The President Should Avoid Public Speaking
...at least when the topic is important.
Some issues are just too important to be left to an unscripted Joe Biden. This is not CNN and your humble correspondent is not a doctor so this column will not be offering a long-distance diagnosis of the president's mental health or an assessment of how his cognition compares to that of other world leaders. But these are dangerous times and we would all be much safer if Mr. Biden would make greater use of prepared statements on subjects such as, for example, weapons of mass destruction.
Two months after a bumbling press conference in which Mr. Biden implied that a "minor incursion" by Russia into Ukraine might be tolerable to the U.S. and its allies, the President flew to Europe this week and somehow ended up taking questions from reporters at NATO headquarters in Brussels.
Yes, it's important for all of us to be able to hear from our elected officials and to assess the content of their remarks as well as the skill and conviction with which they advocate for their policies. But this particular elected official does not appear to be up to the task. While we consider the implications, Mr. Biden should try to say as little as possible in public during an international crisis.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-president-should-avoid-public-speaking-11648247289?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

If we cannot trust the man to speak rationally how can we possibly expect him to govern rationally? If Biden is a puppet, how can we trust the puppeteers when they chose such an incompetent puppet?!? Either way, everyone loses.

Wangchung said:

---

If we cannot trust the man to speak rationally how can we possibly expect him to govern rationally? If Biden is a puppet, how can we trust the puppeteers when they chose such an incompetent puppet?!? Either way, everyone loses.

---

No argument. But, make the best of what we have. Joe don't speak. Kamala... ok, Pelosi... Blinken... ok, Garland... AOC? ok, Senate. Schumer... I am at a loss. Who can speak without screwing it up or getting us in worse trouble????

Wait a sec. I thought just last week we were thanking god that Biden was leading us. What gives?

Mothra said:

---

Wait a sec. I thought just last week we were thanking god that Biden was leading us. What gives?

---

Conditions chenge. He has done good things and bad things. This is as bad as it gets, So, a different response. Not a hard concept.

RMF5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

If we cannot trust the man to speak rationally how can we possibly expect him to govern rationally? If Biden is a puppet, how can we trust the puppeteers when they chose such an incompetent puppet?!? Either way, everyone loses.

---

No argument. But, make the best of what we have. Joe don't speak. Kamala... ok, Pelosi... Blinken... ok, Garland... AOC? ok, Senate. Schumer... I am at a loss. Who can speak without screwing it up or getting us in worse trouble????

---

Tulsi Gabbard. She is of course controoled by the Chinese.....or was it the Russians, per Hillary Clinton.

RMF5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

If we cannot trust the man to speak rationally how can we possibly expect him to govern rationally? If Biden is a puppet, how can we trust the puppeteers when they chose such an incompetent puppet?!? Either way, everyone loses.

---

No argument. But, make the best of what we have. Joe don't speak. Kamala... ok, Pelosi... Blinken... ok, Garland... AOC? ok, Senate. Schumer... I am at a loss. Who can speak without screwing it up or getting us in worse trouble????

---

Additionally, could one or more of those same people be the puppeteers I mentioned? Would make no difference who steps up, we're that the case.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Wait a sec. I thought just last week we were thanking god that Biden was leading us. What gives?

---

Conditions chenge. He has done good things and bad things. This is as bad as it gets, So, a different response. Not a hard concept.

---

This may come as a shock to you it appears, but some people are capable of predicting a future response to circumstances based on a past response to circumstances, even circumstances that may be fluid. By way of example, we can look at a presidents track record on foreign policy matters and typically have a pretty idea of how he will respond to similar circumstances in the future. By way of another example, we can look at a presidents numerous gaffes when he goes off script and predict that future gaffes will occur, some of which may be dangerous. In short, Biden saying what he said wasn't difficult for reasonable people to predict. It's what he's done for years. Many people knew this last week and the week before (present company excluded of course).

I realize you like to use the excuse that "conditions change," but a president should always be one step ahead of his enemies. He has people that surround him and access to intelligence that helps him strategize and respond to future events. In short, regardless of changing conditions, a president should know better than to say what Biden said. It's not that difficult.

The Democrats went with these two over Tulsi Gabbard? Seriously?

Tulsi is pretty far left for my preference, but I doubt she would have bungled Afghanistan or Ukraine like Biden has. I also think she is fair minded enough to modify her policies and thinking if they get bad results.

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

The Democrats went with these two over Tulsi Gabbard? Seriously?

Tulsi is pretty far left for my preference, but I doubt she would have bungled Afghanistan or Ukraine like Biden has. I also think she is fair minded enough to modify her policies and thinking if they get bad results.

---

No question, Tulsi is a Lefty, yet she can deliver a coherent message that makes one think her opinion is worth a listen.

it's a stutter...

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

The Democrats went with these two over Tulsi Gabbard? Seriously?

Tulsi is pretty far left for my preference, but I doubt she would have bungled Afghanistan or Ukraine like Biden has. I also think she is fair minded enough to modify her policies and thinking if they get bad results.

---

No way Tulsi makes it out of a Dem primary. Our primary system is fkd.

ABC BEAR said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

The Democrats went with these two over Tulsi Gabbard? Seriously?

Tulsi is pretty far left for my preference, but I doubt she would have bungled Afghanistan or Ukraine like Biden has. I also think she is fair minded enough to modify her policies and thinking if they get bad results.

---

No question, Tulsi is a Lefty, yet she can deliver a coherent message that makes one think her opinion is worth a listen.

---

Totally agree ABC BEAR. Am I mistaken or has she been taking the centerline lately? She doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting the nomination, but we'd be better off with her in charge. She doesn't appear to be corrupt or cornered by politicians. That's why she cannot advance.

We elected a guy President who shouldn't be allowed to speak in public.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

The Democrats went with these two over Tulsi Gabbard? Seriously?

Tulsi is pretty far left for my preference, but I doubt she would have bungled Afghanistan or Ukraine like Biden has. I also think she is fair minded enough to modify her policies and thinking if they get bad results.

---

Agreed


Would have voted for her over Trump or Biden .

Canada2017 said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

The Democrats went with these two over Tulsi Gabbard? Seriously?

Tulsi is pretty far left for my preference, but I doubt she would have bungled Afghanistan or Ukraine like Biden has. I also think she is fair minded enough to modify her policies and thinking if they get bad results.

---

Agreed



Would have voted for her over Trump or Biden .

---

Not a fan, but would be better than Biden or Harris.

I would certainly trade some mean tweets for some competent leadership. This clown is going to get us into a nuclear war.

'Well what I would do, is I would -- we would -- we have tremendous military capability. And what we can do without planes, to be honest with you, without 44-year-old jets, what we can do is enormous, and we should be doing it and we should be helping them to survive and they're doing an amazing job' -- DJT on how to handle Ukraine

timetraveler said:

---

'Well what I would do, is I would -- we would -- we have tremendous military capability. And what we can do without planes, to be honest with you, without 44-year-old jets, what we can do is enormous, and we should be doing it and we should be helping them to survive and they're doing an amazing job' -- DJT on how to handle Ukraine

---

And that rhetoric kept Putin at bay for 4 straight years.

I did not believe this was real until I watched the video.

I get that presidents need to be reminded what their policy is on some obscure corners of governance. But this is a simple question about the centerpiece of current U.S. foreign policy.
https://t.co/pgxhQIjx6d https://t.co/2DFKhK9fPi

— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) March 29, 2022

BearFan33 said:

---

I would certainly trade some mean tweets for some competent leadership. This clown is going to get us into a nuclear war.

---

Less than 5% of the American people have even the slightest understanding of the destructive power of a hydrogen bomb.

As the last above ground explosion of such a device was half a century ago .

Worse, our current commander in chief is suffering from dementia.

And there is not a single DC power broker who is unaware of this fact .

Of course then you have Harris.

Who possesses the hate of a full on racist combined with the intelligence of a longtime crack ***** .

And 40% of the American people still approve of their job performance.




40 bloody percent .

Cobretti said:

---

I did not believe this was real until I watched the video.

I get that presidents need to be reminded what their policy is on some obscure corners of governance. But this is a simple question about the centerpiece of current U.S. foreign policy.
https://t.co/pgxhQIjx6d https://t.co/2DFKhK9fPi

— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) March 29, 2022

---

Who is telling him what to say? Seriously, who is running our country right now?

I had the same thought. Who wrote that card?

Completely tossing out possibilities I would guess Chief of Staff Ron Klain is heavily involved but I know little about him.

Wangchung said:

---

timetraveler said:

---

'Well what I would do, is I would -- we would -- we have tremendous military capability. And what we can do without planes, to be honest with you, without 44-year-old jets, what we can do is enormous, and we should be doing it and we should be helping them to survive and they're doing an amazing job' -- DJT on how to handle Ukraine

---

And that rhetoric kept Putin at bay for 4 straight years.

---

specifically in the Crimea bay

riflebear said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

I did not believe this was real until I watched the video.

I get that presidents need to be reminded what their policy is on some obscure corners of governance. But this is a simple question about the centerpiece of current U.S. foreign policy.
https://t.co/pgxhQIjx6d https://t.co/2DFKhK9fPi

— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) March 29, 2022

---

Who is telling him what to say? Seriously, who is running our country right now?

---

How many people do you think are in the executive branch?

Canada2017 said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

I would certainly trade some mean tweets for some competent leadership. This clown is going to get us into a nuclear war.

---

Less than 5% of the American people have even the slightest understanding of the destructive power of a hydrogen bomb.

As the last above ground explosion of such a device was half a century ago .

Worse, our current commander in chief is suffering from dementia.

And there is not a single DC power broker who is unaware of this fact .

Of course then you have Harris.

Who combines the hate of a full on racist combined with the intelligence of a longtime crack ***** .

And 40% of the American people still approve of their job performance.




40 bloody percent .

---

I've watched many documentaries about the H bomb and am intrigued by the nuclear computer programs that let you project the damage from different size warheads. I know exactly what they would do, yet would be virtually helpless to do anything about it.

timetraveler said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

timetraveler said:

---

'Well what I would do, is I would -- we would -- we have tremendous military capability. And what we can do without planes, to be honest with you, without 44-year-old jets, what we can do is enormous, and we should be doing it and we should be helping them to survive and they're doing an amazing job' -- DJT on how to handle Ukraine

---

And that rhetoric kept Putin at bay for 4 straight years.

---

specifically in the Crimea bay

---

Yes, things are so much better now that he is invading Ukraine...

Forest Bueller said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

I would certainly trade some mean tweets for some competent leadership. This clown is going to get us into a nuclear war.

---

Less than 5% of the American people have even the slightest understanding of the destructive power of a hydrogen bomb.

As the last above ground explosion of such a device was half a century ago .

Worse, our current commander in chief is suffering from dementia.

And there is not a single DC power broker who is unaware of this fact .

Of course then you have Harris.

Who combines the hate of a full on racist combined with the intelligence of a longtime crack ***** .

And 40% of the American people still approve of their job performance.




40 bloody percent .

---

I've watched many documentaries about the H bomb and am intrigued by the nuclear computer programs that let you project the damage from different size warheads. I know exactly what they would do, yet would be virtually helpless to do anything about it.

---

I have done work on emergency response and my friend does NRC analysis on transportation impacts for nuclear plants. There are no good answers if things go bad. Risks are low with US technology and regulations (strong regs a good thing with nuclear)

Canada2017 said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

I would certainly trade some mean tweets for some competent leadership. This clown is going to get us into a nuclear war.

---

Less than 5% of the American people have even the slightest understanding of the destructive power of a hydrogen bomb.

As the last above ground explosion of such a device was half a century ago .

Worse, our current commander in chief is suffering from dementia.

And there is not a single DC power broker who is unaware of this fact .

Of course then you have Harris.

Who combines the hate of a full on racist combined with the intelligence of a longtime crack ***** .

And 40% of the American people still approve of their job performance.




40 bloody percent .

---

Hydrogen bombs wouldn't get within 25 miles of the US defense perimeter. They require big planes that are easily shot down by air defenses. SLBMs are the worry followed by MIRV ICBMs. But those actions are world enders.

Canada2017 said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

I would certainly trade some mean tweets for some competent leadership. This clown is going to get us into a nuclear war.

---

Less than 5% of the American people have even the slightest understanding of the destructive power of a hydrogen bomb.

As the last above ground explosion of such a device was half a century ago .

Worse, our current commander in chief is suffering from dementia.

And there is not a single DC power broker who is unaware of this fact .

Of course then you have Harris.

Who possesses the hate of a full on racist combined with the intelligence of a longtime crack ***** .

And 40% of the American people still approve of their job performance.

40 bloody percent .

---

I'm not excusing it and yes the fact that the "approval" numbers for this obvious disaster on steroids are even anywhere near 40% is alarming, but I'm betting if we had anything approaching a fair and impartial media the number wouldn't even be 20%.

ATL Bear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

I would certainly trade some mean tweets for some competent leadership. This clown is going to get us into a nuclear war.

---

Less than 5% of the American people have even the slightest understanding of the destructive power of a hydrogen bomb.

As the last above ground explosion of such a device was half a century ago .

Worse, our current commander in chief is suffering from dementia.

And there is not a single DC power broker who is unaware of this fact .

Of course then you have Harris.

Who combines the hate of a full on racist combined with the intelligence of a longtime crack ***** .

And 40% of the American people still approve of their job performance.




40 bloody percent .

---

Hydrogen bombs wouldn't get within 25 miles of the US defense perimeter. They require big planes that are easily shot down by air defenses. SLBMs are the worry followed by MIRV ICBMs. But those actions are world enders.

---

Planes are the least of our worries .

Russian submarines located off our coasts in international waters could destroy 70% of our country in an initial strike all by themselves . Doubt those subs would even need to launch a 2nd strike .

They are so close that we would have 45 minutes notice of their launch....or less.

Any moron blindly pushing for Ukraine's defense or Putin's removal while blissfully promoting the fantasy that a nuclear holocaust is impossible shouldn't be allowed to reproduce .

Canada2017 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

I would certainly trade some mean tweets for some competent leadership. This clown is going to get us into a nuclear war.

---

Less than 5% of the American people have even the slightest understanding of the destructive power of a hydrogen bomb.

As the last above ground explosion of such a device was half a century ago .

Worse, our current commander in chief is suffering from dementia.

And there is not a single DC power broker who is unaware of this fact .

Of course then you have Harris.

Who combines the hate of a full on racist combined with the intelligence of a longtime crack ***** .

And 40% of the American people still approve of their job performance.




40 bloody percent .

---

Hydrogen bombs wouldn't get within 25 miles of the US defense perimeter. They require big planes that are easily shot down by air defenses. SLBMs are the worry followed by MIRV ICBMs. But those actions are world enders.

---

Planes are the least of our worries .

Russian submarines located off our coasts in international waters could destroy 70% of our country in an initial strike all by themselves . Doubt those subs would even need to launch a 2nd strike .

They are so close that we would have 45 minutes notice of their launch....or less.

Any moron blindly pushing for Ukraine's defense or Putin's removal while blissfully promoting the fantasy that a nuclear holocaust is impossible shouldn't be allowed to reproduce .

---

Using the logic of the nuclear holocaust group, might as well start signing the deeds over to those that are willing to threaten us. Russia, Iran and North Korea will all be lining up for their take. Can't stop them or say no, they have nuclear weapons. What's the point, give up all US positions overseas and let's hope they never cross the oceans because they just may end the world unless we capitulate.

Because when they cross into NATO, it will be it's only the Baltics. What does Denmark really contribute? Is it worth dying for Finland (non-NATO)? Do we really want the Virgin Island? How about Long Island, it is really not attached to the US? Nobody like Floridians. Yeah, I can see the point, I never liked Massachusetts

Wangchung said:

---

timetraveler said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

timetraveler said:

---

'Well what I would do, is I would -- we would -- we have tremendous military capability. And what we can do without planes, to be honest with you, without 44-year-old jets, what we can do is enormous, and we should be doing it and we should be helping them to survive and they're doing an amazing job' -- DJT on how to handle Ukraine

---

And that rhetoric kept Putin at bay for 4 straight years.

---

specifically in the Crimea bay

---

Yes, things are so much better now that he is invading Ukraine...

---

Trump had 4 years to get Putin to stop invading Ukraine, and he failed miserably.

timetraveler said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

timetraveler said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

timetraveler said:

---

'Well what I would do, is I would -- we would -- we have tremendous military capability. And what we can do without planes, to be honest with you, without 44-year-old jets, what we can do is enormous, and we should be doing it and we should be helping them to survive and they're doing an amazing job' -- DJT on how to handle Ukraine

---

And that rhetoric kept Putin at bay for 4 straight years.

---

specifically in the Crimea bay

---

Yes, things are so much better now that he is invading Ukraine...

---

Trump had 4 years to get Putin to stop invading Ukraine, and he failed miserably.

---

Yes those four years where Putin didn't invade Ukraine sure were a terrible failure by Trump to keep Putin from invading...Ukraine.