Thursday, February 15, 2007
Obama was right, part deux....
The GAO reported that billions of dollars have been 'wasted' in Iraq...
Loosely defining 'wasted' as either money spent for which we have no idea what we received in return or money spent for which we received benefits worth less than the money spent, why shouldn't 'wasted' also be used to define the loss of American lives in Iraq?
What have we 'gotten' in return for the over 3,000 soldiers who have been killed in Iraq the tens of thousands more who have been injured? In what way - financially, emotionally or otherwise - can anyone say America is better off today for Bush having kept our troops in Iraq long after we determined there were no WMDs and long after we removed Hussein and his two sons from power?
The sad answer is there is no way to justify Bush's not-so-excellent-adventure in Iraq...