No "Mission Accomplished" Just Yet
Weekly commentary by CBS Evening News chief Washington correspondent and Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer.
The best advice I ever got on covering foreign policy was when someone said, "Don't ever make news of a cease fire the lead of a story about trouble in the Middle East," the lesson being events are always so fragile there that the cease fire would most likely be broken before the story made print or got on television.
That's why we shouldn't be rolling out the "Mission Accomplished" banner again in Iraq, at least not just yet.
Things have quieted down considerably. The additional troops the administration put into Iraq this year have made a difference, frankly more of a difference than I would have thought, and those troops deserve great credit.
But we must also keep our eye on the prize - or in this case, the continuing lack of one.
The whole idea of sending those troops in was to quiet things down so the factions within the Iraqi government could work out ways to share power and rule the country.
And so far, they haven't moved an inch.
Parliament took the summer off, and since its members got back, they have managed to do exactly nothing.
Until they do, until there is some progress in solving the problems that are the root cause of the violence, the turmoil may return once our troops leave.
So where do we go from there?
Immigration has dominated the recent presidential debates, and it is important to be sure, but Iraq is still the place where Americans are dying. We need to be hearing more about that.
E-mail Face the Nation.
By Bob Schieffer
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. The best advice I ever got on covering foreign policy was when someone said, "Don't ever make news of a cease fire the lead of a story about trouble in the Middle East," the lesson being events are always so fragile there that the cease fire would most likely be broken before the story made print or got on television.
That's why we shouldn't be rolling out the "Mission Accomplished" banner again in Iraq, at least not just yet.
Things have quieted down considerably. The additional troops the administration put into Iraq this year have made a difference, frankly more of a difference than I would have thought, and those troops deserve great credit.
But we must also keep our eye on the prize - or in this case, the continuing lack of one.
The whole idea of sending those troops in was to quiet things down so the factions within the Iraqi government could work out ways to share power and rule the country.
And so far, they haven't moved an inch.
Parliament took the summer off, and since its members got back, they have managed to do exactly nothing.
Until they do, until there is some progress in solving the problems that are the root cause of the violence, the turmoil may return once our troops leave.
So where do we go from there?
Immigration has dominated the recent presidential debates, and it is important to be sure, but Iraq is still the place where Americans are dying. We need to be hearing more about that.
By Bob Schieffer
**********************
You are kidding, right?
Signed, A loyal, brain-dead, sheeple for Bush.
IRAQ
IRAN
NORTH KOREA
SYRIA
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
I accept/understand this: Bush''s attack on Iraq was comparable to President Roosevelt, after Pearl Harbor, deciding to invade Mexico instead of going to war with Japan.* (*Richard Clarke)
It took a Democrat, President Roosevelt, to stand before Americans and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY and attack the right enemy. It took a Republican, George W. Bush, to "beat Saddam Hussein and his military" ... the WRONG ENEMY ! ! ! !
Our nation, somewhere around 70% of us, has learned from the Cheney/Bush debacle: a limbaugtimized brain will do it wrong every time.
Vote out more Republicans in 2008, as was done in 2006, and America will move forward, beyond seven years of one pathetic disaster after another.
beating Saddam was NEVER the mission. Stopping the "WMD" labs was given as the reason or mission to invade.
No WMD were ever found. In fact, there was ZERO evidence that Saddam was anything more than an old toothless tiger, for God''s sake.
You don''t do much reading, do you?
what you been reading, darlin''?? the democrats didn''t have control of congress untill 2006. The changing missions started way back in 2004.
You know "WMD", then "stay the course", then "stand down as they stand up" then "surge to provide an oppertunity for political reconciliation".
And I don''t know how many more! The rep Congress gave shrub money over and over again dispite the fact that nothing about Iraq was ever solid, including the actual "mission"!
"How can anyone claim victory in Iraq, when the goals of the mission have changed several different times??
"
And it is the DEMOCRATS in Congress that keep changing what the victory conditions should be. They should let the military do the job and fund them to the level they need to reduce the amount of BLOOD that our sons and daughters shed. I lay EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN death in Iraq at Pelosi''s and Reid''s feet, because through their driving need for political supremacy they will spend as many soldiers lives as it takes!
"I suggest you read the polls again. Democrats in Congress have a higher approval rating than Republicans."
Yeah, Liberals cannot take any responsibility, they have to blame someone else for their failure.
Oohh! It isn''t our fault (event though we said we had a MANDATE, a majority and a 100 day plan). Those sneaky Republicans won''t let us play with our new toy!
"Also...if Republicans lose more, we "other" Americans
hopefully will hear less name calling? (it seems name calling is the best conservative Republicans can do)"
And then you immediately followed it with "Limbautimized minds"? Who is the one name-calling? It seems that you can''t resist using it yourself.
Do not criticize people if you are as guilty of what you do not like. By contradicting yourself, your aurguments lose any value.
Back to my original question:
What part of ''WE BEAT SADDAM HUSSEIN AND HIS MILITARY'' do you not accept/understand?
Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with WHY the Iranian revolution occurred. You seem to think that if we had invaded Iran in 1979 everything would be fine!
You could not be more wrong!! Invading Iran will be a massive bloodshed. Carter knew it and so does Adm Fallon, who is head of all middle east operations.
Adm Fallon has stated plainly that invading or bombing Iran WILL NOT HAPPEN will he is in command.
We should never have messed with the Iranian politics in 1953. By doing so we created a demon which then turned on us 25 years later and is STILL in existance today.
Try reading "All the Shah''s Men". It tells of the covert CIA/MI-5 removal of the prime minister and installing the Shah.
It was stupid then and it is stupid now to interfere where we do not belong. If Canada decided to overthrow our president and install someone who rapes our natural resources for CANADA''s benefit, would you like it??
I''m betting you would say NO WAY. That is EXACTLY what we did to Iran and are doing in Iraq. It is a policy destined to fail everytime.