Boortz was good today....

[TheAnvil 0]

....so here it is....

BUSH ANSWERS EVERY QUESTION --- WITHOUT HELP

So yesterday President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney met with the 9/11 Commission. This meeting was held in the Oval Office and no recording was made of what took place. The president answered every question, and was not stopped at any point by the White House counsel. All sides (so far) are praising the session and commission members have said the president was candid and forthcoming. The questions and the answers that have leaked have been pretty predictable...mostly about the August 6th PDB memo and the administration's response to the attacks. If the media, Democrats in Congress and The Poodle thought they were going to get anything out of this to nail Bush on, they're sorely mistaken. Better luck next time, though. The media is most certainly disappointed as well.

There was one pretty unbelievable development in all this. The 9/11 Commission pressed for weeks and weeks to meet with president and the vice-president. It absolutely had to happen, we were told, for them to complete their report. It was a very important priority. So with that as a backdrop, once they get their meeting in the Oval Office with the president, what do two of the Democrats on the commission do? They leave early! Vice chairman Lee Hamilton left the White House 70 minutes early, saying that he had a meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister. Bob Kerrey also left in the middle of the questioning, because he had a previous commitment to meet with Senator Pete Domenici on Capitol Hill. Why did they leave early? They left early because they weren't drawing any blood. They left early because the president was performing above all expectations. They left early because their agenda was not to gather information, but to embarrass the president. So .. .if your agenda isn't being met, leave!

Unbelievable. These two men were appointed to a committee to investigate the historic 9/11 attacks on America, and they can't even clear their schedules to meet with the president of the United States. .

ANOTHER 9/11 FAMILY MEMBER HEARD FROM

Last night I was sitting in a little room at the NBC studios here in Atlanta. I was there to appear on CNBC's 8:00 news program to discuss the ABC Nightline death watch show scheduled for tonight. While waiting and listening I heard an interview with a mother of a man killed in the 9/11 attacks. Now ... this may sound just a wee bit insensitive, but losing a family member in the 9/11 attacks doesn't suddenly make you a brilliant commentator on matters of national security. This woman (sorry, I forgot her name) was discussing the appearance of Bush and Cheney before the 9/11 commission members. She was upset that Bush and Cheney weren't under oath, and particularly upset that there wasn't a transcript of their testimony made available to the public.

Hey ... what's your name ... the reason that there is no transcript released is because top secret details of our war on terror were discussed. What do you want, lady? Do you want our intelligence operations to be jeopardized just to make you feel better? I heard you say you wanted to emulate the Jersey Girls .. those four anti-Bush activists who have been playing on their status as 9/11 family members to engage in partisan attacks on the president. Well ... intellectually, you fit right in.

SLIME ON THE PODIUM

This is almost too good to be true. John Kerry granted an interview to Black Entertainment Television and, wouldn't you just know it, one of the questions was about whether Al Sharpton would be a speaker at the Democratic National Convention. The Poodle's response? "If he wants to do it, I'd like him to do it. I think he'd do a terrific job. I think he'll add something...there's no plea necessary. It's my invitation." There's no way in hell Sharpton, who has never found a camera he didn't like, will turn down the invitation. You can bet he'll be there this summer to give his speech.

Actually .. .this is good news. Sharpton's appearance at the Democratic convention will give us an opportunity to highlight the moral decadence of the Democratic party. Sharpton is a lying pig, though they embrace him. Never has the saying "you're known by the company you keep" been more true.

Well .. here's an idea for Republicans. Start now demanding that Al Sharpton use this time at the Democratic National Convention to engage in the Democrats favorite form of moral exhibitionism! He can issue a few apologies!

Maybe Sharpton can use this speech to apologize to Steve Pagones. Sharpton accused Pagones, a prosecutor, of raping Tawana Brawley. Pagones later sued Sharpton and was awarded $345,000. Sharpton has yet to apologize for his role in the Brawley affair, and his unfounded and slanderous accusations against Pagones and others.

While Sharpton's on a roll, maybe he can apologize to the family of Yankel Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum was surrounded and stabbed to death by a Brooklyn mob shouting "kill the Jews" The crowd had been whipped into a frenzy by Al Sharpton railing against "diamond merchants" with "the blood of innocent babies" on their hands. What was this all about? A young black child was killed in a traffic accident. A Jew was driving the car that killed him.

Sharpton can finish by apologizing to the families of the seven employees of Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem. Freddy's, you see, was owned by a white Jew. The owner of Freddy's rents his space from a black landlord. He then rents a small portion of his space to a music store owned by a black man. The black landlord raises the rent on Freddy's Fashion Mart. This means that the owner of Freddy's, the white Jew, must raise the rent on the black man who owns the record store. Enter Al Sharpton. Sharpton starts leading demonstrations. He screams to the crowd that "We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." Sharpton's mob starts yelling "Burn down the Jew store!" and "We're going to see that this cracker suffers." A protester enters the store. He warns all black customers to get out and then shoots four employees point-blank, then sets a fire. Seven employees dead. Sharpton owes them an apology.

The problem here, of course, is that demanding apologies is a Democratic sport, not a Republican one. Well .. why can't you Republicans take a play out of the Democratic book now! Get on the record .. .demand Sharpton's apologies. See if you get any media coverage.

Yeah, right.

INTEMPERATE THOUGHTS

Those pictures of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners? You do know that it was other American soldiers who took those pictures and turned them over to authorities, don't you? The media will concentrate, though, on the bad apples, not the good ones.

You know that Jamie Gorelick is a member of the 9/11 Commission. You also probably know that she was an Assistant Attorney General in the Clinton Administration And .. you might know that she is the Clinton official who wrote that memo that pretty much eliminated any possibility that the CIA and the FBI would cooperate and share intelligence on terrorism. But .. do you know why Gorelick wrote this memo? Simple. To protect Clinton from an investigation into Chinese involvement in his campaign finance scandal.

Boortz the Horse is not running in the Kentucky Derby this weekend. Drat. I'm thinking vast left-wing conspiracy.

Speaking of the Derby. Believe me, after 35 years of talk radio, I've heard some ridiculous things. Yesterday I heard one that almost topped the list. Some mindless idiot was saying that Jockey's have a "Constitutional right" to put advertisements on their silks at the Derby. I'm not sure who this asshat was ... must have been some sort of a union rep.

Air America ... lefty talk radio .... lost two executives this week. CEO Mark Walsh and Executive Vice President for Programming Dave Logan are gone. Air America president Jon Sinton says the departures were "as expected." As expected by whom? Do you think Walsh and Logan expected it? I hear a toilet flushing somewhere.

THE DIVISIVE POODLE

Speaking of race, the Kerry campaign is coming under fire from some Democrats and advocacy groups who are upset about the lack of minority representation in the upper levels of The Poodle's campaign. It's so much fun when Democrats turn on their own, isn't it?

It turns out Kerry's inner circle is mostly white. Some are complaining about the lack of diversity, but check out who is coming to his defense. None other than the Congressional Black Caucus, whose leader, Jesse Jackson, Jr. said the criticism was unfounded. His reason? "I am concerned about diversity, but more importantly I am concerned about the experience in that diversity - senior policy people who know people from one end of the country to another." In other words, we aren't really concerned about race....we just want somebody that's knowledgeable and has connections.

Can you imagine if a Republican tried to get away with that? They wouldn't...and the first people to be jumping up and down screaming if they said something like that would be the Congressional Black Caucus. You know it's true

Beers to all,

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

Amazing psychic powers to be able to tell what happened in a non-recorded, private, closed door meeting. Is this guy a reporter, a psychic, or a tabloid journalist?

[TheAnvil 0]

A political commentator making conclusions - ones with which I tend to agree, given Kerrey's earlier sickeningly partisan performance on the committee. Still wondering what business anyone who didn't know under which administration the COLE incident occurred actually HAS on such a committee, but that's neither here nor there.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

One needs facts in order to come to a conclusion. What you're referring to is speculation. Here's some speculation from my side of the fence. GWB was being misleading and evasive since he refused to testify under oath (why would he do that if he intended to tell the truth?), so they got disgusted and left.

[TheAnvil 0]

Think that if it makes you feel better. Maybe Bob Kerrey left to study up on what terrorist events occurred when so he wouldn't embarrass himself next time by having his facts mixed up. Or perhaps he left to figure out how to spin the latest Gorelick excuse/fad...or maybe he's so appalled at having folks think he's related to John Kerry he went to see his psychiatrist.

I agree with Boortz. Think what you like. Looking forward to Al Sharpton speaking at the DNC National Convention? Perhaps Tawana Brawley can show up!

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Think that if it makes you feel better.

Actually, if that were the case it would disgust me. But since I wasn't there and will never know what is discussed, I can only speculate. Speculation is fine, but it has no basis in reality, only partisan opinion. But those are the types of sources needed to conduct a smear campaign.

[TheAnvil 0]

No I think walking out on a meeting of that nature given the enormous effort spent publicly demanding Bush/Cheney's comments before the committee was a pretty stupid thing to do.

For smear campaign, google John Ashcroft, Bob Bork, Charles Pickering, Miguel Estrada, et al. Zoe Baird too.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[christelsabine 1]

Oh yeah, someone's bowing himself so deep

no need to read this "report" til the end. first part is slime at its best.

comment within Europe before this "event" took place:

Laugh laugh laugh ...
GBW and Cheney knew why they wanted to sit together, so for future purposes, each one knows what the other one said and will not be in danger to say something different.

with re to "Another Family Member...":

Quote

...bit insensitive

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[TheAnvil 0]

Slime? I'm in total agreement with you actually. Sharpton, Ben-Veniste, Bob Kerrey - they are slime.

Oh! I see you were talking about Boortz' commentary. Ganz im gegentail, schoene Frau. Du hast deine Meinung und ich eine andere.

A bit insensitive? I think not.

Bis bald,

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[christelsabine 1]

nice try anyhow

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[gary350 0]

Boortz was good. . . what a joke.

"Boortz is no libertarian. He is a sorry shill for the Bush big-government, interventionist, xenophobic, authoritarian regime."

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-12-18/fishwrapper.html

Neal Boortz is no John Galt

Libertarians will ensure their irrelevance if they embrace radio ignoramus

BY JOHN F. SUGG

Atlanta's radio offerings are so, so, so very awful that, yes, on my drive to the office, in desperation I am forced to tune in to the city's pinnacle (or is it pit?) of know-nothingness, Neal Boortz. But I have a rule. At his first lie, gross misrepresentation of the truth, or race baiting, I go to a book on tape. Often, I don't make it out of the driveway. Seldom do I travel the five miles to I-85, and never have I completed the 30-minute drive to the Loaf without Boortz bellowing some deceitful absurdity.

Neal dissembles, John hits the off button.

For example, just last week Boortz proclaimed that the Bushies told no fibs to con Americans into supporting the war. Huh? I paused for a minute before switching on my current recorded book to make sure Boortz wouldn't qualify that astounding fiction or giggle and say, "Just kidding," since all the world now knows George Bush lied. So did Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the contemptible gang. They politicized and distorted intelligence, and when that didn't work, they fabricated and uttered gross untruths. They have even admitted it, but now claim it doesn't matter.

I sometimes jot down Boortz's lamest deceits. It's a long list. Ranking at the top was his hysterical claim, in the days before Bush's invasion of Iraq, that Saddam Hussein's military might surpass that of Nazi Germany. I slapped my forehead at that one -- the claim went beyond mere bad information and makes me wonder if there isn't serious impairment of Boortz's reasoning capacity. The fellow needs a 12-step program for the chronically dishonest and incorrigibly stupid.

The truth, by the way, was that in 1939 Adolf Hitler boasted 98 divisions, with 1.5 million well-trained men, for the invasion of Poland. For the Western offensive, Germany had 2.5 million men, and 2,500 tanks. In June 1941, Hitler had available 3 million men and 4,000 tanks to invade the Soviet Union. Saddam, prior to our invasion, never had more than 400,000 troops and 2,200 tanks, and the demoralized and largely broken-down Iraqi military was never in the same universe as the Wehrmacht.

In other words, Boortz equals bullshit.

I don't want to argue the war here, but it was just so Boortzian for him to proclaim that pure lunacy as truth. And the sheep that follow him bleat their belief that they are actually getting "information."

That Boortz struts about touting himself as a libertarian would make his daily mission of mendacity a good laugh -- except for one thing: For Big Brother to win, the Bush regime needs to bovine-ize America. Ignorance and the Orwellian capacity to simultaneously believe glaring contradictions are the essential intellectual diet of the Bushies. Force feeding America the swill are Faux News and the phalanx of talk show screechers, of which Boortz is, to his chagrin, merely a farm team lightweight.

(In October a University of Maryland survey measured how much false information -- such as that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq -- people believed and whether they primarily relied on Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN or print. Those relying on Fox were far less likely to know the truth about critical world and national issues, and far more likely to believe distortions of the truth. Boortz, of course, gets it wrong more often than the heavy-hitting propagandists he worships on Fox.)

America needs real libertarians, whose origins are firmly rooted in the Bill of Rights. The Libertarian Party (libertarians with a big "L") is holding its national convention in Atlanta in May, and the party has invited Boortz to be a speaker.

I'm told by Libertarian activists the decision was rooted in the group's cheapness -- they didn't want to foot the freight for major talent.

Well, you get what you pay for -- free traders such as the Libertarians should understand that. In lib -- or Lib -- ertarian land, there has been a howl of protest over the invitation to Boortz.

One of the few points on which Boortz's rants coincide with the Libertarians is ending the Drug War. Hell, there are a lot of tokers out there who can't even spell Libertarian who are in tune with the party on that point.
Boortz is no libertarian. He is a sorry shill for the Bush big-government, interventionist, xenophobic, authoritarian regime. Imposing our will on the world, looting resources and guaranteeing Halliburton billions in profits -- that isn't free trade; it's empire. Gutting the Bill of Rights, spying on law-abiding citizens, manipulation through agitprop -- that isn't freedom; it's slavery.

"The Libertarian Party is so desperate, it has led them to abandon their issues in favor of seeking popularity," says Eric Garris, who helps run a libertarian website, antiwar.com, and who has long been involved with the party at the national and state (California) levels.

On the key issues confronting America, Boortz clearly stands on the side of those who attack freedom, and those who want to turn Big Government into Gargantuan Government (as long as someone besides rich people and corporations pay for it).

Examples: He applauds the FBI investigating anti-war demonstrators, making a broad smear recently on his website (that could have been authored by Karl Rove, and maybe was) that activists should be hounded by the feds because they are "pro-Saddam and anti-U.S.," and that they are "largely anti-American communists and Islamic radicals."

Likewise, in the same epistle, he applauded the police riot last month against trade demonstrators in Miami. I never met someone who claimed to be a libertarian but was so antagonistic toward the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments. It just doesn't compute.

In Boortz's best imitation of Joe McCarthy, he has insinuated that Justin Raimondo -- a nationally prominent Libertarian since the 1970s and the prolific editor of anti-war.com -- is a red. Raimondo "doesn't like me," Boortz huffed on his website last week, "because I approve of our actions in Iraq. Fair enough. Do you know who else doesn't like our Iraqi actions? Well, communists, for one."

Slimey, slimey, slimey.

On economics, Boortz worships Ronald Reagan -- ignoring the fact that government grew much faster under the Gipper than under, say, Bill Clinton, who the talk show host blames for just about every ill that has ever happened (another script line from Karl Rove). And, of course, Boortz has nothing but gushing praise for Bush's economics, somehow equating fiscal responsibility with pumping up government spending to $21,000 per American household, compared with $16,000 during the Clinton administration -- the biggest increase in more than 50 years.

That remarkably un-libertarian accomplishment, coupled with Bush's tax cuts for the plutocrats, has created record deficits that will indenture our children and grandchildren -- hardly what Ayn Rand, the spiritual guru for Libertarians, had in mind in Atlas Shrugged.

It's the war, however, that has real libertarians frothing at the invitation to Boortz. The Libertarian Party platform is decidedly anti-war, stating: "We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad. ... There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine."

Pretty clear writing, and it's at the heart of Libertarian thought. An irony is that since Boortz is peachy happy with the FBI snooping on anti-war activists, and since most Libertarians are anti-war, the radio blowhard is all in favor of the government investigating the very people who invited him to address their convention. And, in the witch-hunting delusions that substitute for thought in Boortz's diseased mind, it's quite likely all those Libertarians are really either commies or radical Islamists.

Boortz doesn't like me. I outed him as a chickenhawk. He keeps changing the story about how he evaded military service during Vietnam (was it the asthma or your eyesight, Neal?). Last week, he was claiming the military wouldn't take him. More precisely, when he couldn't get a relatively cushy job as a pilot, he wasn't about to get dirty (or dead) crawling through rice paddies. It's so easy to be bellicose when it's the other guy -- probably an oh-so-expendable member of the working class and a minority -- who is getting shot.

But that's Neal Boortz, the apotheosis of cowardice. He doesn't like to debate when he can't be in control. He keeps his finger on the disconnect button so that when callers start to score points, he can quickly cut them off.

If that's who the Libertarians want to hear, the party -- already victim to several internal scuffles -- might as well admit that it's history. If its program is to imitate the Democrats' emulation of the Republicans, the Libertarian Party stands for nothing.

Neal Boortz was offered space for his unedited remarks on libertarians' "boot Boortz" efforts. Boortz apparently preferred to pout in silence. For those who would like to sign the petition to give Boortz the heave-ho from the Libertarian convention: www.petitiononline.com/noboortz/petition.html

Senior Editor John Sugg -- who says, "Neal, you gutless bag of wind, this is a challenge to a smackdown" -- can be reached at john.sugg@creativeloafing.com or at 404-614-1241.

12.18.03

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

One needs facts in order to come to a conclusion. What you're referring to is speculation. Here's some speculation from my side of the fence. GWB was being misleading and evasive since he refused to testify under oath (why would he do that if he intended to tell the truth?), so they got disgusted and left.

So you think that this type of behavior is becoming of 2 leaders who have been charged with the responsibility of discovering why 9/11 happened?

"Oh, he's not going to be honest anyway, I have another appointment to get to"?

Assuming for just a second you are right. Would you rather they just leave or really bear down and use all means at their disposal to try and ferret out the truth? If they didn't think the President was being forthcoming shouldn't they have started questioning his inconsistencies instaed of just leaving? Isn't this is the kind of attitude you expect from our leaders as opposed to "Oh, it's time for tea"?

BTW

"It was an extraordinarily good meeting. The president was forthright," said former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, the commission's Republican chairman.

"We said we hoped we could test some things out as to whether some of recommendations we were considering were indeed practical," he said. "The president said he was open to some ideas, and nothing was ruled out."

"It was a very good meeting," Democratic commissioner Bob Kerrey said. "I do think it'll help _ in particular the president's description of what happened during 2001 and most particularly on 9/11."

Kerrey described some of the answers as "surprising" and "new" but declined to give details. "I think the less I say that could be construed as critical, the better chance we have of reaching consensus when we write our final report."

Kerrey, along with Lee Hamilton, the commission's vice chairman, left the Oval Office meeting early because of what they said were prior commitments.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Assuming for just a second you are right. Would you rather they just leave or really bear down and use all means at their disposal to try and ferret out the truth? If they didn't think the President was being forthcoming shouldn't they have started questioning his inconsistencies instaed of just leaving? Isn't this is the kind of attitude you expect from our leaders as opposed to "Oh, it's time for tea"?

Maybe they did, who knows. Once again, it's all speculation. I'll leave that to the smear campaigners. I'll attack GWB on his record and his actions. You guys can continue attacking anyone left of Gestapo based on any innuendo, rumor, or speculation that you like.

[billvon 3,120]

Hopefully this will finally put to rest the sniping by the right wingers over how "unfair" the commission is. They allowed the meeting with Bush to take place with no transcripts, out of public view, and with both Cheney and laywers present at the administration's request. Seems like they are bending over backwards to accomodate the president's desire to not have his actions made public, which doesn't square with the right wing's portrayal of a partisan commission determined only to damage his reputation.

[PhillyKev 0]

Not to mention not under oath. I ask again, if he wasn't planning on lying, why did he refuse to swear to that?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Not to mention not under oath. I ask again, if he wasn't planning on lying, why did he refuse to swear to that?

Do you require everyone you interact with to swear an oath before you'll listen or believe them? It must be a pain in the ass to pass around the bible and have everyone affirm their dinner conversation under oath...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Not to mention not under oath. I ask again, if he wasn't planning on lying, why did he refuse to swear to that?

Do you require everyone you interact with to swear an oath before you'll listen or believe them? It must be a pain in the ass to pass around the bible and have everyone affirm their dinner conversation under oath...

Considering everyone else did, it doesn't seem like that much of a stretch. And I'm usually not discussing matters of national security over the dinner table.

[billvon 3,120]

>Do you require everyone you interact with to swear an oath before
>you'll listen or believe them?

If I was going to publish a document that might just change the way the US government runs/deals with terrorists, and I had to rely on what they said - absolutely.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Considering everyone else did, it doesn't seem like that much of a stretch. And I'm usually not discussing matters of national security over the dinner table.

I don't remember, but has everyone that talked to the commission behind closed doors done so under oath? Rice didn't (her first time I think), I don't think Clinton or Gore did either (I may be wrong, but none of the AP summaries indicated that).

Policy is dictated by the President, not a commission, which is not a court requiring sworn testimony.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!