Deana writes:

Check out “Cost of War“
Oooh, dang. This is dramatic.

I agree. Counters really do make the point sometimes, so a war cost counter can really hit home. Be sure to see how many additional schoolteachers we could have hired instead. It’s quite a thing to see.

I’m glad that papers are finally devoting space to hard questions about the Iraqi invasion. I just wish these questions had been asked before the war.

UPDATE: I’m amazed at the carefully-reasoned analyses that have been appearing lately.

…because Bush doesn’t rely on it when making decisions.

I know it’s a bit harsh, but I’m tired of watching the administration slowly reveal the real answers to questions asked before the war. There are no WMDs. There is no link. There was no imminent danger. There was no reason. These were all presented as weak justification for a war in the works since 1991.

Hmph. Good morning. Maybe some tea will make me less cranky.

Joan Chittister sums up my continued thoughts on our invasion of Iraq in a well-written opinion piece.

Thanks to Deana for sending me the article.

Just because:

American weapons inspectors have found a bag of sand, a field of lavender, and a few mangy dogs in their search for weapons of mass destruction. Dunno, those dogs might be pretty mean.

Because of this, some senators are asking if maybe the ‘intelligence’ about Iraq wasn’t so accurate. Gee, you think? Could that be the real reason it was never actually presented, just hinted at?

Speaking of intelligence, is it really so intelligent to focus all our al-Qaeda attention on Iran, when the only real attack on the U.S. so far (the WTC/Pentagon attack) was conducted by Saudis with Saudi assistance? Oh, that’s right, that information is being covered up, so you wouldn’t have heard.