong. The Washington Post poll finds that just 29 percent of Americans approve of the war with Iran, with a Politico poll out today finding that even Trump's base is souring on the conflict, with nearly one in five MAGA voters saying that the war should end no matter the impact on prices. That's an increase of seven points since the question was asked in May. Donald Trump's callousness and the senselessness of the war driving away even Trump's own MAGA support is where we begin today with some of our favorite experts and friends. Retired U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Amy McGrath is here. Also joining us, Paul Rykoff is back. He's the host of the Independent Americans podcast, the founder and CEO of Independent Veterans of America. Also joining us, Media Matters for America President Angelo Carison is here. Amy, your thoughts today? [00:22:21] Speaker 13: Well, just from your intro, I think it's really important that people know that Donald Trump does not know these American service members personally. He's just flat lying when he says that these folks, you know, have said the things that they've said. That's just not true. And he's implying that all members of the military who are active duty and are over there are for this war. And that that is not true either. OK, and that wasn't true in Afghanistan. It wasn't true in in Iraq. And for a president to say those things, again, is it's just again, it's just a slap in the face to everybody that's served. [00:23:10] Speaker 12: Paul, I want to bring you in on the same question, your thoughts to what we've seen today. [00:23:16] Speaker 14: It's a somber and humbling experience and one that I'm glad the country hasn't turned its eye from. I know it's summertime and people don't want to be focused on the news and a lot of folks who checked out. But you need to learn the stories of these young soldiers who were taken from us far too soon. I'm glad you mentioned the name of Angel Rampersat, 28 years old from here in Queens. You showed her face. That is the human cost of war. But what Trump's doing is one of the most dangerous kinds of propaganda to say that he knows what those soldiers thought or felt and to blur the separation that we've worked hard to create between our people and our politics. Our troops should be insulated from the politics. We worked very hard to teach this country after Vietnam to separate the war from the warriors. What he and Hegseth have tried to do in the last 24 hours, especially, is ram it back together and make it seem like he's got a MAGA army and everybody's all in and they're all signed up to just fighting his war in Iran. And that is very, very dangerous to our national security, to our recruiting, to the civil military bond that exists in this country. And I think it's a sign of desperation, but we need to continue to call him out on it. And also, if he cares so much about our troops, where is the VA secretary? We heard yesterday from the agriculture secretary. We've heard from Hegseth. Why haven't we heard from Secretary Doug Collins about what he's doing to prepare the Department of Veterans Affairs for a whole new generation of wounded and a whole new generation potentially of kinds of wounds? We know we weren't prepared at the VA after the last two forever wars. They may not be prepared now. We need to hear from him on budget requests and just the fact that they exist and whether or not they'll be prepared to take care of a whole new generation of wounded. [00:24:57] Speaker 12: Well, I mean, Angela, let me bring you in on that because the New York Times, Eric Schmidt, who happens to be one of the five New York Times journalists who was subpoenaed for his reporting and the Qatari-gifted Air Force One, has reported that there is a cover-up underway, that the Pentagon isn't even releasing information at this point about the injuries. [00:25:18] Speaker 15: Yeah, and I think that we should put that into broader context because it makes it especially messed up. In some ways, Trump putting his justification for this war into the mouths of those who can no longer speak for himself is actually quite consistent with the policy of disrespect and disregard that's in practice here because at the start, they haven't had a briefing from the DOD, from the podium, since May 5th. And that's bad enough. But we also know that they are closing off access to journalists. They are cracking down. I mean, Hegseth and the Department of Defense are working with the Department of Justice to crack down on what they consider leakers and anybody going outside of the policy to share information. So on the one hand, they're suffocating the information pipeline, just basic nuts and bolts about what's happening. And then on the other hand, they are going after and stifling and targeting the very types of individuals, not just the reporters, but also the people that will be getting this basic information out there. They're also attacking them. And so this notion that somehow there's this coordinated cover-up, it's par for the course. They are trying to control the narrative. And in this case, the way that they're going to control it is by erasing it, by pretending that it's not happening, so that they can polish up the little bits that come through. They can paper over the few cracks that we're able to see as a result of some of these leaked information coming through. That's the context that this is taking place in. And so Trump gets out there and says this thing, just like some of the other stuff he was posting last night, in the absence of all that other information, there's a real chance that this stuff sticks. And that's why I'm so glad Paul made that point, that we should continue to call him out for these things, and needs to be called out for these things, so that they don't get total control over the narrative. [00:26:59] Speaker 12: I have to say that it is a deeply unpopular narrative, but I will show it. This is what Trump posted on social media about the number of people who have sacrificed with their lives in service of this country. This is his post. He posts about Afghanistan, 2,000 dead. Iraq, 4,600, Vietnam, 58,220, Korea, 36,574. And then he adds Venezuela and Iran, which he calls a military conflict. And I'm not sure, Amy, that I know the point of this, but if he's going to just put a number, I'll go ahead and take the opportunity to tell another story. This is Tyler Feehan's family's tribute to him. They posted on their GoFundMe page to raise money for ROTC scholarships in his honor. And let me read their words. Quote, As a leader, he never wavered in putting his soldiers first. He believed deeply in the power of military in a person. Discipline, leader behind him, to see the good this country still holds, rather than a needed sentiment. [00:28:22] Speaker 13: Yeah, it really is. And I think if you take a step back and recognize that America owes its troops, the men and women who are over there risking their lives, owes them leadership that will make sure that this sacrifice is worth it. So when I listened to Pete Hegseth yesterday at the hearing on the Hill, any criticism or blame for the failures of this Iran war, you know, he turned it around and said, Well, you guys are blaming the troops or you're unpatriotic. And actually, it's the opposite. If there's anything that the post-9-11 wars have taught us in two decades of war, it should be that our leaders have a responsibility to our troops to clearly define the objective, to have a solid strategy, to make sure that it's authorized from Congress and it's backed by the American people to make sure that their sacrifices are worth it and make sense. And we don't have that right now. And that's why this is so tragic. [00:29:39] Speaker 16: Joining us, staff writer at The Atlantic and MSNOW political analyst Ashley Parker, senior advisor for The Lincoln Project, Stuart Stevens, foreign affairs columnist for The Washington Post and MSNOW contributor David Ignatius, and senior correspondent for The American Prospect magazine and MSNOW columnist Paul Waldman. Paul, we're hanging this on you, my friend. Do you really think he's lost the power of persuasion? [00:30:02] Speaker 17: Well, I think his powers of persuasion were always kind of exaggerated. I think the fact that he is so adept at commanding our attention often fools us into thinking that he's actually changing people's minds when he is just kind of grabbing their eyeballs. And, you know, we look back on that time when he said that sort of prophetic thing that he could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters. And that was true to a large extent, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's really convincing people, especially people who are kind of not part of his real hard core of anything, that some new policy is really going to be greatly successful or whatever it is. And this, the Iran Wars, is a great example. From the beginning, it was unpopular. And he has done his best to convince everybody that it was really important to do and that it's going great. And no matter how many truth social posts he sends out, no matter how many press conferences he does where he repeats those things, people aren't convinced. And that poll from Politico is so striking that even people who are, who consider themselves MAGA are not buying this. That's, I think, the real change. The change is not that the people in the middle don't buy it. You know, he managed to win two elections by convincing a lot of people who thought, OK, maybe he'll make the economy better. But the fact that even people who are kind of part of his hard core aren't buying this thing that is kind of swallowing his presidency, that is truly remarkable. And that's something different now. [00:31:32] Speaker 16: So, Stu, talk to me about that. These numbers right here, from May to July, a 13-point swing regarding support for the Iran war. And I think Paul is right to underscore this, that the persuasion really mattered among MAGA VOTERS. They could be persuaded of pretty much anything. And to see numbers like this, it feels like Tucker Carlson was right when he said you're going to cross the Rubicon if you start this war in Iran, and it's not going to go well. [00:31:59] Speaker 18: Yeah, well, first, just because I can take this chance. I've read all of David Ignatius' 12 novels. He's an unbelievably great writer, and everybody should read him. So it's a real honor to be with him. Look, I think people know what victory looks like. You know, there's a reason after the Japanese surrendered on the battleship Missouri, we didn't keep bombing Japan, and it was because we had won. And we seem to lose the war in Iran every 60 days. And at a certain point, there is a pain to be paid here economically. What are you going to believe? [00:32:30] Speaker ?: What are you going to believe? [00:32:30] Speaker 18: What you're seeing? Or what Donald Trump is telling you? And when you put together how many times he said we've won this race, it just sort of becomes like a comedy sketch. So, look, there were two essential truths to MAGA. One, Epstein files. Two, no more foreign wars. No one for Epstein has been prosecuted by this guy who's trying to be attorney general. And we're in another really endless war that keeps expanding. And both of those are really destructive to Trump's base and enthusiasm of his base, which is really the key factor in whether or not they're going to vote. [00:33:07] Speaker 16: So, one of the things I found so interesting about your substech, Paul, and I've been lingering on it now for, I think, a week or at least a few days, is that you're comparing Donald Trump to Joe Biden's last few months in office or last year in office when he lost the ability to sell his own agenda, to sell his own accomplishments. And I think that was really underscored by the mention I made of Bill O'Reilly, who said on his broadcast, and I'm not one to want to bring up Bill O'Reilly as some thought leader here, but the fact that he's saying to Donald Trump, you look tired, you need a break, we're all getting old, I need a break too, take the month of August off, go golfing, recharge, deal with the war wherever you are, but, you know, get yourself some rest, friend. That was his message. That feels like, it feels like somebody who could have been talking to Joe Biden at the end of his term, Ashley. [00:34:01] Speaker 19: Yes and no. I was struck by that part of Paul's analysis as well. You know, Donald Trump is old, Joe Biden was old, is old still, but people age differently and Joe Biden was a much worse communicator. And by this I mean like speaking, showing up in pictures, communicating, meeting voters, literally getting words out of his mouth, he was still a much, much worse, more problematic communicator than Donald Trump is now, even as he continues to age in a fairly visible way in front of us. So that part I disagree with slightly. But I think the real commonality here is that one additional challenge Joe Biden had that Donald Trump is also facing of communicating their message and agenda are the facts. And they both had really challenging economies in the sense that voters viscerally felt how tight things were in their checking account at the end of the month. They felt rising interest rates. They felt inflation. They felt pain at the pump. And Joe Biden actually had a number of, you know, technically good economic indicators, but that's not what people felt. And so he couldn't communicate a message. And one of the things that's most challenging for Donald Trump just to take the Iran war is, yes, he promised no new foreign wars to end all forever wars. But it has become a double problem because this war to voters means the economic pain that he also promised would no longer exist. And Donald Trump can create his own reality on a lot of things. I believe he can still create his own reality on a certain number of things. But you can't do it on the economy because people know what they feel. [00:35:51] Speaker 16: Yeah, a bit of a hoisted on his own petard scenario. Let me put up on the screen the number of mega voters who say this war is to blame for rising gas prices. We put it up a second ago, but it's worth emphasizing. I think it's 57 percent. They're the ones, again, that love Donald Trump most. blaming him for money coming out of their pocket, blaming the war for money coming out of their pocket. David, is it going to get any better soon? Is there a magic solution to this trade of Hormuz? [00:36:22] Speaker 11: There is no magic solution. Trump has run out of good diplomatic options. He's, I think, wants to get out of this war. He's signaled that now for a month. But Iran really isn't letting him. They did violate what he thought were the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. That's now basically a dead letter. He's threatening to escalate this latest claim that he's going to bomb an infrastructure target every day that Iran continues attacking shipping. It's a big threat, but it just takes him deeper down a road that I don't think he wants to be on. Talking today to a European diplomat, he made clear that Europe does not want to help Trump out of this mess. They feel he made a mistake. European aid and some sort of international plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz would be helpful. But Trump doesn't seem interested in soliciting it, and the Europeans wouldn't offer it. So it's militarily and diplomatically difficult, and politically at home, it's poison. So presidents that carry heavy burdens when they begin wars, you can just see Trump, that burden is visible. Just know one thing, even with all the difficulties that Trump has in his foreign policy, I was struck yesterday by his ability to do something new and potentially important in hosting the president of Lebanon and saying to him, we'll help you take your country back from Hezbollah by supporting your military and helping you regain sovereignty. So he's not entirely out of the game, but he doesn't have any good options that I can see right now on Iran. [00:38:14] Speaker 16: No, he's backed into a corner on Iran. Let me just play Speaker Mike Johnson, and at the end of it, we can discuss why it's notable. [00:38:25] Speaker 20: I know that this administration is working around the clock to resolve that in a way so that we don't suffer any more troop losses. This is a great tragedy. It shouldn't happen. But it is a very important, very important objective that I believe we've achieved to ensure that the largest sponsor of terrorism does not have a nuclear weapon. That would be a disaster for everybody, and everybody around the world understands that. Now we've got to wrap it up. [00:38:49] Speaker 16: Let's wrap it up. So Mike Johnson is perhaps one of the president's greatest translators, the greatest pitchman, the greatest normalizers for the president's actions and words. But I do think it's notable, David, that he is saying, wrap it up. It is a small deviation, but it is a deviation. [00:39:10] Speaker 11: So you can't wrap this up while the Strait of Hormuz remains contested, while shipping cannot easily transit the Strait. It's not possible. And Trump understands that. His military, I'm sure, is counseling him. Mr. President, you can't walk away from this right now. Again, I just would underline, he doesn't have good options. The mediation efforts that he's tried so far have not been successful. It's very, very hard for me to predict what's ahead. If we see a big spike, which we haven't yet, in oil prices or a big fall in financial markets, that will, I think, pressure him to just maybe walk away and declare it's over. But for now, I don't see an easy way out. [00:39:59] Speaker 16: All right. So, Paul, because Ashley disagreed with you a little bit on the persuasive power that Donald Trump still has, I'd like you to respond. [00:40:10] Speaker 17: Well, you know, I think that he and Biden are different kinds of people. And as Ashley said, you know, they aged in different ways. But there was this phenomenon in the last year of Biden's term when every time he would get out in public, I think Democrats were always kind of on the edge of their seats saying, please don't screw this up. Please don't screw this up. And you now see something similar with Trump, not necessarily because he's going to, you know, stumble over his words or look old when he walks, but because he is going to say things that just don't help them. And we see reporting just piling up about Republicans who are so worried about the midterms saying that Trump is just not helping them. He is not talking about the issues that they want to talk about. He's obsessed with voter fraud in a way that is just not helping them at all. And I think, you know, the Iran thing goes to his ability to, you know, make good decisions. I mean, he got the Republican nomination in 2016 in no small part because he perceived that the whole country was kind of living through this trauma of what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and his whole party was implicated in it. And he could distinguish himself by saying it was a terrible idea from the beginning. And now he built himself a trap and then jumped into it and keeps saying that if we just do more bombing and get tougher, then somehow, you know, we're going to find our way out. And as we're seeing, even his own voters don't agree with that. And the people in his own party who were so worried about their own survival this November, they want this to be over too. [00:41:38] Speaker 21: Let's bring in MSNOW White House reporter Laura Baron-Lopez, MSNOW analyst Eamon Mohadeen and professor of law at Hofstra University, James Sample. It's good to have all of you guys with me this morning. Laura, I'll start with you there in D.C. President Trump is set to take part in this dignified transfer at any moment. Do you get any sense from your sources there around the White House that he is feeling the pressure of the human cost of war? [00:42:04] Speaker 7: No, not necessarily, Antonia. And I think that even more than what White House aides may say behind closed doors, what we should be paying attention to is what the president says in public. And he was asked about the deaths of these fallen soldiers just this morning. He was asked about the fact that Americans are against this war and what would he be saying to the families. And he simply said Americans are not against the war, that this was something that he and said that polls showed, he falsely said that polls showed that Americans support the war. They're just not happy with gas prices being down. The president has also in the past downplayed deaths or simply said that that is ultimately the way it is. He has said that that is the cost of war. And so there's no indication right now from the president himself that these deaths are going to change his decisions when it comes to how long he's going to stay in this war or what exactly he is going to try to achieve in this war, Antonia. [00:43:08] Speaker 21: Yeah, and to be clear, you know, we do not actually know what poll the president is referencing there when he claims that the American public actually does support this war, that their concerns are just isolated to gas prices. That also doesn't reflect what our colleagues who've been out on the road week after week talking to Americans are hearing. Consistently, the war comes up as a point of major disappointment, outrage and concern. Eamon, the president has posted a lot, as he always does. But one post has caught a lot of people's attention where he kind of goes through the numbers of dead service members, Afghanistan war, 20 years, 2,000 dead, Iraq war, nine years, 4,600 dead, so on. He ends it with Iran military conflict, four months, 18 dead. What do you make of that, this sort of idea that you can measure these things up by the numbers? The goal, it seems to be implicit in that, is to say, well, only 18 people are dead. And that means that this is OK. [00:44:04] Speaker 22: Yeah, I mean, it is callous. It is cold. It is disrespectful to the families of the fallen service members who gave their lives for, as the president said in that tweet or post, conflict. He didn't use the word war, and that shouldn't be lost on anyone for probably legal reasons. This is a full-blown war. And nothing undermines the president's own message, where he stands and says, these are children of families and we are going to give them our hearts. Then to post on social media that it's only 18 lives that have been lost, so in some ways trying to tout that it's not as bad as previous wars, completely negating the fact that this war has no authorization, no clear objective, has failed by most metrics, has made lives for Americans that much more difficult, has basically upended the global economy, and on top of that, cost the lives of 18 service members. I would like Donald Trump to tell the families of those kids that will be buried today to look them in the face and say, hey, it's only 18 members that have been killed. It could have been a lot worse. So far, so good. That is such a cold and reckless way of measuring whether this conflict, this war, whatever you want to call this quagmire, is achieving its objectives or not. [00:45:17] Speaker 21: Yeah, I mean, one of the service members, Isabella Gonzalez, is 19 years old. I mean, this is heartbreaking in every single one, all four of these circumstances, but a 19-year-old, it's just sort of shocking. [00:45:29] Speaker 23: Graduated from high school a year ago. [00:45:31] Speaker 21: Right. Graduated from high school a year ago. James, you know, Eamon touched on this, but the fact that this is a war, there is no authorization here. Last week, I had a conversation with Michael Weiss, who you both know as well, who was saying that all indications at this point are that this could drag on for years and years and years because the fact that the diplomatic off-ramps basically don't exist anymore and this administration seems comfortable with this sort of escalation pattern and tit-for-tat pattern here. Is this not a constitutional crisis to have a war that could drag on in this way, but the American people and their elected representatives have no say in it? [00:46:10] Speaker 23: That's absolutely right. And the answer to your question is yes. It's not the first time that we've encountered that particular constitutional crisis. Paul Rykoff yesterday on air on MSNOW said, and I thought it was very well put, he used the analogy of this is the problem of putting the cart before the horse. This is the problem of being in this situation without having gone to Congress first. Now you're asking Congress for money to fund a continued war and putting the representatives of the people in the position of either, in their view, having to strand the troops, as it were, feeling, you know, because if you don't fund it now, you look like you're hanging them out to dry. That's why the framers of the Constitution, who did give the president, the commander-in-chief power, that is a power that they logged with the president, but they very specifically bifurcated the powers of war and gave that power to Congress. So we have these war powers resolutions, but unfortunately, there's sort of the law and there's the real politique of it. And on the law, this is unlawful. On the real politique of it, it's not stopping. [00:47:11] Speaker 21: So on the law, because you're the attorney at the table, do you view what the president posted recently, saying any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, the United States will bomb and destroy one bridge or power plant, including those located next to or in the capital city of Tehran? Is that an open threat of a war crime? [00:47:30] Speaker 23: Absolutely. So there are rules with respect to the rules of engagement and the rules of war that make it very clear that when you target civilians or civilian infrastructure, that it needs to be very, very limited, very circumscribed and proportional. What the United States is doing by saying that if you bomb, if you attack our military, we're going to attack your civilians and your civilian infrastructure is the definition of the violation of those principles. [00:47:58] Speaker 21: And Eamon, the Iranians do not seem to care about these threats at this point. [00:48:01] Speaker 22: No, at this point, they feel that the war has become a quagmire for the United States. They understand the political reality that Donald Trump is operating in. They understand very well the economic situation that Americans find themselves in because of this war. And there's no doubt that Iran has suffered a lot. I mean, they have lost lives. They have lost the schoolchildren that we've talked a lot about. They have paid a very heavy price for this war. But their calculation is if they stop now, if they allow the United States to be able to run amok with this war, Iran will be subject to yet more bombings in the years to come, the way it was a year ago with Operation Midnight Hammer, only to be followed by this particular war. So they've made the calculation that they can withstand the most of the American military up until this point and feel they have nothing left to lose and so are fighting not only because they are fighting for whatever they believe in, but because they believe this is an existential crisis for themselves. And when their back is up against the wall, they have been messaging that to their own people, that this is a conspiracy to collapse the Iranian state. And that is driving in part why they are responding the way that they have been responding. [00:49:04] Speaker 21: And on the U.S. side, of course, so much of what is driving this is their concern about nuclear weapons. We've heard that from the president, Hegseth on the Hill yesterday. And then we have this Wall Street Journal reporting that Trump has approved a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia that would provide the country with a civilian nuclear program and potentially nuclear enrichment down the line. Can you help me make sense of this, Eamon? Because what we were told right when this whole thing, this whole war with Iran began, was that autocratic, religious despots, you know, all of this Islamophobic rhetoric around Iranians and others in the region, people like this cannot have nuclear weapons. The survival of the United States and our allies depends on them not having nuclear weapons. But it seems that a move like this, a Saudi Arabia is not some, like, shining democracy on a hill, first of all, run by Mr. Bonesaw and someone who murdered a journalist who many of us know. And so there's that piece here. But there's also just the fact that this seems to open a door to a kind of arms race, nuclear arms race in the region that will be hard to contain. [00:50:13] Speaker 22: Well, this was never about nuclear proliferation, right? The United States and Israel always made this about we want to have a nuclear-free region. And that was never what this was really about. Israel has nuclear weapons, worst kept secret in the world. Now you have this deal with Saudi Arabia potentially allowing them to enrich nuclear programs. There was talk at one point that Egypt wanted to try to pursue that. There was talk that the UAE also wanted to pursue that. So the issue was whether or not the United States was consistent and whether or not there was a clear standard by which the United States was approaching the region and whether or not countries in the region were allowed to have nuclear enrichment. What has emerged is that if you're an ally of the United States, if you are Israel, if you are Saudi Arabia, you can get away with it. You can have nuclear weapons if you are Israel. If you are Saudi Arabia and you want to pursue a nuclear program, if you're an ally of the United States, they can overlook all the other concerns that you highlighted, which is, you know, concerns about nuclear proliferation, human rights records, what have you. But if you are Iran, a country that is not allied with the United States and fundamentally opposes what the United States and Israel has done in the region, there is a different standard for you. And that's why we are seeing this. That's why so much of the rhetoric that the United States espouses about human rights, democracy, non-nuclear proliferation in the region just falls on deaf ears in the region. People don't pay attention to it. People don't necessarily care about it because of that double standard. [00:51:37] Speaker 21: Is any of it coherent to you, James? [00:51:39] Speaker 23: Not. No, it's not. I mean, I guess what is coherent about it is coherent in the sense that it is, there is a coherent theory, which is that the king can do no wrong and that the United States is the global king, right? That is a coherent theory. It is one that is problematic and has all sorts of, all sorts of issues with it, but you can at least rationalize it and make it coherent to use that word. That being said, there are a lot of problems with it, and in the long run, it comes with a lot of costs, not just for the globe, but potentially, look, empires rise, empires fall. And what Eamon's talking about here is reputational costs. Reputational costs are real, particularly vis-a-vis neutrals and allies. [00:52:25] Speaker 1: Have you ever been in one of those situations where a friend starts to embarrass themselves? You know, maybe they had, well, too much to drink. Maybe they said something they shouldn't have said. Maybe they just seem to be having a hard time keeping it all together. And you have to kind of gently cajole them into taking a little break. We've all been there at some point. And right now, that is exactly what it must feel like for MAGA Republicans trying to deal with Donald Trump and the war in Iran he started. I mean, here was longtime Trump supporter and MAGA darling Bill O'Reilly on his podcast just yesterday. [00:53:03] Speaker 24: So my advice to Donald Trump is to take the next month off if you can. Get into an environment where you like golf and relax a little bit. You've got to deal with Iran. I understand that. Everybody understands it. But you can do that on the phone and you can do that with your people coming. But you need a breather. [00:53:31] Speaker 1: You need a breather, Trump. Don't you worry about all that business of governing. Go relax. Play some golf. Now, was Bill O'Reilly making that suggestion because he is genuinely concerned Trump is not okay? Maybe. Was he making it because he thinks this disastrous war will be easier to bring to an end if Trump isn't sitting in the Oval Office every day? Possibly. Or a combination of the two. It's really hard to know. But regardless of the reason, there's no question it's a bad sign for Trump that one of his biggest supporters is telling him to just take a month off from his duties as president of the United States. But that is where we are at, at this point, amidst the growing backlash to Trump's war in Iran. And the thing is, Bill O'Reilly may have actually been speaking for a much larger swath of Trump supporters. A new political poll out today finds that the number of self-identified MAGA supporters who think Trump's war is worth the economic costs has dropped 13 percent in just the last two months. And a majority of MAGA supporters, 57 percent, blame Trump's war for the high cost of gas. And we're seeing that same sentiment on the ground in key battleground states. Our very own MS Now's Alex Tabit recently spoke with several three-time Trump voters at a gas station in North Carolina about Trump's war in Iran. Here's what they have to say. [00:54:52] Speaker 25: This war has been taxing on everyone. And I'm on a fixed income. And so it's, you know, other ones that don't fix the income are, I mean, I'm really feeling it. You could talk directly to the president. We know he likes to watch TV. What would you tell him about this war? [00:55:11] Speaker 26: President Trump, you shouldn't have got us in this war and was going to end it fast, soon. And now you're starting all over again. [00:55:20] Speaker 5: Has the war helped your life at all? [00:55:24] Speaker 27: No. For one thing, it causes me angst. It makes me angry. And as I said, I'm very disillusioned. My entire family is disillusioned. And we are and we're Trump supporters. But this is, to me, he's drawn a line in the sand. And that's how I feel. That's how we all feel. [00:55:51] Speaker 1: That's how we all feel. Again, those were three-time Trump voters. Donald Trump is losing support for this war, even among his core base. But if he asks the president, he says everybody loves the war. I mean, here he was just this morning, making that very same claim again. [00:56:12] Speaker 4: Well, Americans aren't against the war. A poll just came out. Americans don't want to have gasoline prices, but they're not against the war. That just came out loud and clear in a poll. [00:56:24] Speaker 1: Trump says Americans aren't against the war. That's what he claims. He says that just came out loud and clear in a poll. That's what he just said. But here's the latest Washington Post-Ipsos poll on support for Trump's war. It finds that more than two-thirds of the country, 68%, do not think Trump's war is worth fighting. Only 28% of Americans think this war is worth it. Donald Trump is obviously in a bind. He started a war without a clear objective and with no clear plans for ending it. And so here we are, 145 days into that war, and the president is once again going back to his same bag of tricks of making big, sweeping threats. This morning, he issued a new threat to Iran, saying from this point forward, anytime the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, whether it be by missile, rocket, drone, or any other device or weapon, the United States will bomb and destroy one bridge or power plant, including those located next to or in the capital city of Tehran. Now, to be clear, that's the president threatening to commit potential war crimes by targeting civilian infrastructure, which would be very big news if this was the first time we heard Trump make exactly that kind of a threat. But it's not. And on top of that, there are other signs that Trump may be feeling cornered and quite desperate. Because today, the Trump administration announced an agreement to provide the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with its own civilian nuclear program. And that's something that the Saudis have wanted for years. And while it has been on the table in the past and under discussion, including the Biden administration, the United States has always wanted a concession for that in return for agreeing to it. Now, we don't know what, if any, concessions Trump may have extracted from the Saudis in exchange. And let's be honest, it's Donald Trump. So there's always a possibility that this is about enriching himself and his family, which certainly the Saudis have done plenty of. But at the same time, knowing that Saudi Arabia was a key partner at the start of Trump's war, and we also know that their support for the war has waned in recent months, leading to clashes between Trump and the Saudi crown prince. And now, all of a sudden, Trump is offering the Saudis a major gift. And you have to wonder if that is Trump's way of trying to salvage his fracturing coalition in this increasingly unpopular war, all while increasing the potential for increased nuclear volatility in the Middle East. Because if Saudi Arabia has a civilian nuclear program, other countries in the region are going to want one too. And is that the kind of step that is going to deescalate the war that is already underway with Iran? The answer to that is no. Just tonight, for the 12th day in a row, the U.S. launched more strikes against Iran. Trump knows this war is a liability for him, but he doesn't know how to get out of it. And he doesn't know how to maintain support for it. And he is doing nothing to help himself on that front. I mean, just yesterday, he posted this chart you can see on your screen to his social media account, comparing the American death toll from his war to other major conflicts, seemingly in an effort to minimize the loss of those fallen service members. And he did that full well knowing that this morning he was going to attend the dignified transfer for four more service members who have now lost their lives because of this war. Then just today, Trump held a rally in the critical swing state of Georgia. And even in front of a crowd of some of his most enthusiastic supporters, he went into some version of delusional spin mode. [00:59:49] Speaker 4: I call it a skirmish. This is with this skirmish we have with the Islamic Republic of Iran. And I call it that because let me tell you, they're getting hit so hard and they want to make a deal. But I say they're not ready to make a deal. Because every time they make a deal, they want to change it and everything. They're not ready. They'll be ready very soon. We don't need straights. We don't need anything. We don't need the Hormuz Street, but we do it because we have to do it. [01:00:23] Speaker 1: Trump says we don't need the Strait of Hormuz or the Hormuz Street or whatever he just called it, even as gas prices continue to rise. He says Iran wants to make a deal, even though he was saying the exact opposite just two weeks ago when he walked away from the negotiating table. He's on the stump in a state Republicans desperately need to win this November. And all he can muster are the same tired lines that didn't convince anyone before and aren't going to convince anyone now. Maybe he should start listening to his own crumbling eco-chamber. And, you know, as Bill O'Reilly says, just take a breather. [01:00:57] Speaker ?: Thank you.