I can’t find it, but I wrote a piece which discussed a country where I was chasing down terrorists.
I pointed out that the terrorists I was chasing took over, and a small comedy ensued. They offered me a commission by mail, then when I didn’t reply they informed me I was now listed as a terrorist in their country.
Then, since I was on their mailing list, they sent me a couple of tourist brochures. All this happened over a period of decades.
One commenter asked me if I would say what country that was. I’m glad he did, because it gives a chance to repeat some very important points about this blog.
The first is that I do not want the person who wrote that to get all upset. When I explain it will sound like I am accusing him of not reading or understanding what I said before.
Peter was saying he had said too much. No, Peter, the point of my blog is for you to say what you are thinking. If other people don’t comment as much as you do, that’s their problem, not yours.
By the same token, if someone asks me something I can’t answer for a reason, I am perfectly capable of explaining again.
Do not apologize, gang, just say it.
And don’t sweat the grammar or the spelling. I am interested in what you have to say, not in Webster’s Dictionary.
If you were drunk and you want me to remove it, I’ll remove it and your request. But sometimes drunk is good and you say what you’ve been holding back.
Now to point two: this commenter asked what country it was I referred to.
When I announced the blog, I said, “Don’t hold me to anything I say in the blog.”
What is a matter of debate to others is a matter of survival to me. “Is there a leftist bias?” is a point of debate to respectable conservatives. For me dealing with the absolute vengefulness of the left is a matter of survival.
Tom DeLay upset the liberals and now he is facing prison. The Feds spent tens of millions of dollars to send David Duke to one of the worse prisons in America on a three thousand dollar tax charge.
I have been reminded of this fact on two continents in long and almost identical speeches by two different lawyers on two different continents. Apparently these were not new speeches, because I was fascinated by how identical they were.
When the leftists finally chase you down, you have two humiliating alternatives:
1) You can say everything you claimed was a lie and — I am NOT kidding about this — that you were abused in childhood and you are a pathological liar or
2) You used to believe those things but since then you have found Jehovah/Religion/Jesus and renounce all your hate-filled thoughts.
I am leaving alternative 2) wide open.
This is because I am specifically ignoring the legal advice I got in this blog. They told me that when I got old it would be hard to avoid talking about things I had done.
My Federal files have been very carefully cleaned. I was in the direct line for clearance of ALL Federal employees and that gave me a certain amount of access to all files, including mine.
Everything is deniable.
Including the second paragraph above.
But specificity can destroy deniability. So when David Duke was pressing me in Moscow on his radio show about where I was over a period of years, I was bit frustrated that he wouldn’t understand that “I was in in various kinds of intelligence work” should have been enough to make him back off.
I have enormous gaps in my resume.
They will stay empty.