Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (73417)	11/5/2006 5:02:26 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

I don't think so, Mike Steele might win the Senate in MD except for you racist democrats

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (73417)	11/6/2006 12:44:53 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Talk about voodoo economics! How about this backdrop?> It was only four years ago when Lawrence Lindsey, then-head of the White House's National Economic Council, estimated that the "upper bound" of the cost of going to war with Iraq would be between $100-billion and $200-billion. The massive size of that estimate scandalized the Bush administration. Up until then, the Pentagon had been privately telling Congress to expect a cost of about $50-billion. By February 2003, just weeks before the invasion, the numbers coming out of the Defense Department had grown to between $60-billion and $95-billion. CURRENT RUNNING TOTAL HERE> nationalpriorities.org But even then, Medal of Freedom recipient Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense at the time, was telling Congress that the upper range was too high and that Iraq's oil wealth would offset some of the cost. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," Wolfowitz told a congressional committee. “I don’t know that there is much reconstruction to do.” Rumsfeld