Replies

If I think someone is acting like part of a fifth column, or doing the sort of things Norquist is ACCUSED of doing, then I don't go public, I go the FBI and keep at it until someone takes it seriously.

1) Get it straight, Norquist has done them and has and continues to lie about them. Both have been amply demonstrated hereabove and elsewhere.

2) I work with the Bureau every day. I've warned you before about assuming and asserting things you don't know.

3) You say that's what you would do because, as you've amply demonstrated, you don't have a clue how the system works, you have no evident personal or institutional equities in this.

4) This was first taken public by Norquist. HELLO!!!!!!!!!

5) This is one of several necessary avenues and it is working. When NR, Horowitz,Gaffney, Cal Thomas,and many others similar standing publicly call attention to this problem and denounce it (see NR's summer cover banner, "Grover Norquist Radical Islamist Problem" by Byron York). It educates a lot of people and is a part of closing this sad sideshow down. Law enforcement is another. Grover's persistence and rude fliberttygibbet attitude toward these same people will also help. If you were in serious Washington and foundation and media cirlces, you would know all of this, and you would be way past things like "If" and "ACCUSED" and "DUPE" ad nauseum ad infinitum.

5) A small group of associates, most of whom are Freepers, outed many of the Clinton China scandals the same way and you loved it. We did it in our respective Congressional, government agency and think tank roles, and we stoked these sorts of venues and Drudge and Inforwar, etc. That is what one does in this business, according to need. I would have thought that you had at least a clue about that much. You seem to see just the hair of the elephant and think your holding a rope to heaven; you are clearly missing the bigger picture, even when it's broken down for you and all the dots are color coded. Oh well.

I have been quietly following this lengthy discussion and I really have to ask: Why would Grover turn from being a tireless supporter of conservative principles to being someone subverting US security interests?

I really, really have a hard time believing that Grover is actively working to help Islamic extremists take down this country. Was he always working to do this, or is a recent enterprise? When exactly did he go bad?

You may be in the Security community, but people who know Grover and have worked with Grover have got to find this accusation of an organized attempt to compromise the US, as an incredible one. (Yes, yes I know you have worked and known Grover for over 20 years, I am refering to people who do not have the benefit of the US Intel aparatus.)

You don't need to get all snippy with me. I am honestly presenting my point of view. I have no idea about the validity of the accusations made against him, but I do find it hard to swallow that he is actively working to damage the US.