To: AMNZ
At the beginning of the article it says that she said there was no need for the rescue and then she says she was so glad they rescued her,anybody else catch that?
22 posted on
11/07/2003 7:48:00 AM PST by
eastforker
(Money is the key to justice,just ask any lawyer.)
To: eastforker
My bad,after rereading I see she meant there was no need to film it,wonder why she thinks that.I wonder who got into her head?
24 posted on
11/07/2003 7:50:17 AM PST by
eastforker
(Money is the key to justice,just ask any lawyer.)
To: eastforker
I read it that she said:
"...there was no reason for her rescue from an Iraqi hospital to be filmed"
28 posted on
11/07/2003 7:54:08 AM PST by
KC Burke
To: eastforker
"At the beginning of the article it says that she said there was no need for the rescue"
It looks like she was saying there was no need tol FILM the rescue. But she was rescued nonetheless and shouldn't be complaining. She making a lot of money out of this.
36 posted on
11/07/2003 8:10:23 AM PST by
honeygrl
(Surgeon General's Warning: This FReeper hasn't slept through the night in over a year.)
To: eastforker
You are right. Now you gotta wonder, what did she say and what did they say she said. She is either being missled or she's an ingrate.
85 posted on
11/07/2003 8:48:46 AM PST by
AMNZ
To: eastforker
I think she was saying there was no need to film the rescue.
231 posted on
11/07/2003 10:02:48 AM PST by
Marysecretary
(GOD is still in control!)
To: eastforker
She says there was no reason for it to be FILMED, moron.
457 posted on
11/10/2003 9:27:05 AM PST by
johnb838
(What about MY right to free speech?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson