Perhaps I bowed to peer pressure...
But, reading it in context seemed less aggravating.
The NY Times headline is still correct.
On the Erdogan issue I vehemently disagree, but as a candidate for President, could Trump go against the commander in chief (sigh), the general secretary of Nato and the EU?
The “smart” choice is to stay safe within the fold.
Though one of the reasons I like Trump is his willingness to go outside the politically correct consensus.
The one thing I think was lacking was a request for Erdogan to respect democracy and human rights.
And so is the comment appended (although I hate comments added to the titles, fwiw).
After reading the longer version, it seems clear that Mr. Trump is putting conditions on the circumstances in which the U.S. would assist NATO allies. That's a legitimate position to take, and I understand why many are agreeing. It seems consistent with his general perspective on world events.
Also consistent with his general perspective on world events is the praise of a vicious dictator simply because he is successful in holding onto power. There have been other examples of this.
Finally, there's his contention that, because the United States is so "bad," there is no basis on which to condemn Turkey's version of "civil liberties." I completely disagree with this.
I believe the deputy PM may have been the one urging the cutting off of ears of "suspected" Gulenists, just for context. If it wasn't the dep. PM, it was the head of Erdog's party.