The judgment of history is closing in on us. A new study in a respected British medical journal has put the "excess death" toll in post-invasion Iraq at a soul-numbing 650,000, which, of course, can't be true.

No way. Can't be.

Those who have wedded themselves to this war, beginning with President Bush, prefer the figure 30,000 - a nice, safe number, apparently, which won't gum up the media. What's 30,000 dead? It's a few corpses past "whatever." It's Kankakee, Ill., Paducah, Ky., Hoboken, N.J. It is, in short - among the dwindling ranks of the gung-ho - a small price to pay for a war as important as this one.

So let's pause and absorb the number Bush and his apologizers are willing to concede: 30,000. Let it stand naked in the spotlight for a moment, out of the shadow of those six-figure estimates that make it seem trivial, and listen to the silent heartbeats:

"Ahmad Walid al-Bath, 33, a Jordanian taxi driver, became the first casualty of the war on March 20 (2003). He had stopped to make a phone call at a public telephone office when a missile hit it, killing him. He (left) a wife and a 10-month-old child. . . .

Stunning coincidence. The verdict in the long-running trial of Saddam Hussein in Iraq is now due two days before our congressional elections in November. Astounding. How ineffable.

            Sometimes you know the Republicans have just lost the rag completely. This week, Dick Cheney said to Rush Limbaugh regarding the Iraqi government, "If you look at the general, overall situation, they're doing remarkably well." The vice president also acknowledged there's some concern because the war wasn't over "instantaneously." We have now been in Iraq just one month shy of the entire time it took us to fight World War II. Seventy Americans dead so far in October. Electricity in Iraq this year hit its lowest levels since the war started.

            What infuriates me about this is the lying. WHY can't they level with us? Just on the general, overall situation.

After rounding up all the supplies and making contact with my assistant, we jumped in her car and headed west from my fortified compound on the Mason-Dixon Line to the Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI). During the two hour drive to the city of my beloved Orioles (sell the team Peter Angelos) the spirits real, imagined, and in liquid form led me to break in my new assistant with behavior some people would call erratic, but mostly non-violent. She proved her worth and her tough Irish heritage was on display as the saucy young lass somehow reigned me in and kept me on an even keel during the most grueling part of our trip (when the songs on the radio sucked). Finally, arriving at BWI, I was able to get past the take-your-shoes-off, your-hat-too-sir crack squad of post 9/11 security. Somehow my captive bead ring Prince Albert did not set off the medal detector so a good solid groping and stern looks by Baltimore’s finest was not in the cards.

AUSTIN, Texas -- One reason despair is not an option is because things can always get worse, and then what'll we do? I was actually trying to figure that out when I came across a remarkable article written for the The Nation magazine (known for its liberalism for 141 years) by Richard J. Whalen -- a conservative in good standing, a former Nixon staffer. Whalen has undertaken the singularly valuable task of talking to dissenting generals about the war in Iraq.

            I suppose one could argue, and I am sure someone will, that these are mostly retired generals. Some, like Lt. Gen. William Odom, are calling Iraq "the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States." And they are retired precisely because of their opposition to Iraq.

            "The only question is whether a war serves the national interest," one retired three-star told Whalen. "Iraq does not."