Donald Trump gave a failed April Fool's speech. It was no joke. Obviously Trump is lost and cannot find a way out of the mess he created,

Maybe Trump Should Not Have Given This Speech. His messed up "speech" raised more questions than it answered about the war in Iran. By Tom Nichols. Americans have been waiting for Donald Trump to address the nation and explain why the country is at war. 

Echo opinion about Donald Trump's failed April Fool's Day stupidity speech about Iran. 

Published by Tom Nichols in The Atlantic magazine. 

For weeks, Donald Trump offered only snippets and sound bites about his decision to lead the United States into another conflict in the Middle East; his prime-time address on April 1, 2026, might as well have been a sick April Fool's joke, His (so called) speech was, one assumes, aimed at informing and reassuring the American public.

Maybe he’d have been better off not trying. (IOW, Trump was a "Fool", for trying when he is not capable of explaining anything, much less trying to describe a reason to go to war.)

Trump’s critics (including me) castigated him for refusing to go on television and provide a comprehensive explanation about the war to the American people. But, given his April Fool's performance  his address did not come across as a wartime speech but instead was a disjointed series of complaints, brags, and exaggerations (along with a few outright lies) delivered by a man who looked and sounded tired. After his 19 minutes on the air—brisk by Trump’s standards—Americans could be forgiven for being even more concerned now than they were only a few days ago.

A speech that should have been a clear explanation about why the United States is fighting a nation of 92 million people began, instead, in shambolic style. He discussed the operation that captured the president of Venezuela, perhaps hoping to make listeners believe that the Iran war will be a similarly short operation. 

Trump then said that Iran has taken losses never seen “in the history of warfare”—as if the destruction of, say, the Axis in World War II had never happened.

Trump offered little that was new, instead repeating the same lines from a short video presentation the night that he ordered attacks on the Islamic Republic, more than one month ago. He listed—rightly and correctly—the various offenses that the fanatical Iranian regime has perpetrated against the United States and other countries for nearly a half century. 

Nevertheless, he couldn’t help himself: He patted himself on the back for killing the Iranian terror mastermind Qassem Soleimani in his first term, and for canceling the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by Barack Obama. (“Barack Hussein Obama,” of course.) The United States, Trump claimed in a strange moment, had emptied out all the banks in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia as part of that deal—“all the cash they had”—to send that “green, green” currency to Iran.

But, back to the war Trump illegally launched: What is America fighting for❓ Trump insisted that Iran must never be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. Almost no one would disagree with this general point—certainly I don’t—but Trump presented no evidence that Iran was nearing the nuclear threshold. 

Instead, Trump simply asserted that the Iranian mullahs were going to get a nuclear weapon and that the United States had to stop them: In other words, he admitted to launching a preventive war based on something that might happen one day.

Trump, however, then undercut his own point by assuring the country that Iran’s “nuclear dust” was buried under mountains of rubble, inaccessible since the great success of last June’s joint Israeli-American strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. The Iranians would never be allowed to excavate any of it, he said.

So, then, perhaps the war was about regime change, which would be the surest way to stop every evil plan gestating in Tehran, including nuclear weapons and terrorist plots. Well, no, it turns out, the war is not about that either. 🙄Trump explicitly denied that the goal was to bring down the Iranian theocracy—a staggering claim given his exhortations to the Iranian people on the first night of the war that their hour of liberation was at hand. 

After denying that the U.S. goal was regime change, he then claimed that regime change had now already happened because so many Iranian leaders have been killed.

In addition to ending Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Trump laid out three other goals that he said were now within reach: neutralizing Iran’s ability to project power anywhere through terrorism, destroying the Iranian navy, and eliminating Iran’s missile stocks and production capabilities. As with so many other Trump promises, he said that  these goals would be accomplished in two to three weeks. 

How he will do all of this was left unclear, other than that he will hit Iran “extremely hard.”

Meanwhile, Tehran still controls the important Strait of Hormuz. Trump said only that other nations should go in, clear the strait, and take Iran’s oil. He chided Americans for their impatience; the two world wars, and conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq took longer than the current war, he said. (BTW, the outcomes of all three of those wars were disasters. Korea war is still not settled, Vietnam collapsed, Iraq was based on a lie, to destroy "weapons of mass destruction" that did not exist.)

Trump He also lied when he waved away any economic concerns. Everything will get better, he promised, telling viewers that only a year ago America was a “dead and crippled country” that he personally rescued. 

Oddly, Trump claimed that the United States has never been more economically prepared for a conflict—the “little journey,” as he called it—like the one he has led against Iran.

Trump also said things that might come back to haunt him. He vowed not to let Israel or America’s friends in the Persian Gulf “get hurt or fail in any way, shape, or form,” as if Iran were not already inflicting damage on them. 

And, Trump assured Americans that gas prices would come down. (They might, but not anytime soon.) He threatened, yet again, to bomb all of Iran’s electrical plants, a likely war crime if carried out with the completeness that Trump promised, should Iran refuse to … well, do whatever it is he thinks they should do. “We are unstoppable,” he said, noting that U.S. forces were in combat against “one of the most powerful countries.” (This, too, is nonsense: It takes nothing away from U.S.-military valor to admit that Iran was at best a second-tier power even before the war.) 

America might be unstoppable, but Donald Trump is obviously at loose ends now that the Iranians have a chokehold on a major part of the world’s energy supply.

Maybe the only bright spots in the speech were in the things the president did not say. He did not, as many observers expected, prepare Americans for the introduction of ground forces into Iran. (If he now goes ahead with such an operation, he will have betrayed the public by misleading them about the course of the war.) And he did not eviscerate

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and threaten to pull out of the alliance, as some expected him to do because of his ongoing anger at major European powers’ unwillingness to join a war they did not start.

If Donald Trump meant to be reassuring, however, he missed the mark. The reality, as best we can tell, is that Trump fully expected the Iranian regime to collapse in a matter of days or weeks, and he is now flummoxed to find out that a major war is a lot more complicated than he—or (the failed) Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth—realized. The president’s delivery tonight was hardly a confidence-building exercise. He was, as he himself might say, low energy—mumbling and lapsing into the repetitive phrases that come out when he’s riffing on a point instead of reading the speech in front of him. (I lost count of how many times he said “like nobody’s ever seen” and “decimated” and “never before.”)

Donald Trump is looking like he is lost and downtrodden. Perhaps he should have stayed off the podium for a bit longer, rather than display how adrift he is to the American public and the world.

Military families and the USS Carl Vinson

Mockery, anger in South Korea over USS Carl Vinson 'bluffing'- "...no-show has caused some South Koreans to question leadership and strategy..." 

One newspaper headline called it Trump's "Carl Vinson lie," and speculated that the Russian and Chinese leaders must have had a good laugh at its absence.

USS Carl Vinson- "Calling the USS Carl Vinson!"

How can Donald Trump loose track of an aircraft carrier?

It's very serious error in judgement when Donald Trump and his Press Secretary, "spokesy Spicey", appears to plays games with the USNaval operations. Moreover, the families of our military serving in these dangerous operations are receiving mixed messages.

Quite frankly, I'm horrified by this terrible headline about how the USS Carl Vinson was misrepresented as being on a trajectory to the Korean Penninsula to intercept in a potential crises while, in reality, the aircraft carrier was headed to Australia.  This miscommunication is irresponsible!

(CNN)

Donald Trump said he was sending "an armada" to Korean waters to potentially deal with threats from Pyongyang, North Korea.

But its no-show has caused some South Koreans to question his leadership and strategy regarding their unpredictable neighbor in the north.

And as the country prepares to vote for a new president on May 9, the claim could have far-reaching implications for the two countries' relations.

"What Mr. Trump said was very important for the national security of South Korea," Presidential candidate Hong Joon-pyo told the Wall Street Journal.

"If that was a lie, then during Trump's term, South Korea will not trust whatever Trump says,"​ said Hong, who is currently trailing in the polls.

South Korean media also seized on the conflicting reports on Trump's "armada" -- led by the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson.

Meant to present a robust defense against a potential nuclear test by Pyongyang, the report likened the bluff to North Korea's shows of force, where "fake missiles" are paraded through the streets of the North Korean capital.

"Like North Korea, which is often accused of displaying fake missiles during military parades, is the United States, too, now employing 'bluffing' as its North Korea policy?" it asked.

Sending the armada
In the face of antagonism from North Korea last week, Trump had said the USS Carl Vinson carrier group was being deployed to waters off the Korean Peninsula.

"We are sending an armada. Very powerful," Trump told Fox Business Channel's Maria Bartiromo. "We have submarines. Very powerful. Far more powerful than the aircraft carrier. That, I can tell you." (This is so inconsiderate of the military families who follow their loved ones and the misleading information is distressing to all involved in the naval operations.)

It turns out the carrier group was never actually steaming towards the peninsula, but rather heading to joint exercises with the Australian navy. US officials insist it's now on its way to the Sea of Japan, known in South Korea as the East Sea. 

It still hasn't arrived.

On Thursday, the US Navy announced it was extending the Vinson's deployment by 30 days "to provide a persistent presence in the waters off the Korean Peninsula."

South Korea reacts

"How does the US expect South Koreans to trust the US when its leader bluffs and exaggerates? South Koreans' feelings were hurt considerably by remarks by the leader of a close ally."

Confusion reigns
Trump's initial assurance, in the form of a strong military response, telegraphed a robust defense of the US' stalwart allies, South Korea and Japan.

It also ratcheted tensions on the peninsula, prompting North Korea's deputy ambassador to the UN to warn that the US was risking nuclear war with its actions on the peninsula -- any hostile act is inherently a dangerous calculation when dealing with an unstable actor like North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

A senior administration official later said a miscommunication between the Pentagon and the White House was to blame for the mixed reports.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer (aka "Spicey"), however, compounded the confusion, by doubling down on the President's assertions.

"We have an armada going toward the peninsula. That's a fact," he told a skeptical press corps during his daily briefing on Wednesday, arguing that, in the broadest sense, the president's statement was accurate because the ships would eventually get to the waters between North Korea and Japan.

Meanwhile, the US and South Korean military are currently engaged in joint training exercise at the Kunsan Air Base on the west coast of the Korean Peninsula. North Korea has long objected to the two countries' annual joint maneuvers.

"We've been tasked to do these yearly exercises because we always have to be ready to defend the republic of Korea and we've been doing it obviously for a while and we will keep doing it as need be," Lt. Col. Steven Raspet told CNN.

Political thin ice
The bluff -- if that is what it was -- comes at a precarious time for South Korean politics -- in less than a month, the country will go to the polls to elect a replacement for impeached President Park Geun-hye.

In addition to the comments about US-South Korea relations made by Hong, the presidential candidate from Park's ruling party, the confusion over the US' response to the potential nuclear tests has led to questions about how much the government and the military knew about the location of the Vinson and its group.

Questions about what this means in the context of the election, where Pyongyang's increased belligerence has been a key election talking point, abound.

"Both South Korea and the US are in close cooperation to deter North Korea's provocations and to pursue peace and stability of the Korean peninsula," a South Korean Defense Ministry official said.

"The defense ministry has been and is closely working together with the US military. However, it is inappropriate for the ministry to go into details about the (strength of the) US military operation."

Wounded pride
Some of Trump's comments (!) have also rankled in South Korea. 

In fact, Trump told the Wall Street Journal -- after getting a primer on regional geopolitics from Chinese President Xi Jinping -- that the Korean peninsula "actually used to be part of China."

South Korea's Foreign Affairs Ministry, in a daily briefing Thursday, announced the government's response to the comments.

"The Ministry is in the process of checking facts with both the US and China through various diplomatic channels," the ministry's spokesperson Cho June-hyuck said.

"The international community unequivocally acknowledges that Korea was never a part of China in its thousands of years of history that no one can deny the fact," he added.

CNN's Pamela Boykoff and journalist Seo Yoon-Jung contributed to this report.

In conclusion- it is obvious that Donald Trump can't get anything right! Impeach for incompetence- or invoke the 25th amendment.
PRESIDENTIAL DISABILITY AND SUCCESSION

Drone Warfare: Terrorism and Winning a War

Winston Churchill encouraged people to read quotes.  
He said, "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations."

As deadly as Drone Warfare is, it's Sir Winston who gives me the  words to support my opinion about how our nation's National Security is dependent on killing terrorists, with drones (Winston Churchill is my authoritative source):

"A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject."

"If you are going to go through hell, keep going."

Critics of American "drone warfare" say killing terrorists with drones creates threats to National Security, because we're motivating more enemies to take the places of those who are killed. Of course, if the Pakistan and Afghan government were diligent allies against terrorism, a war threatening all Americans, then, maybe, we wouldn't need drones.  Instead, it's the Pakistan government that's most critical of drones - yet, they're the same country where National Security Enemy Number One, Osama Bin Laden found refuge for nearly a decade!

Since I'm uneducated about war, I take Sir Winston's advice about how to respond to critics of drone warfare.  "A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject."  Americans will never change the minds of the terrorist fanatics who want to kill us.  Terrorists who follow Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda movement want to kill us because they disagree with American and Western society's freedoms of speech, religion and how women are treated with respect.  

I'm wondering if drone warfare might effectively bring an end to terrorism, if we keep it going?

What little I know about warfare tells me that, when the drone critics, in Pakistan, provide harbor for the enemies we're fighting in the War on Terror, then the "drone warfare" is working. Maybe, we need more, rather than fewer, drones to finish this war.  

Although I have enormous respect for NBC news reporter Richard Engel, his apparent criticism of drone warfare, in my opinion, is misplaced.  Rather than count  how many armed militants are killed by drone attacks, Engel might consider how many civilian lives are potentially saved, when drones strategically target and kill those who want to kill Americans.  

Americans invest enormous resources to win wars.  Not winning is more costly than winning.  "If you are going to go through hell, keep going."

Let's count the casualties in the three years of the Korean Conflict.   Data from the US Department of Defense reports 33,686 battle deaths, along with 2,830 non-battle deaths during the Korean War and 8,176 missing in action. South Korea reported some 373,599 civilian and 137,899 military deaths.  

Of course, drone warfare was unheard of in the 1950s, but after loosing so many lives, it seems to me the huge numbers of deaths were not worth the peace.  Drones, had they existed, would likely have accomplished more than all the reported deaths. General Douglas MacArthur was fired over his conflict with President Truman about how win the Korean War.  Instead of winning in Korea, an unacceptable truce was declared. Since then, millions of North Koreans have suffered human rights indignities, tyranny and starvation because of our reluctance to win the "Korean War".  

Operation Desert Storm, or the Gulf War, is another example of the cost of not winning a war.  During the successful campaign of 1990-91, the Middle East war expert, General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. recommended finishing the war by attacking Baghdad, in Iraq.  Instead, President George H. Walker Bush disagreed.  Therefore, Americans didn't finish this war and now Iraq continues to be a nation in strife as a result of a subsequent American led invasion, begun on March 20, 2003, to capture and kill the dictator, Saddam Hussein. 

Americans cannot be paying, with lives, and money, for a war on terrorism and then not win.  

Sir Winston said, "The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see."

Let's finish the war on terror, begun on September 11, 2001, when America was attacked by terrorists who continue their pursuit to kill all who disagree with their fanaticism.  If drones are winning this war, then we must support their continued use.  

I'm not educated about warfare, but I can read quotes and understand what history taught us about the cost of loosing wars.