$ Costs For Iraq ???

09/08/03 | Self

[Positive]

The Dims whine about our not having found WMDs - while we haven't found Saddam, does that mean he doesn't(didn't) exist?

Similary, we and the Brits have been stationed in the region and have been engaging Irag almost daily since the "end" of hostilities in 1991, in the Northern and Southern "No FLy Zones." That's 12 years...anyone have any idea how much that cost? I'd be willing to bet that it cost almost as much as the $87B President requested last night. I didn't hear any Dims questioning those 12 years of expenses.

While I'm at it; what's all this Dim yammering about "No Plan for the Occupation?" Did they expect the Commander in Chief to make them privy to all of the details of a plan? I'd say...Naaah.

[alisasny]

In addition the costs associated with 911 probably can never be tabulated.

Those costs will continue for years.

I prefer rounding up the terrorists wherever need be, no matter what the cost so another 911 does NOT happen on our shores ever.

[tillacum]

After WWII the Republicans were saying because Hitler had not been found, we had not won the war. They were saying basically what the democrats are saying today about us not finding bin laden and hussein. It sounds like the democrats are reading old newspapers from post WWII. The same questions, the same posturing for the reason America went to war against the Germans, after all the Germans had not done anything to America. It's kind of fun watching the democrats posture and fume about our role in Iraq, it's the same thing as before, just 50 some years later, a different country and a different questioning party.

[Positive]

"the Republicans were saying because Hitler had not been found, we had not won the war."

Really? Which Republicans said that? I hadn't heard that.

[Gary42141]

So where are we going to get the money? We're already running a $500B deficit.