Texas Rainmaker

Yes, you read that correctly.

Last week we saw how MSM was spinning the good news out of Iraq into bad news.

Now look how the news is being spun:

The Bush administration is starving for good news out of Iraq, and it may finally have some: new U.S. government statistics showing that violent attacks of all kinds are down to levels not seen since 2005.

But until recently, the administration appears to have resisted acknowledging a key element of the new data, because it flies in the face of President George W. Bush’s ongoing rhetorical confrontation with Iran’s clerical regime.

That’s right, there is good news out of Iraq… but Bush is lying to the American people and covering it up.

So will the protestors start chanting, “Bush lied, people lived”?

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (3) Comments

What media bias?

NAJAF, Iraq — At what’s believed to be the world’s largest cemetery, where Shiite Muslims aspire to be buried and millions already have been, business isn’t good.

A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi al Salam cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months, and that’s cut the pay of thousands of workers who make their living digging graves, washing corpses or selling burial shrouds.

Only the MSM could position a story about a drop in violent deaths as a bad thing…

…anything to blame Bush for something.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (1) Comment
When America Wins, Democrats Lose
October 14th, 2007 9:51 pm

Remember this summer when Democrats admitted that good news in Iraq was bad news for their party?

Well, it’s that good news that has Democrats suddenly talking less about Iraq and focusing more on things like healthcare and taxes…

Because they obviously don’t want to talk about this:

In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 — down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004.

During the first 12 days of October the death rates of Iraqis and Americans fell still further. So far during the Muslim month of Ramadan, which began Sept. 13 and ends this weekend, 36 U.S. soldiers have been reported as killed in hostile actions. That is remarkable given that the surge has deployed more American troops in more dangerous places and that in the past al-Qaeda has staged major offensives during Ramadan. Last year, at least 97 American troops died in combat during Ramadan. Al-Qaeda tried to step up attacks this year, U.S. commanders say — so far, with stunningly little success.

…and most definitely not this:

The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group, which the Bush administration has long described as the most lethal U.S. adversary in Iraq.

So yeah, let’s ignore the war now and talk about healthcare instead…

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (4) Comments

It’s pathetic the depths at which the anti-war Democrats will go to support their position. Now Harry Reid, Leader of a Senate with an 11% approval rating is offering a resolution to condemn a radio personality for comments made on his show. Glad to see the Senate has solved all our country’s other problems and can now focus on these important items.

“Last week, Rush Limbaugh went way over the line, way over the line. While I respect his right to say anything he likes, his unpatriotic comments I cannot ignore. During his show last Wednesday, Limbaugh was engaged in one of his typical rants. This one was unremarkable, indistinguishable from his usual drivel, which has been steadily losing listeners for years, [sic] until he crossed that line by calling our men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq, and I quote, “phony soldiers.” [sic] This comment was so beyond the pale of decency, and we can’t leave it alone. And yet he followed it up with denials and an attack on Congressman Jack Murtha, who was a 37-year active member of the Marine Corps, combat veteran.”

Basically, Limbaugh was referring to the epidemic of “phoney” soldiers being propped up by leftwing anti-war groups.

The obvious reason the left is engaging in this tactic is to try and claim absolute moral authority on the subject. It’s an attempt to preempt any criticism of the messengers of the anti-war propaganda. And Limbaugh was calling them out on it. Of course, Senator Reid is playing fast and loose with the facts and claiming that Limbaugh was criticizing any soldier (read that “real soldiers”) that opposed the war.

But we don’t see any resolutions condemning ABC news for an identical story just two days prior to Limbaugh’s account.

Reid goes on to paint Limbaugh with the chickenhawk smear.

Rush Limbaugh took it upon himself to attack the courage and character of those fighting and dying for him and for all of us. Rush Limbaugh got himself a deferment from serving when he was a young man. He never served in uniform. He never saw in person the extreme difficulty of maintaining peace in a foreign country engaged in a civil war. He never saw a person in combat. Yet he thinks that his opinion on the war is worth more than those who have been on the front lines. And what’s worse, Limbaugh’s show is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, which means that thousands of troops, overseas, and veterans here at home, were forced to hear this attack on their patriotism. Rush Limbaugh owes the men and women of our armed forces an apology.

The ironic thing is that if service in the military is a prerequisite for opining on the war, then the very people Reid is defending (the phoney soldiers) are the exact people Reid thinks shouldn’t be exercising their right to speak about the war.

The Left tried to promote these fake soldiers to advance their anti-war position. Now that their fake soldiers have been exposed en masse, they’re shifting to a new campaign strategy… again based on lies and distortions.

Who’s surprised? It’s what they know best.

Democrat Senator Tom Harkin followed Reid’s lead by asking, on the floor of the Senate, whether Rush Limbaugh was still on drugs. Government officials personally attacking private citizens from the floor of the Senate. Your tax dollars at work.

And Tom Harkin should know a thing or two on lying about military service…

Excerpt from Stolen Valor : How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History

(hat tip: Michelle)

How convenient. An organization called VoteVets.org that bills itself as a group of “anti-war Veterans” just happens to have a television-ready, multimedia anti-Limbaugh campaign ready to air on major networks. As Bryan puts it, “Get the feeling the left had been planning this attack for some time?”

If VoteVets.org sounds familiar, it should. In 2004, they launched a campaign using a “disgruntled Iraq war veteran” whose stories turned out to be mostly fabrications.


The “Great One” responds… as only he can.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (7) Comments

Syria is identified as a state sponsor of terrorism around the world. In fact, the U.S. State Department says most suicide bombers striking in Iraq come through Syria. It’s also suspected that the reason we never found Iraq’s WMDs is because they were transported to Syria before the invasion.

So it’s fitting that a Democrat candidate for President would travel overseas to meet Syria’s leader (following in Nancy Pelosi’s footsteps), calling it an “honor to speak with his excellency” and saying that said leader should be “respected and appreciated”… while simultaneously going on Syrian television to call the sitting U.S. President a liar and American troops in the field of battle “illegal occupiers”.

Here’s the video (transcript below):

Uploaded by luvnews


Dennis Kucinich: Well, of course, my presence in Syria, in meeting with President Assad, is so that people are aware that there are members of Congress and in this case, a presidential candidate, who believes that Syria has a very important role to play in bringing about stability, in participating in a political process, which will help to create the conditions which will lead to peace. But this must come about from communication and so those of us who want to see this change are in a position to model the change that we hope to occur. So it was important to meet with his Excellency to exchange views as to how we can create a more peaceful world.

Interviewer: So, how did the meeting go?

Dennis Kucinich: It was a very good meeting. It was a meeting where President Assad showed a real desire to play a role in helping to create a peaceful settlement of the conditions in Iraq, as well as a grander approach towards creating peace. So it was a very important meeting, and I felt honored to have the chance to speak with him.


To me, Americans have an increased understanding today of how wrong the war was and is, and I think they’re looking for a new direction, and that’s certainly what I’m offering.

Interviewer: So, you were talking about the moment of decision. When it’s time to withdraw George Bush sends in more troops - the “surge.” How do you find that? How useful was that surge?

Dennis Kucinich: I’ve repeatedly challenged the thinking behind the surge. What I have said in offering a plan to our Congress, embodied in a resolution known as House Resolution 1234, is that the United States must end the occupation, close the bases, bring the troops home, but we must have a parallel political process that reaches out to the international community, with the help of Syria and Iran, that would bring an international peace-keeping force, move it in as our troops , so there is no vacuum. That’s the beginning – it’s not the whole plan – but that’s the beginning of a plan. Certainly, increasing the occupation with a surge is counter-productive. It can only result in more deaths.

Interviewer: So you are with strengthening the position of the U.N. in Iraq?

Dennis Kucinich: Of course. I mean, there is a role for the U.N. I crafted my peace plan with the help of people who served in the U.N., including peace-keeping missions over the years, who understand that not only must we stabilize Iraq, but we also must pay reparations to the people of Iraq for the great human tragedy that has been caused. Perhaps as many as a million innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of this war. You have countless people injured. Millions of refugees, many of them now…

Interviewer: In Syria.

Dennis Kucinich: A million and a half in Syria, and I met with some of them, and I can tell you that this is a great human tragedy. The United States must take steps to repair the damage that has been done to the lives of the people of Iraq for the people who have lost their lives. We need to help bring about a process of reconciliation between the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds. That cannot occur as long as there is an occupation. We need to see that there is honest reconstruction in Iraq, no Halliburton dishonest cheating of the people of Iraq and the people of the United States – the taxpayers.


Dennis Kucinich: There are many good-hearted people in the United States. I love my country.

Interviewer: You’re one of them.

Dennis Kucinich: Thank you. But I love my country, and I want my country to be loved by the world.

Interviewer: Which is not happening at the moment.

Dennis Kucinich: I know that, and that hurts me. It hurts my heart to know how America is seen in places around the world right now. But in my own way I am trying to change that, and the best way that we can change that is by telling the truth. The truth is the war was wrong. The truth is that great damage has been done to the Iraqi people. The truth is that we have to find a way to heal that. The truth is that we have to reach out to the world to get help. And so all those things are what I try to do to follow the path of the truth, and I think that as America shows its goodness once again we can cause the world to love America once again. And that’s what I’m about.


The fact of the matter is we are all being weakened by continuing a war that’s based on a lie. This war was based on lies. Iraq didn’t have the weapons of mass destruction. It wasn’t connected to 9/11. It had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda’s role in 9/11. What are we there for? So I have stood up repeatedly and said: “Look, stop the war.” Once the war started: “Here’s the plan to get out and stop funding the war.” And so we’ve had many opportunities now and I think it’s very clear that we now have to focus on a peace plan, reach out to the world community, and that can only happen with those of us who are involved in the process meeting with people to see if there is an interest. And I’ll tell you, President Assad, today, indicated a very strong interest in playing a role to help bring about stability in Iraq, and the fact of the matter is - whether the Bush administration wants to admit it or not – that President Assad is actually helping by providing a sanctuary in which Iraqi refugees can come. This is a great humanitarian crisis that’s been created by this war. And Syria is one of the few countries in the world who has opened its arms to the Iraqi refugees, who have come here, with only the clothes on their back, and are looking for a way to survive. It is an extraordinary gesture on the part of the Syrian government that they would provide an opportunity for people to save their lives. And so this is something that I think needs to be recognized. And it also shows that here is a man, President Assad, who should be respected and appreciated for the role that he has played. And so it is important for the United States to take that gesture as a sign, a very powerful demonstration, of the willingness to try to achieve peace. And I think we need to move forward with that understanding.


Interviewer: So does George Bush actually not see himself as having failed in Iraq? Does he think that he has done something right?

Dennis Kucinich: I would expect that he probably believes that he’s doing the right thing.

Interviewer: So he would continue using the same rhetoric in Lebanon as well - this is with Syria in mind.

Dennis Kucinich: I think that’s probably true. And of course, this is part of the tragedy - that our president is not understanding the mountain of evidence which indicates what a failure the policy in Iraq has been. Not only failure, but how totally wrong it was from the beginning. Because you can talk about something being a failure, and perhaps the cause may have been correct. But in this case, the cause was wrong from the beginning. In the Christian Bible, there is a phrase that says: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight.” The effort against Iraq was dishonest, or crooked, from the beginning, and nothing good can come of it, except: The international community is needed to become involved to put together a peace-keeping and security force that can move in as the U.S. determines that it must end the occupation, close the bases, bring the troops home. That’s the direction we must take. But we have to understand that the policy was based on a lie.

If this isn’t “aid and comfort”, I don’t know what is. The only thing missing is a shout out to his homies, Mahmoud and Osama.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments

They can continue to claim they’re simply disagreeing with policies of the Bush administration, but listen to their words and you’ll see it’s much more than a simple disagreement. And it’s downright disgusting.

Senator Harry Reid is trying to preempt the report General David Petraeus is to give to Congress tomorrow… by calling the four-star general a liar.

“Before the report arrives in Congress, it will pass through the White House spin machine, where facts are often ignored or twisted, and intelligence is cherry-picked,” said Reid.

On Friday, Reid went so far as to question not only the true source of the report but also the four-star general’s honesty. “He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual,” Reid said.

Of course, Reid doesn’t give us any specific examples of the numerous lies he claims General Petraeus has told. To call a four-star general who is commanding troops in an active war a liar in a public statement is not a “disagreement of policies”… it’s unpatriotic and disgusting.

Not to be outdone, Democrat Dick Durbin (who likes to compare our soldiers to nazis) said:

“By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence is decreasing and that the surge is working. Even if the figures are right, the conclusions are wrong.”

He tries to hedge on Reid’s calling Petraeus a liar by including Bush’s name when claiming the report will be a fraud, but look at his last line: “Even if the figures are right, the conclusions are wrong.” He’s saying that Bush and Petraeus plan to manipulate the statistics to make the report say something that doesn’t jive with reality but then admits that even if they don’t manipulate the statistics, the report will still be wrong… (even though Petraeus hasn’t even delivered the report yet). Durbin’s arguing in the alternative here. He’s betting the report will contain some good news and is trying to explain the report away before it arrives… saying that the numbers are fake and the conclusions are flawed or the numbers are accurate, but the conclusions are flawed.

Of course, it’s obvious why they’re doing this. Democrats have already admitted that good news from the Petraeus report would be bad news for them.

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be “a real big problem for us.”

Bottom line, Democrats think Petraeus will deliver a report that highlights successes in Iraq and they’ve already admitted that good news for America will be bad news for Democrats.

The logical conclusion then is simply that Democrats and America have mutually distinct and independent goals.

U.S. poll finds more faith in military than politicians in resolving Iraq.” Hello, backfire.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (6) Comments

Want to see how an agenda-driven MSM can create perceptions? Just view how two parties that jointly conducted a poll publish the results.

Zogby says: UPI/Zogby Poll: Most Americans Say Iraq War Not Lost

A majority of Americans - 54% - believe the United States has not lost the war in Iraq, but there is dramatic disagreement on the question between Democrats and Republicans, a new UPI/Zogby Interactive poll shows. While two in three Democrats (66%) said the war effort has already failed, just 9% of Republicans say the same.

Sounds like good news, right?

Apparently the MSM doesn’t think so. Newsbusters points out that MSM seems to lack interest in such news.

The good news is that one outlet has covered the poll results. Okay, so it’s the UPI - an outlet that conducted the poll with Zogby - but still, at least they’re covering it, right? But before you get too excited, look at how they’re covering the results…

UPI headline: UPI Poll: Opposition to Iraq war has grown

WASHINGTON, Aug. 29 (UPI) — Half of the respondents to a UPI-Zogby International poll said they now strongly oppose the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Now look at those results (by the two organizations that conducted the poll) side by side:

A majority of Americans believe the United States has not lost the war in Iraq.


Half of the respondents said they now strongly oppose the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Maybe we should be more specific when requesting the MSM cover good news about Iraq.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (3) Comments

So sayeth the House Majority Whip, Democrat James Clyburn:

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

“I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us,” Clyburn said. “We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report.”

But that won’t stop them from hoping and praying the report is negative so they can push their agenda. Support the troops, my ass.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (3) Comments
It’s Time to Withdraw…
July 17th, 2007 1:37 pm

…from Chicago?

Rob highlights an interesting quote from Barack Obama yesterday:

“Nearly three dozen Chicago students have been killed this year, according to Chicago Public Schools. Obama said that figure is higher than the number of Illinois serviceman who’ve died in Iraq in 2007.”

As Rob points out, “And Iraq is a war zone. Chicago Public Schools is just…high school. Kind of puts the war in perspective, no?

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (2) Comments

Highlights from the transcript:

“it was an Iraq-based group that masterminded the assassination attempt against Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom”

“the terrorists who masterminded the attack on the Achille-Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer, fled with Iraqi assistance

“the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came directly from Baghdad with suitcase bombs”

“[Saddam Hussein] was not only promoting terrorism, but was also pursuing a nuclear weapons program

Iraqi aircraft intentionally attacked the USS Stark in May of 1987 killing 37 sailors”

“Bush deserves heavy blame for intentionally concealing from the American people the clear nature of Saddam Hussein and his regime and for convincing himself that friendly relations with such a monster would be possible, and for persisting in this effort far, far beyond the point of folly”

Saddam used poison gas on the Kurdish town of Halabja, brutally murdering some 5,000 innocent men, women, and children”

And Gore reminds us about the tough stand he took regarding Iraq:

“I, myself, went to the Senate floor twice demanding tough action”

It’s clear why a tough stance would be needed against Iraq, afterall…

“…the CIA reported to Secretary of State Baker and other top Bush administration officials that Iraq was clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons technology through a global network of front companies. Did all of this make any impression at all on President Bush? Did his judgment on foreign policy come into play when he was told that this nation, with a record of terrorism continuing, was making a sustained, concerted effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological? Well, evidently not, because in the midst of this flood of highly alarming information from the CIA, the Defense Department, the Energy Department, the Commerce Department, the Justice Department, the State Department, other agencies throughout the government, on October 2nd, 1989, President Bush signed a document known as NSD 26, which established the policy toward Iraq under his administration.

…and the money quote of the day:

Saddam had every reason to assume that Bush would look the other way no matter what he did. He had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush had looked the other way. He was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush knew it, but he looked the other way. Well, in my view, the Bush administration was acting in a manner directly opposite to what you would expect with all of the evidence that it had available to it at the time. Saddam Hussein’s nature and intentions were perfectly visible.

Ok, so it was 1992 and Gore was blasting the first President Bush…

So for those of you keeping score at home:

The first President Bush deserves blame for not taking action against Iraq despite mountains of evidence of its ties to terrorism and involvement in WMD programs while the second President Bush not only deserves blame for taking action, but is also now accused of making up the evidence, much of which existed a decade before he became President.

Just more proof that Democrats don’t really stand for anything and will always campaign on the “whatever the Republican did is bad” strategy.

By the way, if President George H.W. Bush deserves blame for not taking action against Saddam Hussein, how much blame shall we unload on the Clinton-Gore administration that had 8 years after this speech to do it… yet failed to.

Afterall, “Saddam Hussein’s nature and intentions were perfectly visible”, right Al?

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (36) 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