Now, they're worried about the cost?

Am I the only one who finds it a tad ironic that Congress is suddenly worried about how much it costs to fight a war?

On Sunday, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) raised questions about the economic costs of U.S. involvement in Libya.

Speaking on NBC's "Meet The Press," Lugar insisted that the U.S. has no vital national security interest in Libya and argued that additional military spending will exacerbate the nation's budget deficit.

"There have to be objectives and a plan and an agreement that we're prepared to devote the military forces but also the money," Lugar said. "It makes no sense in the front room, where in Congress we are debating seemingly every day the deficits, the debt ceiling situation coming up, the huge economic problems we have -- but in the back room we are spending money on a military situation in Libya."

Um, a fair argument, but a funny one to be making after the U.S. has spent more than a trillion dollars -- that wou;d be an order of magnitude of roughly 1,000 times the cost (so far) of Libya, if I'm not mistaken -- to drop bombs and what not on Iraq and Afghanistan. Lugar voted for both of those, wars, and the more expensive of the two -- Iraq, clocking in last summer at $709 billion, or more than $1 billion every week, and counting -- was not in the "vital national security interest" of the United States as any rational person might understand that concept.

But if responsible Republicans -- the shrinking breed that Lugar belongs to most of the time -- and others want to start thinking in a broader way about how much we spend on the Pentagon, then God bless them.