Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump criticized U.S. policy in Iraq again, but this time he aired his grievances on an unusual platform: a Russian government-funded television network.
Advertisement
Lauer, who ordinarily hosts The Today Show, threw too much “shade” on Hillary Clinton for the media’s liking, the Fox News Channel anchor claimed.
Conversely, Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, gamely stood by the Republican nominee, saying, “I think it’s inarguable that Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in this country”.
Lauer was criticised for repeatedly pushing Hilary Clinton on her use of a private email server but letting Mr Trump off the hook when it came to his attacks on Gold Star family, or statements that were either factually incorrect or arguable. An overwhelming 84 percent said they favored a path to citizenship for them, an option advocated by Hillary Clinton. But she also looked rusty, defensive and like she still hadn’t grasped that the official language of the U.S.is not the legalese and wonkese she has proven fluent in.
CNBC panelist Becky Quick learned the pitfalls in a GOP forum last fall when Trump pushed back against her question about something the candidate had said previously.
Clinton joked with reporters this week that she has more flag officers backing her campaign, adding, “but who is counting?” She touted the bipartisan nature of the meeting and vowed to work across the aisle as president to tackle national security challenges. “I want to make sure that I’m ready to tell Donald Trump’s story to the nation”.
Both candidates are hoping to capitalize on concerns about national security and paint their opponents as unqualified leading into the November 8 presidential election.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump criticized USA foreign policy and the American political press corps Thursday during an interview on RT America, a state-owned Russian television network. Apparently he is unaware, or does not care, that people in the Mideast have long questioned American motives in sending troops into Iraq, suspecting that USA military power is being used to steal their oil, not fight terrorists or support democracy.
Tuesday, in an ABC News interview, Trump said of Clinton:”Well, I just don’t think she has a presidential look, and you need a presidential look”. “We got out in such a terrible, foolish fashion, instead of leaving some troops behind”.
Critics of the network, which mostly targets audiences outside of Russian Federation and also includes programming in Spanish, Hindi and Arabic, have described it as a propaganda arm of Putin’s government.
Trump also took aim at the top tier of United States military leaders Wednesday night, saying they’d been “reduced to rubble” by Obama.
Trump draws his ideological energies from the alt-right and the older paleoconservative movement, both of which find plenty to admire in the Russian leader.
Clinton blasted Trump for appearing on the network and praising Putin, as he had done on Wednesday night during a televised national security forum.
It’s okay. Like so many other things, it’s not racist when the Clintons do it. “It’s not a serious presidential campaign, and it is beyond one’s imagination to have a candidate for president praising a Russian autocrat like Vladimir Putin”. It is somewhat curious, however, that in the course of under 24 hours he did such an obvious about face in first, refusing to comment as “an election pundit” when it involved comments his love interest Donald Trump made, and then becoming an “election pundit” to demand an apology from his love interests’ rival over a remark quoting a counterterrorism expert. But to assert, over and over, that the United States should have seized Iraq’s oil in to-the-victor-go-the-spoils fashion is to display an utter disregard for the way civilized nations conduct themselves.
Advertisement
“That includes Russian Federation”, he said. In fact, he said, President Barack Obama and his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, had done “exactly the opposite” of what the intelligence community recommended.
