First, a confession. I haven't read the CBO study, though I may yet. I have read from wire coverage, though, that the estimates exclude the possibility of bio and chemical weapons, which keeps costs down somewhat. The estimate, as is clear from the limited period covered (4 months), also excludes the cost of occupying Iraq. With a 4-month cost approaching $50 bln just for winning a war, the $100 bln lower end administration estimate seems reasonable if costs (and periods) excluded from the CBO study are added back in.

The point regarding about already spent money becomes less relevant as time passes. If pre-emption becomes a permanent US policy, then we have to replenish what is used in Iraq. This isn't a one-time deal. There is some speculation that Saudi Arabia's drift toward the US position recognizes that pre-emption fits the Saudi case pretty well. Iran is recognized as among the most active supporters of terrorism, unlike Iraq, and also has a nuke program. There are plenty of places that could, if one wanted, be made to fit the pre-emptive model. International law has the advantage of leading to lower military costs (in the short and medium term, anyhow) than pre-emption.

KH

I am here to make an unbiased opinion. I have heard both sides of the argument. Its easy to get carried away in enthusiasm but lets just be truly honest with ourselves. Nothing to be ashamed about. I guess a lot of people who want this war are honestly wanting to see a dictator go and I salute you for that. But is that what President Bush is really after? I think not. The biggest objective in the mind of Bush is the next presidential campaign. What has Bush got to boast for his tenure? 9/11, degrading economy, huge state budget deficits? President Bush is aware of that and needs so desperately to have this feather in his cap. I sincerely don't want to see another Republican president for the next term who spends a 100 billion on war. So what is the modus operandi?

1. Get this war going and finish it quick (Any delays will make Bush look like an idiot and a worse offender since Iraq will be more prepared for an offensive). Which is why Bush and Powell keep talking about days and not weeks. They know that if it stretches into weeks then the war will be longer and the American patience will wear thin since the economy and gas prices are going to get ugly. The longer the war goes on the less liklehood of Bush winning the next elections.

2. After war get quick control and make a pact or alliance with the new administration in Iraq to get a better deal for oil.

3. If there is a quick victory the economy will rejoice....but I sincerely believe this will be very short-lived. The economy cannot be sustained on an euphoria as a victory in war. Something more tangible is needed for a true economic recovery and this rebuilding must begin at home here.

4. Bush becomes a hero and this will be his presidential slogan for the next elections. Trust me on this one.

Economy wise nothing would have got permanently changed....just a temporary upswing but enough to get another term for him in power. Then our true decline would have begun and it will be too late since you need to wait many years before you can think of voting again for a new President.

The short term goals look noble....its not...

Am I a supporter of Saddam? No...never have been....we have more serious threats that we ignore. I just wonder if this war would even be thought about if Iraq had no oil. Just my honest 0.02$.