Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

Boats are an expense, JimH.

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

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

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..

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

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..

Well, of course!

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

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?

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

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".

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

Im still wondering what we get out of the deal,, besides broke that is.
Brad
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".

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 9:46*am, "Brad Darnell" wrote:
Im still wondering what we get out of the deal,, besides broke that is.
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".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

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..


That was the posit of the former Secretary of Defense. "War light."

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

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. :)

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

Those countries were under attack and we only got in after we were attacked
as well. A very good reason to go to war. I do not remember Iraq being under
attack from a hostile country nor did Iraq attack us in anyway.
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:46 am, "Brad Darnell" wrote:
Im still wondering what we get out of the deal,, besides broke that is.
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".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.