Texas Rainmaker
Know Thy Enemy…
September 29th, 2006 3:24 pm

Can you tell them apart?

1. “What the United States tastes today is a very small thing compared to what we have tasted for tens of years. Our nation has been tasting this humiliation and contempt for more than 80 years.”

2. “Here in the United States, we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery, and slaves quite frequently were killed even though they were innocent. This country once looked the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human. And we are still paying a price today,”

3. “They champion falsehood, support the butcher against the victim, the oppressor against the innocent child.”

4. “There was no imminent threat. 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?”

5. “Our men and women in uniform are still paying with their lives for this misguided war in Iraq. No president who misleads the country on the need for war deserves to be re-elected.”

6. “Bush alleged that his troops have spread freedom in the world, that Iraq had achieved democracy thanks to his coalition forces, that his government has crushed more than two-thirds of al Qaeda and that…Afghanistan is secure,. The leader of the most powerful country on earth is not embarrassed to say these deceptions and lies. It’s gotten to the stage that he can ridicule his listeners to this degree.”

7. “There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can’t think it can’t be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is, but the trouble is that by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and then eventually they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the clear, the key information that needs to go to the Kean commission.”

8. “The president was the one who dragged our troops to Iraq, which apparently has been a factor in the death of 200 Spaniards over the weekend,”

9. “What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States.”

10. “Can’t you be honest at least once in your life and admit that you are a deceitful liar who intentionally deceived your nation when you drove them to war in Iraq under the pretext of the presence of nuclear weapons there and under the pretext of al Qaeda’s connections with Saddam Hussein, following which evidence proved that you intentionally lied and misled?”

11. “Iraq can not be won militarily.”

12. “Why don’t you tell them how many million citizens of America and its allies you intend to kill in search of the imaginary victory and in breathless pursuit of the mirage towards which you are driving your people’s sons in order increase your profits?”

13. “We won’t allow you to take anymore money out of social programs to finance Halliburton to rebuild the Gulf States: there is no money. Our bank account is empty. George, this is our rainy day and you have failed us miserably. Stop pouring money into the pockets of the war profiteers and into building permanent bases in Iraq.”

» Continue Reading..

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (40) Comments

The idiots are coming out of the woodwork today. Maybe they’re inspired by the video released by al-Qaida.

Oliver Stone:

“Terrorism is a manageable action. It can be lived with.”

Tell that to the people who work in the World Trade Center. Oh wait, you can’t…

Jimmy Carter:

The former president told a crowd of about 300 on the campus of the University of Nevada, Reno today that the nation is more sharply divided that it has ever been as a result of Bush’s policies.

Well, let’s see, there are many who support the President and those who oppose him. Seems to me those who oppose his every step are the dividers. And it’s priceless that the most miserable failure of a President in history has any comment on making America an “international disgrace”.

Hillary Clinton (video):

“I am just totally focused on this November’s election, and I hope you are, too. I am fixated on taking back the House and the Senate because everything we care about is at stake.”

Like raising taxes, ending our fight against terrorists, launching a payback impeachment, etc, etc, etc.

…and the money quote from the Queen of the Obstructionist Party:

“If we take back one, hopefully both houses of Congress, we will be in a position to prevent the Republicans and the administration from furthering their agenda.”

That’s their primary goal. They have no agenda other than to oppose Republicans. Period.

Al Gore:

Cigarette smoking is a “significant contributor to global warming!”

In DNC land, every night is a full moon.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (9) Comments
Clinton’s Actions Increasing Terrorism
September 28th, 2006 9:56 am

Sound ridiculous?

Al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq called for the kidnapping of Westerners to swap for a Muslim cleric jailed in the United States, according to an Internet audio tape issued on Thursday.

He’s referring to the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdul Rahman who is serving time in a Colorado prison for seditious conspiracy in planning to set off five bombs in 10 minutes, blowing up the United Nations, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George Washington Bridge and a federal building housing the FBI.

Since we’re being led to believe that the actions pursued by the Bush administration - namely that we’re fighting terrorists in Iraq - has led to an increase in terrorism, simply because terrorists are using Iraq as this month’s excuse-du-jour, we can make the same logical leap that the conviction and imprisonment of Rahman, which is providing the pretext for this new terror threat, is itself fueling an increase in terrorism because of the latest threat. Allah points to this entry in Wikipedia - supporting this idea:

Rahman’s imprisonment “has become a rallying point for Islamic militants around the world, including Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.”

Some will claim blaming Clinton is ridiculous… but those would be the same people that fail to acknowledge that terrorists need no rationale for their actions - and yet blame Bush for increasing terrorism by going on the offensive militarily. Whether we nuke Mecca or sit back and take no action anywhere, the islamofascists still want us all dead because we do not subscribe to their warped religion. We could pull every soldier out of every foreign land, donate billions of dollars to polish the marble floors of every islamic mosque, move every Israeli citizen to new apartments in Idaho and go on about life in an American vaccuum… and the islamofascists would still want to murder everyone of us because we’re infidels.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (8) Comments
Hillary’s Inconvenient Truth
September 27th, 2006 8:31 pm

Hillary Clinton, determined not to let other Democrats overshadow her bid for the Presidency, took a shot at the Bush administration while simultaneously trying to defend her own husband’s ineptitude.

“I think my husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take these attacks,” Hillary Clinton said Tuesday. “I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team.”

“Certain”? Is Hillary actually suggesting that her husband’s administration did not know that bin Laden wanted to attack the U.S.? Afterall, it was his administration that issued an indictment claiming:

In February 1998, USAMA BIN LADEN issued a joint declaration in the name of Gamaa’t, Al Jihad, the Jihad movement in Bangladesh and the “Jamaat ul Ulema e Pakistan” under the banner of the “International Islamic Front for Jihad on the Jews and Crusaders,” which stated that Muslims should kill Americans — including civilians — anywhere in the world where they can be found.

I suppose that wouldn’t include… um… the United States?

And just in case that wasn’t clear enough, bin Laden added, a few months later:

The American government is leading the country towards hell. … We say to the Americans as people and to American mothers, if they cherish their lives and if they cherish their sons, they must elect an American patriotic government that caters to their interests not the interests of the Jews. If the present injustice continues with the wave of national consciousness, it will inevitably move the battle to American soil

Sorry, Hillary, but the only way your husband would’ve taken bin Laden seriously is if he’d been a piece of ass.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (2) Comments
Bill Clinton Justifies Iraq War
September 25th, 2006 4:16 pm

Bill Clinton spent a lot of time in the interview with Chris Wallace touting Richard Clarke as the terrorism guru. If we’re to take Richard Clarke at his word, then we should probably also believe him when he made the Iraq/al-Qaida connection, in defense of Bill Clinton’s bombing of the pharamceutical plant in Khartoum:

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.”

If we’re to believe everything Richard Clarke says with respect to terrorism, then we must believe that a link existed in 1999 between Iraq and al-Qaida.

Is Bill Clinton ready to make that assertion and provide a significant justification to the war in Iraq?

What do you think?

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (15) Comments
Is Bin Laden Finally in Hell?
September 23rd, 2006 9:41 am

The annual bin Laden death rumor is circulating again…

Leaked by the French.

The French defense ministry on Saturday called for an internal investigation of the leak of an intelligence document that raises the possibility that Osama bin Laden may have died of typhoid in Pakistan a month ago but said the report of the death remained unverified.

The daily newspaper for the Lorraine region in eastern France printed what it described as a confidential document from the French foreign intelligence service DGSE citing an uncorroborated report from Saudi secret services that the leader of the al-Qaida terror network had died.

U.S. is not confirming.

But if it is true, this is great news on two fronts. One because the animal is dead, but also because he died in such a way as to eliminate the martyrdom effect. Not like that would really mean much as the angry islamonutjobs can use anything as a pretext to mass murder.

Maybe Bill Clinton will claim he gave him typhoid…

Update: Someone reminded me of the hype surrounding a supposed “big announcement” by President Bush on Sept. 6 which turned out not to live up to the hype. Maybe this was supposed to be the big announcement, but something happened.

Update 2: There is some good (and confirmed) news out of Iraq. But don’t tune into MSM to hear about it.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (4) Comments

From the NYSun:

A deputy prime minister of Iraq yesterday offered a sharp contradiction of the conventional wisdom here that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda had no connection before the 2003 war, flatly contradicting a recent report from the Senate’s intelligence committee.

In a speech in which he challenged the belief of war critics that Iraqis’ lives are now worse than under Saddam Hussein, Barham Salih said, “The alliance between the Baathists and jihadists which sustains Al Qaeda in Iraq is not new, contrary to what you may have been told.” He went on to say, “I know this at first hand. Some of my friends were murdered by jihadists, by Al Qaeda-affiliated operatives who had been sheltered and assisted by Saddam’s regime.”

A Kurdish politician who took his high school exams from inside a Baathist prison, Mr. Salih said he was the target of the alliance between jihadists, Baathists, and Al Qaeda in 2001, when a group known as Ansar al-Islam tried to assassinate him.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (1) Comment
Setting the Record Straight…
September 16th, 2006 10:28 pm

This is what I’ve been saying all along (Hat tip: Mark):

Q Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And, yet, a month ago you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

THE PRESIDENT: The point I was making to Ken Herman’s question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. I was making the point that Saddam Hussein had been declared a state sponsor of terror for a reason, and, therefore, he was dangerous.

The broader point I was saying — I was reminding people was why we removed Saddam Hussein from power. He was dangerous. I would hope people aren’t trying to rewrite the history of Saddam Hussein — all of a sudden, he becomes kind of a benevolent fellow. He’s a dangerous man. And one of the reasons he was declared a state sponsor of terror was because that’s what he was. He harbored terrorists; he paid for families of suicide bombers. Never have I said that Saddam Hussein gave orders to attack 9/11. What I did say was, after 9/11, when you see a threat, you’ve got to take it seriously. And I saw a threat in Saddam Hussein — as did Congress, as did the United Nations. I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam in power, Martha.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
Monday Morning Quarterbacks Hypocrites
September 9th, 2006 8:17 am

So there’s a new Senate report out that’s sure to become the source of Democrat talking points for days to come. The report apparently tells us again that Saddam wasn’t coordinating with Osama on the 9/11 plans. Of course, that wasn’t the reason behind going to war, but it’s a convenient strawman for the Left to set up and knock down in their attempt to score political points against the President… by any means necessary.

Before the ink was dry on this report, Democrat Jay Rockefeller was rushing to the podium to deliver his “I told you so” campaign speech:

Let me share some important excerpts from the report which reflect both my own views and the views of all of my Democratic colleagues on the committee

Prior to the war, administration officials repeatedly characterized Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs in more conclusive and threatening terms than were substantiated by the underlying intelligence assessments…

Funny he’d make this claim… considering his own speech on the Senate floor on October 10, 2002, just prior to voting for the Iraq war:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.,,

I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks — and we should not minimize the risks — we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat.


I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a significant risk.

Interesting. The same intelligence upon which the administration relied. So, Senator Rockefeller, were you lying then or are you lying now?

Democrats like Rockefeller continue to blame Bush for relying on the same intelligence upon which they based their votes to authorize the war… a war which could not have taken place without such authorization.

But maybe Bush misled us on just how “imminent” the threat really was. Again, from Rockefeller’s prepared speech yesterday:

The committee has uncovered information in its investigation which shows that the administration ignored warnings prior to the war about the veracity of the intelligence trumpeted publicly to support its case that Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of the United States.

But the same Senator Rockefeller said this in that October, 2002 speech:

There has been some debate over how “imminent” a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat…

Again, it’s easy to judge in hindsight. And we have the luxury of second-guessing now. Democrats want you to forget that these threats and risks we were warned about, not only by the Bush administration, but also by Democrats and the Clinton administration were made at a time when the murderous tyrant who had already used WMDs was still in power and still provoking the international community.

Continuing the rest of that Rockefeller quote:

…There has been some debate over how “imminent” a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

So Rockefeller had all the evidence he needed to authorize the war. Even if that evidence was “uncorroborated, unreliable, and, in critical instances, fabricated”. And he publicly declared that waiting for more evidence, or perhaps more corroboration and proof of reliability, was not a risk we could afford to take.

Ignoring that context of the state of the world in 2002 for political advantage in 2006 is disingenuous. It’s political opportunism at its worst.

As he pointed out back then, the context in which the lead up to the Iraq war occurred was in the wake of 9/11. That’s the connection to 9/11 the Bush administration has continually made. In the context of having endured the worst terror attack on our soil, we could not afford to let growing threats (related or not to the 9/11 perpetrators themselves) materialize before deciding to act. As this upcoming miniseries on ABC shows, the cost of ignoring growing threats is high.

As one Senator has said:

“September 11 has forever changed the world. We may not like it, but that is the world in which we live. When there is a grave threat to Americans’ lives, we have a responsibility to take action to prevent it.”

I agree.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering who said that…. it was also from the October 10, 2002 speech from Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeler.

I’m curious about this new Senate report’s findings in light of the documents that had been uncovered showing Saddam’s financial ties to al-Qaida offshoot, Abu Sayyaf or the directive for his aides to “develop the relationship” with the bin Laden. Or what of the “Saddam Papers“? Or the “Pentagon Papers“? Or even the first Senate Intelligence Committee Report? Or Richard Clarke’s claim about Iraqi nerve gas agents working with al-Qaida at El Shifa?

GOP.com has a video of Democrats “then and now”. And here are clips of each Democrat with their “then videos” side-by-side with their “now videos”. It’s too bad MSM would never show something like this on the evening news.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (5) Comments
Big Announcement from the President
September 6th, 2006 11:35 am

Speculation is running wild. President Bush is giving a news conference at 12:45pm CDT. An announcement has already been made that some al-qaida prisoners are being transferred into Pentagon custody and afforded POW status (ie. Geneva Convention protection).

I certainly hope that’s not the “big” news. If it is, count me among the hugely disappointed.

Update: Mario Loyola saw something different in today’s announcement… (hat tip: Michelle)

The President just pulled one of the best maneuvers of his entire presidency. By transferring most major Al Qaeda terrorists to Guantanamo, and simultaneously sending Congress a bill to rescue the Military Commissions from the Supreme Court’s ruling Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the President spectacularly ambushed the Democrats on terrain they fondly thought their own. Now Democrats who oppose (and who have vociferously opposed) the Military Commissions will in effect be opposing the prosecution of the terrorists who planned and launched the attacks of September 11 for war crimes.

And if that were not enough, the President also frontally attacked the Hamdan ruling’s potentially chilling effect on CIA extraordinary interrogation techniques, by arguing that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is too vague, and asking Congress to define clearly the criminal law limiting the scope of permissible interrogation.

Taken as a whole, the President’s maneuver today turned the political tables completely around. He stole the terms of debate from the Democrats, and rewrote them, all in a single speech. It will be delightful to watch in coming days and hours as bewildered Democrats try to understand what just hit them, and then sort through the rubble of their anti-Bush national security strategy to see what, if anything, remains.

Though the flaw in Loyola’s reasoning assumes that the Democrats actually had a strategy other than just hating Bush.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (2) 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