What National Security Policy?

After we've spent $100 billion on the less-than-direct threat from Saddam, will we stop and do a cost-benefit analysis?

Well, let's see...our economy is in ruins, our states are going broke, our seaports are going unprotected, our borders are still not adequately monitored, our cities are still not prepared for an anomalous WMD event, Al Qaeda is still issuing threats and causing us to raise our alert level, but we got Saddam!

Well thanks, but no thanks. This has been a colossal waste and mismanagement of time, effort, and resources. We should have kept the Delta Forces on AQ and Bin Laden, and spent much less money on a Marshall Plan here at home, to prepare the Homeland. To secure America.

Not to mention that this money would have been better spent here in America, put into American workers' hands, who we could have hired by the bushel to help out with the security effort. Instead, most of the money we spend goes into the hands of military and arms merchants, to resupply our arsenal after we expend it all, and for various other war supporting efforts, not to mention rebuilding Iraq.

These companies are few in number, much fewer than able-bodied Americans out of work, and invariably in the majority connected to the wanderings and former clients of some of the Administration's key players.

Not to mention we've ruined the global consensus backing us up after 9/11 and during Afghanistan. But I don't want to go on and on and on.

Just remember...cost-benefit analysis. Utilization of resources, choices made in the face of the known threats. Which threats were imminent, and direct, and which were only falsely stated to be so, pretended to be so?

What national security policy?