General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs Trump Getting a Pass
Is Donald Trump getting a pass on his foreign policy speech? I watched a clip of Randi Rhodes playing the portion of Trump's speech in which he claimed he had repeatedly pushed for America to keep control of Iraq's oil. He also said that if American soldiers had been kept in Iraq ISIS would not have been able to get control of Iraqi oil and then would not have been able to grow to its current level of strength.
How can Trump say this if he wants to claim he was opposed to the war? If we had not gone into Iraq there would not have been any soldiers in Iraq to control the oil. It seems like Trump is trying to have things both ways. He wants to claim he was opposed to the war, but at the same time he wants to claim he was in support of Americans soldiers controlling Iraqi oil, and opposed to removing American soldiers from Iraq. Should Trump be allowed to have it both ways?
kentuck
(111,104 posts)...just like they did with John Kerry, when they accused him of not being "patriotic" when he was running against GWB. They took the strongest point of their opponent and tried to make it their weakest. Donald Trump would be a disaster in foreign policy but they are trying to make that Hillary's weakest point.
chillfactor
(7,576 posts)but then we people with functioning brain matter know that t-rump is two-faced.
robbedvoter
(28,290 posts)erpowers
(9,350 posts)Has the DNC, Hillary Clinton, and/or the mainstream media done anything like this. I have not seen anything like that anywhere else. The DNC and Clinton should have clips like that running on TV everyday. Maybe they are waiting until it gets closer to election day.
0rganism
(23,957 posts)gotta let him spew some unchallenged bullshit just to keep his supporters engaged so he doesn't fold up shop next week and let the RNC pick a "real" candidate
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Very scathing. In fact, since Joe's flipped on Trump, it's been pretty scathing for a couple of weeks now. He's still vile about Hillary of course, but it's in passing.
grubbs
(356 posts)Being completely dismissive of reality after decades of rep BS have no concept of hindsight bcuz they have no idea of what really happened. He is using this ignorance of recent history to appear prescient. Makes him look like a charlatan and his fans look stupid. And by extension all republicans. Evil prospers when good men say nothing so-called moderate rethugs. If you spend 40 years knitting an asshat someone is bound to put it on and stagger around in it
Reap the whirlwind you cowardly fucks. Reap it.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)isn't getting more play.
I mean, the dude is actually suggesting we seize the sovriegn assets of another country. WTF!? That doesn't bother anyone!?
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)Not sure how you get one with the other but Donny has a plan and HE and HE ALONE can only do it. With our tax money that is.
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)It appears that in 2014 they were generating approx. $3 million a day from the fields. However as of 4/10/15, they had lost 95% of their control over Iraqi oil fields due to Iraqi counteroffensives. (https://intelnews.org/2015/04/10/01-1676/). In fact, retreating ISIS fighters set fire to oil fields as they retreated. As of Feb. 2016, ISIS was concentrating on the Syrian fields (http://ig.ft.com/sites/2015/isis-oil/).
So naturally the fight for oil has moved to Syria where ISIS does not have the means to maintain the aging equipment, get the oil to market etc. So oil production for ISIS has dropped considerably.
In Nov. 2015, Donald Trump is reported to have said that "the U.S. is just starting
as of two days ago to heed his advice to attack the oil fields controlled by the Islamic State group. However the U.S. had already changed its policy, four weeks previously not two days ago. While it has been true that the majority of ISIS oil revenue comes from Syrian oil fields, the US has had two significant defense carpet bombing initiatives, the latest more successful than the first.