Vetting refugees

[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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

True and yet the defense for this is incompetence . A defense of this administrations mistakes and mishandlings that has become the norm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

As directed by the CIA. Even Gen Paetreus's own testimony is that we still don't know exactly the role it played...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

As directed by the CIA. Even Gen Paetreus's own testimony is that we still don't know exactly the role it played...

If we don't know what role it played, how can the administration say that it caused the attack.