"'Hidden costs raise' US war price

They say "hidden costs" have pushed the total to about $1.5 trillion - nearly twice the requested $804bn (£402bn).

Higher oil prices, treating wounded veterans, and the cost to the economy of pulling reservists away from their jobs have been taken into account. "
...
"It cites costs such as interest payments on money borrowed from abroad to pay for the wars, lost investment in US businesses, and the cost of oil market disruptions."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7092053.stm

It of course is completely nutty.
You would also need to apply that same standard to everything in the budget. And if you did, it would make the whole thing completely screwy- you would basically [depending on what factors you include] get a budget cost two or more times the actual budget outlay.

Not to mention the fact that the federal deficit under Bush, is lowering and at same times Dems are chomping on the bit to spend huge amount of money on foolish things.
As an example of foolish things if we had signed Kyoto, we would be spending about 200 billion per year and at same time doing about as much as the Europeans are doing to reduce CO2 [which is essential not reducing it at all- though perhaps, you could claim it they might have increased to year CO2 emission at a faster rate without the Treaty- though the US has done about as well as Europe in this regard or arguably better without signing this treaty.]