Texas Rainmaker

Now that the Obama administration is playing kabuki theater with Iran, it seems like the appropriate time to revive a post I made back on January 13, 2006 questioning the credibility of Democrats on dealing with a nuclear ambitious, Islamic tyrant playing games with the United Nations. Take note of the very last line of the post….

Originally posted on TexasRainmaker on January 13, 2006:

Again we have a nuclear ambitious, Islamic tyrant playing games with the United Nations. And the Democrats are acting the same way they did towards Iraq prior to the war.

Senator John Kerry (D-MA)

“Iran has made a dangerous and silly decision of confronting not just the U.S. government but the entire international community.”

Tom Lantos (D-CA)

“Iran is hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons”

“European governments should make clear to Iran that there can’t be business as usual as long as Ahmadinejad, or others who espouse his radical views, hold high office … the U.S. needs to press for stiff multilateral sanctions aimed at stopping Iran’s nuclear program … there still are measures the U.S. can take alone to increase pressure on Tehran…”

“Iran has reportedly been working to develop [WMDs]. A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies… We must show determined leadership to … prevent the development of nuclear weapons in places like Iran.”

But remember, we were hearing this sort of talk from Democrats with respect to Iraq long before the war.

John Kerry (Jan. 23, 2003)

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”

Bill Clinton (Feb. 4, 1998)

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”

Madelaine Albright (Feb. 1, 1998)

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”

Sandy Bergler (Feb. 18, 1998)

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

Nancy Pelosi (Dec. 16, 1998)

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Ted Kennedy (Sept. 27, 2002)

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

So we’re justified in asking whether they’re serious today. Afterall, it is reasonable to assume that should the situation with Iran escalate, through the lack of cooperation of Iran itself (like it did with Iraq), Democrats will march hand-in-hand with the anti-war protestors again trying to score cheap political points against Bush… of course, not until after voting to authorize military action, to be sure.

But this is why all this political gamesmanship on Iraq creates a serious problem for our country. The Democrats have now delivered an ambigious message to the world. First, we’ll talk tough and alert the world to the dangers of Iran, then we’ll march around the world calling our President a “liar“, “thug“, “criminal“, “terrorist” and more claiming he made the whole thing up to justify the war.

So the first half of the game with Iran is playing out the same way it did with Iraq. Why should we expect a second half to be any different?

Democrats can’t expect to be taken serious on the subject anymore. And that puts America in a dangerous position if they ever regain power.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (1) Comment

Why should we be surprised that even his own party is sounding the alarm? Afterall, Barack Obama is the guy who:

1. Is the most inexperienced candidate to ever get this close to the White House

2. Said he’d sit down and meet with murderous dictators without preconditions

3. Said he’d invade a nuclear-armed ally

4. Couldn’t figure out who to blame when Russia invaded Georgia - Russia or the U.S.

5. Met with Iraqi leaders to undermine the policies of a sitting President in the midst of a war

6. Opposes a successful military strategy (then plays politics with the issue when it becomes a campaign liability)

7. Considers as a likely National Security Adviser a guy who thinks Winnie the Pooh is a “fundamental text on national security

8. Says our military is simply “air-raiding villages and killing civilians

9. Would seek to completely disarm the United States

As Hillary Clinton says, “It’s 3:00 AM and there’s a crisis… who do you want to answer the phone?” I guess we know where Biden, Clinton and Albright stand.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments

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