Hi Ken,

If you read Mag's post again I think the paper she read claimed 3 bn a month
(not per day!!). Seems, from your figures, elements of the US press are
trying to downplay the true cost of the war. ;-)

Cheers

Deri

On Monday 21 Jul 2003 10:39 pm, you wrote:
> might be a bit of a little bit of exaggeratin for
> effect, or a lie if you wish. the house of
> represenatives passed a suplemetal budget for 85
> billion to carry 120 days of "active combat." we are
> now spending let than "active combat" rate. my math
> says that 85 billion for 120 days is less than a
> billion a day. we are spending even less. as a % of
> gnp this is the cheapest war we have ever fought.

> > [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > > One of my helpers was on a plane with some GI's
> >
> > who had just come home. They
> >
> > > told her we are sending video games, air
> >
> > conditioning, cell phones so they can
> >
> > > phone home, etc.... This came up when I was
> >
> > looking at a headline in the
> >
> > > paper 3 billion a month to keep this war going. It
> >
> > boggles my mind.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com