Vous pouvez ajouter des informations de localisation à vos Tweets, comme votre ville ou votre localisation précise, depuis le Web et via des applications tierces. Vous avez toujours la possibilité de supprimer l'historique de localisation de vos Tweets. En savoir plus
Earlier today I received a briefing from the White House’s National Security Advisor, Chief of Staff, and the DNI regarding the New York Times article claiming Russia offered bounties to the Taliban to kill American troops and that President Trump was briefed on these matters.
In my view, the system worked. At the tactical level, force protection was, as always, a priority and at the strategic level, the intelligence did not warrant presidential briefing or action by our country against Russia.
As to the President, the one thing that has been constant is his unwavering support to protect troops in the field.
I’ve had my differences about the President’s decision to withdraw from some hotspots in the world, but I’ve never questioned his commitment to keep troops safe while they’re in harm’s way.
The President was not briefed, as there appear to be contradictory analyses of the threat streams gathered by our intelligence community with the most reliable form of intelligence gathering being emphasized.
The Russians have been involved in Afghanistan dating back to the previous administration and would prefer the United States to leave, thus filling the vacuum.
I completely understand why the President was not briefed, and I completely understand why action against Russia based solely on this intelligence would be unjustified.
To the Democrats who want to be harder on Russia: put forward your ideas. I will gladly look at them apart from this incident as I have long had major issues with Putin’s Russia.
Like we believe you?
Because @NYT has such a great track record in the matters 
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.
