Politics Chat, March 3, 2026

Hey folks, today is March 3rd, 2026, and I have to pre-record politics chat again today. I'm a little bit early, so I don't know what's going to happen

again today. I'm a little bit early, so I don't know what's going to happen this afternoon. But you had a number of questions about the military strikes that the

this afternoon. But you had a number of questions about the military strikes that the US and Israel launched against Iran three days ago. We're now going into our fourth day of that military engagement. And I thought I could help maybe clear up some of the confusion about what's happening. So there are a number of words you asked about, the most important of which that you're seeing in the news a lot is

the word imminent. Why does imminent matter? And did Donald Trump need to have the approval of Congress in order to attack Iran? And in order to tell you about that, I'm going to untangle a little bit some of the issues at stake in order to understand that question. And one of the most important of those

is the difference between a state actor and a non-state actor. So

a state actor is the government that has been recognized as legitimately in control of a country. Now, just as a little bit of a rabbit hole here, it is also possible, and there exists in the world today, countries that are being run by governments that are not recognized by other countries as being the legitimate

government of that country. There is what is considered a legitimate government in exile, but the country is being run by somebody else. And that affects many things, but certainly the finances of that country. That's a question that was just a little rabbit hole.

I'm not gonna go into that more now, but a state actor is a government that has been recognized as the legitimate governance structure of a country.

Now, we also have in the world today non-state actors, and those are organizations that are militarized and that can get involved in hostilities, but are not legitimate rulers of a nation. or of a country.

So you have, for example, Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Houthis in Yemen. Those are

both non-state actors. All right. That matters for the United States and military engagements in a really crucial way. So when you talk about the United States going to war, the U.S. Constitution says that the only part of the U.S. government

that can declare war is Congress. And the reason for that is actually multifold. I actually happened to be reading the Constitutional Convention minutes the other night,

multifold. I actually happened to be reading the Constitutional Convention minutes the other night, sort of to dig into what they said about the war power and why it should belong to Congress and not to the executive. And the obvious is that the framers of the Constitution had no interest in giving an executive power over the

military. That's just, they really barely discussed it. They're like, this ain't happening, we're not

military. That's just, they really barely discussed it. They're like, this ain't happening, we're not gonna do this. But their reasoning was multifold and really interesting. So part of their reasoning was, of course, that you didn't want to give that kind of power to one man or even a group of men. There's a brief conversation about whether you should give it to the Senate alone. And they're like, no, no, no, no, we're

not doing that either. But their reasoning for that is that, first of all, What they were mostly concerned was about a standing army at home. They were worried about how expensive armies are. And they thought that a strong executive would act like a king had acted in Europe and basically impoverished the people in

order to feed his military, in order to support a military. So that was one of the reasons. But the other reason, of course, is that the people who are going to die were going to be the citizens of the country. And they thought that those citizens should have a say in how that both use of money and lives was going to work considering that

you didn't want just one guy to decide that. You wanted the representatives of the people to have a say in that. And what they figured was that if Congress had to decide whether to go to war, that would mean that there would be opposition that would say, no, you really shouldn't. go to war, and that would guarantee

that there was a pretty fair airing of the decision to go to war. So

there's this really structural reason that Congress was the center of the war-making powers. or the war declaring powers. Actually, they make a difference between making war and declaring war in the Constitutional Convention. But they wanted that in the Constitution to go to the representatives of the people rather than to an

executive. So when people are talking about now, well, Congress really should have a say

executive. So when people are talking about now, well, Congress really should have a say in this. It's not a turf war. There's actually a philosophical reason that you want

in this. It's not a turf war. There's actually a philosophical reason that you want the representatives of the people to be deciding whether their money and their lives should go into a war. And that is the larger question here.

But the trick to this in this particular operation against Iran is that the United States, when it declares war, or really anybody when they declare war, I suppose, is declaring war against a nation state. They're declaring war against a state actor. It is one country against another country.

So the exigencies of warfare really since the 1970s have dictated a kind of different approach in the United States to military operations. And what that means is that Often, especially recently, the people against whom the United States wants to initiate military

action are non-state actors. So if, for example, and I, you know what, I'm not even going to use a name because I run the risk of starting a rumor that we are going to war with a non-state actor. If, in fact, you have country A and it's got a non-state actor B,

You can't really declare war on B without declaring war on the entire state, which is something that you don't always want to do. You want to take out the terrorist actors, for example, and not the government of the country, which probably doesn't like the non-state actors either. They're trying to get rid of them as well. So

what has come from that is a number of things. First of all, most recently, Congress has been getting involved in passing what are called authorizations for military force.

And that is, again, military force usually against a non-state actor. And you saw that, for example, when George W. Bush got an AUMF, they're called, authorization for military force, an AUMF for his operation in Iraq, which just again, not really a rabbit hole. Afghanistan and Iraq are really very different wars. We tend

to think about them together, but their justification and their support was dramatically different. And,

you know, someday if you want me to, I'll talk about that difference there. But

he did have an authorization for military force to go into Iraq from Congress.

not a declaration of war on Iraq, because we weren't going to war with the government of Iraq, we were supporting the government of Iraq, but an authorization for military force, right? So that's one way in which in the modern era, presidents

force, right? So that's one way in which in the modern era, presidents have been able to get Congress to sign off on military action without a declaration of war. But now there's something else and why there is the issue of the

of war. But now there's something else and why there is the issue of the word imminent. There is yet another way that a president can get involved in a

word imminent. There is yet another way that a president can get involved in a military action. And that is simply to start one. And if the president

military action. And that is simply to start one. And if the president starts one, the he has to notify Congress within 48 hours in writing, and Congress has to vote to continue that kind of military action for longer than 60 days, if it's going to go on longer than 60

days. So and by the way, one of the problems with the AUMFs is that

days. So and by the way, one of the problems with the AUMFs is that they they tend to nobody wants to stop them. So they tend to be hanging out there. We actually have a number of AUMFs out there right now. Congress does

out there. We actually have a number of AUMFs out there right now. Congress does

sometimes stop them, but they often just hang out there. So the reason we have that system. is because in the Nixon administration, if those of you who remember your Nixon history, remember that he decided to start bombing Cambodia without telling anybody that the secret bombing raids went into Cambodia. And just again,

to sort of fill out your light, bright screen, it's the Cambodian bombings that lead to the protests that lead to Kent State because people wake up in the morning and go, wait a minute, what did we just do here? It actually wasn't in the morning. He gave a a press conference, not a press conference, gave a presentation

the morning. He gave a a press conference, not a press conference, gave a presentation a few days after it. And people were like, wait a minute, wait a minute, we're bombing Cambodia? Like, how did we start bombing Cambodia? So after Nixon did that, Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973. And the War Powers

Act said that, okay, okay, maybe there are times when the government does really have to answer an immediate threat without talking to Congress. When that happens, The president has to notify us in writing within 48 hours and so on. But

the trick to the invocation of the War Powers Act is that the threat has to be imminent. You know, that is, we have to know that government is about to launch missiles at the US or whatever. It has to be an imminent threat.

Otherwise, if it's not an imminent threat, the president needed to go to Congress and talk to Congress about this. And somebody else asked, is it, does informing the Gang of Eight, is that the same thing as informing Congress, or I'm sorry, is that the same thing as getting congressional approval? And the answer to that is absolutely not.

The Gang of Eight is the top leaders of both the Democrats and the Republicans in the leadership of the House and the Senate. So that's four people. And the,

both Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee. That gang of eight gets informed at times when there are things Congress is supposed to know, but for one reason or another, it's classified.

But telling them is not at all the same thing as saying to Congress, I want authorization to do this. All right, so in this moment, you have seen a real fight over the word war, because if indeed it's a war, then there's no doubt that the president needed to make a case before Congress. But

for him to have simply done it without telling anybody requires there to have been an imminent threat. And all our intelligence says there was not an imminent threat.

I mean, for all that Trump is saying, well, you know, they were gonna get nuclear weapons, our intelligence assessed that that was at least a decade out. Similarly, he

started to say, well, they're going to get ballistic missiles. That too was supposed to be a decade out. There was no sense that unless Trump did something in that moment, that the United States was going to be at risk. So you're seeing the fight over the word imminent because on the one hand, the administration is trying to say, oh, yeah, this was really problematic. But at the

same time, you've got Trump sometimes screwing up and saying, well, we were about to have a threat. Well, about to have a threat is like me about to run a marathon, right? You don't know if it's going to happen or not, but it's not going to happen tomorrow. So that was a real problem when he said that.

So right now we're kind of dancing around all these words as people are sort of You can almost watch the counters in people's heads going, wait a minute, that's not imminent. Or could you make that argument? Because at the end of the day,

not imminent. Or could you make that argument? Because at the end of the day, the question of whether this is even a legal action, let alone a smart one, but even a legal action is going to matter a whole heck of a lot, both in terms of internal domestic politics, but also in terms of how this action

is regarded and dealt with by the rest of the world. So that question of whether it's a war, whether the president needed an authorization for military force or whether he could simply have done this on his own under the War Powers Act, that's what you're hearing about. And that's why the word imminent is running

around. And that's why it's such a big deal when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth kept

around. And that's why it's such a big deal when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth kept saying we were at war and Trump keeps saying we are at war. And then

you literally on that same day had people from the administration going and talking to reporters and saying, no, no, no, it's not a war. It's not a war. It's

not a war. if it's a war they needed to go to congress and the bottom line is um i don't know if they know if they're a foot or horseback they this and i'll talk a little bit now about why it appears that trump got involved in this war and i actually think this is um uh almost a window into certainly the administration, but also into a certain kind

of American politics that's been building for a really long time. So while

this military action is itself problematic in so many different ways, I actually think historians will study it for what it means even outside the war angle of it. So what do I mean by that? Okay.

The administration began to bomb Iran alongside Israel in the middle of the night on a Friday night, as you know, early Saturday morning. Quite quite unexpectedly because there were negotiations underway at the time. And immediately, I mean, at first there was a lot

of chest thumping that, you know, we've done this and this is just, you know, ducky. But immediately there was real pushback in that it

ducky. But immediately there was real pushback in that it appeared that there was no clear justification for why to do it or for what an end game was. That is, Normally, when the United States gets involved in a military action of any sort, it's got a plan. You know, we are going to

get rid of this group of people who are firing missiles at this target. And

that will mean that, you know, they'll be... this end result and this is how we achieve our goals. I mean, you just don't want to start fighting somebody. You

want to have a goal at the end of why you're fighting and how you're going to get there. And that just doesn't appear to have been there. And you

can see that in a number of ways. And the primary one is that, again, after a lot of celebration of the fact that Trump had started striking Iran, they started to falter almost immediately when they tried to talk about why he had dropped the bombs. So there was sort of this vague, well, they were going to get nuclear weapons. Well, of course, you know, Trump pulled us out of the JCPOA,

the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, that Obama and a number of other countries had negotiated with Iran in 2015. Trump pulled us out of that in 2018. And the consensus in the intelligence community was that that JCPOA was working,

2018. And the consensus in the intelligence community was that that JCPOA was working, that Iran was using its nuclear capabilities to develop energy, you know, to nuclear energy, but that it was not enriching its uranium for weaponry. So that actually is a sort of a historic problem of Trump saying, well,

weaponry. So that actually is a sort of a historic problem of Trump saying, well, they were going to get nuclear weapons. Well, yeah, thanks to the fact that he pulled out. And within a year, the rest of the countries that were supporting JCPOA

pulled out. And within a year, the rest of the countries that were supporting JCPOA did not have the power to force Iran to adhere to it any longer. And

within a year, it was no longer agreeing to those protocols once the U.S. pulled

out. So And yet as well, especially even to give some credit to the bombing of Iran in June, their nuclear program was behind where it had been in June. Now, no, Trump did not obliterate everything. Remember how angry he got when people would say, well, you didn't really completely

everything. Remember how angry he got when people would say, well, you didn't really completely obliterate everything he insisted he had. Now he's saying he didn't. But this was not a tomorrow problem. This was a down the road problem. And similarly, then they said, well, it was the fact he was going to use conventional weapons to give himself a shield so then he could have nuclear weapons. There too, intelligence says that

they were at least 10 years out from being able to develop a missile that could have reached the United States. So then they turned into talking about other things as well that you know, all of a sudden they started talking about the Navy and they were going to sink the entire Iranian Navy. Well, I don't know about you. I'm not sure I've ever heard about the Iranian Navy before that in my

you. I'm not sure I've ever heard about the Iranian Navy before that in my entire life. So this is obviously something they're just like, crap, let's find something else.

entire life. So this is obviously something they're just like, crap, let's find something else.

And they pulled out the Iranian Navy. There are also reports that came originally from the Washington Post that Trump got sort of goaded into going into Iran by Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu and by Saudi Arabia's MBS or Mohammed bin Salman, both of whom have been, you know, are pretty close to the Trump family, especially through Trump's son-in-law,

Jared Kushner. And that is another reason that the administration has offered for having

Jared Kushner. And that is another reason that the administration has offered for having gone into Iran was that, and I believe I'm getting this straight, but it's a little convoluted, that because they knew that Israel was going to attack Iran that would mean that Iran would then attack U.S. bases, and therefore the United States

had to attack first in order to make sure that Americans didn't get hit on American bases. That just doesn't hold water. Obviously, we are not supposed to

American bases. That just doesn't hold water. Obviously, we are not supposed to start military actions because another country is going to do something, and that's a big problem. The other piece here, of course, is that MBS has been publicly advocating for

problem. The other piece here, of course, is that MBS has been publicly advocating for negotiations while apparently also wanting Trump to use the might of the American people in order to hit Iran. So they have all these different reasons. And the other reason that you're starting to see a lot today, it started yesterday afternoon, but you're

starting to see it a lot today. is the idea that somehow Trump has ended a 47-year war, that the United States has been at war with Iran since 1979, and this is, you know, he's the first president who had the guts to do something about it. And this is completely manufactured. This is, you know, of course, only

the U.S. side of the war and conveniently not mentioning the fact that the real

the U.S. side of the war and conveniently not mentioning the fact that the real problems between the U.S. and Iran began when Eisenhower and members of the American government, as well as other governments, overturned a popularly elected leader in Iran in order to put in place the Shah whose son, I think,

or grandson, I'm not sure I've got the genealogy there right, is one of the people they're talking about putting in place now in Iran. A very, very unpopular leader, and we could go down through the history of that. This idea that somehow there has been a war going on between the US and Iran since 1979 is very

much reverse engineered to make it look as if Donald Trump is a great hero who's doing something that nobody else dared to do. And that I think is a really important way to look at what's going on. That is, it certainly looks as if the administration had no real plan other than the bombing.

And I'll talk a little bit more about why we don't have, you know, why I would say something like that and why we don't seem to have a plan to do anything after the bombing. Because it certainly seems as if at a time when the Epstein files are heating up really dramatically in that it, again, I think it's, I would say it appears as though, although I think this

is established now, that the Department of Justice withheld allegations that Trump had sexually assaulted a child, a 13-year-old girl, and possibly more than one, is very much in the news or was until this bombing. That is important, obviously, because of the allegations. But even if the allegations are not true, and I'm

not saying they're not, there is another reason for the administration to be very, very worried about that. And that's that the Epstein Files Transparency Act was very clear about what the DOJ had to do. And the fact that the DOJ withheld this document certainly looks as if they're openly breaking the law. So this would be a cover up. That's illegal. That's one of, you know, it's one of those things you it's

up. That's illegal. That's one of, you know, it's one of those things you it's like they got Al Capone on tax evasion. And that really frustrated a lot of people because he had done so much other damage. But when you have a paper trail like that with a, you know, the law says do this and here's proof that you did not do it. It's just a much easier case to make than,

you know, anything that, that, that relies on human testimony, which can be impugned and all sorts of things. So that issue with the Epstein files is huge. Then you also have, of course, Hillary Clinton's testimony, which was pretty devastating to Trump and the people trying to turn her back into a story.

But then you also have this story that is being highlighted by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, that there was also in the Epstein files, the, a breadcrumb trail that led to the realization that the, um, depart, I'm sorry, the, uh, federal Bureau of invest, I'm sorry, the, no, I've got, I'm getting

my investigations confused that the, um, the, the, uh, drug enforcement agency, the DEA's, um, um, major investigations arm, the people who do the Russian mafia and drug cartels and all that, was in fact conducting an investigation into Epstein for

drug trafficking, prostitution, and money laundering. And

that investigation was operative when Trump, before Trump went into office, it was operative at least as late as 2015, and then it disappeared. And that's the first we've really heard about that. And it this widen has demanded that the dea produce documentation of that investigation and information about when it was disbanded and why it was disbanded

because of course as late as 2015 it was still operative trump takes office in early 2017 and it went away and so there's real questions there as well so In some ways, it looks like the bombing of Iran was simply a way for Trump to demonstrate strength and to say to his people, remember, you know, all these other presidents, all the way back to Jimmy Carter, they were wussies and they wouldn't

do this. But me, I dared. I dropped the bombs. Right. And that, you

do this. But me, I dared. I dropped the bombs. Right. And that, you know, I wrote about last night that ties into some real right wing American tropes that go back, you know, through our history, but there is this sense that what he was really doing was responding to sort of the Fox News drumbeat of, we

want our strong president to drop a bomb on Iran. And there was no, here's what's going to happen next, and here's what the end game is for that. And

I'm going to talk to you a little bit more about that, but you've all asked about this report that senior members of the American military have told their troops that this is a religious war, that there's, you know, where Christians are on their way to starting this religious war in the Middle East.

And what I would say about that is that report has come from a reliable reporter, but it is not confirmed. So I'm skeptical about it.

You'll see I haven't written it yet. And skeptical doesn't mean I don't believe it's true. It means that we need, before we say this is really what's going on,

true. It means that we need, before we say this is really what's going on, even though it certainly seems plausible out of this administration, we need somebody else to confirm that. And we should know if there's confirmation of that within two days. So

confirm that. And we should know if there's confirmation of that within two days. So

before you jump to the, to the, oh my God, we're, you know, they're really trying to turn this into a religious war, which is certainly possible. Let's wait for some confirmation on that. Although again, that reporter is reliable. So, um, I just, that's where I would stand on that one. But in terms of whether or not they were really prepared for what they were getting into, and this actually is why

I started to think about Trump going in just to look strong. Like, you know, he's the cowboy and this was the shootout and now we're done. And, you know, the movies all stop after the shootout and they don't deal with the fact that somebody's got to get the bodies off the streets and somebody's got to do treatment and then the town is traumatized and, you know, we're in that stage now. And

we know for a number of reasons that this was really, really, really half arsed as it were. First of all, one of the things that you are seeing in places like began again in the Wall Street Journal, which is interesting because the Wall Street Journal, of course, is a Murdoch newspaper and they're clearly not happy with Trump these days. Murdoch being a major right wing

financier and media mogul. It appears that there is a shortage in the American forces and others as well of the interceptors that they need to stop the missiles and drones from attacking the places we're trying to protect. And the reason, you know, the Wall Street Journal

called attention to that. But then last night you had Trump coming out and having that long screed on social media saying, I have enough interceptors to last forever. And

so now people are talking about being a forever war. But what I read in that was, in fact, if Trump comes out and says something is absolutely true, you know the opposite is true. And that they are concerned about not having the kind of protection that they need over there. And you're also seeing in the news today an attempt to blame this on Ukraine because America has helped to provide interceptors

to Ukraine as well. this, you know, the advent of drones and their capabilities in the Russian aggression against the Russian invasion of Ukraine has really brought drone warfare. And you've heard me talk about this a lot.

This has dramatically changed world warfare. So that means that the tools that we have to stop missiles are useful for drones, but there's a lot more drones and those supplies are low. So obviously this is something that one normally would have looked at before one launched a major war. But Trump actually said to a news

outlet that he was surprised by the fact that Iran began to attack other Gulf states, which is like Middle East 101. The fact that he didn't know that that was going to happen i mean i could have told you that was going to happen and i'm not a middle east specialist by any stretch of the imagination right you just have to read the news and know that that was going

to happen um that suggests he really did not understand what he was getting into but also we have the last i saw lost six american military personnel in this war lost their lives and we have many more wounded we don't really know how many that's going to be and um it turns out at least the

six that were killed were in a relatively unprotected structure that they actually talked about evacuating because it was so relatively unprotected and, um, and they ultimately decided not to do it. And of course, obviously they should have, but then you also have the fact that the United States apparently made no attempt to get any Americans out of these Gulf countries where the airspace is now closed in a

number of them or the, um, Airports are shut down.

And while other countries are evacuating their person, their people, their citizens, you know, their civilians from those areas, the U.S. basically just said to them, good luck, you know, get yourself a commercial flight out when the commercial flights aren't going any longer. And

if you think about the United States of America, this is what we always did so well. We were the ones helping other countries get their people out. And now

so well. We were the ones helping other countries get their people out. And now

the Americans are just absolutely flat footed if they were in, you know, Israel on, you know, touring or in another country, they're sheltering in place because they don't know how they're going to get out of the country. And this is in part a reflection of the fact that the United States government under Donald Trump cut the funding for the state departments across the country, the embassies across the country by

half last year. So they don't have the personnel to get people out. They don't

have the money to get people out. And the United States basically just said, good luck with that, which is I mean, it's just beyond astonishing. Like I say, if you think about it, the United States has always been the country that helped everybody else get their people out because we were so good at it. We were,

you know, we had the paperwork. We had the people who knew how to do that. You know, there's that old saying about how what a military really runs on

that. You know, there's that old saying about how what a military really runs on is the person in the back room making sure the trucks have tires. That was

us. And that's what they have decided is unimportant in a military because what they want is the Pete Hegseth. Yeah, we're going to go bomb people. But in fact, that creates enormous risk for people who were involved. So I don't think they knew what they were getting into. And they also don't have any kind of an end game. I mean, when people say to Trump, what are you looking for? He's like,

game. I mean, when people say to Trump, what are you looking for? He's like,

well, they need to satisfy us, but they haven't been able to yet. What does

that look like? You know, there's no ultimate end game here. And you can see him sort of shopping around ideas about maybe why we went in. You know, maybe this sounds good. Maybe that sounds good. And that

is a really, really big problem down the road because how do you get out of that? And one of the things we might see, and this is a might,

of that? And one of the things we might see, and this is a might, is that he might simply declare he won and walk away. But the

question is whether, I'm sorry, I've just gotten a message here with somebody saying important. Yeah, no, that's not as important as I thought.

he might just simply say, you know, I won and walk away, which is what he tends to do. He tends to try something and then if it's unpopular, he just says, I won and he walks away. And this war did not get him the rally around the flag bump that a foreign war almost always gets for an American president. It was a very unpopular war going in. He has not gotten a

American president. It was a very unpopular war going in. He has not gotten a bump, making it more popular. It's gotten less popular, less than, you know, about 25% of Americans think it's okay to do this, which is a a real problem when 75% of people at the beginning of the war, before things get bad, start to say they don't want it. He's clearly starting to flail. And I don't know what's

going to happen this afternoon, but the stock market this morning is starting to react to the extraordinary jump in oil prices because of the fact that ships won't go through the Straits of Hormuz, which opens out of the Persian Gulf, which is about where about 20% of the world's oil goes through. And the

rise in oil prices, by the way, is dramatically going to help Vladimir Putin, who needs money extraordinarily. But it's really going to hurt us because we are already seeing this morning an 11 cent jump in the price of gas. So as that happens, it's possible Trump's just going to say, oh, oopsie poopsie, never mind. I won. Bye.

But this is not like doing that over some of the stuff he's done domestically.

There's a lot of people that are now embroiled in this war and whether they will all say, oh, phew, we didn't really have to do that. We're done. It's

not clear at all that that's going to happen. And I think you're at least I feel like I'm seeing increasing panic on the part of administration figures who recognize that they have just absolutely kicked a hornet's nest and it's going to be really hard to walk away from. And they don't have a plan at all. know that

you you can't rally people when you don't have a plan again another interesting thing the united states had no allies with them going into this even the uk which tends to go along with the us just because of our historic friendships um going into this the only partner it went in with was israel and that's um you know that's again think of george w bush when he launched the war against iraq

he had a coalition right it was not the kind of coalition we had um know in in the past but it was a coalition we have nobody on this one so all of those things are part of this um but i wanted to speak to a few other things um around that right now i did manage to get to a lot of them but somebody asked a really interesting question that actually

applies here somebody asked me to talk about thomas nests cartoons of boss tweed in the late 19th century and how that brought Boss Tweed down. And the simple answer to that was that Thomas Nast is a cartoonist, really

down. And the simple answer to that was that Thomas Nast is a cartoonist, really interesting history I won't go into right now, but he's a very famous cartoonist in the late 19th century. Even if you don't know his name, all of you would recognize his drawings because they end up in every textbook everywhere. And I mean, they're just everywhere. He was kind of Mr. Late 19th century. But when

just everywhere. He was kind of Mr. Late 19th century. But when

Boss Tweed, William Tweed, who was the head of Tammany Hall, was in trouble with the law, Nast began to draw cartoons of him and they were not exact likenesses by any stretch of the imagination. They were cartoons, but they were very recognizable. And Boss Tweed actually said to somebody, you know, I'm not worried about the

recognizable. And Boss Tweed actually said to somebody, you know, I'm not worried about the lawsuits. I'm not worried about the politicians. I'm really worried about these cartoons because my

lawsuits. I'm not worried about the politicians. I'm really worried about these cartoons because my people can't read, which was true in the time. My people can't read, but they can understand a cartoon. And it was, in fact, a cartoon of Tweed that got him arrested when he tried to skip out of the United States. Somebody at the depot recognized him from a cartoon and arrested him. And that's part of the Boss

Tweed story. But the reason it matters here is because it looks to me like

Tweed story. But the reason it matters here is because it looks to me like what we are seeing is this regime in the United States has done the unthinkable in so many ways. But

The potential for this war in the Middle East expanding really dramatically is very much there. I mean, there are, you know, Lebanon is now involved and, you know, other countries are starting to say, well, we're going to have to fight back if you bomb us. And, you know, it has the potential to

become a world war. Now, before you, you know, go hide under your bed, Everybody knows that. I'm not saying something that is unheard of, like I've got some secret. And everybody is working to make sure that doesn't happen. And

by everybody, I mean the leaders of countries that have been our allies in the past, the European Union, the UN, but also countries that have not been our allies in the past that look at this and they're like, the world does not need this right now. Thank you very much. So there is enormous pressure for it not to expand as well. So this is not a done deal. But the fact that

Trump and this regime have completely disrupted world trade and now have completely disrupted world peace, and this isn't even putting the United States into this equation, it means that they are under enormous, enormous pressure right now. And in terms of getting them out of power, which is crucial, The group that we need to

engage are those people who are not reading the news and who are not paying attention to anything perhaps than the Fox News channel or far right wing channels. And

they are not going to recognize the argument that I'm making here. They're not gonna listen to me. But if you draw a parallel between that and Thomas Nast, they do recognize cartoons. And I don't literally mean cartoons, although that works too. There've been

fabulous cartoonists that have been illustrating what's going on that are great. But what I mean is that there are things happening in this administration that they will recognize as bad, even if they don't care about whether or not Lebanon gets involved in a war in the Middle East. And what I mean by that is something that happened, for example, today in front of Congress. And that is

that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is being grilled, while I'm talking now today, it'll be in the past by the time you see this, by senators in Congress about the behavior of federal agents in ICE and Border Patrol and others as well, and about her own use of American tax dollars. And she is being

grilled by members of both parties, which suggests to me that the administration is looking for a scapegoat. And, you know, they don't like women anyway, so she was a pretty obvious one to go after. That idea that our tax dollars were used to funnel money to her cronies, but also, speaking of cartoons, to buy

her a private plane with a luxury bedroom in it where she has been flying with an advisor that the Wall Street Journal recognizes as her affair partner.

You know, that's a Thomas Nast cartoon, if you will. That's an image that people who don't care about Lebanon and don't care about wherever or think it's great that Trump dropped a bomb might look at that and say, wait a minute, my gas just went up 11 or 12 cents a gallon in a single day. And she

spent, was it $70 million on a flying bedroom where, you know, the secretary of DHS has never had a private plane before. So that

making sure those things reach the people of that Thomas Nast's cartoons reached is part in this moment of continuing to put pressure on this regime. And, you know, I've been saying to people, starting to pick away at the

regime. And, you know, I've been saying to people, starting to pick away at the people around Trump, and Noam has always to me been the obvious one, but many of them are vulnerable for one reason or another, is going to be important now.

While everyone's so mad at Trump for what he's doing and some of the other major figures, there's some low-hanging fruit here that getting rid of would weaken Trump.

And that's a place really to keep up the pressure, certainly about the war, certainly about the Epstein files, certainly about cuts to things you care about, certainly about education, which I won't have time to talk about now. But keeping pressure on right now in the cabinet is going to be important because I think you can already see

the fact that so many Republicans went after Noam today. is a reflection of the fact they recognize that this regime is really unpopular and they're looking to collect some, I can't think of the word, they're looking to make sure some people pay a penalty for it so they look better in this moment to the American people

who, as I say, are really unhappy about a lot of stuff going on. So

that brings me to a final place here in terms of where we are, which is frightening. I mean, it just is on every front. I'm, believe me, I'm aware

is frightening. I mean, it just is on every front. I'm, believe me, I'm aware of that. So I was actually working when the news came of the bombing and

of that. So I was actually working when the news came of the bombing and I saw it at 1.51 that morning. And I was just like, really? Really? Like,

like all the expletives that you think I don't say, I said at that moment.

And, and I just, you know, every day it's like, what was coming next? And

I get, I totally, believe me, I get it. I'm exhausted like everybody else is.

But I have a really hard time looking at this regime itself and seeing strength here. I see a bunch of people who are absolutely flailing.

The fact that they have left tens of thousands of Americans, you know, in the Middle East with no way to get home is just this extraordinary indictment of their approach to foreign policy certainly but also to governance in general and you know you think about the things that the republicans were so uh eager

to hit democrats on um like you know the people are making the comparison that four people were tragically lost in benghazi six people have already been lost with this attack on iran and it appears as if God help us, it's going to get worse. And don't even start me on that. The fact that we

get worse. And don't even start me on that. The fact that we shouldn't have our people in harm's way for people who don't have skin in the game is always my take on it. I told you Jason Crow was great on this. Representative Jason Crow from Colorado was great on this the other day because he

this. Representative Jason Crow from Colorado was great on this the other day because he spent three tours of duty as a paratrooper and as an army ranger, and he was just beside himself. Anyway, I see an organization, a regime that is flailing and they're trying desperately to land on a story that makes Trump look heroic. We've been at war for

47 years. We have not been at war for 47 years. We just haven't. They're

47 years. We have not been at war for 47 years. We just haven't. They're

trying to make fetch happen as the saying goes. And that's harder and harder under these circumstances. At the same time, as I say, there are places where the

these circumstances. At the same time, as I say, there are places where the the regime has taken real hits of late. And

the obvious ones, I'm going to throw Minnesota in here again, just a reminder, the federal agents have not left Minneapolis. What they have done is they've gone into less visible places, into the suburbs and into the rural areas, for example. And similarly, they've done the same thing in Maine. But the stand against them in Minnesota and crucially, the stand against these detention facilities, these giant concentration camps they're trying to

purchase, that's getting really bad press. And a lot of those purchases are falling through.

Now, don't If you are in an area where there was an attempt to buy a place that then got scuttled, don't look away because they're going to try and find another one and hope people are not paying attention. And there are organizations that are tracking that. But there is increasing pressure on this regime. And every minute, that's why I actually looked at my phone when someone

this regime. And every minute, that's why I actually looked at my phone when someone said, you need to see this, because you just don't know what's going to happen next. But In that, and I keep saying it's going to get worse before it

next. But In that, and I keep saying it's going to get worse before it gets better, and it is. I mean, we're losing Americans, and we're disrupting the world, and we're disrupting world trade, and all of those things are true. But we are also seeing what happens when this ideology of the MAGA Republicans that people like me

have stood against for so long for exactly these reasons, what happens when it actually gets into power? You know, they've been screaming, we got to bomb Iran. Well, Trump

did it. And that made him really happy. And now we're standing here holding a hornet's nest, which is exactly why we didn't want to bomb her on. And the

more that we emphasize just how disruptive these long-standing right-wing policies are now that they're putting them in power. What is that saying of Mencken's, you know, the American people deserve to get what they voted for good and hard. Now,

I don't believe that. I'm not a, I don't believe that people really wanted this.

They didn't think they were voting for it, most of them. But now that we're getting it, this gives those of us who want to really emphasize American democracy and the importance of world trade at stopping world wars and the importance of collective security to really emphasize how those things matter. They kept us safe for 80 years.

They kept us prosperous for 80 years. We used to be the country that evacuated other people's individuals who were left behind in a war-torn area. And

now literally our people are saying, yeah, you got me a rowboat because I got no other way to get out of this country. And I had no idea there was a war coming. I mean, it's the other thing. Usually if there's a war coming, you give people a little bit of warning so they don't go there and the United States didn't do that. So we're hanging our own people out to

dry. And that is not going to age well, I don't think. And it didn't

dry. And that is not going to age well, I don't think. And it didn't start well. So this war started with very low popularity, but in this moment,

start well. So this war started with very low popularity, but in this moment, now is the time really to grab ahold of that and to keep pressure on and not to throw up your hands and go, I just can't, I just can't with this. In fact, this is the time really keep kicking to keep kicking and

with this. In fact, this is the time really keep kicking to keep kicking and and saying you did this and your ideology did this and the ideology that worked was the one that protected representative democracy and protected collective security and that protected world trade exactly what you're trying to tear apart so for all that this

moment is terrifying for sure it is also um potentially the end game of weakening this regime enough that it can be really dismantled going forward. All right. So there was a mess in here and I don't know how long this ended up being because a lot of it's going to have to be cut, but thank you for being here. And I will

be back, I think on a normal schedule on Thursday. I don't know the answer to that. If I'm on the road, then I'll do this Friday and then I'm

to that. If I'm on the road, then I'll do this Friday and then I'm back on a normal schedule for