Its a bit long to be a good pun, but it pops into my head whenever I see how much money the war is costing.

The Bush administration clearly wants the surge so that they can push the inevitable withdrawl into the next administration. This way, Bush isn't tagged with the loss. Why so many Republicans are following him on this, I'm not sure. (Maybe they're dead certain that a Democrat will win the White House in 2008 and want to tag Democrats with the loss?)

If you look at it solely in terms of political gamesmanship, it makes some sort of sense. If you look at it in terms of governing a country, it's appalling.

What I find bizarre is that the President thinks it's wrong to repeat his own policies back to him. He had made it quite clear that he intended to get the troops over to Iraq before anyone could do anything about it. That way, the legislature would be forced to fund the troops lest they be smeared as being against the troops. Nancy Pelosi called Bush on this and the response was that she was playing political games. Say what?

This requires that you so thoroughly lack empathy and understanding that you can't conceive of any action that does not stem from greed.

I'm not seeing a hole in the logic yet.

It's been a bad day. I think I may be being overly cynical.

Undoubtedly something the Republican Party has been condemning on moral grounds for years, but which everyone in the press corps and in DC knows about.

Funny, this wasn't a problem when they were doing it. Another case of IOKIYAR?

Would it not, in the long run, be vastly cheaper to offer a similar deal to Bush & co., on the condition that if they ever again so much as make political noise, they will be immediately extradited to Iraq with their names tattooed all over their body in every local language?

-- Wakboth

And they have the nerve ti lie so blatantly about not knowing what wqas in the bill, and the cost?

Since it's a fricking 6 degrees here before wind chill is factored in, I'm glad to know my sacrifice has not been in vain.

Has anyone pointed out yet that Bush is now responsible for more American deaths than the 9/11 attacks? (Of course, in total number of deaths he passed 9/11 long ago, but the number of American deaths is one hell of a symbolic line to have crossed.)

Please do remember, however, that while 9/11 happened in the US, not all the victims were American (in the usual sense). The victims came from every language, people, and nation.

It's good that people have noted the numbers, which I guess I missed somehow. But has anyone pointed out that Bush killed them?

Why, yes. Yes, it is. The things I do for you people, just so you don't end up with acotross around your necks. Such is my humanitarian spirit.

If anyone wants to knit me a pair of transparent socks, that would go a long way towards mitigating my misery. This really isn't the right time of year for root-pruning.

*The cost of the war is much higher than what has been budgeted and spent. It is wearing out equipment - the equipment that doesn't crash and burn - and causing permanent health problem for troops. Once all these are factored in, it represents a commitment, so far, of between $1 and $2 trillion - depending on the source. The Guardian is one.