disservice to your viewers and to america, and security of this nation. the president is interested in one thing, making sure that terrorism doesn t happen in america. that s what the executive order is about, but if you want to keep talking about a tweet, then you re not serving that purpose either. you have responsibilities as well. a message from the president, one policy question while i have you. it s in a tweet. another tweet now? this is crazy. has there been other to the word to of the consulate has there been official change in policy where vetting is concerned? well this is not the obama administration. we don t give away sensitive information, okay? that s up to leakers, that s up to people who thought that you can give away your game plan, like when we re going to attack isis in mosul. we don t do that. we take this stuff seriously.
it on. he feels there is a threat coming in from abroad and this is how he s going to solve it. i think it appeals to people s emotional sense that he s getting tough on terror. he knows it plays well politically. i think that even the president knows that it s as i say soluti non-problem. look at sebastian gorka, ostensibly erudite man, condescending because he knows so much and we know so little. what does he say, obea ma did. we could have picked egypt and indonesia, basically saying we could have been knead worse but that doesn t defend that this order is very different from obama s in terms of focusing on who travels where. it s who comes from where but he struggled to the extent that all he could do was attack me and cnn. not a good sign for defending it
doesn t count, but on the other hand a whole tradition of 230 years of experience where what the president says is u.s. policy, and it s lunatic to believe in fact that people can look at the president and somehow divide does he have a green light above his head on the tweet that says this is policy and a red light that says it isn t? we have no possible way of knowing. it s kind of what i would call studied lunacy, if that s what we expect to have in terms of a president who one day is obviously reflecting the policy, the next day is reflecting some personal hangup, that shouldn t be counted at all. the president has access to the media because he s president and what he says in the media counts and words mean something. what the president says means something, or it doesn t, if you listened to his staff some days. some days they say the tweets speak for themselves. some days they say may no mind to those tweets. they re just social media.
this is the problem. terrorism doesn t distinguish whether you re a republican or democrat. common sense tells you that when you have the paris attacks where you had false documents from individuals moving through refugee stream, al-qaeda and isis saying they want to usury fudgy streams, the odds are, of course, this is coming in. that s why it s nonsensical. when the nation is at danger, all of us are at risk and they want to do this just to harm the president. can i make one suggestion as well? if we are going to be common sense about this, they also need to include nations like the united emirates and saudi arabia that have obvious ties to terrorist capri, that s a difference, they have central governments that are functional and we can vet them. fair enough. heather: thank you for joining us. let check in with steve doocy to see what s coming up on fox &
isis poses a threat but not an existential threat. to say that terrorism doesn t have both a broader impact it should have been a law enforcement matter and not invasion of iraq. this is why we didn t deal with the problem in eastern syria and he pulled out iraq. for him to say everyone loves america more today that is fantasyland. the foreign leaders asked us what is going on in america why are you pulling away from the world? you think we were more popular under george w. bush. at least when he said he would do something he did. like invade the wrong country. you raised pulling away from the world. what is donald trump talking about? i m not here to defend any person s individual foreign