Schieffer on FTN: Is it worth the cost?
Download | play 
Download | play
Face the Nation's Bob Schieffer's final commentary on whether Congress will ask Gen. Petraeus the right questions when he faces Congress this week.
We haven't lost this war, but we're not winning it. We're hanging on. Victory would be obvious, Iraqi families would be strolling the streets of Baghdad and Osama Bin Laden would be walking out of a cave somewhere with his hands up. Instead of that question, let's hope the General will be asked what we so often forgot during Vietnam: Is this worth the cost in lives and money?
Full transcript below the fold:
For months now, the administration has been telling us, “let’s wait until we hear from Gen. Petraeus” before we decide where to go next in Iraq. Well, tomorrow, we hear. The atmosphere is much like the time during the Vietnam War when the commander then, Gen. William Westmoreland, was brought home to answer the question “Are we winning?” He assured us we were and the government offered a blizzard of statistics to back him up. They weren’t wrong; they were just irrelevant. All we really learned then was that we were asking the wrong question. When we have to ask, “are we winning?”, we’re probably losing. Victory is always obvious.
The right question would have been “Is it worth the cost?”. America eventually concluded it was not and we left the war. Let me pre-empt that question to Gen. Petraeus. We haven’t lost this war, but we’re not winning it. We’re hanging on. Victory would be obvious, Iraqi families would be strolling the streets of Baghdad and Osama Bin Laden would be walking out of a cave somewhere with his hands up. Instead of that question, let’s hope the General will be asked what we so often forgot during Vietnam: Is this worth the cost in lives and money? And here’s a follow-up: When the Iraqi parliament went on vacation during August, I gave up on trying to help them find a way to have an effective government. They have to do that. What we need to know now is whether keeping a large American military force in Iraq is the best way to make America safer. To me, that’s the real question.
8)
Is this worth the cost in lives and money?
Cheney knew the answer to this in 1994. I think we all know it in our guts as well.
And with Billy the Bloody Kristol touting leaving 100,000 troops in Iraq after we leave as if they are not living human beings, these people just make me ill.
Snip..clip
"I'll Give Some Speeches, Just to Replenish the Ol' Coffers."
Just when you feel impenetrably numb comes a sentence so multilayered in obscenity, so richly textured with arrogance and solipsism as to make Ayn Rand look like Albert Schweitzer. . . Jerry and Joe Long
A better question -
Were crimes committed in starting and prosecuting this war ...
... and if so, in the name of justice, what will the US do about it?
Mr Schieffer is right on. with this.
So much of the blame for this war goes to people/journalist as well, by asking a question and allowing the respondent to run amouk with talking points.
It would be obvious if we were winning.....brilliant.
jack jett
The fact that the opposition in Congress won't even come close to looking at who's picking up the money makes me think they're not going to do a thing about stopping it. Even at $12 billion per month for Iraq and Afghanistan, not a single one of those cowards will step up and say, what are we spending it on?
The Carlysle Group is the first in line to buy up all the struggling financial institutions and mortgage companies. When GWB is finished with America, he'll be on the board like his Daddy, and for them, the pay off is just beginning.
Prediction:
A few congresspeople actually will ask this question, and the media will either ignore it altogether, or play an insignificant sound byte of it. Some Democrats will note that the reasons for the surge have been changed over and over again, and the media will ignore that as well.
Republicans will pretend to ask questions, but will really just be making speeches about how we have to win the war on terror, and that anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't really recognize threats or is ignoring all the evidence that we're making progress everywhere on that front (without providing any of that evidence).
Petraeus will say that there has been some progress on the ground in Iraq, even if it's difficult to see, or hard to get through, because it takes a lot of time. Although the original benchmarks or reasons for the surge might not have been met (he might not acknowledge this), there has been some progress making it all worth it, and that it would be wrong to pull out just when we're finally seeing progress. What we really need, he'll say, is more money, more time and more resolve, so that we can finally win this thing.
Some people will scream, Cornyn will cry, Insanity and Coma will hold their typical debate-charade, and come January of 2008 everyone on C&L will be complaining that nothing has changed.
This is a question I've been asking for a long time. The example I use is this:
A Ford Focus is a nice car; well built and it will get you where you're going. It's a bargain at $13,000. But if you paid $50,000 you got ripped off. That's not to say it's any less of a good car... you just paid too much.
The price tag for Iraq - thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars - is simply too high for the benefits we've received so far, and there's no indication things will get better any time soon.
Karen @ 8:
Thank you, Karen, for your eloquent comment. I fear you're right on the money.
My wife and I saw "No End In Sight" last night at our town's little art theater (it's been running there for 3 days, and attendance has been good, though not overwhelming). For those who haven't seen it, do. Bush basically has Congress by the tail--if Congress votes to stay, they once again look like weenies and complicit enablers, ignoring the obvious that Iraq is nothing but a chaos zone--except where the escalation has temporarily tamped down some of the violence because of its sizable presence. If Congress votes to cut off funding and begin drawing down regiments, Republicans can say, "See, it's *your* fault we lost Iraq because just as we were starting to win you cut and ran." Democrats (and sympathetic Repubs) can't win either way.
The film makes it very clear: we will NEVER accomplish our aims in Iraq...whatever those moving goalposts may be. We've so greatly alienated the population in our bungling lack of a plan--and thoroughly ghetto-ized a once-thriving urban society with a 7,000-year history--that we can never put anything lasting in place. Once we come to our senses and leave, Iraq will come completely unglued. The best we can hope for is a "strong man" (or woman) with the compassion not to ethnically cleanse what's left of his/her rivals and the enlightened self-interest not to use massive weaponry.
Nothing Petraeus says will even remotely acknowledge this reality. He is bought and paid for.
Shieffer is no liberal. Virtually all of the thinking-man's conservatives -- and Shieffer is definitely one of them -- realize just what a monumental blunder this war has been. Maybe it has enriched Bush and his cronies, but it is potentially destroying the GOP the way Nixon never dreamed of. The only people left supporting this president are are sychophant politicians, cronies looking to suck on what's left of Bush's patronage teat and bonehead yokels who listen to Rush and say "yeah"
This has the potential of being a Walter Cronkite moment, when Cronkite essentially said that the Vietnam War was unwinable and LBJ knew that if he lost Cronkite then he lost the war. But unfortunately it will probably not matter how many people say it is time for the U.S. to finally bring the troops home. Bush, the war time president, wants his war no matter how many lives and limbs it costs those who have fought in combat, a place this president intentionally avoided in a place called Vietnam.
Many, if They've lost Bob Schieffer, you'd think They'd be done and done.
Thank you C&L for no stories on the Hollywood CGI 'Bin Laden' stories on the internet..I might vomit. Amazing what they can do with computer graphics these days, isn't it?
Is it just me? This seems pretty easy to answer with the typical "9/11... Islamofascists...Global War...follow us home...tell THEM they died in vain...Pottery Barn." bullshit.
Bob Schieffer's a good journalist. Asking that question should not be partisan. Honorable leaders should answer as honestly as possible.
Of course none of that means squat. I expect the noise machine to call for Schieffers firing for bias, that he's a traitor for asking such a ridiculous question. I expect the leaders of bushs disasterous occupation to lie as artfully and loudly as they can.
Is this worth the cost in lives and money?
In a war that has left more than 25,000 wounded, ALIVE DAY MEMORIES: HOME FROM IRAQ looks at a new generation of veterans.
Executive Producer James Gandolfini interviews ten Soldiers and Marines who reveal their feelings on their future, their severe disabilities and their devotion to America. The documentary surveys the physical and emotional cost of war through memories of their "alive day," the day they narrowly escaped death in Iraq.
========
I have a friend whose son is three-times wounded, his last being a bullet and shrapnel in the left leg. He is scheduled to visit the army medical so they can determine if he should be sent back to Iraq.
Is this worth the cost in lives and money?
My answer is NO!
moondancer @ 16:
Schieffer is a shill. He might be having a pang of conscience, but I won't forget his track record. He's watching his generation betray his country and he helped and he knows it.
a guy @ 11:
I respectfully disagree. I live in a red portion of a very blue state. Although people in my hometown are disheartened about Iraq, they are *VERY* uninformed about why and how it got so bad. They know things aren't going well, but they would love to have a reason to "support our president" again. And not necessarily because they love Bush. Their motivation, I think, comes more from a place of, "This is America, it's right to love my country, I'm supposed to follow my leaders, I'm supposed to believe in my president--as long as he doesn't have sex with his intern, visibly raise my taxes, or make me give up my conveniences." It isn't malicious. In fact, it's typically American--distracted, self-absorbed, uninformed.
If someone--like a Petraeus--can give many of these people (I call them the "God Bless America Squishy Middle") hope that "someone's taking charge and gonna make it all better," they'll jump on his bandwagon in a minute--because having him there means they don't have to think about it. It's all taken care of for them.
If he can give them enough reassurance that there's hope in "staying the course" and maybe even some progress, they'll flock back to his boss (Bush) in a minute. Not because they're bad people; they just don't see how it affects their busy lives and don't care enough to know more. The "official story" is good enough for them.
We get what we are willing to accept.
John @ 9:
I'm curious...
What exactly ARE the benefits of attacking a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or terrrrrism or Al CIAda?
Did you mean the OIL? If so, where exactly is the benefit?
ronnierayjenkins.com @ 7:
and by law, no one can look at their books. ain't it grand...
RobertD @ 19:
But what about "sends my kids off to die and bankrupts the country"
If you are right I am going to get very depressed
BaScOmBe @ 18:
yeah guys like him are judas goats they led the flock to the slaughter, fugim
BaScOmBe @ 20:
You mean that you think the benefit is supposed to be for you and me? Silly Rabbit!
As the man once said ... Follow the money
rob in toronto @ 24:
And if the benefit was "oil" for you and me, say - how's that computing in your wallet when you pull up to the pump these days??
tyree @ 23:
Schiffer is a totally shameless GOP shill - always was and always will be. He's got one foot on a banana peel and the other in the grave, so I guess he's having his personal "epiphany" and trying to clean the slate before Lucifer gets his prongs on him??
He's reprehensible.
anon @ 4:
BaScOmBe @ 18:
Moondancer: Just a question here. When you refer to "honorable leaders", to whom precisely do you refer. Certainly you couldn't be referring to a leader who repeatedly lies to his people could you? That leaves out The Chimp then when anyone discusses the word "honor" because he's shown nothing but dishoner in his fraud and lies over the past 6 years. I haven't heard one clear, honest statement erupt from his necrotic mouth during that time.
We haven’t lost this war...
Yes, we have. It was lost way back when rioting and looting went unchecked, when they disbanded the Iraqi Army and fired everyone who had been in the Baath Party regardless of whether or not they had done anything wrong, when far too few troops were charged with securing Iraq. They never had a plan to secure the post-Saddam, post-Baath Party Iraq, they still don't. Their only plan now is to stall and let someone else deal with this colossal mess.
rob in toronto @ 24:
Oh! You must mean the $14Trillion or so that has flowed into the coffers of the megalomaniacs courtesy of the USGov. and of course, we're NOT counting the dead and wounded of Iraqi origin, are we?
My bad... I was only thinking of the victims.
What took him so long to ask That Question.?.....................(shaking my head)
mudshark @ 31:
Well, he really didn't mean it. BS has such appropriate initials, eh? He occasionally erupts; some people get aroused by the repug 'jumping ship; next thing you know, he's back in the fold, knifing a progressive idea or simply plugging another repug.
nothing to see here!
Smack_dab @ 29:
I keep hitting this note ... and am sorry for being repetitious.
Losing the war isnt the point. THE WAR is the point. You imply - sorry, most take this position - that if we win, its all good. Or, if the population is 'quiet' its all good.
That isnt correct. This war is criminal. They - Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Powell etc - have violated international law by prosecuting an illegal war.
Losing the war isnt the point - THE WAR is the point.
We Just Don't Get It. Bush Promised to Get Bin Laden "Dead or Alive," Cowboy Boasting Style. Then Bush Said That He Really Didn't Think About Osama Much. Now We are Back to Osama Being the Bogeyman in All Our Closets and Living Comfortably in a "Safe House" with a Photo-Shopped Black Beard. Shouldn't Bush be Held Accountable for Letting Osama Get Away? And What Ever Happened to the Domestic Anthrax Terrorist Who Brought Capitol Hill to a Standstill by Targeting Key Democratic Senators and Their Staffs?
Bush's Mission Unaccomlplished, Unless Letting Osama Get Away and the Anthrax Terrorists are Part of the Great Game to Ensure that Fear Keeps the Republicans in Power. Naw, Don't Think Such a Thing! Isn't it Prima Facie a Pathetic Reminder of Bush's FAILURE to Protect Us That He is Reduced to Finding About Osama from Videotapes That Appear When They Can Maximize Bush Playing the Terror Card? [via buzzflash]
anon @ 33:
Actually, it is NOT a war and was not after the first three days. It's an occupation!
BaScOmBe @ 35:
I can see your point. However, Germany occupied France during WWII but never faced the level of active resistance the US is facing in Iraq.
Maybe call it a war of occupation.
... sorry, unfinished thought. Even if the war ended with the announcement of 'victory' aboard the lincoln - my statement stands. It either is or was a criminal war. Justice needs doing.
JUST COME HOME!
rob in toronto @ 22:
Sorry, but I just don't agree. I see most people having given up on Bush. Even conservatives. Sure there are "America love it or leave it" types, but those people are fewer and fewer. There are people who want to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, but those certainly are NOT the "squishy middle". Those are increasingly the chronic Kool-Aid drinkers. Listen to virtually any NPR or C-Span show. You have life long Republicans--conservatives--families of military all calling in and slamming this governmant's foriegn policy all the time. I really think Murtha (although a democrat, certainly, again, no liberal) had it right. The American people are way out front on this issue. That is why Bush got hammered in the last election and why so many Republicans are shaking in their boots right now.
anon @ 33:
The war is wrong and criminal; I wish we had never invaded. The first and biggest mistake was invading, but that could have been countered by doing things right from then on; war is often a matter of making the fewest or least important mistakes. There would have been some good to come out of this mess if we had actually stabilized Iraq and made it into a functioning democratic state with civil rights, but that is now next to impossible (not surprising since that isn't what Bush/Cheney want here in the USA). We are in Iraq and one of the biggest things keeping us there is the hope for some sort of positive outcome, something that just isn't possible anymore because at every fork in the road, Bush/Cheney chose the path towards ultimate failure. As it is now, we are only delaying the inevitable by staying. We need fully withdraw from Iraq and hold those who got us into this monstrous mess accountable for their crimes.
Riddle of the Czech body armour found with Iraqi insurgents: Iraq security forces under suspicion after Prague says equipment was legally supplied to police. So it's the Bush/Petraeus vaunted Iraqi police force, not the Iranians, who supplied this body armor. Is Bush going to declare the Iraqi police force a terrorist organization? "The real surprise of the Prague investigation, carried out by the Czech organised crime squad, was that the vests had been legally supplied to the Iraqi police at a cost of $2.7million (£1.33m)." 9/10 [buzzflash]
So how's that 'surge' working? better yet, what strategy has EVER WORKED?
Bring the GIs home. Enough of them having to live through postcards so some Vietnam avoiders like Kristol can live out their action movie fantasies
The all-volunteer army is the only reason that this war has gone on as long as it has. If we'd had a draft, there would be rioting in the streets right now.
rob in toronto @ 22:
I don't disagree with you.
the question:"Is this worth the cost in lives and money?"
Republican interpretation: Is this worth keeping oil prices high and Muslim population down?
The Vietnam the war was to keep the red menace out, and in this war we have the oil to consider as being one of the reason, and a big reason at that, bigger than the profiteering from the military industry of the Vietnam war.
America! save it or change its name!
Oh jeezuh H FUCKing christ, Schieffer probably isn't a stupid man, but HOW FUCKING DUMB BRAINDEAD are the viewers of FTN he's peddling this shit to? Do they need someone to tell them what state they live in as well? OH GAWD, these fucking questions he wants to parade around as "deep thinkin".
"Is it worth the cost?"
Oh gee Bob, if you have to ask THAT question, then the answer's obvious. Duh Bob, why the fuck does my car have seatbelts!???
And as for your follow up - "Is keeping a large American military force in Iraq is the best way to make America safer" Oh man Bob, I bet some community college prof would gimme an A just for writing that one down as a thesis!!! You're a gawdamn genuis, where'd you go - Yale I bet, look at how smrt W is!! Or how bout Princeton, Donald "War Pig" Rumsfeld went there, he's brilliant.
But hey, go ahead and ask that question Bob, I'm sure there's a load of historical precedents (pronounced preh-see-dents) that show keeping a large western army in a hostile Muslim region a GREAT IDEA.
a guy @ 43:
This is true. It's one of the reasons Bush's administration wants to run out the clock and hand off the war. There's no good option for ending it, as most here have said. The Bush people (and many Republicans) can then say, "See? You Democrats/liberals/fill-in-the-blank-with-your-favorite-group lost the war." Perhaps this is Karl Rove's new "permanent Republican majority" strategy.
Instituting a draft would certainly end the war. For that reason, Bush will never do it, no matter whether or not it were really needed. No correct-thinking politician would; it would be political suicide for years. But I did see at the grocery store last night a popular magazine cover with the headline reading, "The Case for National Service." So maybe something's coming.
Site Monitor,
I'm curious...
Why did you delete my comment?
We haven’t lost this war, but we’re not winning it. We’re hanging on.
Is this fart out of his freakin mind?? What planet has Schieffer been living on?? A MILLION Iraqis are DEAD. 3 MILLION more have fled their country. The USA is now 9 TRILLION in debt to CHINA and Korea and Japan to pay for this disaster. It'll take our grandchildren three Walmart jobs to pay all this back.
The Middle East is steaming with anti-American hatred.
And Bush will not pull the troops out until Iraq signs the Oil Theft law handing over 80% of Iraq's oilfield profits for the next 30 years to Exxon, BP etc ($10 of TRILLIONS of!!!)
Mr. Schieffer WE HAVE ALREADY LOST EVERYTHING, including our good name and reputation, the value of which is priceless. My GOD Mr. Schieffer are you F##ng stupid????????
Bob, we tried to warn you even before BushCo plunged its deadly member into the morass. Your network did a piss poor job in reporting the doubts and protests.
RobertD #10...If Congress votes to cut off funding and begin drawing down regiments, Republicans can say, “See, it’s *your* fault we lost Iraq because just as we were starting to win you cut and ran.” Democrats (and sympathetic Repubs) can’t win either way.
FALSE: If the Democrats cut off funding they'd be considered HEROES! The public would rally around them and their approval rating would rise above 50%. The reason the Democrat's rating is so low is because they do nothing. Americans like politicians who stand for something (especially if that something is honorable). And Americans like politicans who get things accomplished. You're buying into Rove-think. The Republicans would be TERRIFIED if the Dems. actually cut off funding.
anon @ 4:
They answers are Yes and Nothing.
John @ 9:
Bad analogy. It would only work if we hijacked the car and raped and murdered the driver and passengers.
The neo-cons took us into Iraq for three reasons:
(1) To take control of the oilfields and privatize them
(2) To build embassies so we can control whatever puppet government we set up
(3) To build embassies from which we can project military power in the Middle East
...the "troops" as we so casually refer to them (the Blackwater Private Army of Mercenaries as well) will NEVER leave until all the neo-cons are impeached, thrown in jail or run out of the country.
Right now the military industrial media corporate complex is in complete control of our government. Nothing will change until an adminstration is in power ready to do BATTLE with them. The only candidates capable of this are Kucinich, Gravel or possibly Paul. OTHERWISE THE SITUATION WILL ONLY GET WORSE.
Want to lose your lunch?
Take a look at this picture of our goofball president smiling like a complete jacka**simpleton.
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2007/09/bush-and-abu-ri.html
He's shaking hands with an Iraqi thug (he's building his own militia loyal not to the Iraqi government but to him). Bush has just given him more of our tax dollars in the hopes that he'll help advance our cause. Even the thug seems to be thinking..."Is this guy a dufus or what?"
One can only imagine the 24/7 coverage our corporate media would've given these pictures if it was Bill Clinton instead. Bush gets another free pass.
This war is all about George W. Bush saving face. There is no limit to the amount of our money, or the number of our lives it will cost to bail him out of the mess he created in the first place. It's not really about whether it's worth it to us, it's about how many lives and how much money George is willing to squander in pursuit of saving his legacy.
Bush is a gambler chasing his losses. He keeps hoping that the next roll of the dice will be a winner and he'll recover his losses. The problem is there is no way to recover the lives squandered. When Bush says, "We'll get him a new pair of legs" as he did about one amputee, does he really believe that mechanical legs can replace real legs?
When gamblers start chasing their losses they usually lose their job, lose their house, lose their families yet still the believe that if they could just get a stake and play at the table one more time, they can make it all better. The "Surge" isn't likely to be the last time he rolls the dice.
sunset@28
Perhaps my statement wasnt clear, but if you read past the second line it might become obvious that I was not defending bush or the pentagon.
BaScOmBe
I dont want to have to defend Schieffer, but besides Obermann, has any other talking head of any age or network made a like statement? Also, his career spanned about 50 years. I dont think that entire time he shilled for shrub.
I hope that they ask General Petraeus if he was ordered to give a rosy assessment, or if it may have been strongly suggested that he give a rosy assessment.
Is it worth it?... Hell No!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070909/ap_on_he_me/coming_home_wounded_brai...
What an asshole Bob Schieffer is. It's not a "war," Bob, it's an illegal occupation whose purpose is to steal Iraq's oil. And it's not al Qaida that's doing all the shooting at US soldiers, Bob. It's Iraqi citizens who want America to get the hell out of their country.
These GOP frame jobs make me want to hurl on my computer.
jimbo92107 @ 61:
Hey pal,
Your response makes me want to hurt my computer too. Who's Ahole are we talking about here?
anon @ 4:
The US will do nothing about it. American people are fat, stupid cogs in a machine that ate their souls long ago. The question is what will the rest of the world do about it, and how is the US going to respond when they come hunting for Chimpy like Joseph Mengele in the backwaters of TX?
patriotscholar @ 59:
Technically, since he is testifying in front of congress, that would be tampering. A nicely impeachable offense to add to the 4 mile long list of crimes already committed by Darth/Chimpy/Gonzo and Rum-tum-tummy. But what do we care, we're only citizens of this country, why should we care if our government is a corrupt, illegal mob of thugs?
Carmikl @ 57:
Sorry, that was close but you still think Chimpy gives a shit what you or anyone else thinks of him. Why doesn't everyone else see the mountains of evidence pointing to the provable facts that this war was planned before these monkeys got into office. This whole thing has been a staged event whose purpose has been to steal hundreds of billions of dollars and grind meat. Making it last as long as possible only maximizes their profit. That is what this war, and the whole war on terror, is about.
" Virtually all of the thinking-man’s conservatives "? Is there even one of these? Then why is he still conservative, or did he just start thinking?
Bob Shieffer is one of the few in Media that looks at the news from a legitimate historical point of view. When he is gone there will be nobody out there with a whiff of the long vision.
[...] was doing my normal daily routine, going over the blogs and such, when I cam across this post over at Crooks and Liars. The post is a clip from the final word on yesterday’s Face the [...]
Patthemokey @ 67:
Wait a minute, Katie Couric or Pat O'Brien can fill that void.
Comments are closed on this entry