[Nick Danger]

repositing the one we've destroyed

You haven't destroyed squat. The only thing you've done here is hurl epithets and engage in proof by louder assertion. This while carrying on a media crusade against a guy that you don't like, and trying to deflect the blame for all these foreign agents getting into the White House onto Grover Norquist, even though he had nothing to do with many of them getting in there.

When I ask how this can happen when we supposedly pay a fortune for a huge national security apparatus, I get answers like "it's not our department." You think you've destroyed my question by explaining in detailed bureaucratese why it isn't your department, but what I think you've done is quack like a bureaucrat, which explains a whole lot about how this happened, and gives us reason to think that you may not be the guy to fix it. And you are certainly nobody who ought to be telling the rest of us whom to blame for it; the objects in your mirror are a lot larger than they appear.

I'm sure it just infuriates the hell out of you that I, a mere citizen, an absolute nobody on an Internet forum, would have the gall to point the the finger at you, Mr. National Security, and hold you responsible for the fact that all these bad guys got into the White House. "It's not fair! It's all Grover Norquist's fault! You don't understand!" Yeah, I understand. I understand that we pay you guys to stop this stuff, and it happened anyway, and now you're trying to blame some other guy for it. And I'm not buying it.

[AnnaZ]

(Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer)

That is, of course, the only stomach-able scenario.

 

 

</prayer that this is not reminiscent of a "Bush signed CFR because he knows the SC will veto it" brand of optimism>

[Trollstomper]

even though he had nothing to do with many of them getting in there

You have no evidence to support that and Gaffney's article and all my postings, along with that of many others, have provided plenty of evidence Either you will perpetually refuse to see it or you are simply too obtuse.

I never said "our deparment" or my deparment or any such thing.

I did numerous times explain to you how the process works, what the law is (I took the trouble to send you yesterdays' Post articel about how that has changed and how long it took to change it, etc, all of which I had previously explained to you and you ignored). That's how it works whether anyone likes it or not.

That was all by way of explaining why therefore your whole line about 'why do you want us to beleive our billions couldnt' stop these meetings, how could Grover have gotten by if these people are terrible, how-o-how is it his fault, why aren't the Mr. National Securitys taking care of all this, blah blah.- is so widely off base.

"I'm sure it just infuriates the hell out of you..."

No , it's just like flea season, a pesky bother one puts up with the see the flowers and to appreciate how clean your dog's own house is.

[hchutch]

BTT. I have observed both you and Bob J on this forum for a while - and while I might not agree with all your positions (the case against Microsoft was nearly as full of crap as this crusade against Norquist), I think that when you and he post, people should read and consider it carefully.