Boats are an expense, JimH.

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

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..

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!

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?

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".

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".

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.

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

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."

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.