Speaker 1: Hey, the folks, it is Wednesday, March fourth, and we
Speaker 1: just listened to the first White House press briefing since
Speaker 1: the war with Iran started, and a very direct question
Speaker 1: was asked, what was the imminent threat from Iran? And
Speaker 1: with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
Speaker 1: It wasn't the question, Robes. It was the answer that
Speaker 1: has everybody already buzzing. And the answer is.
Speaker 2: The President just felt it, he had a feeling.
Speaker 1: We're not joking, folks, and we're gonna let you hear
Speaker 1: it yourself and make your own judgments. But Robes, that
Speaker 1: is coming out now. And she said it not just
Speaker 1: as a slip. She said it several times.
Speaker 2: She actually doubled down and slightly qualified it. But her
Speaker 2: first address, like her first way of phrasing it, was
Speaker 2: that the President had a good feeling that the Iranian
Speaker 2: regime was going to strike.
Speaker 1: US assets now on its own. How does that sound?
Speaker 2: It sounds bad, It sounds terrible. You don't want anyone,
Speaker 2: especially when it comes to making a decision about war,
Speaker 2: to make a decision based on a feeling. Now, she
Speaker 2: did qualify it later and said it was a feeling
Speaker 2: based on fact, and she kept saying that over and
Speaker 2: over again. It is one of those moments where you're
Speaker 2: if you've ever been to therapy, you always hear your
Speaker 2: therapists tell you feelings are not facts, and so it's
Speaker 2: interesting she didn't say anything about facts. Initially, she just
Speaker 2: said he had a good feeling, and then she started
Speaker 2: saying feeling based on facts.
Speaker 1: It would want to try to be very fair here, Robes.
Speaker 1: But the problem with this, folks, is that after the
Speaker 1: war started, we heard from the President, then the President,
Speaker 1: then Hegseeth, then Secretary of Rubio in that came out
Speaker 1: and made very big statements press conferences. The answers we
Speaker 1: got in those three from those three big deal guys
Speaker 1: in this administration didn't necessarily go together. Robes, especially with
Speaker 1: Rubio correct.
Speaker 2: And it's been described as shifting explanations as to why
Speaker 2: we went to war with Iran when we chose to
Speaker 2: go to war with them. So it doesn't seem as
Speaker 2: though the American people, and frankly members of the media
Speaker 2: who were especially in that press briefing room, are comfortable
Speaker 2: with the explanation. It hasn't been consistent, it has shifted,
Speaker 2: and none of it makes a tremendous amount of intellectual sense.
Speaker 1: Okay, so if we even stopped sharp short of the
Speaker 1: intellectual part robes, we just take it on what they
Speaker 1: have said. It has not been consistent and hot, I
Speaker 1: jump on, I say, I jump on, but I'm focused
Speaker 1: on Rubio. That was the clearest one because we've been
Speaker 1: hearing from Hegseth and the President over the weekend, and
Speaker 1: then we hear from him with this, Oh yeah, we
Speaker 1: did it because Israel was going to attack, That's what
Speaker 1: he said.
Speaker 2: It was jaw dropping when we heard it yesterday. We
Speaker 2: jumped on and did an entire episode on it yesterday
Speaker 2: because it was such a departure from what we had
Speaker 2: heard from President Trump and Pete Hecseth. But what we
Speaker 2: had heard from Trump and Heseth didn't really It wasn't
Speaker 2: I hate to use the word satisfying, but it wasn't
Speaker 2: satisfying to talk about all of the egregious behavior going
Speaker 2: back forty seven years ago, talking about hostages, talking about
Speaker 2: things I remember from my childhood as a reason to
Speaker 2: justify going to war now and just that now we
Speaker 2: have a president who has the courage, who has the
Speaker 2: actual strength to follow through on his threats versus other
Speaker 2: presidents who were weak or even enabled Iran to become
Speaker 2: what they've become. But that doesn't that doesn't feel like
Speaker 2: it's enough to justify the timing.
Speaker 1: If he would just say, yeah, I am the president,
Speaker 1: nobody else had the balls to do this, I do
Speaker 1: and I'm doing it, we would go woof okay, But Robes,
Speaker 1: that's not just what they did. They came out and
Speaker 1: said this reason, this reason, this reason, and this reason.
Speaker 1: All of those initial reasons Robes had to do with us,
Speaker 1: avenging stuff that happened nearly fifty years ago. He just
Speaker 1: laid out, this is everything they've ever done, and that's
Speaker 1: why we had to attack. It then started evolving Robes
Speaker 1: and it got to Rubio saying we had to do
Speaker 1: it because Israel was going to do it, and if
Speaker 1: Israel did it, then Iran was going to hit back
Speaker 1: and they were going to hit it us. Fine, But
Speaker 1: then the president came back and said no, I thought
Speaker 1: they were going to attack, and didn't say it was
Speaker 1: because of Israel, and then rodes We get this today
Speaker 1: from Carolyn Levitt in a press room that was as
Speaker 1: pack as you're going to get it. Getting asked questions
Speaker 1: from who they would theme adversarial, would they not?
Speaker 2: Oh? Yes, And she started off I before she started
Speaker 2: talking about President Trump's good feeling, she made a point
Speaker 2: because now, yes, she is in the room, unlike Pete Hegsath,
Speaker 2: she is in the room with everyone, with members of
Speaker 2: the media from all networks, from the middle to the
Speaker 2: left to the right. So now she has to feel
Speaker 2: questions from the mainstream media. And she said, there has
Speaker 2: been a lot of misreporting and intellectual dishonesty from the
Speaker 2: American media on why President Trump decided to launch this operation.
Speaker 2: So there was even an acknowledgment that there was confusion.
Speaker 2: I would say in the nicest way, but she was
Speaker 2: actually accusing the media of misrepresenting what the administration was saying.
Speaker 2: But the point being the administration was saying different things
Speaker 2: from different people and none of it really landed.
Speaker 1: That's not being critical, that's just we are hearing what
Speaker 1: we were hearing. It's okay, the message hasn't been consistent.
Speaker 1: We're gonna let you hear. Now what Carolyn Levitt said,
Speaker 1: do you remember who the reporter, what outlet? I don't
Speaker 1: remember what outlet he was from, but it was a
Speaker 1: guy who asked a two part question, but one part
Speaker 1: of that question, Robes was we've been hearing different things
Speaker 1: from different members of the administration about some eminent threat,
Speaker 1: but we haven't gotten clarity exactly what was that imminent
Speaker 1: threat that caused the President the United States to have
Speaker 1: to act? Now? That's a fair question, yes.
Speaker 2: And I believe it came from a reporter from the Independent.
Speaker 2: At least that's what the Independent is saying that our
Speaker 2: reporter pressed Carolyn Levitt on her explanation of these varying
Speaker 2: explanations about why we went to war. When we went
Speaker 2: to war.
Speaker 1: Look, we there have been some reporters in that room
Speaker 1: that I've taken issue with before and can get a
Speaker 1: little sarcae as in a little nasty and get emotional
Speaker 1: about it. He was not that. He asked a straight
Speaker 1: up question. So that was the question, can you give
Speaker 1: us further clarity about what the imminent threat was that
Speaker 1: caused the United States and the President on States to
Speaker 1: say we have to act now or else? And this
Speaker 1: was her answer. It's about two and a half three
Speaker 1: minutes long, but it is worth every second of it.
Speaker 1: Take a listen to Carolyn.
Speaker 3: Leven completely reject the premise of your question, you have
Speaker 3: had the President of the United States, the Secretary of War,
Speaker 3: the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice President of
Speaker 3: the United States, the Secretary of State, and now I
Speaker 3: am out here today to explain to you exactly what
Speaker 3: led the President to make the decision to launch Operation
Speaker 3: Epic Fury. And President Trump does not make these decisions
Speaker 3: in a vacuum. This decision to launch this operation was
Speaker 3: based on a cumulative effect of various direct threats that
Speaker 3: are on posed to the United States of America, and
Speaker 3: the President's feeling based on fact that Iran does pose
Speaker 3: an imminent indirect threat to the United States of America,
Speaker 3: based on the fact that they are the world's leading
Speaker 3: state sponsor of terrorism, based on the fact that they
Speaker 3: were rapidly and aggressively building up their ballistic missile program
Speaker 3: to give themselves immunity within their country alongside their navy,
Speaker 3: so that inside their country they could continue to create
Speaker 3: nuclear weapons in nuclear bombs, which would of course pose
Speaker 3: a risk to Americans in the region and even Americans
Speaker 3: one day here at home. And then another point on
Speaker 3: this is the President found that through these extensive, exhaustive
Speaker 3: failed negotiations with Iran, that they were hell bent on
Speaker 3: death and destruction. So again, the President was not going
Speaker 3: to be just another president on a very long list
Speaker 3: too sat back and stood by and pass the buck
Speaker 3: of this direct threat to the next administration. The President
Speaker 3: had a feeling, again based on fact, that Iran was
Speaker 3: going to strike the United States, going to strike our
Speaker 3: assets in the region, and he made a determination to
Speaker 3: launch Operation Epic Fury based on all of those reasons.
Speaker 3: And I would like the media to actually report on
Speaker 3: all of them rather than just picking sound bites from
Speaker 3: one person in this administration and saying, oh, they're contradicting
Speaker 3: the other person. No, again, these decisions are not made
Speaker 3: in a vacuum. They are made by the president's feeling
Speaker 3: that Iran was going to strike the United States and
Speaker 3: our assets in the region, and he was not going
Speaker 3: to sit back and watch that happen. The determination was
Speaker 3: made that the President was going to strike first alongside Israel,
Speaker 3: and that has obviously been proven to be the right
Speaker 3: decision and an effective.
Speaker 2: One at that.
Speaker 1: What does feeling based on fact actually mean? And I
Speaker 1: don't because I'm trying to be fair to her and
Speaker 1: how she spoke and I want to be fair to
Speaker 1: I'm trying to be fair to everybody. Rogue, but we
Speaker 1: are just taking what we're being told. And she said
Speaker 1: more than once. She could have qualified, she could have stopped.
Speaker 1: She didn't have to put it that way. He had
Speaker 1: a feeling, you're looking at facts. Why didn't she just say, well,
Speaker 1: we had evidence, we were looking at these facts and
Speaker 1: it pointed all to this happening. She literally is saying
Speaker 1: we're at war because the president was just feeling it.
Speaker 2: It is an odd choice of words, not only and look,
Speaker 2: I can understand why she might have said it once,
Speaker 2: but she doubled down and I lost count how many
Speaker 2: times she reiterated feelings based on facts. I'm curious why
Speaker 2: she wouldn't have said the President made a decision based
Speaker 2: on the information he had. He made a decision based
Speaker 2: on the evidence that was in front of him. He
Speaker 2: made a decision based on past behavior and their current
Speaker 2: refusal to sit down and negotiate in good faith. A
Speaker 2: decision is a much stronger word than a f I
Speaker 2: don't know why.
Speaker 1: She used that, So should we leave room for her
Speaker 1: possibly misspeaking? And this wasn't what she wanted to actually say,
Speaker 1: are they going to come back now? Because the headlines
Speaker 1: are coming and bill folks are going crazy online about this,
Speaker 1: And it wasn't a hard thing to pick up on
Speaker 1: the idea what they are people are dying based on
Speaker 1: the whims of one man's feelings. Are is the conversation
Speaker 1: being had? We are not suggesting that, but Rhodes, is
Speaker 1: it possible. I'm trying to leave room for just that
Speaker 1: being a clunky way of describing it. But others will say, yeah,
Speaker 1: this goes in line for them. Now start a war,
Speaker 1: then figure out a way to justify it. Yeah.
Speaker 2: The thing is, I absolutely could give space for that.
Speaker 2: But it's just interesting. She kept doubling down on the word,
Speaker 2: feeling like she didn't let it go. She kept reusing
Speaker 2: that word.
Speaker 1: So it sounds like it was strategic, it was planned.
Speaker 2: It sounds like President Trump gave her that phrase, and
Speaker 2: I think he wanted maybe he I can't get inside
Speaker 2: his hands, nobody can't.
Speaker 1: We should speculate about thought.
Speaker 2: It did seem deliberate, I guess, is my point. It
Speaker 2: didn't seem like she misspoke. It didn't seemed like it
Speaker 2: was something that just came to her or a word
Speaker 2: she chose when she could have chosen ten others. That
Speaker 2: was a word that was repeatedly used, and it did
Speaker 2: seem deliberate. From just my perspective, it seemed like a choice.
Speaker 1: But there was a lot more that came out of
Speaker 1: this press briefing. Excuse me, I shouldn't say a lot more,
Speaker 1: but the things that did come out certainly got a
Speaker 1: lot of people's attention. Stay here, we'll tell you what
Speaker 1: we think was maybe the most important question that was asked,
Speaker 1: but it was not answered. And one thing that they
Speaker 1: seemed to now Romans be on the same page about
Speaker 1: when asked what the objectives are, they seemed to have
Speaker 1: that list of four down paths to hear. All right,
Speaker 1: we continue here on Amy and TJ. Just finished listening
Speaker 1: to the White House Press Secretary Carolyn Levity give the
Speaker 1: first press briefing since the war with Iran started. If
Speaker 1: you notice, I don't know if you do it too.
Speaker 1: I have to slow down because I want to say
Speaker 1: war in a rock every time, then rock.
Speaker 2: When I hear you say war with Iran, I actually
Speaker 2: breathe a sigh of relief because I think to myself,
Speaker 2: if I was the one who was introducing this, I
Speaker 2: might say a rock, I always think, oh, thank god,
Speaker 2: he said Iran, because my brain immediately goes to a rock.
Speaker 2: I was in Cable News when we were at the
Speaker 2: War with the Rock, so we said that, that's so
Speaker 2: many times for so long that in my brain to
Speaker 2: say the war with their rock.
Speaker 1: We literally said that on air for years in cable
Speaker 1: that was absolutely something was going. So, yes, we're still
Speaker 1: adjusting to this new reality here. They do have now.
Speaker 1: I think they have been pretty consistent. At least they
Speaker 1: say what are the objectives of this war? That sounds
Speaker 1: to be a consistent list at this point. At least
Speaker 1: they want to eliminate their ballistic missiles okay, they want
Speaker 1: to destroy their naval appabilities, that's two. Okay, they want
Speaker 1: to make sure they destroy any path of nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: That's fine, And they want to disrupt their missile and
Speaker 1: drone infrastructure for objectives, but robes the most important question.
Speaker 1: I don't know who the reporter was on this one either.
Speaker 1: He said, Okay, say you reach every single one of
Speaker 1: those objectives, which it seems like this all powerful US
Speaker 1: freaking military has done pretty quickly or certainly on the
Speaker 1: way to let's say you get all of that you want,
Speaker 1: you accomplish it, but there's no regime change. Is that
Speaker 1: acceptable for the president? That is an important question. Didn't
Speaker 1: get an answer no.
Speaker 2: And look when we hear from the president himself saying
Speaker 2: that it's up to the Iranian people to figure out
Speaker 2: who they want to lead their own country, and you
Speaker 2: take out their leader and look, well, this is a
Speaker 2: country that is obviously vastly different from our country from
Speaker 2: a religious perspective, from a what they've experienced for decades
Speaker 2: and decades of this. I don't I don't want to
Speaker 2: put a word in front of but certainly they have
Speaker 2: been under a very tyrannical regime the Supreme Leader. You
Speaker 2: don't have freedoms. This isn't a democracy. This is what
Speaker 2: they're used to. This is all they know. And we
Speaker 2: expect the people of Iran because there, yes, have been
Speaker 2: obviously demonstrations of late, but to just then suddenly have
Speaker 2: the wherewithal and the strength and the ability to rise
Speaker 2: up and create a whole new type of government, that's
Speaker 2: that's impossible.
Speaker 1: I guess it could be done in the next decade
Speaker 1: is where we are, But that robes is key. What
Speaker 1: if And there's questions, now, Yatola, how many his son
Speaker 1: is possibly in line?
Speaker 2: That was the question asked of Carolyn Love is the
Speaker 2: front runner?
Speaker 1: And she dodged it. She did like it's a hypothetical,
Speaker 1: like they aren't aware. The question is is Trump okay
Speaker 1: with this guy or not? It's the Supreme Leader's son
Speaker 1: he's taking over. Does that regime change is? Is he
Speaker 1: gonna take Aron into a whole different direction? Rogues That
Speaker 1: is a question. I cannot wait to hear somebody answer.
Speaker 1: You achieve everything on your list, but the regime is
Speaker 1: still there? What are you gonna do?
Speaker 2: And you can't look. I can't imagine, just from a
Speaker 2: logical perspective, that you'd be willing to go through all
Speaker 2: of this risk American lives and actually sacrifice American lives
Speaker 2: to not have a plan about what happens after you
Speaker 2: achieve your goal. And how could who rules that country
Speaker 2: going forward not be a part of your objective? Why
Speaker 2: wouldn't that be a part of your objective? Shouldn't that
Speaker 2: be a part of your objective if you take out
Speaker 2: the leader, the Supreme Leader? And she said today we
Speaker 2: heard from Carolyn Levitt. She actually gave a number. She
Speaker 2: said we took Actually she said it this way, forty
Speaker 2: nine leaders in Iran have been wiped off the face
Speaker 2: of the earth. So if we've taken out forty nine
Speaker 2: of their leaders and I guess potential successors to the
Speaker 2: Supreme Leader, shouldn't we have a plan? Shouldn't that have
Speaker 2: been a part of And it doesn't look they might
Speaker 2: have one, and they're just not telling us. So they
Speaker 2: don't want to show their hand. And I'll give them
Speaker 2: that space because that could absolutely be true. But it
Speaker 2: is disturbing when you don't have an answer about how
Speaker 2: Iran should be governed going forward. Coupled with the fact
Speaker 2: that we're hearing now from Carolyn Levitt that the President
Speaker 2: made this decision based on a good feeling, all of
Speaker 2: this doesn't feel great as an American.
Speaker 1: But do know, folks, right now, the fighting all of
Speaker 1: that can continues. We continue to give updates. I don't
Speaker 1: know the President's actually has an event this afternoon. Not
Speaker 1: sure if he make comments at the top of it
Speaker 1: or not. It was an economic form of something around
Speaker 1: table he was doing. But this is getting attention. You
Speaker 1: heard it for yourselves what she said in the context
Speaker 1: in which she said it, so We will see if
Speaker 1: they try to clear that one up, if we get
Speaker 1: any more answers as to what exactly was the imminent
Speaker 1: threat beyond a gut feeling from President Trump. So folks,
Speaker 1: we will hop back on anytime news dictates, but we
Speaker 1: always appreciate you spending some time with us on TJ.
Speaker 1: Holmes along time. My dear Amy Robach, we will talk
Speaker 1: to y'all soon