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