justified actions based on sunk cost

* richard clarke, channelling scott:

"Too often in the Iraq debate, we have let intuition, slogans, and appealing thoughts cloud logic. Perhaps the most troublesome example is the argument that we must honor the American dead by staying until we can build something worthy of their sacrifice. Stripped of its emotional tones, this argument is, in economic analysis, an appeal to sunk cost. An MIT professor once promised to fail me if I ever justified actions based on sunk cost--so I learned that what is gone is gone, and what is left we should conserve, cherish, and employ wisely.
[]
Another emotionally charged argument against withdrawal is that Al Qaeda will be emboldened by our departure. But are we to conclude that, if we make a mistake, we should continue to make it lest our enemies gloat? Al Qaeda is already sufficiently emboldened. The additional motivation it will derive from seeing U.S. forces leave Iraq cannot be accurately measured and is likely to be inconsequential. "

* some good news:

"U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold admitted Monday he’d have to seriously think about it if asked to be a presidential running mate.

But Feingold’s flirtation with the White House has given way to renewed enthusiasm for life in the Senate, now that there’s a Democratic majority.

At a listening session in Onalaska City Hall, Feingold talked enthusiastically about chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution Subcommittee — and getting to hold hearings about the loss of habeas corpus."

and some less good news:

"“I don’t support impeachment, and I don’t support impeachment hearings, even though I think the president has probably committed an impeachable offense,” Feingold said in response to a question from Al Schulz of La Crosse.

“We are not required to impeach the president simply because he’s committed an impeachable offense, which I think he did with the illegal wiretapping. We have to decide whether it’s in the best interest of the country to go through that process.”"