Friday, June 27, 2008


I applaud a stalwart colleague, Jess Rivas, at Somerset Community College in Somerset, Kentucky. He presents a first rate argument in today's Lexington Herald-Leader that President Chavez of Venezuela is not "anti-American" and that another, closer to home fit that description far better.

In case you some how miss who Rivas is referring to, check out the complete text of the Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush entered into the Congressional Record by Rep. Dennis Kucinich.


Sue said...

The following post was made by

SBVOR said...
Well, at least we can all now better understand the (horrific) significance of this image.

It came as no surprise to me. I’ve known for a very long time that so-called “Liberals” love totalitarians of all stripes.

Sat Jun 28, 03:18:00 PM EDT

Since I abhor the type of smear tactics and fear mongering SBVOR represents, I offer you his post with the links removed. You may google this blogger if you really must view this nonsense.

SBVOR said...


“Smear tactics”?

Did you read the links you provided in your own post?

For objective, easily verifiable facts, your readers should indeed visit my blog (if their ideology is strong enough to stand up to objective fact).

SBVOR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SBVOR said...

With typo now corrected…

Was Kucinich really serious with those articles of impeachment?

Let’s just barely skim the surface of the media deception:

1) Were the UN Inspectors and the entire UN Security Council in on this Bush conspiracy (long before he became President)? You might want to review over a decade of UNSCR resolutions dealing with WMD and leading to war.

Pay special attention to UNSCR 1441, which essentially said to Saddam:

“Better hide the WMD, The United States will be invading 30 days from today”

But, that notice was given on 11/8/02 and we did not invade until 3/20/03.

Oh, please! Let’s debate WMD! Can your ideology stand it?

2) Quoting an excerpt from the July, 2004 report from Bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

"The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably and objectively assessed in Iraqi Support for Terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically, chemical and biological weapons"

Chapter XII, Page 346, Conclusion 94

In other words, Saddam trained al Qaeda in the use of biological and chemical WMD.

Every Democrat on that committee signed off on that finding. Were they, in July of 2004, part of the Bush conspiracy?

3) Quoting The Bi-Partisan 9/11 Report:

“Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq”
Page 66

“Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad”
Page 134

In other words Saddam wanted to give al Qaeda precisely the same state sponsorship that led to 9/11.

Now, put 2 and 3 together and tell me what you get.

A more comprehensive analysis of just how badly the world was misled by these so-called “journalists” can be found here. Each quote can be verified here.

Note: If any given quote spans 2 or more lines, the Adobe Acrobat “find” feature will not find it. If you fail to locate any given quote, select various smaller subsets of the quote until you find it (and you will).

4) President Bush never directly connected Iraq to 9/11. But, PBS and the New York Times did.

Quoting the above link:
“I assure you, this operation [9/11] was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam [at Salman Pak].”

The above assertion may or may not be true. Contrary to what so-called “journalists” would tell you, it has not been proven either way. But, no reasonable person, Charles Duelfer included, denies that Saddam trained LOTS of terrorists at Salman Pak.

Anonymous said...

now, now children stop squabbling. I've heard it said that arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olypmics, even if you win you're still retarded.

SBVOR said...


Be grateful that our founding fathers did not take your approach to national dialog.

The internet is the modern day equivalent of the town hall.

Anonymous said...

Actually, SBVOR, there are many huge differences between the town hall discussion and the internet. Discussion in the town hall was never anonymous, while most of the internet discussion is - take yourself and me, we're both here anonymously (while our host blogger, Sue, is not).

Folks who debate issues in the town hall have to remain civil, because they have to get up the next morning and deal with each other at work, at church, at school, in the stores and in the streets. Anonymous writers on the internet are not bound by these considerations.

People debating in town halls know each others history and can make reasonable judgments from that history on honesty, integrity, and intentions. Anonymous writers on the internet have no genuine history with each other, no knowledge of each other on which to base assessments or temper judgments.

The Internet has many values, but it does not replicate the townhall discussion, and is not what the founders of this nation had in mind when they thought about dialog or reasoned debate.

SBVOR said...


The notion that political discourse in this country (or any other) has, at any point in history, ever been “civil” is an absolute myth.

That said, I have, in this thread (and elsewhere), presented objective and substantiated facts. ‘Tis our gracious host who has resorted to personal insults.

You see, it is de rigueur for The Left to resort to smearing and slandering. It is their first impulse and it’s really all they know how to do. After all, lacking objective fact, what else do they have?