Tim Miller vs. Rep. Gottheimer: War Debate Gets HEATED

The world moves fast. You work day, even faster. Pitching products, drafting reports, analyzing data. Microsoft 365 Co-Pilot is your AI assistant for work, built into Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and other Microsoft 365 apps you use, helping you quickly write, analyze, create, and summarize. So you can cut through clutter and clear a path to your best work. Learn more at microsoft.com slash m365 co-pilot. Hey, everybody. Welcome to the Bulwark. I'm Tim Miller. Delighted to be here with New Jersey Congressman Josh Gotheimer. Sir, I think maybe we have a little some disagreements over the Iran War. We can hash out a little bit. And so I want to get into that. But first, just because things are moving so fast, I just want to kind of lay out where things are as we tape. Obviously, this is Tuesday afternoon. The president this morning was posting about Ohio. The whole civilization will die tonight. Never do you brought back again. About an hour ago, Pakistan put out a public statement saying that they're asking for a two-week ceasefire. We're seeing some reporting literally right now as we're talking that maybe there's some optimism about that from both sides. We'll see how it shakes out. So that's where things stand. When we scheduled this conversation, you'd put out a statement talking about how you were different from some of your other your fellow Democrats because you were more proactive in supporting the decision to act against the Iranian regime. I'm wondering if that's where you still stand here about a month in a little over. Well, so, you know, what hasn't changed is my view that actually, if you look at my release from a month ago, I think it's very consistent with my position now, which is one, we've got everything we can to crush the Iranian government and the sense of going back to the late 70s. This regime has literally killed scores of Americans, attacked our allies, attacked and killed our service members and our bases through their terror proxies killed thousands more. None of that's changed. Their banner is death to America. As you know, we're the great Satan. According to them, they've took our embassy and turned it into a hate museum against Americans. So, you know, and they continue to threaten our democracy and freedom. None of that's changed at all. They also, you know, from I'm on the Intelligence Committee without going into specifics, although some of this has been declassified by the Secretary of State talking about it. But as you know, they've been very aggressive, both in their nuclear program, but also in their ballistic missile and drone programs, further threatening our country, especially if they build, if they have enough capacity to stop us from getting to a bomb if they choose to jump the line and enrich. So that hasn't changed. And I also said the reason why I voted for the War Powers Resolution back then that we voted on in the Congress, as you know, was that the administration had completely failed, in my opinion, to make the case to the American public and the Congress, right? And in terms of what the reasoning was for going in and also what the objectives were when they went in and what they are today, they've still failed completely to outline those objectives to me in a way that to the American public and to the Congress, including progress made. And, you know, the president gave a speech a few days ago, which probably should have given, in my opinion, on day one of all this. And so that hasn't changed either. Like, I think they've completely failed to make the speech clarify anything for you. I didn't feel I didn't feel like I got a lot of clarification on why we're doing this. Did it clarify anything for me? No, I mean, I think it at least took pains to say to the country, Hey, by the way, here's why what we're worried about in Iran, right? And here's why we're doing this, which the president really hadn't done. And and by the way, their objectives, as you know, come completely shifting all over the place for the last, you know, 40 plus days that are like all over the map. It's like that scene in an airplane, you know, like when they were like, we're at 5000 feet, 8000 feet, 10,000 feet, they're all over the place. And I kind of felt like that was the way when you watch their communications on this of like what their objectives were. Is it was a terror, you know, we're in the terror program, their ballistic missile program on drones. Is it getting to a regime change, right, which is a whole different. It's a whole different objective. They talked about the Navy and diminishing the Navy, which I think is critically important. But but again, you know, it's it's without laying these things out and understanding what victory looks like. It's tough to go after it. Right. So do you have any sense of what the objectives are right now? No, I mean, if you go on, what if I'm a driving more clarity publicly from what I think the objectives are shifting? Ultimately, no, I mean, I think where they've what they've said consistently, if you're looking at like the map of where they've been consistent and what the president said, it's concerned about the nuclear problem, having a nuclear weapon, right? That's consistent. And they've consistently talked about diminishing the Navy. Otherwise, the rest of it is kind of shifted as shifted all over the place. And you know, and that's and by the way, they have not once not once come before a congressional committee to talk to us about what there's I think there's a member of Congress, and as a member of an oversight committee, relate to that, completely have a huge problem with that. So we're aligned in all those critiques. I guess then my question is, why not just oppose this? Clearly, I just I don't understand what why there'd be any possible interest from a Democratic member in a war when we don't know what the objectives are, when you can't trust the people running it, when they haven't made their case to you? Well, because as somebody who is obviously on the intelligence committee, who's focused on the Middle East for a long time, containing the threat, right, containing Iran, which I know the government there, not the people who they've massacred tens of thousands of indiscriminately, including children, but knowing what kind of threat Iran poses, right, I believe the importance of stopping that threat is critical. But you know, there's different ways to stop a threat. And I and I and especially I don't believe regime change right now, for instance, is something that you could do unless you're going to put troops on the ground, and I don't support that, right? So that doesn't mean I don't still believe it's a threat. And I work for America, not for a political party. Hey, so this time of year, I'm trying to stay consistent with eating well. But between work workouts and commuting cooking just isn't happening as much as it should. Temple meals, however, gives me fresh, balanced meals ready in two minutes so I can eat the way I want without losing time. Each meal is perfectly portioned for lunch or dinner, and it's ready in just two minutes. That means real food real fast without the sad desk lunch or the drive through regret. With 20 new recipes every week made from nutrient rich ingredients, tempo keeps things exciting, and helps you stay consistent with healthy eating habits. Even busy athletes like Maria Sharapova swear by tempo for balanced meals that help them stay on top of their wellness goals. And no matter your goals, there's a temple meal for you. So protein packed meals with up to 30 grams of protein, calorie conscious, or even GLP one balanced meals. It's convenient but flexible enough to fit the way you want to eat. For a limited time, tempo is offering our listeners 60% off their first box. Go to temple meals.com slash bull work takes. That's temple meals.com slash bull work takes for 60 that's 60% off your first box. Temple meals.com slash bull work takes rules and restrictions may apply. So I guess we're just confused. So do you want him to keep like what do you want to happen tonight? Like would you like him to say, you know what, we're pulling out of this, we're going to try to do a face saving deal, or do you want them to keep pressing forward? What I'd like is to find out we get a deal, which is going to reopen the straight is going to make sure that we can get gas prices down and get right because it gets 20% of the world's oil going through there and gas going through there. I'd like to know some commitments on their nuclear program, and their drone and ballistic missile program, and understand what we're going to do financially to contain their terror proxy program, you know, supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad all threats us right. So that where we were six weeks ago, and the straight was open six weeks ago, they had bond the nuclear facilities last year. Tim, I mean, unless we I'm hoping we find out, oh, you mean if we know, but if we massively diminish those programs, that would be a good thing. And I guess if the regime is still in charge, though, if they've had a regime transition from an 86 year old guy that was going to die soon anyway to his son, and the IRGC is still in charge, and they've demonstrated that they have control over the straight. And, you know, I mean, sure, they've lost some ships and missiles, but that could be replenished. Like, great, I why would we we did that we caused all this harm because all this international harm we've pissed off our allies in Europe and Asia and Australia, people at home have higher gas prices, like for to what for what ends we got rid of a couple of their missiles and ships. Who cares? Don't Well, no, don't say who cares in that because what if we told you, Hey, by the way, we've set back their missile drone and nuclear program several years, would you consider that a win or a lot? I mean, they said that last year, and now we're in a war with them again. I think that China and Russia could replenish them. China and Russia, we're seeing Russia is replenishing them now. Obviously, that's how they shut down our plane. Like they didn't, you know, have so so there are other ways for them to access weapons going forward. Again, say we knew that we significantly set back their program in that regard, would you still you would say you would say well, it doesn't really say that's still a loss. Yeah, because we've given them now they know they can control the straight. So we've given them more power and leverage. We've alienated our European allies and our Asian allies and and people in America who had no idea what the purpose was of this war who did not feel at all threatened by their ballistic missile capabilities are going to suffer major economic consequences. And they're suffering a pump already. But with the supply chain disruption, there's going to be massive economic consequences to this. And so that is the deal we we pushed it back their capabilities two years to screw over our own people. That feels like a terrible deal. Well, not in the same here's where I look at it just a little differently. And I hear by the way that perspective, I would say I look at it from the angle of if it turns out that we've significantly diminished their capabilities when it comes to drone missile and nuclear. And we're able to and we actually are successful doing that. If that if that's where it turns out and some of this stuff I, you know, can't can't talk about but we'll but we also need to learn more and see what kind of any kind of negotiated ending of this is. Again, so I until I see that I don't know, but say that that let's just play the the let's just play that out. If that happens, I'd say that's a huge win because what I was worried about and I am what I was worried about and it's not something that we should just brush aside as Americans who care about our security, their development of their ballistic missile program development was not something that we should just look the other way on and their drone program development is not something that we should just look the other way on. And you could say well, that doesn't matter. But as somebody who's worried about our interests in the region and worried about us, you know, I do I do I have issues that interest at home, though. I mean, is that I don't think that you can make the case talk you make the case to the American people that the Iranian missile program was a real threat to America. And it was a threat that was so great that it was worth harming that like harming their economic interests. You think them having a do you think them having a nuclear weapon would be a disaster? Yeah, sure. But but they've been on the cusp of having nuclear weapon for a long time. We were in a we had a deal with them under the Obama administration that Trump had taken us out of. There are other potential options for potential for we did nothing to diminish their terror program. Like, you know, that deal did nothing to address their terror problem. Which can do do you think that we're safer, though, today from terror that Americans are safer, not that Americans are safer from a terror threat today than we were a month ago. It seems to me that the risk of retaliation is higher. The terror that the threat of terror is probably higher today, I would assume. No, I think this I think that, you know, part of my frustration and getting back to your central question where you started this part of my frustration, because you know, I'm just giving you a sense of like, what are you asking me? What would I hope to get out of this? That's what I would get out. Part of my frustration is some of the questions that we're both asking each other, we don't know the answers to. And that's actually what's deeply frustrating. If some of the answer turned out to be yes, some things, I know the answer to, but let's say that some of the things turned out to be yes. Like, I actually would come down and say the Americans are safer because of it. If it turns out the answers are no, are actually we have not diminished certain things that I think we have, as well as I'd like to know. And that's in the end, we'll find out. Well, then by the way, then I'll have a different opinion about it. You're on the intelligence committee, though. If you don't know, nobody knows. So why not oppose this? I just understand how we could not just be clearly in opposition to a program where we don't know what the objectives are. We can't trust the people running it. They lie, they're liars. They have demonstrated a lack of competence, at least at the political level. The military has obviously demonstrated competence, but you know, we're going to trust Trump and Pete Hegseth and just take our chances. Hopefully it works. That's where you're at. I fundamentally know that the Iranian government is an enemy of our country, and very close allies with our other enemies, China and Russia and North Korea. I know that they are dangerously close to having a nuclear weapon, and that's unacceptable. I know that their missile program advanced significantly. I know that their drone program advanced significantly. I know that that poses a massive threat. Their terror program has advanced massively, and I know they're a major threat to the United States of America. And so knowing that, this is not about Donald Trump or anybody else. This is about standing up. I mean, he's the president. You think they're a great, you think the Iranian mollusks are a greater threat to the American people than Donald Trump getting us into this war? You think the Iranian mollusks are a greater threat? You are more scared of them? The Iranian government poses a massive, has posed a massive threat to the United States. Do I think that Donald Trump has handled this well back to the other thing we're talking about? No, obviously not. And I said that. Yeah, obviously not. So why would we trust him to do something if we know he isn't going to handle it well? Well, this is a very high-stakes situation. I don't think anybody, you know, the Strait of Hormuz is down in close. I would say that the best general, because it's not just Donald Trump that runs this. We've got the best generals in the world and the best military in the world, the best intelligence in the world, the best intelligence community. I mean, but our generals are not the ones that are bleeding out. A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. That's the president. That's their boss. Yes, but okay, but fine. So why would you, so yeah, it's absurd. Why would you let a guy that would tweet that be in charge of a war where American lives are at risk? Because who's going to be, we have a commander in chief. That's his job. What do you want? Yeah, to oppose him, I think, to say that as a Democratic representative, you do not think that an unhinged commander in chief should be getting us into a war where he's promising genocide in Iran. The reason why I opposed it, why I supported the war power resolution a couple weeks ago, because I opposed him and made it very clear. But like, that doesn't mean that I'm not going to support our servicemen and women. It doesn't mean I'm not going to back the great work of our military and intelligence community. It doesn't mean that I'm not going to say that government of Iran needs to be crushed. That's what I think. So you're kind of for in the abstract, like you wish it would work well, but you don't know what the objectives are and you don't want to do anything to constrain it. I have a huge problem with how this thing's being executed from how it's being executed. The goal of crushing Iran, I think is, I think the goal of crushing Iran is the right thing. I think not giving us hearings is a problem. I think not giving us more information. The country and the Congress is a huge problem. I think firing the Army Chief of Staff, huge problem. Right? So you ask, you asked me, if you asked me, like, do I think the goal of massively diminishing Iran is a good thing? Totally. Do I think the way this is being executed is going, well, no. So do you think we're in a better place now than we were six weeks ago economically, geopolitically, from a safety standpoint? Do you think we're in a better or worse place than we were six weeks ago? I think if we've diminished their military, I think we're stronger if we've diminished them all. Really? I mean, we've lost billions of dollars of military material that we're going to now have to fund again. Our economic situation is worse. Our relationship with our allies is worse. If they had 10,000 ballistic missiles just on picking a number yesterday, and they have 2,000 today, that's cool. Were they going to shoot 8,000 of them at Florida or New Jersey? Like, what was the risk of that? We know their missiles are longer range than we expected. They could shoot them and our allies in Europe. They could threaten us. They could threaten us. Our allies in Europe aren't on board with this. They're now hostile to us. You're asking me one question I'm answering. You're saying, do I think, you asked me a safety question? You asked me, I don't know, you asked me a safety question. I said, if we, if we diminished their missiles and their drone program and going to and and diminish their nuclear program and their terror programs, the answer would be yes. But part of the frustration is I don't even, well, I said, we don't have all the answers that I'd like to have. I've seen some of the things. And with some of the things I've seen, I think we've made progress in some areas, but you're right. In terms of like the Straits of Hormuz right now, no, that's not acceptable. What's going on in the Straits of Hormuz? Would I like to have actually have deeper like, would I like the president to have been handled this for the country better? Yep. Would I like to engage the allies? Yep. But I like them done things better all along. Yes. But again, Iran, you asked me about it as somebody who has studied the region, I think diminishing Iran is a good thing. And the answer, you keep trying to get me to say no to that. My answer is yes, diminishing Iran's a good thing. No, I'm just trying to understand. I disagree. I'm just trying to understand your position. Just the son-in-law, I'm curious about that. The president's son-in-law was in the situation room discussing this. He was at the negotiation table with Iran. He has received money from Saudi Arabia, who is obviously also supporting this effort. He's in business dealings with Saudi Arabia and other people in the region. Does that concern you at all? I just, I find it hard to imagine that he has the appropriate security clearance for this, given all of his conflicts. I'm just wondering, being on the intelligence committee, if that's something that you're concerned about. Yeah, sure. You're asking me like if I'm like, am I good with the way he brings around the table? No, of course, I don't know where he does that. I don't know. Because you know more than me. I don't, all I know is that Jared Kushner is receiving money from MBS and the Jared Kushner is also involved at the board of peace and he's pushing to have condos in Gaza and then simultaneously he's our lead negotiator. Yeah, you got people in the government with cryptocurrency interests. You got people doing all these things that are in state. By the way, so that would lead me to not trust the people to do the war, I guess is where I'm going. Yeah, I mean, but by the way, like, if your question is coming back to like where I think our strengths are, I think our service men and women incredible, I think our leadership incredible, I think our intelligence, the day to day intelligence community incredible, the best in the world. Do I have great confidence in like Tulsi Gabbard? No, absolutely not. Like, no, I'm right. But my point is like the people who brief and do a lot of who do the day to day work and who are incredible out there, I have a lot of faith in them. And I think we're very blessed to have such good people. I think that we have great military capabilities. I'm deeply concerned about our political leadership. You mentioned Tulsi, which you should be. Yeah. Yeah. She was just saying you're asking her about this question about the degree to which Israel influenced our entrance into the war. You've expressed some concern with people scapegoating Israel. So it's important that people don't kind of put this decision on Israel. The Times today has a story where Benjamin Netanyahu was in the situation room February 11th, and making a pitch to Donald Trump about what their plan was for the war. Trump was impressed with that pitch, according to the New York Times reporting. There were others in the administration who were saying that that he was too optimistic about the potential outcomes regime change. And otherwise, and it just seems just like a the basic fact is that Israel encouraged us and influenced us to get into the war. Is that not right? I didn't see that New York Times story. I think the question I asked at the committee, which is the question that I think is important is was the D.I.S. of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, and then asked to see if the D.N.I. director, Gabbard agreed, was what motivated our decision about protecting the United States of America that we made our decision? Or was it because it some had reported because we were, you know, pushed into it by by Israel or any other country? So was no, this is usually made to connect the interests of the United States of America. And it seems like we were pushed into it by Israel, though. Everything I've seen on a classified side reinforces that. But of course, by the way, we hadn't seen though that you didn't know that BB Netanyahu was in the situation room making a pitch to Trump on this war. I might have invited the situation room. I know, again, I would think that on the classified side, the intelligence committee, like you guys would know that a foreign government was briefing the president and why he should enter a war, right? No, one, an article two, obviously article one, the Congress, we've got a class, we've got a classified place where we go, where we get briefed. The White House is, you know, a different article, the Constitution, they do their own thing, as you know. But we it's very common to share intelligence with our allies. So if you're telling me if we were doing intelligent sharing and strategic sharing as we do with our allies all the time, that's would be completely, that's not what I'm saying. No, I'm saying that I'm saying that BB encouraged Trump to get into the war. I just I think that that's just a fact, isn't it? I wouldn't know I wasn't there. I have no idea what was in current. Do you think that we would be in the war if BB was against it? Do I think that we thought there was a national interest for the United States of America to get involved here, which to protect America's national interests? Absolutely. You think we would have gone alone? You think we would have done this war alone without BBs? Again, you're asking me questions that I don't know the answer to. Well, I know what I asked. I know what I could ask the head of the CIA, and I know what I asked the director of national intelligence. Well, you also said you can't trust the national national director of national intelligence. So I'm not that surprised that she lied to you. But yeah, but it comports with what I've been briefed on. But it was the only public setting. The reason I asked that in a public setting is because we don't ever get a public, as you probably know, there's only like we don't often get a public setting to ask questions. Most of the stuff we do is in a classified setting below ground. It's not public. I think one thing, like we both are concerned about the increasing anti-Semitism in this country. I know you've talked about it. And so it worries me. I think that an average American... That's why I'm not on Piker's show. Okay, we can talk about that next. It worries me. I think that an average American would look at this war that we're in and say, I don't understand what our direct interest is. It's costing me more at the pump. Iran was... We were not responding to a recent terror attack on us from Iran. Obviously, Iran's been attacking us for a long time through proxies. But like, if you're just an average American, you're like, I don't understand why we're doing this. I hear that BB Netanyahu was encouraging Trump to do it. I don't think that it's crazy for regular people to look at this in this country and say, okay, it seems like Israel was influencing us to get into this war. And I don't know why we can't just say that. I think it creates distrust when we can't just say what is true. That's just true. Tim, how do you know... But you're just asserting some to what you just did is exactly what I have a problem with. You are basing something on... We have no facts that you know that you... You weren't in the room... You think the New York Times is wrong? There was a February 11th meeting in the situation room. BB was in the situation room. You don't think... You think that's fake news? Do I think the president and the prime minister have met and talked about Iran many times over the years? Like President Biden did with the prime minister, like President Obama did with the prime minister. Going back to the beginning of time, do I think people have talked about these threats together, our allies? Absolutely. Do I know... You didn't talk to any other allies? You didn't talk to Japan? You didn't talk to Europe? Do I know actually what caused the decision? No. And by the way, the New York Times doesn't know. And the only people who know were people who were in the decision inner circle about what actually made them make the decision. It seems like BB was in the decision inner circle. No, they planned it together. When we have gone into other conflicts before, like Obama did, Biden just did. Do you think that he didn't have consultation with our allies? Of course he did. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I don't understand why people just won't... Why we can't just say this? Why we can't just say it's true? There's a huge difference between saying somebody made us do it. They told... pushed us into it versus saying, sure, we consulted with our allies and we thought it was what that's for America's national security. What else would you call it? Besides pushed us encouraged him, influenced. What else would you call it? Like he came to... He was in the situation room making a pitch on the war two weeks before it started. What else would you call that? I think many presidents, I know because I worked for a president, I think many presidents have met with world leaders and talked about whether or not we should get involved in something or not if it was good for their national interests and but most importantly for America's national interests. And I think just because they had a meeting in the situation room, so big deal. And it's a pretty big deal. We started a war that Donald Trump said he was running against the war. He said no war with Iran. He did not lay a predicate for the war. There was not an imminent threat. Listen, you got to do this. Your view is like they just made us do it and we did it. I didn't say made. No, you said made. I didn't say that. What I said is that I think that BV pitched... I think Trump was high on his own supply after Venezuela and he thought this is easy to do this. And I think that... I think that... Yeah. And I think he's like this is easy doing these little regime change things. This is fun. This is a lot easier than getting things passed through Congress. I got a deal with assholes like Gottheimer. So this I can be the decision maker. I think Trump's really hot on it. And I think that BV went to him and said, hey, these guys in Iran, they tried to kill you. We've got great intelligence. We've got this plan. This could be the moment. They're very vulnerable. We can topple them. And Trump said, hell yeah, I'm on board. So I'm not saying that Trump has agency. I'm not saying that he was tricked or something. But I think that, obviously, this is something that Netanyahu's wanted to do for a long time. And he made the case to Trump and Trump said, I'm on board. I just think that that obviously happened. No? I guess history will find out. I have no idea. Why do you think he did it? Why do you think he decided to get in right now? I think he was president once before Iran was a threat then. He's been president for a year and three months. Why did he decide to do it now? Because I believe, and this is actually what hopefully will find out ultimately, I believe he looked at certain threat intelligence against the United States of America and made a decision what he thought was best as the commander in chief. Right? I think that's what happened. He looked at the facts. He thought there was a threat. Like we had a threat. Like an imminent threat on the homeland. I mean, Tim, you're asking me to ask questions that I don't know the answer to. Okay. Well, you said that you based on intelligence that you said that he looked at the threat assessment. I think you're asking me what, how I think he made his decision. I think he, I think he made his decision. Okay. So again, I just think that if you're a regular American, I appreciate it. It makes a decision. Yeah. I mean, that's probably what he did. Yeah. This is just very, I understand. I'm sorry. I don't mean, like this is frustrating. I just think that it's like, if a congressman who is on the intelligence committee doesn't know why Trump decided to do it and doesn't, and there, there's no tangible imminent threat and Trump has been president once before and he said he wasn't going to do a war with Iran. And all of a sudden he's like, Hey, I'm going to go to war with Iran. And the result is that American soldiers die and that people see a massive increase in their price of gas. Like people are going to be like, what in the hell is happening? And I think that they would have a right to be upset about it. And you, and you're not, do you, I wish you would, don't you agree that people would be, that that's, people should have a right to be upset about that if you don't even know why we did it? By the way, what I think it would know what I said was I, you asked me like, what was the conversation? What happened in a strategic decision? I wasn't there. But I'll tell you this. I, what I said to you was, I've seen intelligence over time and seen threats from Iran and like where, where I see very deep concerns that people like me had. Do I know what ultimately made him make the decision? As you're asking me, no, I wasn't there. I wasn't in the situation room. This is why I actually believe the war powers act was triggered. I believe the president has 60 days to come to us, to ask for an authorization of force or for a declaration of war. I think April 28th is coming up very fast. I think the expectation from all of us in Congress will be you will lay out exactly your objectives, your reasoning, your timelines and your goals. And if you want funding, you will do the same thing. You either get an AUMF or you will get a declaration of war or you will get the hell out. And that's what I believe. And I think by the way, as I start where I started this conversation to him was he still hasn't laid out clearly to me, to the American people or to the Congress, what he hopes to achieve, what a win looks like for the commander in chief. There's only one commander in chief. There's not 635 or 535 or 135. There's only one commander in chief. And so I say that because he has to make certain decisions. He has access to certain information that I don't have, even though I'm on the Intelligence Committee, I'm not on the I don't get access to all the military stuff. I don't get access to everything. The point is the president should come make the case before the Congress, his people should come make the case. They should go before our committees. They should lay this out and answer to the questions that you're asking and that I have questions about as well and make the case to the public. And so you're asking me like what I'm pissed off about. That's what I'm pissed off about. Are you asking me do I think Iran, the government deserves, does the we deserve to take down the government of Iran, this regime who's killed tens of thousands of their own people and killed scores of Americans with death to America as their banner? Do I think they should get them? Absolutely. And that you asked me that as well. And I'm not changing my view on that. That's what my view is. So that's the last thing that so you're a gettable vote for authorization military force if they came to you and said, Hey, here's what we're here's what our plan is after April 28. We have another month we need you to funding might would you be open to voting for do hypotheticals. I want to know what the hell their argument is. I'll meet with them and understand where we are and get that information. And then I'll make a decision. Not doing hypotheticals as an answer in itself because it's not a no, you're not a no. Some people would some people would just be a no right now. These guys are saying that way that is deeply irresponsible to just say no to that before getting briefed by the before getting briefed. I think it's kind of I would say deeply irresponsible to give Donald Trump who threatened to end a civilization today one cent for a war. I would do what I would say is responsible. But I learned tomorrow they had something that could cause mass destruction to you and your family. I would have a very different view. Well, of course, right. Sure. Nobody's even saying that's what they have that. That's why that's why I actually would want to do my homework and understand what our military has to tell me about where we are. Right. And I apologize. I wanted to do AI. I wanted to do Piker, but it's just we're trying to get I'm just trying to get to the answer because I don't I guess this is the frustrating thing about this conversation. I do about because it's a frustrating thing. It's like we're in this thing and they can't explain it. And so now we have to kind of process their incoherence. And to me, like, I just I just think it's much easier to oppose it. Yeah. It's very upsetting. And we've got troops on the ground and harms way. We've got a straight set obviously is not under our control. We've got ships that are stuck. Yeah, I mean, I'm very pissed off about the situation. But at the end of the day, I'm going to do my job. And that's what I feel deep responsibility to do my job. Fair enough. We have a rain check for you to yell at me about Piker and do another time. Come on. What do you want to do? Okay, we can do it now. Do you want what do you want to do? I'll I got nowhere to be. I was I was being respectful of your time. But we can do a rain check. We can do it now, whatever you want. Okay, well, I have I have five minutes, it looks like five minutes. All right, let's do it. Five. I think that's fair. Five minutes you get to pick. Do you want to yell at me about Hassan Piker? Do you want to talk about AI? I'm concerned about AI. I'd love to hear you. I'm not yelling about Hassan Piker unless you like want to say that we should we should. Are you a big Hassan Piker fan? I'm not a big Hassan Piker fan. I think that the Democrats should have a message for their audience, though. But, you know, are you concerned? Like, and should we also go on Alex Jones and talk to him? Well, I mean, I think that it would be probably pretty good for the Democrats to go on to some MAGA MAGA podcasts of America first podcast and talk to them about the ways that Donald Trump has betrayed them. Yeah, I think that would probably be good. And you have to make a decision on a case by case basis. Some of these people are just trolls. But if there's somebody who's to have a have a good faith conversation, yeah, sure. I would not like to legitimize like Candace Owens. I mean, Candace Owens is talking about how Brigitte Macron is a dick and like there's bees, the kill, you know, bee cult. So I probably wouldn't do that one either. But if somebody disagrees, that's then that's fine. Do I think we should legitimize people who are like, like, like, should people Democrats go and invite supremacist shows and say, well, they deserve to be heard because they have a lot of followers? No. I mean, like, we should have a debate with them because they're like, you know, I that's just not what I believe. I don't believe you should legitimize people who are white supremacists. So like, I would not recommend that we go on a bunch of white supremacist shows because they have a lot of followers. But like, I don't think that's a good out. That's a good outcome for the country. I just I think it's bad if you let all the cranks align under one side. And sometimes, you know, it's important to have a message for people. I'm not saying that again, not legitimize, you can argue, we argued, you came on today, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with a good, healthy debate. But and I wouldn't go on some like basement podcasts of some white supremacists nobody's ever heard of. But if there's a prominent America first person or a prominent person, what are you talking about? Yeah, exactly. There's a prominent far left person that they could hear an argument. I'm for that. I don't think the Democrats did this was any favors by not good by being like, burn the witch when Bernie went on Joe Rogan. I don't think that paid off. So I don't know. I'm for I'm for talking. I'm a talker. I'm a rapper, Josh. People to profit and amplify insane views that are deeply offensive to a lot of Americans. And like, that's, and that's part of my concern is not like giving legitimacy to them. And if what you're saying is you just go on and scream at them and tell them why they're crazy the whole time, then okay, maybe I'll like, I go on and try to make the case. I mean, I again, this goes back to our earlier conversation about Israel. Like, I think you're giving a I think that one way to give legitimacy to anti-Semitic cranks is to like, tell them that they can't believe their lion eyes. Like, you know, and I think that the conflating, you know, Jewishness with every decision that BB Netanyahu makes, I think gives ammo to anti-Semitic cranks. I think the insane amount of disinformation that I see out there on a daily basis about about Israel, about Jews, about different organizations is like, it's so insane. Like the fake, there's a lot of bad info out there, no doubt, shit that's put out there on a daily basis, like it's so nuts that like, you know, you know, it, it, I don't want to give more credibility to people who propagate bullshit and lies and disinformation. And I think we got to be very careful. I definitely got to be very careful with that. Anyway, we're gonna do AI next time. We're gonna do AI next time. Okay, it was your fault. You got to pick. You got to pick. I was gonna let you pick. Okay, Congressman Josh Gottheimer, bro, thank you very much for coming on. See, having a disagreement across, you know, same party lines, same party lines. All right, brother, we'll see you soon. Okay.