MALLARD FILLMORE LIKES THE FAIR TAX!

Is Mallard Fillmore on board with the HR 25?  Look closely:

WAS SAD MAX THE PART OF THE PHONY DOCUMENTS SCAM?

How long has it been now?  Two weeks?  Two weeks ---- and Dan Rather is still stonewalling.  Even though CBS seems to be ready to admit that it was duped, Rather is holding fast.  He still has not admitted that those documents he so proudly flourished on 60 Minutes II the week before last were fakes.  Forgeries.  Phonies.

This past weekend CBS came up with a rather unusual twist.  It was yet another glorious explanation of just why Dan Rather used those documents ... and how he was so terribly, absolutely, completely right to do so.   See if you can follow this.  Before the ill-fated 60 Minutes II show was aired some CBS reporters showed the documents to the White House and asked for comments.  Since the White House didn't charge that the documents were forgeries at that time that must mean that they were real.  So, you see, it was all the fault of the White House.

This morning we have the New York Times saying that CBS is preparing an announcement .. possibly for today ... that they were duped; that they had been deceived as to the origin of the documents.  Unidentified CBS officials told Times reporters that the report was too flawed to go on the air.  This turn-around was apparently prompted by the results of a weekend interview of retired National Guard Lt. Col Bill Burkett by Dan Rather and a CBS executive.  Burkett is the man identified as the possible source of the CBS documents.   

So .. now CBS is the victim?  After two weeks of drinking their own Kool-Aid...insisting that the documents were accurate, and trotting out experts who supported their claims, suddenly CBS is the victim here?   CBS wasn't duped - their viewers were.  The documents were obvious forgeries, and CBS ignored the warnings from their own experts that they didn't look authentic.  In other words, they're acting like they accepted a $100 bill drawn with a green crayon and were deceived.  We're going to buy that, aren't we?

The story out today says that Rather still believes that what is in the documents is accurate.  Sorry, but there's no logical way to arrive at that conclusion.  The man who didn't write the memos died 20 years ago.  His surviving kin (son and wife) say there's no way he wrote them.  Yet we're supposed to believe Dan Rather and CBS News that the memos might be fake, but hey the contents are accurate!  So why would they think that?

Because they want to believe it.  Such is their pent-up Bush-bashing hatred that they are willing to broadcast a false story based on forged documents to advance a political cause.  Dan Rather wanted revenge...and he smelled blood.  This was going to be his big story to go out on....the news story that brought down a sitting president and led to his re-election defeat.  Instead, their carefully constructed fantasy collapsed - and with it what was left of a major media institution's integrity.   In the end, Rather didn't take down George W. Bush, he took down CBS News and his career.

The mystery has been just why Rather has seemed almost afraid to step forward and admit that the documents are forgeries!  At this point virtually everyone else in the media -- and that includes the DC and NYC press corps -- knows the documents are fakes, his CBS bosses are about to capitulate, yet Rather is still using his "the documents may be fake, but they're correct" escape valve?

Dan Rather is perhaps the most partisan of the major broadcast network news anchors.  His hatred of all things Bush approaches the pathological.   I would submit to you that Dan Rather's burning desire to see John Kerry elected this fall has clouded his news judgment.  He was all-too-eager to jump on a story that he thought could wound or possibly cripple Bush.  I don't think for a moment that Rather would intentionally present documents he knew to be forged to his audience, even if he thought those documents would help his chosen candidate.  Rather's eagerness to hurt George Bush caused him to stumble blindly into the forged documents scandal.

Stand by, folks.  This story just might get far more interesting.  CBS can't be allowed to get by with a "we were duped" admission.  If they admit that the documents were forged, then the documents, who forged them, and how they got to CBS become the story.  There should be no pretense at protecting sources.  You don't protect sources who feed you bogus documents.  To maintain even a sliver of journalistic integrity CBS will have to divulge just where those documents came from.

Divulging the source of those documents would be no problem to Dan Rather if that source was operating independently of the Democratic Party or of the Kerry Campaign.  That appeared to be the case last week when Burkett was identified as a probable source.  Burkett was known to hold a grudge against George Bush for some perceived wrongs during Burkett's service in the Guard.  In some of his writings Burkett had compared Bush to Hitler.  So, if Burkett supplied the documents, then we can expect to see CBS finger him sooner rather than later.

But what if CBS didn't get those documents from Burkett?  What if there was an intermediary? What if there was a intermediary who commanded enough respect in the CBS newsroom that the authenticity of the documents was merely assumed?    After all, if Burkett had been the source of those documents, don't you suppose that the CBS producers might do just a bit of research on Burkett before they used them?  Wouldn't that research reveal the "Hitler" remark and other troubling aspects of Burkett's past?  Would Rather use documents provided by a relative unknown with a demonstrable grudge without some fairly heavy duty vetting?  So ... again; maybe the documents didn't come from Burkett, at least not directly.

Enter the man not named in this morning's New York Times story.  Enter Max Cleland.

This weekend we learned that Bill Burkett developed an itchy keyboard finger a few weeks ago and decided to do a bit of bragging to his Texas Democrat friends.  On August 21st Burkett wrote an email to a group of Texas Democrats saying that he had passed some information to a former senator who was out there working for John Kerry.  Burkett said that he initiated a contact with the Kerry campaign that resulted in him getting a phone call from Max Cleland.  Cleland, as you probably know, is the obsessively bitter Vietnam War veteran who lost his first race for reelection to the U.S. Senate representing Georgia.  The Georgia voters resented the manner in which Cleland became a lap dog to Tom Daschle and his choice to work to strengthen government employee unions at the expense of a strong Department of Homeland Security.   In his email message Burkett said that he gave Max Cleland information that could be used to mount a counterattack against the critics of Kerry's service in Vietnam.

Information?  What information?  Isn't it perfectly logical to believe that the information that Burkett is talking about is, in fact, the forged documents used by Dan Rather?

Here is where we see a possible reason for Rather's stonewalling. 

Is it possible that Max Cleland is actually the source of those documents?  Possible, yes.  Proven, no. Could Burkett have passed the documents to Cleland who then made them available to CBS News?   I'm just saying it's possible, folks.  But this scenario would explain why Rather had circled the wagons.  Max Cleland is part of the Kerry campaign team.  It was Max Cleland that John Kerry sent to the gates of the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas for a publicity stunt.  Kerry is Cleland's instrument of revenge against the Republican Party that deprived him of his seat in the U.S. Senate, and the Kerry Campaign knows all-to-well how to take advantage of an eager dupe.  If ... and I'm saying IF ... the source of the documents was Cleland, then the Kerry Campaign is directly implemented in the scandal.  Turn out the lights.

Let me add that I hope that the scenario I put forward here is completely false.  I've known Max Cleland for years.  I love the man, truly .. though I doubt that he would throw a glass of water on me if I caught fire.  I and many other Georgians watched in total despair as he sold his very soul to Tom Daschle and the Democratic Party.  Cleland would have been Georgia's Senator for Life if he had simply put the interests of the country and his state above the interests of his party and government employee unions.  Some of us hope that one day the kind, gregarious and gentle man that was Max Cleland will come home.

If CBS does, in fact, admit that the documents were fakes, and that the vaunted CBS news team was tricked, we can't let the story end there.  It can't end with an apology for airing the memos, a statement that the content of the memos are still believed to be accurate, and a producer thrown to the wolves.  If CBS continues to cover up where the documents came from ... the entire chain of possession ... then we'll know that the bigger story hasn't yet seen the light of day. 

COME ON, LET'S NOT BE IDIOTS HERE

House Speaker Dennis Hastert  says that Al Qaeda has a preference in this year's election.  John McCain says that they have no preference.  Speaking at a fund raiser in Illinois (with Dick Cheney in attendance,) Hastert said of sKerry:  "I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, [but] I would think they would be more apt to go [for] somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops."  Sensing an opportunity, a reporter asked him if that meant he was saying Al-Qaeda preferred The Poodle in the presidential election, and The Speaker said "That's my opinion, yes."

Now, of course, the media is going nuts.  So is the Kerry campaign.  How DARE those evil republicans suggest that Al Qaeda, an organization dedicated to the destruction of the United States, would actually have a preference in this years election?  Is there anyone out there drawing breath who actually believes Al Qaeda has no preference? 

Al Qaeda knows for a fact that George Bush will hunt them down and kill them.   They do not know that John Kerry would do the same.  Al Qaeda knows that George Bush has pledged to find as destroy as much of the terrorist movement as possible, and to continue searching and destroying as long as Islamic terrorists keep killing.  They also know that John Kerry has pledged to wage a "more sensitive" war on terror.  They know that Kerry said that U.S. troops should not be deployed overseas without United Nations approval.  They know that Kerry has voted against most of the weapons systems being used against them.  They know that Kerry voted against continued funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they know that Kerry has pledged to bring our troops home from Iraq as soon as possible, and that the Kerry target is within six months.  Knowing this, how can any rational human being say that Al Qaeda wouldn't prefer a Kerry presidency? 

Fact:  The Kerry campaign is weak on terrorism...and they can't take it when they're called on it. 

Look for more screaming, wailing and gnashing of teeth on this one today.

ALL IRAQ, ALL THE TIME

Well, we're down to the wire.  The debates are coming, and the election is in six weeks.  George Bush is surging in the polls....The Poodle is between 11 and 14 points behind with signs pointing to a Bush electoral landslide.  Another liberal defeat to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Mondale's 49-state loss to Ronald Reagan in 1984.  So facing such an uphill battle, what will The Poodle do?  What will his signature issue become?  The economy? Nope.  The deficit?  Not at all.  Jobs?  Nada.  Tax policy?  Wrong again.

The Kerry/Edwards campaign is staking itself to the situation in Iraq, and the media is along for the ride.  Expect the next month and a half to be Iraq around the clock, non-stop.  You will hear and see more stories about Americans dying, "daring, sophisticated insurgents" attacking troops and taking hostages, and generally they will do all they can to make the war look like a miserable failure.  Will it work?  Considering the intelligence of the American voters, I guess you could say that this ploy does have a chance of succeeding. 

I would like to believe that most Americans still believe it was probably a good idea to remove Saddam Hussein from power and liberate 25 million people from his reign of terror.   Logic dictates that most Americans would trust George Bush to be tougher on terrorism than The Poodle.  So the concept that the war in Iraq was a mistake, while popular in leftist circles, shouldn't  fly in Peoria. 

The other problem with the left's obsession with making Iraq a quagmire is that most Americans support the troops, and by extension, their mission.  The concept of another Vietnam doesn't work in their minds.  They like the idea of completing the mission and staying the course.  Like most sane people, voters know that we can't cut and run in Iraq.

If The Souffle thinks he's going to ride into office on election day because of a couple of bad weeks in Iraq, he just might lose by 20 points instead of 11.  Here's hoping.

READING ASSIGNMENTS

Zell Miller sent a letter to Georgia Democratic candidates.  He calls Jimmy Carter, Georgia Democratic party chairman Bobby Kahn and former Congressman Ben Jones "a Board of Deacons for Democratic Disaster."

I guess a liberal knows he's blown it when the Washington Post starts breathing down his neck.  Here's a feature that appeared in the Post over the weekend.  It's a graphic comparison between actual Killian memos and the fake memos Rather used on CBS

How deep is the hatred for George Bush on the left?  How about this city council candidate from Thousand Oaks, California distributing fliers calling for the assassination of George Bush and the sexual molestation of his daughters?

Bill Gertz has a new book.  The title is "Treachery:  How America's Friends and Foes are Secretly Arming Our Enemies."  The Washington Times has printed three excerpts from the book ... and here they are!  One, Two and Three!

Look for the teacher's unions to start screaming bloody murder about this one. Harvard University has found that children who attend charter schools are doing better than children in regular government schools.  Golly!  Whodathunkit?

I think that Victor Davis Hanson is one of the most brilliant writers out there.  Here is his explanation as to why leaving Iraq now would be a complete disaster.

The government of New London, Connecticut is stealing land from private citizens on behalf of a large corporation, all in the name of eminent domain.  George Will is all over it.

CBS has concluded it was misled over the forged National Guard documents.  Anybody with a pulse would have known that before they broadcast the documents in the first place.  Idiots.

Zell wrote a letter to the Georgia Democratic Candidates....and it's a good one.  Check it out.

"Republicans" are criticizing the administration's mistakes in Iraq.  Sure, there have been some...but only because we haven't killed enough Islamic terrorists.  Would these same senators also be whining if we got more aggressive in Iraq?  You bet...translation: they want it both ways.

The United Nations maintains that the war in Iraq is illegal, but Amir Taheri says it's really Kofi Annan's contempt for the United States behind it all.

We are currently witnessing Dan Rather's final days, as the Bush National Guard memo controversy continues to consume  him.  Pat Buchanan has more.

The Poodle has now decided that the war in Iraq is not winnable, and he wants to get out.  Bill Kristol says it's all because they are grasping at straws...it's looking more and more like they'll lose.

This is going to turn out to be a mistake...foreign election monitors have arrived in the United States to look for evidence of disenfranchisement.  Ugh.

John Kerry and George Bush have apparently agreed on three 90-minute debates.  This should be interesting....will The Poodle survive?

A war that was fought 40 years ago is still relevant in the 2004 presidential election.  Suzanne Fields looks at Kerry and the president's records during that time.

History recounts the internment of Japanese-Americans as some sort of dark period in America's history.  John Leo says Michelle Malkin's book does a good job shedding some light on the issue.

The Poodle is between 11 and 14 points behind George Bush in recent polls.  Michael Barone says that the campaign always reflects the candidate, and he takes a look at both campaigns, and where they're at.

The election is 43 days away, and Jeff Jacoby says if you want to know how to steal an election, just ask the Democrats.

Saint Clinton?  I think I am going to be ill.

A Texas man has been sentenced to public humiliation for his part in a fatal road rage crash.  Good.

Morning sickness: Britney Spears marries again. Her new husband has a newborn with another woman. Britney's last marriage 9 months ago lasted 55 hours.

WHAT THE HECK ARE THOSE POINTY HAND THINGS?
These are links to each individual story on the Nuze, p-links for the geeks out there. Plus, they work today and they'll work tomorrow. Now you can easily discuss/debate/rip apart the Nuze without worrying about the links going bad. Enjoy!

BOORTZ BLAST NEWSLETTER
Everyone is talking about the Boortz Blast newsletter. Do you want yours? Sign up here and we'll deliver it directly to your inbox every 2 weeks. If you signed up but aren't receiving it, either your company or your spam filter could be keeping it from you. Try using a personal email address and check your spam filter's junk folder for wayward newsletters.

NEAL'S FANS GET TOGETHER
If you like Neal and are looking for like minded people to hang out with online or off, check out these places:

• Talkmaster Yahoo Group
• Meet Boortz fans in your area
• alt.fan.neal.boortz newsgroup (note, you're going to have to figure out newsgroups all on your own)

Belinda Skelton, Ken Rogers, Laura Nunemaker and Brian Ganey assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!