Comments on SkogsBlog: The Smoking Gun

Nobodycallsmechicken said..."To answer your first ...

2005-09-27T13:08:00.000-04:00

Nobodycallsmechicken said...

"To answer your first 3 questions: I don't know. The thing is Paul that neither do you. As stated before "you don't have all the facts". There are only a few select people that can answer question 2 and 3."

And why are these questions impossible to answer? Because our government of the people, by the people, and for the people doesn't feel it needs to explain or answer to the people?
Why do you insist on giving the benefit of the doubt to an administration that has repeatedly demonstrated it deserves no such consideration? Wouldn't be a little ideological bias on your part would it?
Or do you find these questions impossible to answer as well?

Well, the other reason that you crush me is becaus...

2005-09-25T23:10:00.000-04:00

Well, the other reason that you crush me is because I keep giving my talent away, but let's not go down that road.....

That is not my intention and I apologize for comin...

2005-09-25T22:57:00.000-04:00

That is not my intention and I apologize for coming off that way. You're right, I am trying to get people to think and I try to be forceful toward that end.

I agree with you about our three branches of government but that is a big part of my concern. We are supposed to have checks and balances but I think that that is being eroded. Look at "Justice Sunday." It is nothing more that a heavy handed approach to try to cow the judiciary brach of our government.

Look at the changes to the house ethics committee. Now you can not even begin an investigation without one person from the party of the accused breaking with his party and joining the side of the accuser. Does either party have the political courage to do that? I don't think so.

The facts are that now one party is in control of all branches of the government (all of them, they have the judiciary too) and they are bent on consolidating that power. The press doesn't cover it because all of the major press conglomerates stand to gain a lot from the party in power.

Republicans don't get all the blame. Clinton allowed the press to be deregulated in 1996 and now a few major corporations (GM, Time Warner, Rupert Murdoch) own almost everything.

You said that you get paid to surf the internet, so do I. Why do you think that yoou crush me at all fantasy sports? You pursue your interests and I pursue mine.

I'm no smarter than any of you, I'm just searching, searching and searching some more.

Well, our political system was set up as a system ...

2005-09-25T22:06:00.000-04:00

Well, our political system was set up as a system of checks and balances (3 branchs) so really did'nt think it was possible for one branch to just ignore the other. To answer your first 3 questions: I don't know. The thing is Paul that neither do you. As stated before "you don't have all the facts". There are only a few select people that can answer question 2 and 3. I am not one of those people. I can see from alot of the things you write that you are an inqusitive person and care about this country. Obviously the point of this blog of yours is to get people to ask questions and become aware of what is going on around us. To that end I think your are accomplishing your goal. I do agree with alot of your thinking as well. The thing I don't agree with is the way you use impossible to answer questions as a way to make yourself appear smarter and or more informed than the person you are talking or writing to.

Ouch, Carno you slap hard! Now answer me this: (...

2005-09-25T19:11:00.000-04:00

Ouch, Carno you slap hard! Now answer me this:

(1)Can you have both a Democracy and Sharia law, and do our political leaders care? When we have obvious and blatent contradictions, like "no law can contradict Sharia law and no law can contradict Democracy, what happens?

(2)Are our current leaders such ardent supporters of Democracy that they are willing to bankrupt our nation and ruin our international standing (and kill lots of Iraqis and Americans) just so that they can put in place a very bad constitution that contradicts itself in it's very nature?

(3) Knowing, as we now do, that this administration was utilizing maps of Iraqi oil fields, when planning for our nation's enregy policy, before 9/11, before they had even taken office, doesn't that present a few interesting questions? Why are they still stonewalling the attempts to find out who was involved in the energy planning?

Come on Carno, Democracy was around #4 on the list of why we went to Iraq. It was what we said when we couldn't find wmds, couldn't connect Saddam to Osama, couldn't prove he had a nuclear program.

Neocons don't care about democracy in the US and they certainly don't care about democracy in Iraq.

You did a little homework when you found a wrinkle in the DRAFT Constitution. Now why don't you do a little more. Go to Wikipedia and search: Energy Task Force

You will see that The Abomination is in contempt of court but no one is doing anything about it. They have been ordered to provide full disclosure, and for three years they have not complied.

So what happens when the courts order an action and the administration ignores them? Apparently nothing....

Please find one good reason why our energy policy should have cared about Iraqi oil fields.

Please tell me the press has ignored this.

Article 2 sec (b) of the Iraqi "draft" constitutio...

2005-09-25T05:07:00.000-04:00

Article 2 sec (b) of the Iraqi "draft" constitution states "No law can be passed that contridicts the principles of democracy"

Home work is done dad can I go out and play? My name isn't Rik-O or anyone else that has alot to say about nothing. I know of what I speak Mr. Skogstrom.

As for your last question: I don't have the first damn clue. Neither do you. Any answer you attempt to come up with will mearly be a pilfered idea from someone else or a conclusion you jumped to without truly knowing all the pertinent facts.

Do your homework. There is no Constituion yet, it ...

2005-09-25T03:19:00.000-04:00

Do your homework. There is no Constituion yet, it is a draft Constitution. Even so, let's have a look at this puppy.

The Iraqi Constitution:

Article 41 - allows husbands to beat their wives for various reasons, including “for the sake of righteousness, as disciplining.”

Article 2 - “Islam is the official religion of the State and is a fundamental source of legislation.”

Even if the government has the votes for this constitution, it is not Democracy and it will not prevent the continuation of civil war.

Finally, did we travel half way across the world for the primary goal of destroying a country and costing us hundred's of billions of dollars, killing as much as 100,000 Iraqi civilians, to help a country write a constitution?

Why did we have Iraqi oil field maps in our energy task force?

"The war was about Democratizing Iraq; until it wa...

2005-09-25T03:01:00.000-04:00

"The war was about Democratizing Iraq; until it wasn't."

Did this become true before or after the newly formed Iraqi government established a contstitution? Statements like this one are what causes people to view you as a "left wing nut" and inspires guys like ricko to make the blog he did.