Take what Trump said during the electionok, let's do just that:
Mr Trump called Nato "obsolete" because it "wasn't taking care of terror".
Nato, he said, was "very important" to him but only five of its 28 member-states were paying their fair share and that, he said, was "very unfair to the United States"
Now, let's compare it to what Stoltenberg is "totally agreeing" with:
BLITZER: Because you know the president has repeatedly said, President Trump, that he is upset with NATO because NATO as an organization is not doing enough to fight terror.
Did he say that to you today?
STOLTENBERG: He said that he would like NATO to do more. And I totally agree with him.
Yes, you can make a truly SexWarrior-style case for how "not taking care of something" and "not doing enough to take care of something" are two different things. But we've all heard a whole lot of Trump talking in the past few years. Even a proper anti-Trump sycophant is likely to agree that the man exaggerates a lot when he gets too excited about something.
Yeah, he agrees now after Trump has changed his mind.No, he agreed with Trump before he changed his mind (obsolete -> not obsolete). Reading between the lines, it sounds like your issue is that Trump said NATO "wasn't taking care of terror", where in your mind NATO was taking care of terror. In other words, Trump's choice of words was piss-poor. If I'm reading you correctly: yeah, you're technically right. Trump shouldn't have said NATO aren't taking care of terror, he should have said that they're doing a shitty job at it (agree or not, this was clearly his stance on the matter).
However, there's an important message to be sent there: Trekky, the world has mostly moved on past the short "haha BIGLY Trump uses wrong words!!!!" phase. Now, let me be clear, uh, let me be clear: his communication style isn't going to change anytime soon. If you keep denying current events just because someone you don't like didn't phrase them so well, well, Rama's already said it.
Of course, let's not forget that people focusing on pointless trite like this is only hurting the Democrats. Nobody else. It's going to become the party of "The Secretary General of NATO says he completely agrees with Trump and that NATO will change accordingly, BUT ACTUALLY IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY AND TRUMP IS WRONG "
Where does he say that NATO did not fight terrorism, but now does, as Trump said?I Googled "NATO doesn't fight terrorism", but all I found was a comments section on an InfoWars article. If you're going to pussyfoot around with phrasing and semantics, you may want to make sure that you're not committing the very fallacy you're trying to capitalise on.