Matthew is still looking for some reason to stay on the pro-war side:

I know he's regarded by some as little more than a propagandist, but watching an hour and a half of Wolf Blitzer's show has left me feeling more hawkish.

To take your points in order:

The alternatives to war — give the inspectors more time, the Walzer "little war", etc. — don't sound to me like they offer any real advantages over war. They won't be cheap, since they involve keeping large numbers of US troops in the region for an indefinite amount of time.

And invading Iraq, overthrowing Saddam, establishment a caretaker government, and "fostering democracy" over a period of several years will not?

They won't be very beneficial to the Iraqi people, since they'll keep them suffering under the dual burdens of sanctions and Saddam.

And bombing them to hell in a campaign of "shock and awe" will be better for them?

They won't better equip us to cope with North Korea since it'll require constant, full-time attention from the US diplomatic corps to keep them in place.

And stabilizing the caretaker government in Iraq won't also distract us from dealing with this problem?

They'll generate less anti-American sentiment abroad than a war would, but not less than the already-considerable amount we're dealing with, and because they'll keep this issue on a constant simmer they all-but-guarantee that America won't turn its image in the world around.

Oh but bombing them back to the stone age and imposing our martial will on them will be so much better? Really Matthew, you're starting to grasp at straws here. Simply put there is no argument made against the "costs" of containment that don't apply equally to the "costs" of invasion and regime change. The only difference between the two scenarios is the name of the person in charge of Iraq. Either alternative sucks. But at least the containment alternative leaves us with less blood on our hands.