Trump Humiliated as Viral Exchange with Journo on Iran Backfires Badly

This is the Daily Blast from the New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR Network.

I'm your host, Greg Sargent.

Donald Trump's attack on Iran is the most unpopular U.S. war in the history of modern polling.

The New York Times looked at polls on U.S. wars going back to World War II and found

Trump's war at the very bottom of the heap.

This comes as new exchanges between reporters in the White House show that Trump's positions

on the war are falling apart.

In particular, one exchange with the reporter over the bombing of an Iranian school blew

up in Trump's face rather spectacularly.

We think it's significant that the public is not reflexively rallying to Trump's war.

It says something fundamental about the American public during the Trump era.

Paul Waldman has a good piece on his sub-stack, the cross-section, digging into why Trump's

war is so unpopular, so we're talking to him about all this today.

Paul, good to see you.

Thanks for coming on.

My pleasure.

Thanks a lot.

So the Times looked at 10 wars going back to World War II and found that initial support

for Trump's war is lower than at the outset of any other conflict.

The Times put support for the Iran War at 41 percent.

Other averages of polls haven't even lower at 38 percent.

Paul, the key here is that there's no reflexive support for the, quote unquote, commander in

chief.

In fact, I wonder if it's the opposite.

People are predisposed to see Trump's case for war as, you know, made up.

Which it is.

What do you think?

Yeah.

I think we have this perception that there is what we often call the rally round the flag

effect.

Whenever there's a war, the public rallies around the flag and wants to defend the country

and comes to the president's side.

And the truth is that that's not necessarily true.

It really is contingent on a lot of things.

That has certainly happened on many occasions in the past.

And if you look back at events like even the beginning of the Vietnam War, you don't

even have to go back to World War II or to Korea, or if you look at the Gulf War, the

first Gulf War with George H. W. Bush, which was very popular, or Afghanistan, or even

Iraq in 2003, what you see is that in all of those cases, they were very different from

this one.

First of all, the presidents at those times were very popular to begin with.

So you had a popular president who was coming in and trying to make this case for war.

The second, I think most important thing, perhaps, is that in every one of those cases,

there was a real argument being made that America was under threat.

And in some cases, it may have been exaggerated, but at least it was plausible.

Now in this case, not only is there no real reason to think that Iran is some kind of

imminent threat to the U.S., the Trump administration barely attempted to convince

the public that this was something they had to do.

There wasn't some kind of long propaganda campaign that led up to the war.

The explanations for why we were doing it have shifted back and forth constantly.

And it's happening within a president whose popularity ratings are in the thirties.

So people are not predisposed to believe what he has to say to begin with, even if he

were making an effective case, which obviously he is not.

As we all know, it's looking likely that the U.S. bombed an Iranian elementary school,

revealing scores of children, reports show a Tomahawk missile striking near the school.

And that's our missile.

Trump has said, implausibly, that Iran might have gotten a Tomahawk and done the bombing itself.

Now listen to this exchange between Trump and Times reporter Sean McCreish.

You just suggested that Iran somehow got its hands on a Tomahawk and bombed its own

elementary school on the first day of the war.

But you're the only person in your government saying this.

Even your defense secretary wouldn't say that when he was asked standing over your shoulder

on your plane on Saturday.

Why are you the only person saying this?

Because I just don't know enough about it.

I think it's something that I was told is under investigation.

But Tomahawks are used by others, as you know.

Numerous other nations have Tomahawks.

They buy them from us.

But I will certainly whatever the report shows, I'm willing to live with that report.

Paul, that is utterly humiliating.

Also note that Trump admits to not knowing much about the situation,

which accidentally undermines his case for claiming that Iran did the bombing.

I just blew up in his face so spectacularly.

Trump is not incredibly engaged with the details in the best of times.

And if you want to wage a propaganda campaign,

then you have to have a clear message.

You have to repeat it over and over.

And the administration has been all over the place on all of this.

And some days we're talking about how the Iranian people ought to rise up

and we're really doing this as a favor to them.

And then the next day Trump will put something on truth social

that threatens to rain down fire and fury on Iran

and make sure that it can't become a country again for decades to come.

We're also in the process of bombing things that are important to our country.

That's something important to understand, too.

It seems like we've almost run out of real military targets there.

I mean, obviously there are still missiles and drones

and a lot of them are hidden and the US is trying to find them and take them out.

But at the same time, Israel is bombing oil depots

and we're attacking infrastructure in Iran.

And presumably, if the country is going to want to rebuild after

we're those are things that they're going to need.

And the misery of the Iranian people in this short term

is only going to be exacerbated.

So you would think the administration would be working extra hard

to convince the world that we are actually on the side of the Iranian people

and to convince the Iranian people that maybe they should rise up

and overthrow their leadership.

But right now we're not doing either of those things

because this administration is consumed by bloodlust

in the people of Lake Hague Seth

and the rest of them can't even seem to get their story straight.

Well, and I think that gets at another reason

why support for this war is historically low.

That exchange with that reporter really shows, I think,

the media being far more aggressive and far more skeptical

of the official line than we've seen the press

be in the run up to other wars.

The terrible nightmare was, of course, the run up to Iraq

where the press was really, really too willing

to take the administration's horseshit seriously on WMDs

I think that it's a really encouraging thing

to see the press sort of stand up and assert itself

the way it has been, particularly given that Trump is essentially trying

to use state power to punish any media organization

that shows adversarial scrutiny.

Yeah, I think there's a certain amount of coverage

that is what the administration wants,

especially on TV news.

They release these very exciting kinetic videos

of explosions and things like that through night vision,

goggles, we see planes getting blown up and stuff like that.

And that is catnip for television news

because they want those images.

And they replay them over and over and do the kind of play by play

that you often see in war we've seen before.

But at the same time, you're right that there is a lot more skepticism

from press core in general.

And this administration has built up a lot of ill will.

Let's not forget that they basically kicked out

the entire Pentagon press core

and replaced them with a bunch of sick of fans

from far right media.

And so those Pentagon reporters

who have been kind of pushed out of the building,

they're not going to necessarily be so inclined

to take the administration line after they've been treated this way.

And they've had to spend most of the last year

cultivating sources that are not necessarily

what the press secretary is saying at the Pentagon.

And so they've had to go and be a little more entrepreneurial

about how they can get information.

And that's going to push them toward more skeptical sources

and just sort of put them in a position

where they're not going to want to just accept it

when Pete XS says that everything is going fantastic.

And we're just going to amp up our lethality tomorrow.

And it's going to be even more lethal and isn't that awesome.

To stay up to date on all the news that you need to know,

there's no better place than right here on the DSR network.

And there's no better way to enjoy the DSR network

than by becoming a member.

Members enjoying ad-free listening experience,

access to our Discord community,

exclusive content,

early episode access, and more.

Use code DSR26 for a 25% off discount on sign up

at the DSRNetwork.com.

That's code DSR26 at the DSRNetwork.com slash by.

Thank you and enjoy the show.

Well, that brings me to an exchange with Caroline Levitt.

I want to highlight.

Caroline Levitt was trying to explain Trump's position

on the bombing of the Iranian school.

She was pressed on why he's saying this stuff.

And then this happens.

And the president has a right to share his opinions

with the American public, but he has said he'll accept

the conclusion of that investigation.

And frankly, we're not going to be harassed by the New York Times

who's been putting out a lot of articles on this,

making claims that have just not been verified by the Department of War

to quickly wrap up this investigation

because the New York Times is calling on us to do so.

So that's just amazing.

She faults the times for reporting stuff

that hasn't been verified by the Defense Department.

I mean, she's faulting them for doing independent

adversarial reporting quite literally.

The thing is she can't explain why Trump is pulling stuff

out of his ass on such a serious matter.

And the truth also is that adversarial reporting

on this war really is terrible for them.

She knows that.

She revealed she knows that.

Your thoughts on that?

Yeah, and you know, this administration could actually get

at least somewhat better coverage if it wanted.

If it wasn't so unremittingly hostile to reporters

asking even the most basic questions.

Now, I don't want to say you should have

some kind of sympathy for Caroline Levit.

But it certainly can't be easy.

When Donald Trump is your boss,

and every time he opens his mouth,

he's going to contradict what he said 10 minutes before

and tell you and say something

that is going to require you as his spokesperson

to kind of turn some results

in order to try to justify what he's saying.

Because after all, the line from the White House

is that Trump never mists speaks.

He never makes a mistake.

Everything that he says is perfect and true.

And so that's the framework that they have to start from.

But they also know that what he wants from them

from the people who deal with the press

is to be antagonistic and hostile

and abusive toward reporters.

That's what he expects.

And he watches them on TV.

And so they do that.

And then there is a way to have someone

adversarial relationship with the media

that still is respectful

and can make it so that they will hear you out

when you have a case to make.

And there have been more and less skilled

White House press shops at that.

But the smart ones know that if you treat

reporters like the professionals that they are

and you don't lie to them, you can push back

on them when you want to.

And that might help you get your story out

in a way that is preferable.

But if you're just berating them

and abusing them all the time,

reporters are not going to take anything

that you say seriously.

And in this case, they shouldn't

because the Trump administration

is almost never going to tell them the truth.

Well, it's kind of funny

because Trump keeps saying different things

and contradicting himself

and offering different rationales

and yet the administration's propagandists

are required at all times to say

that whatever Trump just said is perfect.

So maybe I guess the way they think of it

in their heads is whatever Trump is saying now

is even more perfect than the thing

he just said three days before.

You know what I mean?

Yeah, it can't be easy to keep up with.

Well, yeah.

And so that was actually captured really well

in yet another exchange with Caroline Levitt

that I want to highlight.

The reporter asked Levitt

why Trump keeps shifting the goalposts

on when he says Iran would have gotten the nuke

if he hadn't undertaken this world historically

important invasion.

His latest is seven days

Iran would have gotten the nuke in seven days.

Complete horse shit.

We know from New York Times reporting

on the internal debates

that American officials say it's not so.

But regardless, he keeps changing it.

Levitt was asked about this

and here's how she responded.

This was a feeling the president had

based on facts.

Facts provided to him by his top negotiators

who had been engaged with the Iranian regime

in a good faith effort.

The Iranian regime was lying

deceiving the United States of America,

clearly trying to continue their nuclear program

to create a bomb that would of course

threaten the United States of America.

So I'm noticing this formulation

more and more lately.

Trump is basing things on a feeling

which is based on facts.

Now, I don't know if that's just

Caroline Levitt trolling us

because it's such a ludicrous formulation.

But I think it's pretty revealing

that even Caroline Levitt is saying

that Trump is kind of basing things

on the seat of his pants essentially.

Yeah, he's extrapolating.

And I guess it's when they're in a trap

where he says something that is so obviously untrue

that they have to come up with some kind of

pretzel twist of a way to make it seem like it's sort of true.

Or it's true if you feel that it's true.

And this is particularly difficult

with regard to Iran's nuclear program

because first of all,

they had claimed last summer

that it had been totally obliterated

which wasn't true at the time.

But it was certainly the case

that Iran was not in possession

of any nuclear weapons

and it would take them quite a bit of work

to build one.

But now Trump is coming out and saying,

oh, well, they were about to get one,

which is utterly preposterous.

So how do you explain that?

When even Republicans,

even Trump's allies

haven't charged that they have the nuke

and they're about to shoot it at us.

But of course, that's the kind of thing you need

if you're going to claim

that this is an imminent threat.

And this gets back to one of the places

that we started about what an administration

of President needs to convince people

of to go along with the war.

They have to feel threatened.

And so now you have Republicans

out there saying, oh, well,

we've been a war with them for 47 years.

And that's the imminent threat.

Of course, that is the opposite

of what imminent means.

But Trump, I think, feels that.

And so he has to say, oh, well,

yeah, it was imminent

because they were about to nuke us.

And this is the paradox

that we saw in the Iraq war

before we're about to

and then we do attack a little country

that is far, far less powerful than we are.

And yet they have to convince the public

that this small country

that we can squash like a bug

is actually about to wage war on us.

And it's about to show up in

Coney Island with a submarine

and a nuclear weapon attached to it or whatever.

And so it's not enough to say

whether a troublemaker in the region

and that's a problem for a long-term security.

You have to say that they're about to get you in your family.

And Trump is unrestrained

by any kind of tether to what's actually true.

And then it's left to people like Carolyn Levitt

and the rest of the people in the White House

to kind of clean up after him

and try to reframe what he said

as something that actually has some connection to the truth.

And that is no easy task.

Right. And there's a kernel of truth

to what Levitt said there

in the sense that he really is basing this on feeling.

The one thing that's false about what you said

is those feelings aren't based on facts.

They're just based on feelings

and who knows where those feelings are coming from.

Yeah. And it gets to sort of the most profound unanswered question

I think for the public in this is

why are we doing this?

You know, like if you asked the average American on the street

why are we invading Iran?

Why are we waging war on them?

Most people would have a really hard time

coming up with a clear answer

because they haven't gotten one

from the administration.

And it's not, you know, you can say a hundred different things

about how, oh, you know, it's a bunch of bad guys

and it's a fundamentalist Islamic regime

and they oppress their people

and they cause trouble in the region

and they support the terrorist groups.

But why are we going to war right now

against Iran?

And the truth is that Donald Trump himself probably doesn't know.

If he knows, he certainly has not communicated that

clearly to any of us.

So, you know, that is the question

that they haven't answered

and it's so basic to this.

We have to know why we're doing this.

Why are Americans coming home in caskets?

Why are, you know, a thousand or more Iranians dying?

Why are we bombing even if it was an innocent mistake?

Why are we bombing a girl school

and killing 165 children?

Why are we expending something like a billion dollars a day

on this? Why are we doing this?

Like, if they can't answer that question,

then, you know, the whole, the whole effort

as, you know, a piece of communication is just a failure.

And I think you really put your finger

on the core of the issue here when you said

that Donald Trump doesn't know why we're doing this.

This is the thing, the real reason I think

or at least among the reasons that this war is so

unpopular compared to other ones

is that everybody knows.

Voters know that Trump doesn't know what the fuck he's doing.

That he doesn't have any idea why we're doing this.

Voters know that voters see that the emperor has no clothes.

I mean, this has just been Trump over the past year

has been a kind of emperor getting naked moment

and slow motion, really like one piece of clothing

getting cast off after another.

And so that's, I think, why that moment

with reporter Sean McCreish was so devastating

and so humiliating, it just revealed so starkly

that Trump has no clue why he says what he says

that he's just making it up on the fly.

There he was essentially saying, oh, Iran bombed the school.

And then when the reporter refrained that says,

so Iran somehow got one of our missiles

and bombed its own school,

it just showed the utter absurdity of this man up there

who has no fucking idea what he's talking about

and the utter absurdity of letting him make these kinds of decisions.

Yeah, and if he was showing himself to be competent

in other areas, if the economy was going great

and all kinds of other things were working out really well,

I think that there would be a lot of Americans

who would give him the benefit of the doubt

who might say, you know, I'm not too sure about this

but he seems to know what he's doing.

So for now, I won't object.

But when so many other things are going so poorly

and immediately you see all these ill effects,

like especially gas prices, which are unavoidable.

Everybody, you see them on every corner.

And at that point, nobody is ready to get

from the benefit of the doubt.

The people who are, you know,

are die-hard Trump supporters or with him.

But the rest of the public is basically saying,

you know, I need a real, a really good attempted persuasion.

I really need a really good argument

to know why this is something that I should be supportive of.

And he certainly hasn't given him that

and they don't have any reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And it's hard to see that the support

that he has now for this war, about 40%

is going to get any higher.

If anything, it's probably going to go down as time goes on.

And it's really kind of down at 38, 37 and some polls

and that's sort of his floor number,

that hard molten core of MAGA, that 37, 38%.

And that's what he's got right now.

And this is just getting started.

Paul Waldman, always pleasure to talk to you folks.

If you enjoyed this conversation,

check out Paul's sub-stack, the cross-section.

Paul, great to see you.

Thanks for coming on.

Thanks a lot, Greg.