Linda Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz, in a report issued in December 2006, a revision to their earlier cost study wrote:

"In January, we estimated that the true cost of the Iraq war could reach $2 trillion, a figure that seemed shockingly high. But since that time, the cost of the war – in both blood and money – has risen even faster than our projections anticipated...

The total costs of the war, including the budgetary, social and macroeconomic costs, are likely to exceed $2 trillion. As large as these costs are, an equally large set of costs have been omitted. We have not included the costs borne by other countries, either directly (as a result of military expenditures) or indirectly (as a result of the increase in the price of oil.)"

What would you have done with two trillion dollars and four years?  Surely we could have thought of something better to do with that money.  After the fold, I've got some ideas.

There's one thing I never understand about global warming deniers.  "Demand debate!" they say, as the plane over the NJ LiveEarth concert did.  "It's natural!" they say.

Okay.  Let's assume for one minute that they're completely, entirely, 100% correct.  Al Gore and 90%+ of climate scientists are wrong, but we're all suckered into believing their wild and crazy "science".

We go out, and conserve energy.  We create energy efficient appliances and reduce our dependence on oil.  We invest a ton of money creating new technologies and jobs related to cleaning the air.  Improving the health and quality of life of all of us, our children, and the generations to come, even if all of our efforts didn't affect the climate one bit...

But how is this a bad thing, even if it wasn't a matter of life and death?