I have rarely seen a stupider article in my life, and am amazed that it's on a mainstream news site instead of somebody's basement blog.

As far as the "bailouts" go, that's a real issue, but you'll note that $5 trillion is allotted to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which, as I recall, the Official Liberal Wisdom tells us had nothing to do with these problems. Including government guarantees as though they are spent money is misleading.

The $3 trillion cost of the wars is crap. It will always be crap. It comes from a single source, whose methodology is bizarre, and who routinely "reworks" it every so often to keep the number growing. And yes, most all of that money is spent in the U.S.

The actual war cost to date mentioned in the article, $860 billion, has almost been equaled by a single $825 billion Democratic bailout currently working its way through Congress.

The real farce here is laying all this at Bush's feet as though there were choices. Yes, you can legitimately do that with the invasion of Iraq. But are we assuming that if Al Gore had been president, we would not have spent this much money on Katrina and 9/11 recovery? That we would have left Afghanistan alone and not spent anything on national security? That Gore would have single-handedly put new regulations in place that would have somehow fixed years of lousy lending practices?