more on the political debate over the war in Iran, we turn now to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That's the Atlantic's David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MS Now. Great to see you both. I am. So as we sit here and speak now we report at the top of the show, there's still a US crew member from that downed fighter jet missing.

A search and rescue operation underway. We know Iranians were also able to shoot down another aircraft over the Gulf shot off at Blackhop helicopter that returned to base safely. Iranian leaders are looking for that missing crew member on the ground. David, all of this is just two days after the president said an address to the nation that the US had crippled the Iranian military and the war was nearly over.

What's your reaction to all of this? Yeah, this is one of the disadvantages of having a huckster for president that he does just, he can't tell the American people that when you're going to war, it's horrible.

Uh, and that Iran is a serious country that's been preparing for this for nearly half a century, and they're going to fight back and they're going to make countermoves like this or like the Straits of Hormos. To me, what happened, you know, I've been somewhat moderately hoping there'd be some positive outcome, and I think there has been some. We've had to go to the Middle East for almost every decade for the last 50 years because of radical Islam, which the Iranian regime typifies, but this is clearly the week when the cost of the war are so exponentially larger than the benefits of what we're getting in these marginal weeks, the cost to Russia is now getting all this revenue Iran is getting all this revenue. The European economy and the world economies are in crisis. NATO is in shreds, and so the costs are just exorbitant now, not to mention the human suffering. And so if Trump doesn't see that we're losing. Every day he continues this thing. He's gonna just face more and more political problems, military problems, and all sorts of problems. And so he just needs to admit that what's going on, and I doubt he has the mental ability to do that, Jonathan. I mean this is a war of choice, um, we didn't need to do, take this action now. Um, what's funny but not funny, playing on cable right now on a loop is Top Gun Maverick. And if anyone has seen that movie, the whole plot is about a US military operation deep inside Iran and two fighter pilots have to eject out of their out of their planes. I bring that up because there was more of a plan in the fictional plot of Top Gun Maverick.

Then there appears to be in this very real, very live situation in the United States war with Iran. Look, I applaud the president for finally addressing the American people that he is a month too late and told us nothing we had not already heard from him, from his administration, through in various ways. What he should have done was told the American people really why we went, how we're getting out, and then spend more than half a phrase on the 13 service members who lost their lives in this war of choice, his choice. Yes, David, to Jonathan's point here is that those 19 minutes that the president addressed the nation, right?

He said this is why we're here. This is what we're there to do. There were some contradictory statements. There's negotiations ongoing, but we're going to bomb them back to the Stone Ages. We're winning, but there's still a lot of work to do. Did you get clarity on what the goal of this war is from that speech. I got reversed clarity.

You know, if you go back to the Trump's first book, The Art of the Deal, I don't know if it's the first book, that early book, The Art of the Deal. He would talk about how he tries to confuse everybody by multiple different options, and I say this, I try this, I do that, it's all like a weave or chaotic weave, as he would say. Uh, but when you're running a war when you're asking people to risk their lives and in some cases lose their lives. You owe some clarity to the country. Uh, and you owe some clarity on the idea that this is what we're going to try to do, and if he had said, we're trying to make it impossible for Iran to be a regional power. That's a defined aim. I think it's a plausible aim, but when it shifts every day, you're not just confusing the Iranians. Can you imagine fighting in this war, and where you don't know what the president wants you to do or what the goal here is. It's a horrible position to put anybody in. What's your take on the speech Well, I think I've said a lot about the speech, but again, it's a month too late.

quite honestly Meanwhile, of course, all of this was delivered against the backdrop of some very tough polls for the president. You've seen these new CNN poll this week showed that roughly 2/3 of Americans say that the president's policies have worsened economic conditions in the United States. And then there was this video I'm sure you saw. It was the president's remarks at a closed press event that was first posted, then later deleted from the White House YouTube account in which she talks about some of his budget priorities. Take a listen. It's not possible for us to take care of daycare. Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things they can do it on a state basis.

You can't do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing military protection. We have to guard the country. David, we just reported today that the defense budget request from the president is 1.5 trillion, one of the largest requests in modern history. What happened to the whole affordability message. Well, I mean, gas prices went up, you know, he can't, they can't keep a model on this. One of the things that strikes me about Trump is a basic loss of basic economic knowledge.

So for example, in reference to the Iran war, he said it's not our problem because we don't use oil that goes through the Straits of Hormos, and literally that's true, but what he does not seem to understand is that global energy markets are global markets. We have one global economy and it raises prices here just as it does everywhere else around the world. It's not like we're not being heard. The second thing he doesn't understand, and he's not the first president to misunderstand this, is that you can't, it's very, very hard to create manufacturing jobs. He promised to create manufacturing jobs. We've lost 100,000. Joe Biden tried to create manufacturing jobs. I think one year Joe Biden lost 200,000. This is a long term trend. China has lost tens of millions in manufacturing jobs as the economy moves forward, you lose manufacturing jobs, and the idea that the tariffs and the other things we're going to restore manufacturing jobs without costing Americans money at the cash register. That was always a fantasy, and yet he just, he's like he's living in an economic model of, I don't know, 1942 or something like that. Uh, we live in a global economy, and he does not know how it works s and as a result you get these policy failures, and Jonathan, there is so much frustration out there, right on the economy, on a lot of other issues, we saw a lot of that in the streets in those massive no kings protests that took place just a few days ago.

Larger attendance this time than even last time they were held, the frustration is there are Democrats doing enough to tap into it, to mobilize that? I would think so. I mean, I don't know for sure. They better be. Look, I think this is the 4th no Kings r ally and as you, as you pointed out, each rally has been bigger than the one that preceded it, this last one was the largest of all of them.

Um, put aside whether Democrats are taking advantage of all this.

What we're seeing on on the streets of America are people who are angry and frustrated. Most of them are probably Democrats, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some Republicans. If there were some people who voted for Trump who are not happy with the way he is conducting the economy, the war, the country I mean we're talking about an admini president who doesn't have any economic knowledge or his economic knowledge sort of sits firmly in the 1980s. Um, but you also have a uh an administration that's filled with very rich people. Um, billionaires, people who are saying 11 per one cabinet secretary said that all people needed to have was a piece of chicken, uh, a piece of broccoli, a tortilla tortilla, and something else. You had the Commerce Secretary, who is a billionaire, say if my mother-in-law didn't get her Medicaid check or Social Security check, she wouldn't complain. She would just wait. I'm sorry, you were living in a completely different world than the rest of America, and I think that the president by saying what he said there doesn't quite understand the people, uh, in the country that he is running. Speaking of the members of his administration, we have now seen the 2nd cabinet member fired in a month by the president, the Attorney General Pam Bondi is out after 14 months in office. There have been a few names already floated as possible replacements, including the EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, US Attorney in DC Janine Pirro, the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche senators like Eric Schmidt and Mike Lee. David, what do you make of the decision to fire her and who do you think replaces her?

Our friend Ruth Marcus had a piece in The New Yorker today, uh, saying she of all the attorney generals in the history of America, she's the worst. And that's very plausible argument could be made.

Uh, she gutted the, the agency, the any uh lawyer with integrity or most of them, they just can't stomach this. Uh, her handling of the Epstein files was obviously horrendous, uh, and she was ineffective at doing the illegal things that that she tried to do on behalf of Donald Trump. And so the difference with this and the Christine No firing was that no Homeland Security, former Homeland Security, one got the sense that Trump knew that the ICE policy had gone too far.

The Bondi fire, one has the sense he believes the Justice Department and the lawfare, the prosecuting political enemies didn't go far enough. So one assumes that he's going to pick somebody who will go farther, and that's why I would love to see a Mike Lee, for example.

He's at least, he's an intelligent man with an independent career.

I doubt we're going to see somebody like that. I think we will see somebody wholly owned by Donald Trump, who will do whatever he wants, which is to further politicize the department. OK, the one person who I'm saying it here right now, who will not be the next Attorney General of the United States is Jeanine Pirro. I mean, why do you say that?

Famously, the famous adages, you know, pro prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. She literally could not indict a guy who threw a sandwich wasn't ham. I think it was salami or something at a federal officer could not indict that person, so no, she shouldn't be attorney general. My, my money is on Deputy Attorney General, now acting acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. I don't know if he can actually get there because of legal things, but he is exactly who David is talking about, someone who is a wholly owned person. He was the president's personal attorney through all of those his legal fights when he was no longer president, including the one where Donald Trump got convicted.

So either Todd Blanche or a member of the Senate, because that's those are the only two people who I could imagine could get through Senate confirmation. Well, wasn't Todd Blanchard in 30 seconds we have left, also went down to meet with Kalaine Maxwell in prison. They want that coming up in a confirmation hearing, you think? Hey, look, Trump wants what he wants, although we don't know who he wants yet, so we'll find out. We will find out. Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, always great to see you both. Thank you.