I ran across this interesting website the other day: The National Priorities Project.
Here's what the site calculated that we in our little county in southwestern PA could have done with our share of what's been spent so far on the Iraq invasion/occupation:
And obviously, that's only the cost in dollars spent by the US, not to mention lives, and both dollars and lives of Iraqi people. Not to in any way imply that money shouldn't be spent to support our folks now that they're there, but simply that there were/are far better ways to counter terrorism (if that was ever truly the intent).
Where have the days gone? 
So do you think the folks in Pennsylvania understand this? Who's the best candidate to negotiate the ending of this war and get us back on track?
I sure do hope so! That's a tricky thing, the war, it's one thing to refrain from invading a country for no apparent reason, and quite another to extricate oneself once it's a done deal. I see a lot of analogies in my business, where once you've committed to a course of action, even if it was wrong (or maybe especially so), it's so hard to get back out, and it keeps sucking resources all the while. But I personally think that Barack Obama has the best chance of being able to have a reasonable discourse on the subject with the parties involved, while both getting and giving respect. (Among other reasons why I'm voting for him in a couple weeks.)