Texas Rainmaker
March 31st, 2004 11:19 am

Sounds pretty applicable today, doesn’t it?

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage. “

These words were spoken by Alexander Tyler…. in 1787.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
March 30th, 2004 8:49 am


Four words you’ll likely never hear from the Left. While we endure the endless barrage of negative attacks, accusations and innuendo cast towards George W. Bush and his administration about what he/they failed to do, it’s pretty telling that we never hear a word of gratitude for what WAS done. You see, actions taken by the administration on the morning of September 11th likely saved hundred, if not thousands, of additional American lives.

In an article in today’s Washington Times, an interview with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has revealed this little nugget of information:

LONDON � Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda’s purported operations chief, has told U.S. interrogators that the group had been planning attacks on the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago on the heels of the September 11, 2001, terror strikes.

Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization’s plans so thoroughly that it could not proceed, according to transcripts of his conversations with interrogators.

But the terrorists seem to have been surprised by the strength of the American reaction to the September 11 attacks. “Afterwards, we never got time to catch our breath, we were immediately on the run,” Mohammed is quoted as saying. Al Qaeda’s communications network was severely disrupted, he said. source

You hear that, Senator Kerry? Do you understand what that means, Howard Dean? Ms. Clinton, does it mean anything to you that plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response ?

Probably not. Because positive information about the administration means you don’t get your seat at the White House dinner table for the next few years. You fake outrage when people question whether you put personal gain over what’s best for America. Well, here’s your chance to show you’re not that one-sided. Here’s your chance to tell the 9/11 commission, your chance to go on 60 Minutes or Jay Leno and tell the world that George W. Bush and his administration did a good thing, likely saving many American lives….

…but I’m sure you’re too busy publicly wondering if “Bush knew” or planning your next political attack. What’s good for America is not good for the Democrat party. That much is clear. Next time you fake outrage over someone questioning your love of America…. just ask yourself this, “Will I be so bold as to credit George W. Bush for ANYTHING positive, for anything that helps our country…. or do I need negativity to bring him down so I may take his place?”

I think we all know the answer…

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
March 26th, 2004 1:14 pm

The Democrat National HQ has a new doormat… one depicting the face of the President of the United States of America…

Not only does this show a total lack of decorum… yet again… on the part of the DNC, but it reminds me of an eerily similar display of hatred for an American President….

remember Baghdad, 1992?

Nice touch. So not only do they recite the same verbal rhetoric* about the leader of the U.S., but they shop at the same home and garden stores….


*See post below from Thu Mar 18, 03:24:47 PM

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
March 25th, 2004 9:26 pm

Pin the Tale on the Donkeys
New York City, 20 March 2004

Some people would like you to think President Bush lied when he talked about Saddam Hussein’s weapons. The funny thing is, many of the president’s current critics are politicians who made strikingly similar claims about Iraq in the not-too-distant past. When Bill Clinton was in office, his fellow Democrats had much to say about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. But if you listen to them now, you might conclude that the entire party suffers from collective amnesia. Democrats used to talk tough about Iraq. They did when one of their own was in the White House. And they did when polls showed it was politically helpful to support President Bush. But now, it’s campaign season, and they’ve changed their tune. To find out if the spin was sticking, Evan Coyne Maloney impersonated a game show host and quizzed a few protesters about some particularly hawkish quotes from notable Democrats.


Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments

So the Left wants us to believe Richard Clarke is an honest, unwavering kinda guy these days. Well, let’s assume Clarke has a penchant for telling the truth…. how then will the Left continue their stance that Iraq and Al Qaeda/bin Laden were not related?


Embassy Attacks Thwarted, U.S. Says; Official Cites Gains Against Bin Laden; Clinton Seeks $10 Billion to Fight Terrorism:[FINAL Edition]
Vernon Loeb. The Washington Post. Washington: Jan 23, 1999. pg. A.02
Full Text (859 words)
Copyright The Washington Post Company Jan 23, 1999

U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies have prevented Osama bin Laden’s extremist network from carrying out truck-bomb attacks against at least two American embassies since the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania more than five months ago, the Clinton administration’s senior counterterrorism official said yesterday.

Richard A. Clarke, who occupies the recently created post of national coordinator of counterterrorism and computer security programs, also said U.S. officials do not believe that bin Laden, a Saudi millionaire now living in the mountains of Afghanistan, has acquired chemical or biological weapons despite his contacts with experts in the production of nerve gas and biological toxins.

“I think we’ve made life extraordinarily difficult for {bin Laden}, but he’s still there,” Clarke said. “I think it is very difficult for him and his lieutenants to travel. I think it’s very difficult for them to raise money or move money or move explosives.”

Clarke’s assessment came as President Clinton unveiled a $10 billion budget proposal for fighting terrorism and protecting the nation’s computer infrastructure from attack. “The fight against terrorism is far from over, and now terrorists seek new tools of destruction,” Clinton said.

In a speech at the National Academy of Sciences, Clinton said his fiscal 2000 budget proposal includes $1.4 billion for enhancing domestic readiness in the event of a chemical or biological terrorist attack, an increase of more than 50 percent since fiscal 1998, and $1.46 billion for protecting the nation’s computer systems.

Clinton proposed an array of initiatives in both areas, from new vaccine research to creation of a “Cybercorps” of government computer experts. He said those programs would come on top of $7 billion in counterterrorism spending on intelligence, diplomatic security, military readiness and law enforcement, including a tripling of FBI resources since 1993.

“We are doing everything we can, in ways I can and ways that I cannot discuss, to try to stop people who would misuse chemical and biological capacity from getting that capacity,” Clinton said. “This is not a cause for a panic. It is a cause for serious, deliberate, disciplined long-term concern.”

Clinton, who took office one month before the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, has since issued three high-level directives making counterterrorism the nation’s No. 1 priority.

The president’s proposals drew immediate praise on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have voted for large increases in spending on counterterrorism in response to the World Trade Center bombing, a sarin gas attack by the Japanese religious cult Aum Shinrikyo in 1995 and the bombing of the federal office building in Oklahoma City later that year.

Rep. Thomas J. Bliley Jr. (R-Va.), chairman of the House Commerce Committee, pledged his “full cooperation” but said that, if anything, Clinton’s counterterrorism strategy does not go far enough, leaving “huge gaps in federal laws and regulations governing the possession, use and transfer of biological and chemical agents such as anthrax and sarin gas.”

Clarke declined to go into detail on U.S. counterterrorism operations that he believes preempted the planned truck bombings at embassies in Africa and the Middle East. He would not say which embassies had been targeted, although U.S. officials previously disclosed that they had foiled an alleged attempt by bin Laden associates to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Uganda.

Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton’s decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden’s role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.

While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is “sure” that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president “would have been derelict in his duties if he didn’t blow up the facility.”

Clarke said the U.S. does not believe that bin Laden has been able to acquire chemical agents, biological toxins or nuclear weapons. If evidence of such an acquisition existed, he said, “we would be in the process of doing something.”

Assessing U.S. counterterrorism policy to date, Clarke said it’s no accident that there have been so few terrorist attacks on American soil.

“The fact that we got seven out of the eight people from the World Trade Center {bombing}, and we found them in five countries around the world and brought them back here, the fact we can demonstrate repeatedly that the slogan, `There’s nowhere to hide,’ is more than a slogan, the fact that we don’t forget, we’re persistent — we get them — has deterred terrorism,” he said.

Credit: Washington Post Staff Writer

So let’s take Clarke at his word. Let’s treat him as an honest, trustworthy fellow. But if we do, we must accept his assessment in 1999 that, in fact, Iraq and Osama bin Laden were tied together in their pursuit of chemical weapons. This means two things:

1) Iraq was in pursuit of chemical and biological weapons (WMDs) and

2) Iraq was working WITH Al Qaeda.

So I guess in light of this revelation the Left will gladly join the anti-Clarke bandwagon…..right?

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (9) Comments
March 21st, 2004 12:40 pm

Is Kerry out of touch with the average American? More than that, perhaps he’s out of touch with REALITY!

This week, John Kerry criticized the President when he said, “It is remarkable that this president doesn’t understand the basic economic assumption that a jobless economy means nothing to the millions of Americans looking for work or wondering where their next paycheck will come from…”

The article in which this was reported continued, “Kerry is spending most of his vacation time at the $4.9 million family home, emerging each day for some skiing or mountain climbing. … As the day opened, the biggest choice for Kerry was whether to ski or snowboard” source

Let me repeat….

Kerry said, “millions of Americans looking for work or wondering where their next paycheck will come from,” while “the biggest choice for Kerry was whether to ski or snowboardduring “his vacation time at the $4.9 million family home.

Nice touch, Senator, you’re very in touch with us average Americans.

You may remember, in a debate last Fall, John Kerry said, “I think there has been an exaggeration,” Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism. “They are misleading all Americans in a profound way.” source

And what do today’s headlines reveal?

“al-Qaida No. 2: We Have Briefcase Nukes” source

So Bush is misleading us about the threat? He’s exaggerating the threat? And al Qaeda claims to have suitcase nukes?

Boy, Mr. Kerry, keep on with that mantra, I’m sure the American public will jump at the thought of you in charge of our defense….

{now picture me rolling my eyes}

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
March 20th, 2004 10:03 am

A lesson in hypocrisy from the Democrat Party

Senator Byrd said “I am loath to think of an aircraft carrier being used as an advertising backdrop for a presidential political slogan, and yet that is what I saw.”

and somehow Senator Byrd is stunningly silent about these:

Democrats say “Not a photo op”

Democrats say “Photo op”

Ahhh….just another day in the land of liberals.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
March 19th, 2004 10:43 am

The John Kerry campaign unveiled their new logo today:


Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
March 15th, 2004 8:30 pm


A BOSTON GLOBE reporter at the center of a growing controversy over comments made by John Kerry last week in Florida now claims he “screwed-up” — and John Kerry never bragged how “foreign leaders” privately backed his presidential bid!

“I mistranscribed a key word,” explains Patrick Healy, a political reporter for the BOSTON GLOBE who covered the event in a pool capacity.

“Listening to the audio recorder now, in the quiet of my house, I hear ‘more leaders’ and I am certain that ‘more leaders’ is what Senator Kerry said.”



Dear Mr. Healy,
You recently distributed a �correction� to your prior article regarding John Kerry�s statements referencing support from foreign leaders. You�re claiming you “screwed-up” — and John Kerry never bragged how “foreign leaders” privately backed his presidential bid! You said, �I mistranscribed a key word,” when you covered the Kerry event in a pool capacity. You continued, �Listening to the audio recorder now, in the quiet of my house, I hear ‘more leaders’ and I am certain that ‘more leaders’ is what Senator Kerry said.�

I�m curious whether this �correction� is being distributed out of your support for your personal choice of Presidential candidates, or whether something more sinister is behind your �correction�. I trust you haven�t been coerced to make this �correction�, but it�s quite odd you�d come out with this in light of other reporters� recollections of the same statements by Kerry.

For instance, Patricia Wilson, writing for Reuters, recounted the statement this way, �Democratic White House candidate John predicted on Monday Republicans would try to “tear down” his character and said some foreign leaders had privately confided they hoped he would beat President Bush.� Perhaps she �mistranscribed� the recording too?

To understand why I�m questioning your new found recollection, one need only look at the whole quote surrounding the �more/foreign� question.

John Kerry said, �I’ve been hearing it, I’ll tell ya. The news, the coverage in other countries, the news in other places. I’ve met more leaders who can’t go out and say it all publicly, but boy they look at you and say, you gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that. So there is enormous energy out there. Tell them, whereever they can find an American abroad, they can contribute,” a reference to donations, prompting laughter from the crowd.�

If he really said “more” in place of �foreign�, why did he refer to �the coverage in other countries�? Why did he also say, �Tell them, wherever they can find an American abroad, they can contribute�? Do you expect us to truly believe that John Kerry wasn�t referring to �foreign� leaders, despite mentioning �coverage in other countries� and contributions from �Americans abroad�?

In addition, why would Kerry be defensive about something he didn’t say? You see, when asked to name the �foreign leaders� by Colin Powell, John Kerry responded by saying he was �within his rights to keep his conversations with foreign leaders confidential.�

When pressed by a citizen at a campaign speech, Kerry said, �I’ve met with foreign leaders � I have heard from people who are leaders elsewhere in the world who don’t appreciate the Bush administration approach and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States. I’m talking our allies, I’m talking about people who were our friends nine months ago, I’m talking about people who ought to be at our side in Iraq and aren’t because this administration has pushed them away in its arrogance, that’s what I’m talking about.�

So, in light of your new revelation of faulty transcription, we have other reporters who heard it the way you originally reported it, and we have the man at the center of the issue, himself, admitting to making the statement and doing his best to defend such a statement.

Your �correction� seems to say more about your preference of candidates than your ability to accurately report on a story.

An Average American

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
An Open Letter to John Kerry
March 13th, 2004 11:19 pm

Dear Mr. Kerry:
In 2003, you said, “President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence.”

But on November 9, 1997, before the United States Congress , you said: “Saddam Hussein - without doubt - had weapons of mass destruction which were exceptionally threatening to surrounding countries, in fact to the entire planet. … Saddam Hussein had to be wrestled to the mat no matter what, even if the United Nations were lagging. If the UN didn’t get the clear, urgent message, then the United States was morally obligated to go it alone to see that Saddam Hussein was finished.”
source: (Ron Fournier, “Kerry Says Bush Misled Americans On War,” The Associated Press, 6/19/03)

So which is it? In 1997 Saddam “without doubt” had “WMDs”, but in 2003, President Bush acted on “questionable intelligence” of Saddam possessing WMDs? In 1997, the U.S. was “morally obligated to go it alone”, but in 2003, two years after the 9/11 attacks, a coalition of 50 nations invading Iraq as part of a war on terror constitutes failing to build an international coalition? Even if 49 of those countries withdrew their support, wouldn’t we still be “morally obligated to go it alone”? That’s what you said… didn’t you mean it?

In March, 2003, you called Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein “a legitimate threat to the stability of this nation” and said you did not regret your vote in the Senate authorizing use of military force in Iraq. You said, “I think Saddam Hussein?s weapons of mass destruction are a threat…”
source: (Sen. John Kerry As Quoted On NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)

Oh, I get it. You’re claiming that you said all of this, that you voted to authorize the Iraq war because George W. Bush and his administration lied to you and provided you with faulty intellilgence. Well, that makes a nice and tidy argument for you, then, doesn’t it? Afterall, you get the benefit of voting for a war to prove you’re not a typical anti-war dove, then you get to fall in lockstep with your Democrat brethren in calling for President Bush’s job for lying to you. Some people say that you’ll say and do anything for a vote. Surely, this isn’t one of those times…. is it?

So you voted for the Iraq war, now you claim Bush lied. You claim Bush lied to the world and acted on faulty intelligence. The reason I find this rhetoric fascinating is because you said “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” source: (Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171) So Bush lied about Saddam’s WMDs at the same time you were claiming that such possession by Saddam was “not new” and the threat of Saddam with WMDs was “real”.

So you said in 2002 that without doubt, Saddam had WMDs, then in 2003 you called Bush a liar for saying the same thing. In 2002 you said the U.S. was morally obligated to go it alone, but in 2003 you criticize Bush for acting “unilaterally” (which by the way, you might want to inform the other 50 nations in our coalition). In 2002, you said it wasn’t news that Saddam possessed WMDs, but in 2003 you said such a conclusion constituted “faulty intelligence”.

You might sell some people on the notion that your comments in 2002 were in the heat of the moment, in response to 9/11, derived from a sense of national pride. You might claim that your statements were based on trusting the Bush administrations accounts of the state of Iraq. You migh sway some folks into feeling sorry for you being misled by the administration, and you may be able to neutralize criticism by saying you relied on bad intelligence to make your pro-war statements, and thereby get a free pass to call President Bush a liar.

You might have, if it hadn’t been for your very own statements long before President Bush came on the national scene. You see, we no longer live in a world where old statements are buried in the basements of libraries, where history is an old dusty book on a back shelf, where contradictions can be tucked away from public view. No, Mr. Kerry, we live in a world where every word, every piece of political rhetoric, every example of say-anythinig-for votes is recorded for quick retrieval in moments just like this.

It appears that these statements you made in 2002 weren’t the only statements of their kind in your political career. In fact, while you served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, let me repeat, the Senate INTELLIGENCE Committee, you said the following:

–”(I)t is imperative for us as a nation to stand our ground and for the western world to make clear that we cannot abide by any nation breaking out, so to speak, with respect to the capacity to possess and use those kinds of weapons. And so that principle is enormous…”
source: (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

–”Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so.”
source: (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

–”Saddam Hussein has violated … that standard [against using weapons of mass destruction] on several occasions previously and by most people’s expectation, no matter what agreement we come up with, may well do so again. The greater likelihood is that we will be called on to send our ships and our troops at one point in the future back to the Middle East to stand up to the next crisis.?
source: (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

–”We’re going to have to make some fundamental decisions about whether to follow a policy of containment or deprive Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.”
source: (The New York Times, 9/4/98)

–”…These differences over how to deal with Iraq reflect the fact that there is a superficial consensus, at best, among the Perm 5 on the degree to which Iraq poses a threat and the priority to be placed on dismantling Iraq’s weapons capability. … but whether any of these countries are legitimately prepared to sacrifice other interests to bring Iraq to heel remains questionable today, and is precisely part of the calculus that Saddam Hussein has used as he tweaks the Security Council and the international community simultaneously.”
source: (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/10/98, p. S12287)

–”Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a decorated Vietnam veteran, said Wednesday that no one should question the “legitimacy” of Clintons decision to bomb Iraq. “I am confident that every reasonable member of the United States Congress and reasonable people of this country will understand the legitimacy of this moment. And no one will question that once again, once too many times, it is Hussein who has precipitated this confrontation and no one else.”?
source: (Eric Schmitt, “Many In GOP Voice Suspicion Of Attack Timing,” Topeka Capital-Journal, 12/17/98)

–”[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.”
source: (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

– “[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.”
source: (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

and finally, wayyyyyyyy back in 1991, you said, “Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait. “The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population.”
source: (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14330)

So I ask you again, Mr. Kerry, in light of the fact that you’ve gone on record for the last 13 years saying Saddam had and continued to develop WMDs, used them and would use them again, and in light of the fact that you voted for this present war, presumably based on your vast knowledge of the situation, including your time on the Senate INTELLIGENCE Committee, why do you now parade around the campaign trail calling the President of the United States a liar? Why do you say he misled our country and the world? Why do you contradict the very statements you’ve made for over a decade to take a jab at the Commander in Chief?

Is it because you’ve grown accustomed to protesting wars? Is it because you’re used to criticizing the leadership of the United States? Is it because you didn’t think your past would come back to haunt you? Or is it simply because you have a burning passion, a lifetime of expectation, a hunger for the feeling of power that comes with being President of the United States of America?

Sometimes, Mr. Kerry, you learn that with power comes responsibility. With leadership comes integrity. With an undying sense of entitlement for a position you wait a lifetime for….comes disappointment. The embarrassing way you’ve conducted yourself in your pursuit for the office of President of the United States of America assures me and many others that you will never achieve that goal. You see, Mr. Kerry, we Americans have faced this test before and we Americans are smart enough to learn from our mistakes. We Americans like our land of the free and home of the brave. Make no mistake about it, you Mr. Kerry, will never be President of MY United States of America.

An Average American

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments

Warning: file_get_contents(http://webbiscuits.net/images/blank.gif) [function.file-get-contents]: failed to open stream: Connection refused in /home/texasrai/public_html/wp-content/themes/rainmaker/index.php on line 36

Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes

Copyright © 2003-2006

Users Online



    • HuckPac.com

    • sidediv

    • sidediv


    Fatal error: Call to undefined function wswwpx_fold_category_list() in /home/texasrai/public_html/wp-content/themes/rainmaker/sidebar.php on line 62