Replies

You write: (a lot of your material is ammo in the hands of a Democrat). and "Microsoft shills"

That it may become ammo for Dems is that point, as I earlir pointed out, of the Gaffney, Horowitz, et al effort to shut it down, first queity and privately, and then after Grover's public name-calling, in the open.

I do not hate Grover and I have known him and worked with him for 20 years. I hate what he is doing and I know full well what it is as I have described. Winking at more of your flaccid bait, I don't have a "vendetta," -- rather I am a national security professional with a job, like Gaffney, which I am doing. Whether you will like the outcome or not.

By the way, why do then hate Gaffney?

Yet again you have ignored every fact and refuted nothing. And for the 4th time you have ignored my explaining to you what the legal and procedural reasons are that the LE/IC ("spooks" who engage in fantastical "gotcha" games in your arch Hollywood argot), are not supposed to, or allowed to, warn anybody. If you choose to ignore this or disbelieve it, then this former agent just feels sorry for you. Maybe if you were a "Washington creature" you might know a little better.

Anyway, the issue is not whether anyone could or should have stopped Grover's muj express, it's whether Grover shoul dhave been on it and why he shou;d by now have stopped, and now must be stopped -- as opposed to using every tool, dollar, and slimy leftist epithet to get his way. And you know it.

FYI, A 10 minute google or nexis search by the way would inform you that Norquist has made hundreds of thousands of dollars as a "Microsoft shill" So I'm curious as to whether you have "lighted" into him in the past?

Re your paragraph about being an "apologist" for Norquist - I think you protest to much: I did not say or imply you are sponsored by the Saudis. Rather that you are an apologist for Norquist. You are, I am not. Very simple.

You are full of "wonder" and invective, but alas void of facts. Perhaps if you could deal with the facts and demonstrated any facilty with them you would "wonder" less and learn more. You failed the assignment. Goodbye.

for the 4th time you have ignored my explaining to you what the legal and procedural reasons are

Yes, you have patiently explained this. Now let me explain something to you. As a citizen and a taxpayer, I spend a fortune every year on a defense and national security establishment. When it comes to protecting the President of the United States from foreign intrigue, "that's not my department" is not the answer I want to hear.

Call me naive; call me anything you want. What I'm not is a bureaucrat, and I do not want to hear bureaucrat answers like "it's not our fault" that all these creepy guys got in to see the President. I do not want to hear that the head of Americans for Tax Reform is the guy on the hook for finding the Arab terrorists. This is just a totally BS spew that you are giving us here. Patiently or otherwise.

This is how 9/11 happened. You guys haven't changed a thing. It's against procedures. It's not my department. We don't do airplanes. It's all his fault. We have Bad Guys in the White House, and the answer to this is to beat up the head of Americans for Tax Reform because the people the taxpayers are paying to protect the President from this stuff are out following procedures somewhere.

It's enough to make a poor citizen tear his hair out.