Old Guy:

I didn't say we should question the evidence. I said we should not use it to explain things that happened before it was known. You may not have noticed it but in this universe, time is pretty much one-directional. It would be a serious distortion of truth to try and move events around in past time in order to make them look more rational than they were.

In other news:

Martin Wolf: The failure to calculate the costs of war
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/48ad9c0a-820f-11da-aea0-0000779e2340.html

"    Before the Iraq war began, Lawrence Lindsey, then president George
W. Bush's economic adviser, suggested that the costs might reach
$200bn. The White House promptly fired him. Mr Lindsey was indeed
wrong. But his error lay in grossly underestimating the costs. The
administration's estimates of a cost of some $50-$60bn were a fantasy,
as were Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and much else.



So far the government has spent $251bn in hard cash. But the costs
continue. If the US begins to withdraw troops this year, but maintains
a diminishing presence for the next five years, the additional cost
will be at least $200bn, under what Profs Bilmes and Stiglitz call
their "conservative" option. Under their "moderate" one, the cost
reaches $271bn, because troops remain until 2015.



With these costs taken into account, the total macroeconomic costs may
add up to $750bn and total costs to $1,850bn.



It is possible to argue that the benefits for Iraq, the Middle East
and the world will outweigh all these costs. But that depends on the
emergence, in Iraq, of a stable and peaceful democratic order. That
has not yet been achieved.

Even those who supported the war must draw two lessons. First, the
exercise of military power is far more expensive than many fondly
hoped. Second, such policy decisions require a halfway decent analysis
of the costs and possible consequences. The administration's failure
to do so was a blunder that will harm the US and the world for years
to come."