Vetting refugees

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Gowdy looked like a fool at that hearing

What does a fool look like? He looked like a prosecutor asking pertinent questions of a hostile witness. She looked and responded like a typical hostile witness. She obfuscated. Misdirected. Deceitfully parsed words. Was sarcastic, haughty, condescending. Filibustered the time allotted for questioning. She looked harsh and vindictive, a shrew-like performance, typical of her and obvious to any honest viewer. It was an expected performance. It was expected she would not honestly answer. And that was obviously on display.

The GOP reports on the talking points cleared State of any wrong doing...read more Jim.

State (Hilary) was wrong about the video. State was wrong about the danger to the Benghazi Mission. State was wrong about Al Qaeda being defeated, insignificant. State was wrong about who to trust. As the investigation newly pointed out, it was Qadaffi loyalists (those that the administration and HRC removed from power) who helped to rescue the others at the Mission, not the Libyan administration forces that we helped to replace Qadaffi and on whom we depended. State was wrong about not adequately protecting the Mission. State, the administration, Hilary, were wrong about not wanting to appear that we were bullying or controlling the Libyan government, so not sufficiently arming the Mission. And, therefor, about not making it look like we were invading Libya by sending military to rescue our people in the mission, debating for three hours, as the attack was occurring, and as the investigation newly points out, whether or not to deploy our forces in military uniform or civilian clothes. We were wrong not to even deploy a rescue mission.

Hilary was Secretary of State. She and State were supposedly cleared of any wrong doing. Progressives have conveniently changed the meanings of several words to suit their agenda. I guess we can throw the word "wrong" into the mix.

This is one of the many similar "achievements" in Hilary's resume that make her a strong candidate for POTUS.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

State (Hilary) was wrong about the video. State was wrong about the danger to the Benghazi Mission. State was wrong about Al Qaeda being defeated, insignificant. State was wrong about who to trust. As the investigation newly pointed out, it was Qadaffi loyalists (those that the administration and HRC removed from power) who helped to rescue the others at the Mission, not the Libyan administration forces that we helped to replace Qadaffi and on whom we depended. State was wrong about not adequately protecting the Mission. State, the administration, Hilary, were wrong about not wanting to appear that we were bullying or controlling the Libyan government, so not sufficiently arming the Mission. And, therefor, about not making it look like we were invading Libya by sending military to rescue our people in the mission, debating for three hours, as the attack was occurring, and as the investigation newly points out, whether or not to deploy our forces in military uniform or civilian clothes. We were wrong not to even deploy a rescue mission.

Hilary was Secretary of State. She and State were supposedly cleared of any wrong doing. Progressives have conveniently changed the meanings of several words to suit their agenda. I guess we can throw the word "wrong" into the mix.

This is one of the many similar "achievements" in Hilary's resume that make her a strong candidate for POTUS.

I love it, so 7 million dollars later and we've uncovered that there were frequent changes of clothing and people who should have hated us actually liked us.

Other than that nothing changes. What a bombshell

[detbuch]

(

Originally Posted by spence

I love it, so 7 million dollars later and we've uncovered that there were frequent changes of clothing and people who should have hated us actually liked us.

Other than that nothing changes. What a bombshell

Maybe you're responding to the wrong post? My post was not about getting into the weeds about what was "new" in the Gowdy investigation (though there was more "new" than you suggest). There was, also, greater amplification and clarification of the "old news." But, then, you like to beat the old dead horse of "old news" and "nothing new," and "millions spent" mantra. That's the immediate, predictable, evasive spin you and the administration put on these things, as well as it's "time to move on." Your nothing new mantra has been beaten to death. It is tiresome and not only evasive spin, but actually ignorant. And seven million is like about zero compared to what progressives waste on their pet wants and needs.

I was responding mostly, and especially, to your not convicted of or cleared of any "wrongdoing"--another of your dead horse mantras that slyly seems to make a distinction between doing wrong and wrong doing.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I was responding mostly, and especially, to your not convicted of or cleared of any "wrongdoing"--another of your dead horse mantras that slyly seems to make a distinction between doing wrong and wrong doing.

That specific remark was about the video which numerous previous GOP led investigations certainly did refute the argument that the administration improperly blamed the attack on the video versus terrorism.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That specific remark was about the video which numerous previous GOP led investigations certainly did refute the argument that the administration improperly blamed the attack on the video versus terrorism.

You've used the remark about other things including the whole array of Benghazi hearings and investigations. Your remark is tiresome and, at the least and most generous, "improper." And it is certainly improper to say that the argument that the administration wrongly blamed the video was refuted. "[I]mproperly" blaming the video was wrong. It was doing something wrong. I think that would actually be "wrongdoing."

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You've used the remark about other things including the whole array of Benghazi hearings and investigations. Your remark is tiresome and, at the least and most generous, "improper." And it is certainly improper to say that the argument that the administration wrongly blamed the video was refuted. "[I]mproperly" blaming the video was wrong. It was doing something wrong. I think that would actually be "wrongdoing."

Ok, I'll substitute "refuted" with "vindicated."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Ok, I'll substitute "refuted" with "vindicated."

That would be proper. The ARGUMENT that the administration wrongly blamed the video was vindicated. The ARGUMENT was correct. The administration did wrongly blame the video.