Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 10:06*am, HK wrote:
John wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:
Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK....

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

*****************

according to Dick Cheney:

Cheney, 3/2003. "I think it'll go relatively quickly, .Weeks rather than
months."

Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney
claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was "pretty
well confirmed" that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence
officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was "in fact reconstituting his
nuclear program" and that the U.S. would be "greeted as liberators." [Meet
the Press, 12/9/01,

The whole war was based on far fetched lies.....

It's not fair in these arguments to quote people like Cheney or Rumsfeld
or Bush. *:)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And of course you dismiss the fact that the same quotes were coming
from all of the most powerful democrats at the time. We will never
really know what happened back then anyway. Between Jamie Garelik and
Sandy Berger working together to hide the truth, it just will never
happen.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:06 am, HK wrote:
John wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:
Boats are an expense, JimH.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...
When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..
*****************
according to Dick Cheney:
Cheney, 3/2003. "I think it'll go relatively quickly, .Weeks rather than
months."
Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney
claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was "pretty
well confirmed" that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence
officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was "in fact reconstituting his
nuclear program" and that the U.S. would be "greeted as liberators." [Meet
the Press, 12/9/01,
The whole war was based on far fetched lies.....
It's not fair in these arguments to quote people like Cheney or Rumsfeld
or Bush. :)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And of course you dismiss the fact that the same quotes were coming
from all of the most powerful democrats at the time. We will never
really know what happened back then anyway. Between Jamie Garelik and
Sandy Berger working together to hide the truth, it just will never
happen.


Once again, you are attempting to deflect from a statement you made
previously. The quotes from Cheney and Rumsfeld refute your claim. They
both said our involvement in Iraq would be short and relatively
inexpensive. Deny all you like, they said it.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 10:14*am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:06 am, HK wrote:
John wrote:
wrote in message
....
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:
Boats are an expense, JimH.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...
When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..
*****************
according to Dick Cheney:
Cheney, 3/2003. "I think it'll go relatively quickly, .Weeks rather than
months."
Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney
claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was "pretty
well confirmed" that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence
officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was "in fact reconstituting his
nuclear program" and that the U.S. would be "greeted as liberators." [Meet
the Press, 12/9/01,
The whole war was based on far fetched lies.....
It's not fair in these arguments to quote people like Cheney or Rumsfeld
or Bush. *:)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And of course you dismiss the fact that the same quotes were coming
from all of the most powerful democrats at the time. We will never
really know what happened back then anyway. Between Jamie Garelik and
Sandy Berger working together to hide the truth, it just will never
happen.

Once again, you are attempting to deflect from a statement you made
previously. The quotes from Cheney and Rumsfeld refute your claim. They
both said our involvement in Iraq would be short and relatively
inexpensive. Deny all you like, they said it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, everyone had the same bogus information to work with. If
Billary had not spent so much time hiding it's incompetence, maybe
things would have been different. Until we find out what Sandy Berger
risked everything to hide from the 9-11 commission, the truth will
never come out. So we can all just sit around and point fingers.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

John wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 10:14 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:06 am, HK wrote:
John wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:
Boats are an expense, JimH.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...
When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..
*****************
according to Dick Cheney:
Cheney, 3/2003. "I think it'll go relatively quickly, .Weeks rather
than
months."
Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney
claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was
"pretty
well confirmed" that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi
intelligence
officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was "in fact reconstituting
his
nuclear program" and that the U.S. would be "greeted as liberators."
[Meet
the Press, 12/9/01,
The whole war was based on far fetched lies.....
It's not fair in these arguments to quote people like Cheney or
Rumsfeld
or Bush. :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And of course you dismiss the fact that the same quotes were coming
from all of the most powerful democrats at the time. We will never
really know what happened back then anyway. Between Jamie Garelik and
Sandy Berger working together to hide the truth, it just will never
happen.
Once again, you are attempting to deflect from a statement you made
previously. The quotes from Cheney and Rumsfeld refute your claim. They
both said our involvement in Iraq would be short and relatively
inexpensive. Deny all you like, they said it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, everyone had the same bogus information to work with. If
Billary had not spent so much time hiding it's incompetence, maybe
things would have been different. Until we find out what Sandy Berger
risked everything to hide from the 9-11 commission, the truth will
never come out. So we can all just sit around and point fingers.


***************8

Man you a piece of work!

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powel, Rice all told lies to get us in a war and of
course it is all Hilary's fault!!
You probably need to quit listening to Rush and try reading multiple news
sources.





He claims he doesn't listen to Rush. So, there must be some other source
for his confusion.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 10:33*am, "John" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 10:14 am, HK wrote:





wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:06 am, HK wrote:
John wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:
Boats are an expense, JimH.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...
When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry...
*****************
according to Dick Cheney:
Cheney, 3/2003. "I think it'll go relatively quickly, .Weeks rather
than
months."
Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney
claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was
"pretty
well confirmed" that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi
intelligence
officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was "in fact reconstituting
his
nuclear program" and that the U.S. would be "greeted as liberators."
[Meet
the Press, 12/9/01,
The whole war was based on far fetched lies.....
It's not fair in these arguments to quote people like Cheney or
Rumsfeld
or Bush. :)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And of course you dismiss the fact that the same quotes were coming
from all of the most powerful democrats at the time. We will never
really know what happened back then anyway. Between Jamie Garelik and
Sandy Berger working together to hide the truth, it just will never
happen.

Once again, you are attempting to deflect from a statement you made
previously. The quotes from Cheney and Rumsfeld refute your claim. They
both said our involvement in Iraq would be short and relatively
inexpensive. Deny all you like, they said it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, everyone had the same bogus information to work with. If
Billary had not spent so much time hiding it's incompetence, maybe
things would have been different. Until we find out what Sandy Berger
risked everything to hide from the 9-11 commission, the truth will
never come out. So we can all just sit around and point fingers.

***************8

Man you a piece of work!

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powel, Rice *all told lies to get us in a war and of
course it is all Hilary's fault!!
You probably need to quit listening to Rush and try reading multiple news
sources.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, what do you think Sandy was hiding from the 9-11 commission?
Something of little importance I presume..

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:
Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

=============================

Hopefully, you also dismissed this when you heard it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w67Bk9xAAT8

It's only 11 seconds long. Real easy.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:28 am, wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:22 am, wrote:

On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

What do you say about the fact that in Jan 2003 the Pentagon and the
White House reported that the estimate would be $50 to $60 billion
dollars? What about Paul Wolfowitz stating uncatagorically that Iraq
would pay for it's reconstruction with increased oil revenues?

I dunno' without a lot of research, but it was never supposed to be
"cheap and easy".

=======================

But, we ***DID*** expect Iraq's oil money to help pay for reconstruction.

It's not. It's going somewhere else. You are paying what Iraq should be
paying for. This should worry you. Read the article.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 10:53*am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK....

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

=============================

Hopefully, you also dismissed this when you heard it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w67Bk9xAAT8

It's only 11 seconds long. Real easy.

Yeah, and you don't wonder how things would have been different if
Bush had been given all of the relevant information, even the parts
that made Billary look bad? It's hard to play a game if you don't have
a board to start with.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 10:53 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

=============================

Hopefully, you also dismissed this when you heard
it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w67Bk9xAAT8

It's only 11 seconds long. Real easy.

Yeah, and you don't wonder how things would have been different if
Bush had been given all of the relevant information, even the parts
that made Billary look bad? It's hard to play a game if you don't have
a board to start with.

=========================

Based on what we know at this point, our intelligence services had all the
relevant information. It's given to the White House in raw form, meaning
tons of paper. If Bush didn't see the relevant information, it's not because
some congressional Democrat filtered it. It was people very close to him to
had an agenda.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.


WWII was started by Hitler to end the Depression and we all pitched
in. Since the US got most of the manufacturing jobs and none of the
bombings it was a win-win for us. GM, Boeing, Ford et all made lots of
money.
Plenty of money was made in this war too but, unfortunately we were
not building enough hardware here to invigorate our economy.
Some day, I suppose, economic historians will figure out who was
making all of that money we spent but I bert they were rich before and
just got a lot richer ... but isn't that always the way. Some of that
still "trickles down"
I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.


In between wars, we sell hardware to our enemies, like the Saudis.