If you actually read those articles (only the first two quote any substantive source, the last is one dudes opinion with no references), they talk about how the vetting process is very thorough and though the risk may be non-zero it is very low.
In what sense does that justify shutting down the refugee program? Why is a tiny, probably illusory, risk unacceptable in achieving a greater good?
Of the more than 2,100 Syrian refugees accepted by the United States since 2012, most of them in the past year, half are children, a quarter are adults over 60 and only 2 percent are young males at what officials called “combat age.”
maybe he isn’t stupid, but I think he’s so driven by his need to not feel inferior to everyone around him that he frequently disregards intelligent thought in order to claim the opposite. He will say anything to make himself look better or to make others look worse. He will never say something isn’t his area of expertise (because to him, that would be a sign of weakness).
FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.
“We do the best with what we have,” the official said. “We talk to people about what their criminal histories are, and we hear about that. That’s pretty much where we are.”
It actually talks about the inability to vet because they don’t have the necessary information to do so.
If you search all three articles for “risk” you will actually see that it says nothing whatsoever about the risk being low.
The irony of course is that news of the investigation into leaks was instantly leaked:
Spicer also warned the group of more problems if news of the phone checks and the meeting about leaks was leaked to the media. It’s not the first time that warnings about leaks have promptly leaked. The State Department’s legal office issued a four-page memo warning of the dangers of leaks – that memo was immediately posted by the Washington Post.
I’m waiting for the inevitable followup where Spicer investigates the leak of the investigation into leaking, for the full Leakception.
What I want you to do is back up your claims. You’re not making small claims here. And when someone challenges you on it, don’t just disappear, back your position if you can. I mean seriously these articles do not say the intelligence community universally recognize our vetting is inadequate.
Is it statements like these that you’re using to come to that conclusion?
Several high-level administration officials have warned in recent months just how challenging this can be. While they say U.S. security measures are much better than in the past, vetting Syrian refugees poses a quandary: How do you screen people from a war-torn country that has few criminal and terrorist databases to check?
Because if it is, then point that out. In this case, yeah I don’t think any vetting we have will ever be a 100%. Anyone who suggests that is misleading. But that doesn’t mean it’s inadequate according the intelligence community. All they’re talking about here are risks. We do have databases in this country, but sometimes a lunatic still show up at a public place and blows people away. Only after then do we spend weeks and months reading how unhinged they are on social media. Those people aren’t necessarily on databases either and we’re not a war torn country are we?
Royal, you’re acting like I’m asking for a research paper. I’m not. Trump signed an executive order targeting Muslim countries, If you want links to that, you know I can provide it. At this point those links are probably unnecessary since we know he signed it. We’ve had Muhmmed Ali’s son, our Olympian, and others with US passport holders being held up at the border presumably based on the fact they’re Muslims, in some cases, known Muslims; the Olympian piece was already linked, there was a scientist too which was linked (don’t believe he is Muslim). He’s pushing his Muslim Ban promise as best he can and had to redraft the one order because it hit problems in court.
Are you claiming he’s not trying to build a literal wall? I mean that was another so called not real promise except here we are talking about awarding the contracts in April:
So again I ask you, what is it about Fake News that suggests it isn’t literal when all of his others promises and outrageous claims are literal? You present yourself as some sort of insider of Trump supporters, which is fine. Except the Trump supporters I know, not a huge sample I know, literally believe the CNN, the BBC, and basically the entire list Trump complains about literally makes up news. It’s not about bias. They are told by their internet Meme’s that those pictures are fake, not irrelevant but actually fake… that Trump has the hugeous turn out ever. The man literally tried to make that claim.
Selective quoting, because then they go on to say that vetting was vastly improved by lessons learned. No where is it stated that the risk is high,. In fact they say in multiple places that they are confident in their vetting process but in the few cases where they have refugees for whom they cannot do a proper background check, additional measures could be warranted.
You are afraid, I understand that… but your fear is not really rational. The intelligence services are not afraid and they have a lot more info than you do.
[quote]“You can’t account for what you don’t know, and that goes to the intelligence deficit that I think is embedded in your question. What we can do though is understand where the potential vulnerabilities are so that we’re asking in the screening and vetting process the right kinds of questions to give our screeners and vetters the best possible opportunity to make an informed judgment,” said Rasmussen.
“It is not a perfect process. There is a degree of risk attached to any screening and vetting process. We look to manage that risk as best we can,” Rasmussen added.
“We may have somebody who comes to us and is simply not on our radar for any discernible reason, and there may also be the possibility that somebody decides to do something bad after being admitted through the process, but we do have a good system in place for the undertaking that we have made,” Johnson said.[/quote]
I’m beginning to think you are here just to argue. The point is that INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS (which is who I was claiming had concerns) are making the same statements that you just begrudgingly associated with risk associated with vetting being poor. If you’re going to act this obtuse then we probably don’t need to be talking to each other. This insane need you have of arguing over trivial things is concerning and I hope you get the help you need.
We will continue to disagree on what the EO is or is not. The EO is exactly as it is written.
Of course he’s building a wall (or parts of it anyway). Did I say he wasn’t? That doesn’t mean everything he says is exactly and literally what he means – or do you want to continue down that idiotic path?
I did not begrudgingly say anything about the vetting being poor. There are risks. That’s it. They’re saying there are risks. Whether or not those are acceptable risks is one thing, but that doesn’t mean the vetting process is inadequate. Where do they say the vetting process is inadequate, and not only that our intelligence community universally agrees that it’s inadequate? Even in the articles you link and like Soapy said, they actually mention the process has improved.
Some risk does not equal inadequate. They’re not remotely the same.
You are mistaken I think. They have said in the articles you linked the vetting process is good, but not perfect because SOME refugee candidates have no background info that can be investigated.
The vetting process is not poor. Read your own articles.
