Patterico's Pontifications

10/10/2016

Video: Trump Debates “Moderator” Martha Raddatz (And His Own Running Mate)

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:00 am



One of the more extraordinary aspects of last night’s debate was the way the “moderators” — particularly Martha Raddatz — jumped in to debate Donald Trump. Nowhere was Raddatz’s aggressive and partisan stance more evident than in the discussion of the crisis in Aleppo. Raddatz asked the candidates what their response would be to the humanitarian crisis. Trump used the opportunity to make some political points against Hillary. Raddatz interrupted and sarcastically said: “Mr. Trump, let me repeat the question.” She then noted that Mike Pence’s view is to potentially use military force against Assad. Trump said he disagreed with Pence:

RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, your two minutes is up.

TRUMP: And one thing I have to say.

RADDATZ: Your two minutes is up.

TRUMP: I don’t like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. And Iran is killing ISIS. And those three have now lined up because of our weak foreign policy.

RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, let me repeat the question. If you were president…

(LAUGHTER)

… what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? And I want to remind you what your running mate said. He said provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength and that if Russia continues to be involved in air strikes along with the Syrian government forces of Assad, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military targets of the Assad regime.

TRUMP: OK. He and I haven’t spoken, and I disagree. I disagree.

RADDATZ: You disagree with your running mate?

At this point, Raddatz started to get very aggressive. Trump focused on ISIS, and Raddatz asked what would happen if Aleppo falls, repeating the question in a louder voice when Trump started to answer:

TRUMP: I think you have to knock out ISIS. Right now, Syria is fighting ISIS. We have people that want to fight both at the same time. But Syria is no longer Syria. Syria is Russia and it’s Iran, who she made strong and Kerry and Obama made into a very powerful nation and a very rich nation, very, very quickly, very, very quickly.

I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about ISIS before we can get too much more involved. She had a chance to do something with Syria. They had a chance. And that was the line. And she didn’t.

RADDATZ: What do you think will happen if Aleppo falls?

TRUMP: I think Aleppo is a disaster, humanitarian-wise. It is a human–

RADDATZ: What do you think will happen if it falls?

The most notable thing happened next. Trump criticized the way that the U.S. Government often telegraphs its military moves ahead of time — and Raddatz decided to play Trump’s opponent, arguing with him about reasons the military might do that, and concluding by virtually shrieking: TELL ME WHAT YOUR STRATEGY IS!!

TRUMP: I think that it basically has fallen. OK? It basically has fallen. Let me tell you something. You take a look at Mosul. The biggest problem I have with the stupidity of our foreign policy, we have Mosul. They think a lot of the ISIS leaders are in Mosul. So we have announcements coming out of Washington and coming out of Iraq, “we will be attacking Mosul in three weeks or four weeks.”

Well, all of these bad leaders from ISIS are leaving Mosul. Why can’t they do it quietly? Why can’t they do the attack, make it a sneak attack, and after the attack is made, inform the American public that we’ve knocked out the leaders, we’ve had a tremendous success? People leave. Why do they have to say “we’re going to be attacking Mosul within the next four to six weeks,” which is what they’re saying? How stupid is our country?

RADDATZ: There are sometimes reasons the military does that. Psychological warfare.

TRUMP: I can’t think of any. I can’t think of any. And I’m pretty good at it.

RADDATZ [raising her voice]: It might be to help get civilians out.

TRUMP: And we have General Flynn. And we have — look, I have 200 generals and admirals who endorsed me. I have 21 Congressional Medal of Honor recipients who endorsed me. We talk about it all the time. They understand, why can’t they do something secretively, where they go in and they knock out the leadership? How — why would these people stay there? I’ve been reading now…

RADDATZ: Tell me what your strategy is!

You can watch the entire remarkable exchange below.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

23 Responses to “Video: Trump Debates “Moderator” Martha Raddatz (And His Own Running Mate)”

  1. watching our silly little military flounce around fecklessly is her whole job someone was saying

    but the key thing is they changed all the titles for so none of them have “man” in them anymore

    that’s gonna pay big strategic dividends in aleppo and mosul both!

    and she didn’t even bring it up

    idiot.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  2. Great post.

    It was indeed “remarkable” in how biased it is, and utterly unremarkable at the same time because we knew that would be how it is.

    Denver Guy (6640c3)

  3. how stupid is our country?

    he really is a breath of fresh air like nothing in living memory, this man

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  4. why would she go all candy crowley on such a picayune little issue nobody cares about though

    is she just that out of touch or did Team Pig tell her to do this for some reason that’s not clear yet?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  5. i watched it again and the pig’s rebuttal too

    it looks like this was just set up for piggy cause it was something she’d spent rehearsal time on

    her answer doesn’t reference Mr. Trump’s in any meaningful way

    it sounds very very canned

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  6. I was reading about that last week where some bomb or other knocked out the water pumps for Aleppo, pushing the ISIS stronghold into crisis.

    Good shooting was my thinking. But the media and the Obola admin were all long faced and somber.

    papertiger (82d7e8)

  7. Garden-variety progressive journalist achieves her lifelong dream of speaking-truth-to-power, afflicting the comfortable. She’ll never have to buy her own drinks ever again. She’ll get hired as a screeching commissar by the incoming HRC admin.

    gp (0c542c)

  8. Is ISIS in Aleppo

    steveg (5508fb)

  9. I like how Hillary always sends people to her website to check Trump’s facts.
    The only thing less honest than Hillary herself is her fact check team.

    I haven’t been able to figure out why no one can come out and say that the best option for Aleppo would be for pro-Assad forces to re-take the city.
    It’s not like ISIS gives a rats behind about any humanitarian crisis. The Russians, the Iranians and pro Assad forces may not be up to our standards there, but they’d be better than ISIS.
    Supposedly ISIS is sniping civilians who cross open ground trying to flee the city.

    If I were Trump, I’d give the Russians the “be prepared to render aid” speech.
    Because realistically the US would have to invade Aleppo, fighting ISIS, Hezbollah and the Syrian Army (and maybe Russia too) just to drop off food and water. And announce that I’m gonna make Mexico pay for it

    steveg (5508fb)

  10. if this aleppo thing involves gunplay we should steer clear I think

    there’s just no upside

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  11. if this aleppo thing involves gunplay we should steer clear I think

    there’s just no upside

    We should join Bashar Al-Assad and the Russians and wipe out ISIS.

    Denver Guy (6640c3)

  12. ok if you think that’s the way to go i’m in

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  13. papertiger (82d7e8) — 10/10/2016 @ 10:29 am

    I was reading about that last week where some bomb or other knocked out the water pumps for Aleppo, pushing the ISIS stronghold into crisis.

    Its not an ISIS stronghold. It’s true enough it was captured in by rebels that the people there didn’t want, but what you have there is, it’s ot clear but it might be more or less Islamic rebels, some of whom were more secular or U.S. supported, who have become allied because of the Saudis, and because any kind of moderate rebel is the regime’s first target, with a group that was the al Qaeda affiliate in Syrias (Nusra front) whose orders ISIS refused to take even after Zawahiri told them to put themselves uunder their command. But it now changed its name and said it cut its ties with al al Qaeda. Whatever is there, it’s definitely not ISIS, and U.S. help could break thpse better groups away again.

    Sammy Finkelman (3b0a8c)

  14. Denver Guy (6640c3) — 10/10/2016 @ 11:09 am

    We should join Bashar Al-Assad and the Russians and wipe out ISIS.

    And have complicity in war crimes?

    Besides Russia doesn’t want to wipe out ISIS. Putin needs them, because that would be the reason for the alliance with Russia. No ISIS, no more alliance.

    Sammy Finkelman (3b0a8c)

  15. @Sammy Finkelman: I have not seen such a concise argument for the US staying out of that whole mess, as you did when you tried to explain who was holding Aleppo, who they were allied with, and how that happened.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  16. Martha Raddatz very much wanted Donald Trump to take a position on Aleppo (perhaps because she suspected he didn’t agree with what Tom Pence had said in the vice-presidential debate) but the position she wanted Trump to take wasn’t Hillary’s position. Maybe she wanted to knock away whatever good will Pence had won, or maybe she actually didn’t care which way it went, but she was going to find out or force Trump to decide wat his position on Syria was.

    Then Trump jumped to military strategy with regard to Mosul, and Martha Raddatz began trying to come up with all kinds of different arguments as to why his criticism might not be right.

    which is actually just a sound byte that can only make sense to someone who has not been following this. Hillary’s position made no sense not with regard to Assad, and not with regard to ISIS.

    Sammy Finkelman (3b0a8c)

  17. I didn’t listen to much of the debate but this was one segment I did catch. I found HRC’s statements about enforcing a no-fly-zone to be far more worrying. Let’s see, Russia is the one doing the flying here, how exactly are you going to stop them? (I realize she said she would enforce a no-fly-zone against Assad but that’s beside the point when it’s not Syrian forces doing the flying).

    Soronel Haetir (86a46e)

  18. Let me fix this:

    Leaving alone what’s wrong with Donald Trump’s positions, Hillary’s position, both with regard to the government of Assad in Syria and with regard to ISIS, is actually just several sound bytes that can only make sense to someone who has not been following this, and made no sense at all.

    She was against both Assad and ISIS. She said that Russia committed war crimes, and there should be proceedings against it. She was also against intervention, except she defined intervention only as ground troops, and even special forces are not ground troops. (She could say regular army but she said ground troops.)

    With regard to Aleppo, her solution was getting Russia to agree to leave the people there with the possibility of survival, and she proposed to get the agreement of Russia by negotiations with the Russians, and she said we should try to get Russia – the same Russia which she just said was guilty of war crimes, and should be investigated, and was all-in in Syria – to agree to let humanitarian help get there by creating some kind of unspecified leverage. Leverage, that was the word she used, a few times.

    Even John Kerry and Barack Obama have been stripped of their illusions, or should I say delusions, that Russia’s intentions in Syria are benign, or at least anything we can tolerate, and that they agree that hospitals should not be bombed and doctors and rescue workers should be be killed, and that the ordinary people in that part of Aleppo controlled by the rebels have a right to life and that outsiders shouild have an ability to send in food and medical help.

    (Trump seems to want us to do nothing to disturb Russia in sria and to aid them in “fighting ISIS.” Maybe.)

    With regard to ISIS Hillary Clinton said we shold target Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, the way we targeted Osama bin Laden, as if this was not already Barack Obama’s policy as if until now Barack Obama had given him a free pass.

    The reason he has not been killed by a drone, is because the U.S. doesn’t know where he is. The reason his predecessors in al Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq, and a possible successor in ISIS, were killed, is because we knew where they were.

    The reason we knew where they were, is probably because Baghdadi or some country or outside entity supporting him supplied the information.

    The U.S. cleared the way for Baghdadi by killing anybody above him in the hierarchy, and all of his rivals.

    Back to Trump. Trump pushed away all questions on Aleppo, in the end, by saying it was basically all over now anyway. He wouldn’t say what he thought would happen if it was conquered. (Best possibility – the people who have spent 4 years under a non-Assad regime are allowed to leave and become refugees and make their way to the Turkish border without most of them getting killed.)

    Trump also said that Syria was no longer Syria, that it was Russia and Iran, which is largely true, but he didn’t go anywhere with that. It was just a stray thught floating around. he said Russia – bo, he had to say Kerry and Obama – had made Syria into a formidable military power. You could, of course, in way, blame Kerry and Obama. At one point though, he had linked Hillary to things that happened after, as she said, she was gone and he tried to argue well, she’s still giving Obama advice. Thats a week argument. Just ask her if she supports or opposes anything Obama has done – that’d going to put her in abind.

    The only person treating this issue seriously was Mike Pence and even he wasn’t serious, because he didn’t want the no-fly zone to apply to Russian planes, too. He would aos destroy any possibility of Sria bombing ISIS – but we don’t want them to do it anyway, we want NATO countries and other U.S. allies to bomb ISIS.

    Sammy Finkelman (3b0a8c)

  19. Soronel Haetir (86a46e) — 10/10/2016 @ 1:25 pm

    Let’s see, Russia is the one doing the flying here, how exactly are you going to stop them? (I realize she said she would enforce a no-fly-zone against Assad but that’s beside the point when it’s not Syrian forces doing the flying).

    She’s was hoping you don’t realize that Russia is doing some of the bombing. Tim Pennce also said this only about Syrian planes, but I can chalk taht up to cowardice.

    How are you going to stop Russian planes? The same way Israel and Turkey have done, and the same way Estonia does. By letting Russia know if Russian planes go into a no fly zone, they will be shot down.

    And Israel’s no-fly zone is inside Syria.

    Will that start World War III? No.

    There are only three alternatives, or maybe four:

    1. Establish a safe no fly-zone for Syrians inside Syria.

    2. Establish a safe no fly-zone for Syrians outside of Syria, probably in Turkey.

    3. Decide that you are going to let Russi and Syria kill people, and maybe even help them.

    4. Delude yourself with negotiations, that

    a) wind up betraying the people you are trying to help. (Like escape corridors, which if people use, they get shot at. Like aid comvoys that get bombed. Like sharing information with Russia so that the military forces you don’t want bombed, do get bombed.

    OR

    b) go no place.

    Sammy Finkelman (3b0a8c)

  20. maybe hillary did this just so she can point to it as a mandate for failmerica to make a grandiose ass of itself in syria

    maybe this is how she bought off meghan’s coward daddy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  21. Meanwhile the new York Times editorialized that the United States has to stop helping Saudi Arabia fight Iranian backed groups in Yemen the way it’s doing it because they’re guilty of war crimes.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/opinion/stop-saudi-arms-sales-until-carnage-in-yemen-ends.html?_r=0.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/opinion/americas-moral-duty-in-yemen.html

    Airstrikes by a Saudi-led coalition that devastated a funeral in Yemen on Saturday make it clear that the United States must end its complicity in a civil war that has caused a humanitarian catastrophe in one of the world’s poorest countries and fueled extremism. It is within President Obama’s power to do so. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf state allies depend on Washington for aircraft, munitions, training and in-flight refueling. The United States also helps Saudi Arabia guard its borders.

    The administration insists its support for the coalition isn’t a “blank check.” But so far it has offered only stern words in response to an ever widening list of coalition attacks on civilians and civilian facilities that under international law are not legitimate military targets. If the Saudis refuse to halt the carnage and resume negotiations on a political settlement, Mr. Obama should end military support.

    This last sentence – where they start mumbling about a political settlement is where they start to go wrong.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  22. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/debate-syria-trump-clinton.html

    In Debate on Syria, It’s Trump vs. Pence, and Clinton vs. Obama

    The Trump Pence differenece, they write, is bigger thqn the Clinton Obama difference.

    Actually Hillary Clinton has no coherent position. She is just engaging in a con job when she talks aboyut a no-fly zone or diplomacy.

    We need some leverage with the Russians, because they are not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution, unless there is some leverage over them…. So I would go to the negotiating table with more leverage than we have now. But I do support the effort to investigate for crimes, war crimes committed by the Syrians and the Russians and try to hold them accountable.

    She didn’t explain what this mysterious “leverage” was that she was going to use on Russia

    Can anyone make sense of this?

    I think wherever we can cooperate with Russia, that’s fine. And I did as secretary of state. That’s how we got a treaty reducing nuclear weapons. It’s how we got the sanctions on Iran that put a lid on the Iranian nuclear program without firing a single shot. So I would go to the negotiating table with more leverage than we have now.

    Leverage. That’s the answer. And you get leverage by co-operating.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  23. Via althouse blog;

    Donald Trump was actually right in his “red line” comment.

    While it failed in 2013, Obama had drawn the line in 2012, and what’s more Hillary was in contact with him in 2013:

    http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/hillary-clinton/clinton-and-line-sand-comment/

    ….Even though she was no longer part of the Obama administration when it confirmed Syria had crossed the “red line,” Clinton participated in the discussions about how to respond. And she advocated for Obama’s position publicly….

    …Clinton was secretary of state in August 2012 when Obama said if the Assad regime were to use chemical weapons, that would cross a “red line” after which Obama would consider using military force in Syria. In the months following that statement, Clinton reiterated Obama’s position, using the phrase “red line.”

    A year later, August 2013, the White House confirmed Syria had crossed this “red line.” By this point, Clinton had left the State Department months earlier. However, in the days following that revelation, Clinton met with Obama and his staff several times and publicly endorsed the White House’s position on how to respond.

    Sammy Finkelman (e3cf91)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0744 secs.