Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert Press Briefing Aboard Air-Force-One…

White House National Security Adviser, Tom Bossert, delivers a press briefing aboard AF1 en route back to the U.S. from France.  If you did not read and watch the information yesterday from President Trump’s Special Envoy, Brett McGurk, I would strongly suggest you review that prior to this press briefing.  -SEE HERE- Everything is connected.

[Transcript] Aboard Air Force One – En Route Newark, New Jersey – 3:01 P.M. CET

MR. BOSSERT: So let me just start the conversation by saying that President Trump and President Macron had private conversations yesterday, but also an extended bilateral conversation. And I wanted to talk you about that and give you a readout, and answer your questions if I might.

♦ Q Did they discuss the role that Syrian Kurds might have in a future Syria after ISIS?

MR. BOSSERT: So, among other things in the bilateral conversation yesterday, the Presidents discussed Syria — defeating ISIS in general, but Syria specifically; our desire to have a political solution outside and after our military solutions prevail. They discussed counterterrorism in general, as it will be an enduring and ongoing problem after our defeat-ISIS campaign takes the physical caliphate from ISIS.

They discussed limiting and containing and, ultimately, reducing and removing Iranian sponsorship for terrorism and regional influence. They discussed the current relations with Qatar. They discussed what to do after our short-term objectives are met in reducing their contributions — financial contributions — to terrorism, and three or four other topics.

In general, the conversation was detailed, the conversation was fairly involved, and we discussed terrorism, largely. President Trump thanked President Macron for France’s continued and pretty extensive support for not only American efforts, but for global efforts to counter terrorism in North Africa and throughout the Sahel region. That’s something that the French have been committed to and have doubled and redoubled their efforts, I think, in the last three to five years. And President Macron has shown leadership there in that regard.

♦ Q The former Obama administration officials on the NSC said that the U.S.-French relations were really good in terms of counterterrorism, but intelligence-sharing was one of the kinks in the relationship. Can you tell me how that might be improved with this new alliance — with friendship with President Macron and President Trump?

MR. BOSSERT: There are no kinks in that relationship. In fact, the intelligence-sharing and counterterrorism-sharing between the two countries has never been better. And I can tell you that from the perspective of my service in the White House under President Bush, and now my service, again, under President Trump. The comparative analysis is unquestionable. We’ve got the strongest relations — in fact, the strongest security relations — at least counterterrorism security relations with the French ever.

♦ Q Could you just tell me how the new friendship that we’ve seen over the past couple of days might change that intelligence-sharing or the — what effect would that have?

MR. BOSSERT: Well, I think the intent to share and the intent to cooperate and collaborate is there and has been reaffirmed, which is a reassuring thing for the people of France and America. But I think that the relationship that the two Presidents have forged will increase the trust that’s required for that information-sharing and that intelligence-sharing relationship. And I think that the conversations, in particular, in the extended bilateral that I attended, puts some additional details and framework on the strategic objectives for the sharing of that information and the vital interests that we’re seeking to protect.

♦ Q President Macron mentioned working together to fight propaganda and disinformation. Was that conversation in the context of Russia? And what are the U.S. and France doing together to combat disinformation campaigns and propaganda campaigns like the ones we’ve seen from Russia?

MR. BOSSERT: So two questions there. The content and nature of the conversation between the two Presidents in the bilateral yesterday had to do with removing terrorist propaganda from social media sites and the Internet — open Internet in general — something — an objective that both countries share.

The approach and the details now are going to require some additional work. Both Presidents agreed, and I have agreed to help at the staff level coordinate some additional conversations in that regard.

I think some of the conversation now, in the community of like-minded, centers around whether we need to compel that removal and if there’s a way to do such a thing, or whether we can work collaboratively and cooperatively with the companies and their providers to remove that kind of counterterrorism — or terrorism propaganda from the Internet. I think that remains to be seen, but that was the nature of the conversation.

♦ Q So was this conversation about counterterrorism propaganda not the kind of propaganda we saw, for instance, from the Russians during the election?

MR. BOSSERT: No, the conversation about Russia didn’t take place in the context of yesterday’s bilateral conversation. The context of propaganda and its removal from the Internet yesterday was centered on the global jihadi problem.

♦ Q Did the Iran nuclear deal come up? And can you talk about the reports that we’re hearing from back home that you guys are ready to again certify that Iran is in compliance, which would keep the deal kind of in place for now?

MR. BOSSERT: So, no, it didn’t come up. And I’m unable to comment on the additional information you asked about. I’m not completely read in to what you’re hearing or what you’re reporting. But I do know the President and Secretary of State and others have discussed the matter, but I have no details to update you.

♦ Q Back to the (inaudible) region, there’s been some buzz that there might be some American troops kept in northern Iraq as like a stabilizing force or maybe a joint stabilizing force with other countries. Was that discussed at all — you know, sort of the future of Iraq and whether a military presence in some form will be required?

MR. BOSSERT: So the future security of the region in terms of troop presence but also generic commitments to a partnership were discussed, but the details of which I’ll keep between the two Presidents, as I would the details of most of these topics, as they got into not only a detailed conversation but a fairly complex one. And so all I would say to that is, regional stability in a sustained, durable way did come up, but the details of that are to be continued.

♦ Q Can you say if the Kurdish government has approached either Washington or Paris to have some troops left over?

MR. BOSSERT: No, I can’t and I won’t. And I would ask, probably, that you talk to Secretary Mattis about that.

♦ Q A judge in Hawaii has, once again, kind of narrowed the travel ban and kind of expanded who would be known as a bona fide relations to the U.S. to be able to get in. Does the administration have any response to that? Does that raise any concerns as far as security, et cetera?

MR. BOSSERT: So I don’t know if we have a formal administration response to that, but I will offer that I do have concerns with the early reporting. I haven’t read the entire court holding or ruling.

So I would say that, as it was reported to me, it seemed to be fairly broad and something that would trouble me if it was as broad as reported. In terms of a connection with any group, any refugee organization, it might be read, if the early reports that I looked at were accurate, as something so expansive as to cover every refugee. And that certainly couldn’t be the interpretation the Supreme Court intended.

So we’ll have to go back and have the attorneys read it, interpret it further, and decide whether this is another productive or unproductive step in this saga as we try to secure our country.

♦ Q On the travel ban, are there steps being taken to implement — design and implement extreme vetting procedures? And also on the travel ban, is there a review going on to look at other countries to add to the banned list?

MR. BOSSERT: So, as you know, there’s a number of efforts ongoing to implement the President’s executive order, especially now that it is been freed from legal constraint by the Supreme Court. The question you asked is about vetting. Of course, we’re improving — constantly, regularly — our policies and our capabilities to better vet people seeking entry into the United States. And that’s ongoing. We’re unapologetic about that, and it contributes not only to our security, but to the hopeful relook in a comprehensive, strategic way at our immigration policy, not just our counterterrorism policy.

♦ Q Are any specifics coming — anything specific coming about changing the vetting procedures?

MR. BOSSERT: So it’s less about countries and more about the ability for people to demonstrate the paperwork and background information that we need to appropriately demonstrate that they have or don’t have a security past that would concern us. So no additional conversations about countries, but conversations about people’s background and whether they represent a security threat.

♦ Q General Kelly had mentioned that they were thinking of asking people for social media passwords when they apply for visas, if they’re coming from certain countries. Is there a process — are you looking at a way to implement that formally?

MR. BOSSERT: Actually, I can’t add to that. I would say that Secretary Kelly owns and is responsible for that portion of the policy, and for implementing it. So if he commented on it, you’ve got it right from the horse’s mouth, and I can’t add to it. I don’t have anything that I would try to add to it, but I would refer you back to Secretary Kelly on that.

♦ Q Can I ask about the ceasefire in Syria? The President in the press conference yesterday talked a lot about how he saw that as a big success. So I’m wondering if you can talk about what kind of conversations have been going forward with the Russians since the G20 meeting, and also if there’s any thought of expanding the, sort of, safe area, ceasefire?

MR. BOSSERT: Sorry, no, I don’t have too much more to add to add. But at the time of the extended bilateral conversation that the two Presidents had on this trip to Paris, we were on our fifth day of successful ceasefire, and both Presidents, both publicly and privately, were quite pleased with that development and hopeful that that would continue.

♦ Q Are there any next steps planned with regard to your conversations with the French on Syria? I mean, where did you leave things off in terms of where we go?

MR. BOSSERT: We left things off with a continued commitment to continue conversations. Unfortunately, that’s about as much as I can add to it. But I would say that, as President Trump pointed out and I would reiterate, that continued conversations, even with countries who we don’t always agree with, can sometimes produce positive results. In this case, the ceasefire has been a positive result.

And both the French and American Presidents on this particular trip agreed on that approach to Russia, but also agreed that that’s a positive result and that the French and American relationship on counterterrorism in Syria and throughout the Middle East, and internationally, would continue in a really strong way.

In fact, I think what we’ll do together is develop our counterterrorism strategies together, with other likeminded allies as well, as we both come into power here about the same time, and the new French administration, the new American administration are starting on a good footing. I think that our counterterrorism strategy should start on a co-equal footing as well.

♦ Q What do you say to critics who say that — I’m sorry —

♦ Q (Inaudible) what the President said about the Paris Accord yesterday and whether they talked about climate change, he and Macron?

MR. BOSSERT: I can’t elaborate on it, except to suggest — or tell you that we didn’t discuss any climate issues in the extended bilateral conversation that I attended. And the topic didn’t chill or affect or any way come up verbally or through nonverbal cues in our conversations. They were very positive conversations and very upbeat relations between the two foreign leaders.

♦ Q What do you say to critics who say that, when it comes to Syria, the U.S. has kind of let Russia set the agenda? Yes, you have the ceasefire, but it’s kind of on the terms that Russia set. France and the U.S. have backed away from saying Assad has to leave. That, basically, that Russia will be able to continue to kind of have their influence in the country and that the U.S. is kind of just going along with what they wanted.

MR. BOSSERT: Well, I don’t agree with that assessment. I do agree that it’s a positive development that there’s a ceasefire, and I do believe that the French are very strong in their commitment, as is President Trump through his demonstrated airstrikes in not allowing anyone in the regime, Assad, to use chemical weapons against anyone. And any additional attempt to do that, certainly any use of chemical weapons in the future I’m sure would be met with a strong response from both President Trump and from President Macron.

♦ Q Can you give us any more of the backstory of when President Trump was at the G20, met with Putin, they decided they were going to have this bilateral initiative on cybersecurity, and then President Trump tweeted that that was never going to happen? Can you just give us a better understanding of what that agreement actually was? Is it true that it’s not getting off the ground? I mean, what happened there?

MR. BOSSERT: I didn’t attend the G20, so what I will tell you is that President Trump, I believe, is right in his continued assertion that even with countries with whom we have friction or disagreements, we have a responsibility on behalf of the American people to continue to have conversations to the extent that they can yield a positive result.

And as his senior-most cybersecurity advisor, I will help him coordinate the Cabinet with Secretary Tillerson and others, Secretary Kelly, Mattis and Mnuchin and others, as we develop the appropriate level and contours of those conversations. But we’ll have to set the rules for that. And I think it’s a pretty important reminder that President Trump started that conversation by pointedly and exactingly telling President Putin that we will not have our elections messed with. That’s unacceptable.

Moving past that, we have to have a conversation about the rules of the road in cyberspace, norms and expectations. I’d like those same rules, norms and expectations to be part of our conversation as we discuss any potential future dialogue with the Russians in cybersecurity. And I’ll help the President coordinate that among the right staff levels at the departments and agencies.

♦ Q But given your expertise and the position you hold, do you feel that Russia is sincere in their efforts to partner on cyber, particularly after everything we’ve heard in the last year? Do you feel confident that they could actually pull this off in a sincere way?

MR. BOSSERT: So, I’m not nitpicking your question, but I would say we are not discussing a partnership here. That is not what President Putin left the room for. That is certainly not what President Trump suggested. And that’s not what I’m suggesting today. A partnership is a much different topic.

What was broached at that G20 conversation, as I understand it, was an opportunity to continue a dialogue — one that had in the past existed between the two countries, and I think one that we could pursue in the future with the appropriate reservations and the appropriate expectations, that we at least start with what is acceptable behavior in cyberspace and what norms and expectations that we’ll have moving forward, long before you get into the enforcement of those rules or anywhere near before we get into a partnership.

But again, the instinct to make some progress on behalf of the American people and their security online is a good instinct on President Trump’s part.

♦ Q Why prematurely announce a dialogue if nothing is agreed upon on those subjects?

MR. BOSSERT: I don’t think anything was prematurely announced. I think the President was clear in saying that the conversation was raised and the idea was suggested, and that he was open to it. And I’m going to help him put the contours on that and give him some advice back on how we can frame that in a productive way without giving up any U.S. security and certainly without giving up any election security, which is President Trump’s priority.

♦ Q You said you didn’t want to use the word “partnership” because it sounds like you’re a little bit worried about the relationship. Can you tell us how you deal with the Russians at the lower — not the presidential level — when you’re dealing with these delicate issues? How that’s changed?

MR. BOSSERT: Well, the point — the distinction I made was that a partnership suggests that you’ve reached a place where you believe that you have a trusted relationship and you’ve come to some common agreement on ideals and goals and behaviors. I don’t believe that the United States and Russia have come to that point yet in cyberspace. And until we do, we wouldn’t have the conversation about partnership. But we had to have a dialogue, and that’s where we’ll start.

♦ Q The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice last year had dialogue with China about rules of the road for cybersecurity. Are you continuing that process? And is that a roadmap for discussions with Russia over rules of the road for hacking and cybersecurity?

MR. BOSSERT: It’s not a roadmap. Every country has their own unique conversations that they have to have. The nonbinding agreements that the Chinese made with the United States are still in place, and the United States has every expectation that they’ll continue to meet those nonbinding agreements, the thrust of which was that no government engage in cyber espionage directed at commercial practices and commercial industry. And that’s something that we would expect the Chinese to continue to honor. The United States is very serious about that.

And I think that it’s important to note that President Trump and President Xi continue to have a growing and strong relationship. So I would have no expectation that that would be reneged upon. And if it were, it’s something I would advise the President — President Trump — that he raise to President Xi immediately. But for now, the conversation with the Chinese is one that’s productive and is one that’s built on some other mutual and common objectives and interests, and it is not a template or anything that I would use to compare our conversations and relations with the Russians.

♦ Q Do you (inaudible) that China is abiding by those agreed-upon norms?

MR. BOSSERT: Well, I don’t have any trend analysis to report today on whether China does or doesn’t observe the norms. That’s a very difficult thing to answer. But I believe that they have the commitment. I believe that they have the resolve to meet that commitment. And if I were to see trends that they were not meeting that commitment, I would advise the President to call him on that behavior.

♦ Q Did immigration or refugee issues come up with President Macron? And if so, in what context? Where do they stand on that?

MR. BOSSERT: No, no immigration or refugee issues came up specifically. But both Presidents did note, of course, that we had to be mindful of any fighters migrating to, and returning from, areas of active conflict in the global jihadi conflict in which we are on our 17th year.

So, thank you very much.

END – 3:21 P.M. CET

Advertisements
This entry was posted in China, Cyber Security, European Union, France, Iraq, ISIS, Islam, Jihad, media bias, Military, President Trump, Russia, Syria, Terrorist Attacks, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

83 Responses to Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert Press Briefing Aboard Air-Force-One…

  1. Jimmy Jack says:

    Thanks again SD for pulling tie info together in easy to share format. God bless.

    Liked by 22 people

  2. dalethorn says:

    So much information – a cluster of thoughts about the media: They tend to nag a lot about civilian casualties in the war against ISIS. I don’t remember this level of angst on media’s part in previous wars. My instinct is that this near-constant nagging is just another media tool for disruption.

    Then there’s the Russian, and to a lesser extent the Chinese cooperation on cyber and other issues. Trump’s advisors and spokespeople have tried to make clear the subtleties involved, due no doubt to the Russians’ and Chinese paranoia and mistrust of U.S. Administrations (Obama being a very good reason), but the media keeps nagging on this one too, pretending that their readers want definitive answers right now, when they actually know it’s a process, and a sensitive process at that.

    So I give the Trump team A-pluses all the way, and media (even the lesser offensive media) anything from D-minus to failing.

    Liked by 21 people

    • citizen817 says:

      The media can’t be trusted on any issue. They will try and spin this every way their globalist masters tell them to. Good concise read, as were parts 1 and 2. Media questions always try to get back to Russia…all they have. Thank God the Trump team is in charge.

      Liked by 14 people

    • @ dalethorn: I couldn’t agree more…..but to expand on your thoughts about the media I’d like to say that 90% of media is controlled by a very small handful of people and these are the people that run, not only all facets of their prospective medium but they also control the Democrat party and their members…not the other way around as most people believe.
      Right now team Trump is going at full speed on their agenda but he’s not getting any credit but rather just the opposite….they paint him as ineffectual.
      It’s my belief that he’s working this way on purpose instead of pushing back right now and just before the election he will take over control of the news by prosecuting some big name people that are right now feeling as if they got away with breaking the law.
      He will put their crimes against the people on the front page/line of every media outlet and the citizens will come to see that he is the greatest president since Coollidge and that he has saved the USA from the socialist cancer that has been planted here oh so many decades ago.

      Liked by 17 people

      • dbw1776 says:

        I like the way you think!

        Liked by 6 people

        • shallbe4 says:

          Outside of FDR and he died when I was only 2-1/2 years old Trump is the greatest President in my lifetime. One thing we overlook about the situation in France is that the French and their government see how their beautiful nation has been destroyed by ISIS. Its a funny thing that people see the damage which has been done to their people but have no answer to the turmoil which is destroying Paris. That is until someone comes along with an answer to the situation. That someone is President Trump. Our President is a great negotiator because he can see both sides of every issue. He doesn’t push but pretty soon everyone believes they have solved the problem themselves. WHAT A SKILL THAT IS!!!

          Liked by 2 people

      • H.R. says:

        I-kinda-expect-the-same-as-you-predicted, mega-dittoes, darnhardworker, particularly the part about those thinking they are home free.

        You wrote (bold mine): “I’d like to say that 90% of media is controlled by a very small handful of people and these are the people that run, not only all facets of their prospective medium but they also control the Democrat party and their members…not the other way around as most people believe.”

        I’m reasonably certain that President Trump is aware of, and taking into account his real media enemies, and not the bought-by-the-bushel on air personalities we see or hear.

        Tapper, Acosta, Blitzer, Mitchell, Scarborough, Kelly, (and a special shout out to Juan Williams – hahahahaha!) ad nauseum, ad infinitum, are NOT President Trumps real concern when it comes to the YSM.

        Liked by 6 people

      • mimbler says:

        I agree with just a few people owning the media, but…
        Journalism schools are taught by 100 percent liberal/marxist professors that teach their students activism as journalists is a sign of integrity.

        I have a niece that graduated in journalism from Brown, and the indoctrination is beyond belief.

        Regardless of who owns the media, the journalists are marxists who will say anything and do anything to promote their cause.

        I will hand it to the libs. They understand that who writes the news and teaches the children and produces the entertainment control the country. They understand it and have relentlessly increased their domination of those areas in the last 50 years,
        Mike

        Liked by 8 people

        • Wayne says:

          It never stops being a wonder to me / ATTORNEYS, Actors, and journalist. These three professions , there is nothing people in these professions won’t do for money and fame( not all , but most) I see actors and journalist all the time saying things openly that I would never say for money. I don’t understand how they could think that it doesn’t matter cause it’s their job or how they get their money ?? Smh always

          Liked by 1 person

      • fleporeblog says:

        I absolutely agree with you! Just like the NYT’s writer had a meltdown on twitter after Don Jr. released his emails killing a year worth of work, the same will be true for the Democrats. Sometime in early September next year, the hammer will fall on a few of them and will kill everything they have done up until that point.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Pancho says:

        That is a fantastic belief to have, darnhard, and I love it. And not only prosecute these people but get convictions!..What a glorious day that would be.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Daniel says:

      The media doesn’t seem to have problems with the Islamic militants murdering civilians in our western countries.

      Liked by 8 people

    • Sylvia Avery says:

      Oh dalethorn, you are so much more sophisticated and thoughtful than I. All I could think were angry thoughts about what annoying idiots they are. Instead of trying to legitimately get information, they use their questions as weapons to try to score points. It never changes. Drives me nuts.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Bert Darrell says:

      I’ve said before that I believe that reporters, in general, are mentally lazy and not very intelligent. I will add now that they also tend to be stupidly devious; quite evident in the interaction transcribed above.

      Liked by 3 people

      • WSB says:

        Jake Tapper was a cartoonist and went to college for art history.

        Like

        • shallbe4 says:

          We will see a time in the not too distant future when we will all come together to fight for this country’s freedom. The media will cool it and the Dems will be silent as we deal with things American and forget the silly stuff which is only important when their’s nothing else to concern ourselves with. Trump’s strength and warmth toward this country’s people will see us through and perhaps after a real problem is solved then Americans will notePresident Trump kept us safe and damn he is a great President.

          Liked by 2 people

    • chbailey says:

      Yes, media nags… for sense of development cf. ‘fret’

      Like

  3. LBB says:

    Oddly, in the beginning, I thought foreign policy maybe would of been PDJT’s weaker area. I am very comforted that it doesn’t seem to be the case. I am sure there will be hiccups along the way, but now that Trump has talked directly to a lot of world leaders, there may be an easing of what the hysteria our MSM was portraying.
    I am very proud of our talented President. He gets that all countries have basic needs to sustain their economy & security and which areas each country may be able to help each other.

    Liked by 10 people

    • 17CatsInTN says:

      Other than media lies, I don’t know why ANYONE would think he would be weak in foreign policy. He has talked about it for years and has dealt with it as a businessman for decades. It is one of the many lies put out about him that I find most execrable. You only had to listen to a couple of his rallies to figure out he knows what he is talking about and I would add always has.

      Liked by 7 people

      • LBB says:

        I always voted, but never followed politics or celebrities very much. Rallies gave me some understanding where DJT stood on foreign policy, but not spelled out to a tee. I know he was a world wide businessman. So my statement is just from my standpoint. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses.

        Liked by 4 people

        • WSB says:

          Being in a similar business to PDJT’s, I can tell you, woring on hotels in SEA, the ME and other countries is quite an eye opener. The politics are tricky to say the least.

          Liked by 2 people

        • 17CatsInTN says:

          Well, rallies wouldn’t give it to you spelled out to a T, but they demonstrated he was no piker when it came to foreign relations and he had a FAR better grasp of reality then the current administration did at the time of his rallies. I just meant that, to listen to the media, it would be a miracle if he even knew where Mexico was they just painted him so stupid.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Sylvia Avery says:

      He’s showing some serious foreign policy chops, isn’t he LBB? I am so thrilled, so proud, so grateful.

      Liked by 8 people

      • LBB says:

        I am very thrilled . The contrast from previous cabinets is being defined.

        Liked by 5 people

      • louche9 says:

        After 16 years of Dubya’s and Obama’s full cooperation with and complicity in Uno Mundo, with American taxpayers footing the bill for their own demise, Trump’s approach is refreshing, to say the least. English op-eds used to sometimes mention what a shock to the international system it would be if America “turned in on itself” (i.e., started acting in its own best interest first and foremost). It was a major concern after 9/11. But then Bush continued on the jolly path of allowing loads of Muslims into the country anyway, so the globalist breathed a sigh of relief and resumed demanding billions for global initiatives.

        Witnessing the reaction of the world leaders to President Trump was gratifying, but also, at least for me, really infuriating. After so many years of political shrugs and “no real solution” to the grief caused Americans from open borders, endless work visas and lousy trade deals, Trump comes in and within six months, almost all countries have acknowledged to varying degrees that things must change. One of the reasons leftists hate Trump is that he is shredding their UN-sanctified relativism shibboleth. If every country is the same and none are exceptional, then explain the behavior of the other world leaders toward Trump in the Middle East, in NATO, at the G20 summit.

        Liked by 5 people

    • Bert Darrell says:

      What was Obama’s foreign policy experience? Or anything else for that matter. Lying was his only forte. Yet the lazy, ignorant, devious, treasonous media could not find anything wrong with him. Enough said!

      Liked by 4 people

  4. wheatietoo says:

    “…disinformation campaigns and propaganda campaigns” …?

    I wonder which media weasel asked about that.
    It is the LeftStreamMedia that has been engaging in “disinformation and propaganda”!!

    I can’t believe they had the nerve to bring it up.
    No wait…yes I can.
    They have no shame.

    Liked by 12 people

  5. YvonneMarie says:

    Homeland Security Advisor is experienced and competent in his position.
    We are very very very blessed to have elected President Trump in this critical time of history.
    President Macron is a fine ally in the war on the Islamic jihad of Western Civilization.
    Period.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. fedback says:

    President Trump and Macron at the press conference talked about removing terrorist propaganda online.
    And Fake News somehow thought they were talking about Russian propaganda. Media is useless and incompetent. And manipulative.

    Liked by 7 people

    • KBR says:

      The muhRussian propaganda is the whole meat of the media. If they fear that the muhRussian propaganda is at risk, they would want to know.

      Of course, they call it Russian propaganda, but I think they were concerned about muhRussian propaganda.

      Hope that will be next on the propaganda negation.

      Liked by 1 person

      • KBR says:

        ^”In the context of Russia” would surely include muhRussia, now, wouldn’t it?

        Q President Macron mentioned working together to fight propaganda and disinformation. Was that conversation in the context of Russia?

        Liked by 1 person

        • hypnotique59 says:

          The answer should have been… ” Well no. As a matter of fact it was in the context of the so called US media.”

          Like

    • 17CatsInTN says:

      I agree with the useless and manipulative part. They are only incompetent insofar as they can no longer get their message out believably. They are very competent in keeping to the script and framing their lies, otherwise known as questions, as fact. Their real problem is news is real time now with lots of people recording events themselves and immediately getting vids/pics out there. The media monopoly on visuals is broken.

      Liked by 3 people

  7. Howie says:

    This approach is letting me down, and leaving me flat.

    Like

  8. KBR says:

    From yesterday, Brett McGurk comments, this stood out in my mind:

    “Over ISIS radios, terrorists hold up in the old city were speaking French, Chinese, Dutch, Russian, and Arabic with a non-Iraqi dialect.”

    That…

    Liked by 9 people

    • KBR says:

      Then today this:
      “♦ Q General Kelly had mentioned that they were thinking of asking people for social media passwords when they apply for visas, if they’re coming from certain countries. Is there a process — are you looking at a way to implement that formally?

      MR. BOSSERT: Actually, I can’t add to that. I would say that Secretary Kelly owns and is responsible for that portion of the policy, and for implementing it. So if he commented on it, you’ve got it right from the horse’s mouth, and I can’t add to it. I don’t have anything that I would try to add to it, but I would refer you back to Secretary Kelly on that.”

      Liked by 2 people

    • MVW says:

      It means ISIS can’t slink away. Their accent will give them up. Destruction by encirclement is assured.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Sylvia Avery says:

      Chinese??? Hmm…

      Liked by 2 people

      • Bull Durham says:

        The Chinese Uyghurs speak their language, a Turkic language, but also Mandarin is taught to all. For them to be using Mandarin seems highly unlikely. China has special forces in Syria trying to track them. Mandarin would make that easier. Turkic is prolific in many dialects from Turkey, Turkmen in Syria, the Uyghurs and others from Central Asia, all recruited to the Caliphate.

        Liked by 6 people

        • KBR says:

          Do the Uyghurs speak “Chinese” (assume Mandarin?) “with no accent?”

          Like

        • carrierh says:

          Bull, the Eigers used to be a calm muslim group until in the last few years have been invaded by islamists who have stirred up the pot. In any case, Kashgar is under constant view by the Chinese and they will NOT allow any islamic problems and will shot them first.
          We had hoped in our travels in China to go to Tibet via this path, but no longer. However, there is now an oxygenated train one can take, so hope fully can do that soon. China is a large country with many, many people but in general is very calm and refreshing after the crap that has been taking place here. Mandarin is the “cover” language for the previous 13 provinces under warlords, but each part of China has it own language, i.e., in Beijing our Chinese friends speak Pekingese, Beijinese and Mandarin, so I just stick to the Mandarin and Pinyin (baby Chinese). In the Canton area (Hong Kong, Shenzhen and others part of Canton, the language is little more difficult conquer so Mandarin is great. In Taiwan, which is NOT Chinese as they say but they are Taiwanese, speak the former Chinese language (old-fashioned more or less) and I have to stop and think about spelling, etc. when there (but never ever miss out on their fantastic superb history museum) or Hong Kong food. What in short is that China does not allow upsets and they are improving because they do NOT want another “peasant” uprising where those in “power” will not end up happy. Like millions of Americans if they are roused up, watch out. Apparently those who would take our country for us just don’t get it! but they will not like karma.

          Liked by 2 people

      • KBR says:

        Also “French” so that ties in with the Trump-Macron terrorist talks mentioned too.

        I notice he didn’t mention either “American-style English” nor “English” but that does not mean those were not also heard.

        Liked by 1 person

      • carrierh says:

        There are many in many countries that see this as excitement, jolly good thing, etc. and will sign up forgetting that the next day they may wake up in hell from some type of weaponry marring their excitement, so, yes, many languages and important we know this so we truly check everyone! By the way, SD, I truly enjoy this site and best of all we really do have a President working transparently. Yahoo! No matter, the idiots who call themselves news people will rant and rave and lie and deny any and everything about Trump and his family. Since this Donald, Jr. thingy is a nothing, only Tiffany is left to be attacked in some misleading way. After that, they run out of Trump family and in-laws. I would laugh because it really is a silly comedy of their so many errors and lies in supposed news. Sad little people being paid to do the dirty.

        Liked by 2 people

  9. MVW says:

    It was interesting that Trump and Tillerson are keeping Iran plans closely held and Bossert was not in on the plans. Very interesting. Leaks. Obama holdovers are likely Iran sympathizers.

    France’s Mideast politics is likely close to Trump’s anyway. However, Libya is Macron’s chief interest. Macron wants Trump’s commitment to help, and it looks like Trump played coy and did not say no. Why say ‘no’, ever? One never knows how sweet the deal might be for a ‘yes’. Not a ‘no’ likely made Macron and handlers happy.

    The professional bureaucrats know how to speak Legacy Media gobbledegook senseless speak. The Legacy Media eats it up with a spoon. Can you sense it?

    Liked by 1 person

    • MVW says:

      The legacy media is imploding due to buggy whip trouble and due to transparent foolishness. Trump does not need to give it a push as the more the legacy media attacks him the more they push people to the new media.

      I think the point that has been brought up is that Russia did attempt to affect the election, but in a counter way from the legacy media narrative. Don Jr. illustrated it by the attempt to trap the MAGA campaign with the Russian lawyer opposition research bait. DJT was not Putin’s man, Hillary was. She could be bought.

      No doubt Putin was not all in on Hillary as really she is untrustworthy, and might ask for more $$$$. But Trump and oil shows Putin’s clandestine support for Hitlery was insightful.

      Liked by 6 people

  10. H.R. says:

    Bossert 1: Lying YSM Crapweasel Jurinalists 0

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Minnie says:

    Before I even read this (no doubt) stellar analysis, can someone tell me why there is a practically pornographic “ad” beneath the thread?

    And don’t tell me my phone uses cookies to track my preferences 😐

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dixie says:

      As best I understand, whatever ad is there was put there by Word Press.

      Liked by 2 people

    • thluckyone says:

      Minnie? When you mention a “practically pornographic ‘ad'” are you referencing the STUNNING picture from Reuters with the camera looking directly into the piercing eyes of our ‘goddess-like’ First Lady?

      “While her hair cascaded from her head down her back like finest silk… the two politically engaged males in the foreground did their best to pretend they weren’t gob-smacked by her glowing presence…” “…her eyes parted the facade like a knife through hot butter and she smiled inwardly, grateful to know that her time in this world could contribute to the healing of international relationships – just as her loving presence had contributed at the hospital to the strengthening and healing of the children for whom she so deeply cared.”

      Most CERTAINLY I can understand that looking into her eyes can be like being under a spell… and I can also understand that looking into those eyes of hers could be… um… “stimulating”. But as to the picture being “practically pornographic“?

      I think more nearly, “enchanting”.

      {{{JK!}}} THANKS, Minnie!

      Liked by 3 people

  12. Donna in Oregon says:

    I hope the Syrians put in a General like Egypt did. That is the surest way to keep the Islamists out and have secular rule. Syria needs to have order and structure in the government, separate from the Mosques and the tribes.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Maquis says:

      That is a worthy thought. They surely must have an exceptionally shallow pool of political leaders outside the palace whose principal commision was to serve the people. Military folks get short shrift from the Leftist losers, but they are truly self-sacrificing servants, most, anyway. How many other people place themselves between innocents and evil?

      Of course, in a regime, finding a good leader is not always easy. Consider the generals that Obama favored, promoted, didn’t sack… I doubt any one of those is true leader material. Egypt surely is blessed with al-Sisi. Heaven appears to be smiling on humanity in many ways right now. So proud of our President.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. MIKE says:

    Pertaining to the open dialogue thing, I’d say the only way this would be useful is if all these world leaders get together and agree that they need to exorcise the globalists role in our finances. Tough row to hoe. Trump has the skill set to do it.

    Liked by 5 people

  14. snailmailtrucker says:

    These are the 24 Republicans who voted against the legislation that would have removed funding for transgender military members’ medical costs:

    California Rep. Paul Cook
    California Rep. Jeff Denham
    California Rep. Steve Knight
    California Rep. Darrell Issa
    Colorado Rep Mike Coffman
    Florida Rep. Carlos Curbelo
    Florida Rep. Lena Ros-Lehtinen
    Florida Rep. Brian Mast
    Michigan Rep. Justin Amash
    Michigan Rep. Jack Bergman
    New Jersey Rep. Leonard Lance
    New Jersey Rep. Frank Lobiondo
    New Jersey Rep. Tom MacArthur
    New York Rep. John Faso
    New York Rep. Elise Stefanik
    New York Rep. Tom Reed
    New York Rep. John Katko
    New York Rep. Claudia Tenney
    Pennsylvania Rep. Ryan Costello
    Pennsylvania Rep. Charles Dent
    Pennsylvania Rep. Bill Shuster
    Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick
    Virginia Rep. Barbara Comstock
    Washington Rep. David Reichert

    Liked by 2 people

  15. carrierh says:

    The 24 we want stupid laws in general reflect the democrat brainlessness and hypocrisy even though they said they were republicans. They have now proven themselves not worthy to work for us so let’s remove them from Congress and start with a fresh Congress and not an ongoing swamp.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. MOA says:

    Now reflect on what might have been…..

    Without 3rd world legal and illegal immigrants to the USA we wouldn’t need Homeland Security touching up people at airports.

    Too late now.

    Like

  17. Maquis says:

    These reporters are so completely disingenuous in their madness to create different, idiotic, attempts to angle in to the same damn question, muh Russia.

    They are like spoiled children finally instructed to stop begging for something, only to attempt endless new conversations that are inevitably leading in some ridiculous fashion to that very taboo. Putzes.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s