I don't disagree with anything you have said.  Unfortunately, they have sold a fiction that "extreme vetting" is in the works, with no definition of what that means, but hey, they use the word extreme, so it must be more than we are doing.  My issue is that they sold the ban as a temporary thing, while they look at vetting procedures, if the time for the temporary ban has mostly run out, and they are still whining about the ban being knocked down in the courts, why have they not been evaluating current procedures without the ban in place?  Evaluating current procedures isn't a bad thing, lying about the ban, its motivations and duration is.