So what is the situation, in relation to the stated goals of the US in going into Iraq?

1. "Saddam is a real and present danger to the security of the US"

With military casualty figures of around 100 to one, Saddam's army doesn't seem to have been much of a threat to anyone, never mind the US with it's mighty military machine. The way things went, they might have been able to take on Liechtenstein. The US almost literally had one hand tied behind it's back and the war was still almost embarassingly one sided. I'm very happy that there were not more US military killed, but really they seemed to be shooting fish in a barrel - sometimes even the fish get lucky. Can anyone really say that Saddam's army was a danger to the US citizens living in the US?

2. "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction"

Some whiffs of gunpowder, maybe, but so far no smoking gun. There may turn up to be some well hidden caches of biologial or chemical weapons, but I'd bet anything there are no nukes or any significant nuclear weapon development program.

If they had WMD, why didn't they use them? A desperate outfit to be sure, why not play the last card? If a gang of thugs, even well-intentioned thugs, gave you clear and early advance notice that they were going to invade your house, trash it, kill some of our family and string you up from the nearest tree, and you had an Uzi under the bed (further suppose, and this may be a stretch for some, that you are in Canada and the Uzi is very much illegal). Would you not use the Uzi when they broke down your bedroom door?

3. "Saddam has clear links to terrorists, is actively supporting them, is hiding camps in the backwoods of Iraq"

Harder to quantify. From what I've seen, any terrorist camps have been in Kurd-controlled (or at least heavily influenced) regions. And which predominantly Muslim country doesn't have terrorist camps in the back woods? Direct links between Saddam and Bin Laden and others seems tenuous at best.

4. "The people of Iraq deserve to be liberated"

No argument there, Saddam was a brutal bastard by all acounts except maybe his own. I think even his Mom thought he was a creep.

Probably several thousand civilians dead from direct collateral damage, who knows how many more from side effects until some kind of order can be restored, infrastructure rebuilt, supplies supplied, etc.

And who knows what the longer term results will be for the Iraqi people? I am quite sure it won't be the airy-fairy "golden example of peace and democracy for all the middle east to follow" that Bush fantasized about on TV. Probably they will be better off than under Saddam, but it's going to be very difficult for the US to impose a regime that doesn't cause a great deal of resentment among the people of Iraq, in the middle east, in the muslim world as a whole. The US record isn't that great in imposing regimes.

And the costs? Far too early to even guess at a final tally, but:
Several hundred to thousands of Iraqi civilians dead, depending on the source
Close to 100 US soldiers killed
About 30 British soldiers killed
Several thousand Iraqi soldiers killed
(please remember - soldiers are people too. Even Iraqi soldiers. I'm sure most of those killed would have rather been milking their goat or selling used cars or writing computer programs or playing with their kids - much like the Us soldiers)
Many, many thousands wounded, a lot of these horribly so
A $75 billion down-payment
Vast destruction of buildings and infrastructure... who knows how many billions it will take to rebuild (assuming that it ever gets done).

Tell me again how it has been worth it, that it was the only way the best minds in the US of A could come up with to remove a tin-pot dictator?