‘Yes or No!?’ Joe Scarborough Loses Patience With Chuck Schumer in Heated Iran Debate

Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough pressed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) hard on Monday over whether or not President Donald Trump deserves some credit for degrading Iran’s military infrastructure.

During a discussion about the war winding down, Schumer tried to pivot and began, “Here’s how we ought to get out.”

Scarborough refused to move on and added, “No, no, no. Hold on a second. You’ve got to answer my question first. Yeah. Is it a good thing that Iran—and I think you would agree with me—epicenter of terrorism in the world since 1979, is it good that their military infrastructure is being degraded to the degree that it is, yes or no?”

“You can’t, because it’s a premature question. What is going to happen in the next several months?” Schumer hit back.

“No, no. No, no, I can ask that question,” Scarborough insisted as Schumer added, “I’d separate.”

“No, no, no. I can’t,” Scarborough said, adding, “So you have a military side. But I can show you my chart. But I think, a third away, you have the military side. You have the political side. I’m simply asking, on the military side, is it good? Regardless of whether we agree with going in or not, is it good that Iran’s military infrastructure has been seriously degraded?”

“And again, I have to tell you, Joe, first, you can’t—what’s going to happen three months from now? Is it worth it? What’s going to happen? Will the world economy collapse? Will something happen even worse? Will the whole energy infrastructure of the world go up in smoke? So you have to—when they do it without planning, when they do without understanding where they’re going—” Schumer replied.

“Senator, senator,” Scarborough tried to cut in as Schumer added, “Where they’re going. I don’t think it’s fair.”

“But it’s a trick question. But I don’t think it’s fair,” jumped in co-host Mika Brzezinski, adding:

It’s a trick question, because if you do not strategize the consequences of the action, the military action—if you obliterate and do all these things, but you don’t actually play out in your minds and have a strategy for the consequences—then it may not be good.

“Oh, let me answer the question for everybody in America. The answer is yes. It’s good that the terrorist regime’s military and capabilities have been degraded radically,” continued Scarborough before asking: “What is the political impact? What’s the impact in the straits? What’s the impact in the region?”

“Joe, in all due respect, if you ask the American people, if you have the choice of degrading the military structure in Iran but having gasoline be $6 a gallon and our economy falling into a deep recession where millions lose their jobs, what do you think Americans would—” Schumer hit back.

“Senator, you’re not listening to me. That’s the political side of it,” replied Scarborough.

“No, it’s not political. It’s a consequence, just like Mika said,” Schumer insisted.

“Why don’t we talk about the Yankees, because you’re not following me here,” Scarborough replied as Schumer insisted, “I am following you. I just don’t agree with you.”

“You don’t understand me. There’s a big difference. I would say that most Americans would say it’s a good thing that it’s degraded,” Scarborough argued, adding:

Would they agree that we should have gone to war, Mike? I think most Americans—you look at the polls—they don’t want this war. They don’t want this war. But there is something that I think the Democrats should be clear about: Iran has tried to kill Americans since 1979. Two things. Hold on. Two things can be true at once. It can be good that Iran’s killing machine has been degraded. At the same time, the consequences may outweigh the good that comes from that. It’s okay to say that.

“Look, I don’t disagree with you. The fact that the leader Khamenei is gone—no one regrets that. The fact Iran has less ability to create military trouble—no one disputes that,” Schumer agreed as the debate wound down.

Watch above via MS NOW.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters"
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!