The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!
Hi, (not you?) | Member Center | Sign Out
Listen: Weekdays 8:30-1pm ET
Posted: 1:00 a.m. Friday, Sept. 19, 2003
Today's Nuze: Today's Nuze: September 19, 2003
By Neal Boortz
| Today's Nuze: September 19, 2003 | |
9/19/03A DECISION FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT TODAY Some time today we'll hear from the full panel of the 9th Circuit Court on that decision by a three-judge panel to delay the recall election in California. Look for an update as soon as that decision comes down. COSTING AMERICANS $65 MILLION Yesterday the Imperial Federal Government virtually shut down in Washington DC. The Metro trains stopped running a full 12 hours before the hurricane even hit the coast of North Carolina. And how did things turn out in DC? It was a breezy, rainy day. That's it. Nothing more. Meanwhile, the shutdown cost the American taxpayers about $65 million in lost productivity. Many private businesses stayed open in the nation's capitol ... but not government. There's a lesson here. Please tell me I don't need to elaborate.  Isabel ahead. Time to turn 40 degrees to starboard. THIS IS HOW YOU PROTECT OUR TROOPS By now you've heard of Ted Kennedy's interview with the Associated Press. It was an anti-Bush, anti-war tirade loose on facts and high on leftist rhetoric. Kennedy told the AP that "This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud." Is there any basis in fact for this claim? Kennedy cites none ... he's just satisfied to make the charge. Some analysts believe Kennedy is alluding to a meeting in Texas in January of 2002, not 2003. Carl Rove was talking to Texas Republicans and told them that the public trusts the Republicans to do the right thing in fighting terrorism. Was that Kennedy's announcement "that the war was going to take place and was going to be good politically?" Kennedy also says that foreign leaders are being bribed with taxpayer money: "My belief is that this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops." Nobody has made this claim before Kennedy. There are no US taxpayer funds being paid to foreign leaders for support in the war in Iraq. Could Kennedy possibly be talking about the U.S. paying the transportation costs for foreign troops going to Iraq? This bloated sot shouldn't even be in the Senate. The very fact that he is a respected member of the Democratic leadership is testament to the moral depravity of the Democratic Party and its supporters. Here is a man who allowed a woman, widely believed to be his paramour, to die inside his partially submerged car while he paced up and down the roadside worrying about his political future. He then used his family's wealth and fame to virtually escape any responsibility for his cowardly actions. He should have had the decency to disappear behind the walls of the Kennedy compound years ago. Instead, he's one of the most powerful Democrats in the Senate, orchestrating filibusters against conservative appointees to federal courts and lying about the motivations behind the war on terrorism. Democrats should be so proud. RUNNING FROM SCHWARZENEGGER???? Arnold Schwarzenegger agreed to one - and only one debate in California. That debate is one in which the questions are submitted in writing in advance. Thus far Arnold has stayed away from three state-wide debates in which there was to be a free and wide-open exchange between the candidates and the news media. Now the other candidates are retaliating. They're pulling out of the one debate Arnold has agreed to attend ... unless, that is, they drop the questions submitted in advance. Make it freewheeling, and they'll be there. Otherwise, no show. Dirty politics? Nope, don't think so. This is good, effective politics. Arnold is obviously afraid of any wide-open confrontation with the other candidates. Perhaps he feels he doesn't have a good enough grasp on the campaign issues, or he's concerned about his ability to think on his feet in English. Let Arnold sit up there and answer his pre-submitted questions alone. MORE ON EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE From the looks of things the City of Alabaster is suffering a bit of a public relations problem over their attempts to seize the private property of a dozen or so homeowners so that a favored developer can build a shopping center with a Wal-Mart. Alabaster politicians are now having to make excuses for their immoral land grab in the media. Today we'll try to contact Joe Pino, the attorney for the victims of this land grab, to check on the status of the case. WESLEY CLARK'S "WHITE HOUSE" CONTACT A few months ago Wesley Clark charged that the White House contacted him on 9/11 and pressured him to link that attack to Saddam Hussein. It was a lie. Wesley Clark later started backtracking big time, and finally said that the call came from someone in Canada with White House connections. Now we know who this person is. He's Thomas Hecht of Montreal, the president of Middle Eastern think tank. Hecht admits that he is the one who made the call to Clark, and further says that he has no connection whatsoever with the White House. So ... did Wesley Clark lie? Of course not! He's a Democrat! Democrats don't lie! Only Republicans lie! HILLARY WATCH Will she run in 2004? She doesn't want to, that's certain. She does not want to run against an incumbent, either Democrat or Republican. Hillary's goal for 2004 is to make sure that Bush wins. That leaves an open seat in 2008 ... an open seat destined for her. BUT .... you can bet that Hitlary and her so-called "husband" are watching the polls. If it looks like Bush is going to lose to a Democrat, Hillary is in. The groundwork is being laid right now. Man ... wouldn't this be fun! MAX CLELAND .. FROM SENATOR TO POSTER CHILD FOR BITTERNESS Former Georgia Democratic Senator Max Cleland has poison-penned a little opinion piece for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. It's a screed against the war in Iraq which implies that George Bush had plans to attack Saddam Hussein even before the terrorist attacks of 9/11. This link will take you to the column ... see you back here in a minute or so ..... At the beginning of his column Cleland writes about a president "decid(ing) to go to war against a nation led by a brutal dictator supported by one-party rule." Cleland then writes "in his campaign for president he gives no indication of wanting to go to war. In fact, he decries the overextension of American military might ...." Cleland then identifies the president as Lyndon Johnson and the conflict as the war in Vietnam. Cleland writes that this all sounds familiar .... and brings us to 2003 and the war in Iraq. This, my friends, is why Max Cleland is no longer a Senator from Georgia. It's not because of the dynamic personality of the man who replaced him. Few outside Georgia can even remember the name of Saxby Chambliss. It's because the people of Georgia recognized that Max Cleland was a Democrat first and a Georgian and American second. After the attacks of 9/11 Cleland fought the formation of the Department of Homeland Security for one reason ... because the government employee unions were unhappy with their right to organize and control Homeland Security workers under the Bush plan. He chose to fight for the Democrat-government union agenda while the nation was fighting Islamic terrorism. The voters recognized Cleland for the harshly partisan Democrat he was and decided that it was time for him to retire. That implication that George Bush was planning the war against Saddam Hussein even prior to 9/11 is particularly obnoxious. This is based on the leftist fantasy that George Bush attacked Hussein to avenge his father's failure to finish the job in 1991. Troubling enough, but Cleland steps over the line when he wrote "A key piece of that intelligence was an outright lie that the White House put into the president's State of the Union Speech." Cleland's statement itself is an "outright lie." It's sad that we have to go over this whole mess again ... but Cleland's intentional misrepresentation demands it. In his State of the Union Speech George Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." That is the "lie" cited by Max Cleland. The fact is, though, that it is not a lie. It was and it remains the truth. George Bush did not say that Hussein tried to buy that uranium, he said that the British government learned that this was the case. To this very day the British intelligence services stand by this claim. They still say that Saddam Hussein tried to buy additional supplies of uranium from Niger. So, if British intelligence is standing by their claim, how is it then a "lie" to say cite that claim? The left is riding this "Bush lied" horse hard. Trouble is .. .they can't bring to the table one single instance of a lie told by George Bush in this entire scenario! Cleland had joined the crowd. Maybe Max would be so gracious as to determine the actual definition of a "lie," and then provide us with an appropriate example. A FEW READING ASSIGNMENTS Why is support for Bush fading? Most think that it's because the American people have been lulled into a (false?) sense of security due to the success of Bush's war against terrorism. Dick Morris thinks that these fears of terrorism are fading a bit too fast. We don't have a large list of reading assignments today ... but check back later and on Saturday morning. With the new "Nealz Nuze" we'll be adding reading assignments throughout the weekend. Do you know what a "stalking horse" is? If you look up the definition in your encyclopedia you'll see a picture of Wesley Clark. General Clark is nothing more than a stalking horse for The Hildabeast. Speaking of Wesley Clark ... what a candidate he's going to make! He can't even say at this point whether or not he supports the war in Iraq. Clark says he "probably" would support the war, but isn't quite sure. Democrats and the leftist appeasers are making such a huge deal out of George Bush's statement that we have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11. The left can't cite an instance where Bush ever said that Hussein did have any connection with 9/11, and that wasn't the excuse for deposing him. Mona Charen sets the record straight. Good ammunition for your friends who can't get a grasp on the facts. Some good news in the polls. Sixty percent of the American people give a "poor" rating to the United Nations. A "poor" rating is good, but it would be much better if Americans realized that the UN is a threat to our very sovereignty. Colin Powell writes in The Wall Street Journal that the Iraqis are now on the road to democratic self government. Don't you love this line from Bruce Bartlett's latest column? He's writing about the New York Times' most vociferous anti-Bush columnist Paul Krugman: "If he were a cartoon character, he would probably look like Donald Duck during one of his famous tirades, with steam pouring out of his ears every time he hears someone say 'tax cuts' or 'George W. Bush' or 'supply-side economics.'" Oh man ... this is amazing. Now we have Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman promoting the United Nations and fighting the evil President of the United States, Lex Luthor. No, I'm not kidding. You can't make this stuff up. Do you really want to see a Democrat go absolutely ballistic over Iraq? All you have to do is tell them that Halliburton Corporation is over there actually making money ... then stand back. NEALZ LINKS FOR NUZE | |
Neal Boortz's Latest Tweets
.
You're Almost Done!
Select a display name and password
{* #socialRegistrationForm *} {* socialRegistration_displayName *} {* socialRegistration_emailAddress *} {* traditionalRegistration_password *} {* traditionalRegistration_passwordConfirm *}Tell us about yourself
{* registration_firstName *} {* registration_lastName *} {* registration_postalZip *} {* registration_birthday *} {* registration_gender *} {* agreeToTerms *}