Books, not bombs? Like a golden oldie from the Reagan Eighties, CNN’s Tom Foreman forwarded the classic liberal claim on Monday’s (noon Eastern) "Your World Today" show that the Iraq war is so costly that it could have been better spent on hundreds of grade schools or millions of new teachers, new cargo inspectors, and new cops -- or "every American driver could get free gasoline for a year."
Anchor Jim Clancy began by lamenting all the money "poured down the hole" on Iraq:
"Turning back to Iraq now, it is a loaded question, for sure, Hala, and it's this -- do you have any idea at all how much money in U.S. taxes have poured down the hole, so to speak, in Iraq?"
Anchor Hala Gorani: "Well, I have a general idea, but it's a safe assumption to say that few people do, at least in terms of how much each individual is paying, but some are following the spiraling costs very closely. Tom Foreman is one of them."
At least CNN admitted they're in the business of basing their news on "loaded questions." Foreman, an old ABC News hand, compiled a nice "progressive think tank" video news release, complete with the same spiraling cost estimate number the tank put on its website:
Foreman: "If you study Iraq in purely financial terms and say, show me the money, it's quite a show. This is how much America taxpayers are paying for the war -- more than $350 million and still climbing, based on government records compiled and computed by a progressive think tank, the National Priorities Project. Ken Pollack is with the Brookings Institution."
Ken Pollack, Brookings: "One of the great tragedies of Iraq is that the administration has mismanaged this war so badly that it has wound up costing the taxpayers far more than it might have had things been handled otherwise."
Pollack, by the way, favored war in Iraq, and wrote a book on the Saddam threat titled "The Gathering Storm." He also has an "in" at CNN: he’s married to CNN reporter Andrea Koppel, daughter of Ted. Or maybe Ted got his old colleague Foreman to put Pollack on.
There is no doubt that billions have been wasted in Iraq due to waste, fraud, and abuse. However, there is doubt that if a Democratic president was managing a major foreign-aid program of this kind, that the Democrat would be blamed for the waste, fraud, and abuse. It’s more likely that it would be either ignored or blamed on the corruption of the locals, and of course, a liberal is always to be praised for his good humanitarian intentions. Back to the story, where Foreman began suggesting Team Bush is fudging the cost numbers:
Foreman: "How much money has been spent on Iraq? The Priorities Project Estimates enough to hire more than six million teachers, enough to build more than 700 new elementary schools, in each state. Eight million police officers could be hired, or six million cargo inspectors for ports. Or, we figure, every American driver could get free gasoline for a year. In the complex world of government budgets, the total estimate can be fairly questioned, but it's a lot more than the White House wants to suggest."
Bush soundbite from 2003: "Today I'm sending the Congress a wartime supplemental appropriations request of $74.7 billion to fund needs directly arising from the Iraqi conflict and our global war against terror."
This is a bit misleading since Bush makes no "gotcha" statement in this old clip that the war would be cheap, only that he proposed a supplemental spending bill, which he’s done to fund the war in each budget cycle. It ended this way:
Foreman: "Government investigators say billions have been loss to fraud, mismanagement or bad bookkeeping. And the spending won’t end when the fighting does. American troops and equipment have held up well.
USAF Major Gen. Don Sheppard (Ret.): "I could see the cost of war going up another 50 percent, and maybe even doubling because of what we have to do to replace personnel, ammunition and equipment over a long period of time."
Foreman: "Plenty of people argue that establishing democracy anywhere is worth whatever it takes, and of course no one can put a value on all of the brave young lives lost, or calculate the cost of leaving. But the price tag of the war so far is impressive. In time it took you to watch this story, Iraq cost America almost $500,000 more. Tom Foreman, CNN, Washington."
(Hat tip: Michelle Humphrey)
UPDATE (08:34 EST): The MRC's Business & Media Institute documented similar bias from Foreman's CNN colleague and Pink magazine columnist Joshua Levs on the February 5 "CNN Newsroom."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center





Foreman: "If you study Iraq in purely financial terms and say, show me the money, it's quite a show. This is how much America taxpayers are paying for the war -- more than $350 million and still climbing, based on government records compiled and computed by a progressive think tank, the National Priorities Project. Ken Pollack is with the Brookings Institution." 









Editor at Large

Comments Policy
How about a comment on the tr
February 7, 2007 - 08:24 ET by Mica the MagnificentHow about a comment on the trillions spent on the Great Society since 1965? There are still poor people amongst us even with this amount of transferred wealth!
That's not considered money wasted by the MSM because it made millions of slugs dependent on the dems.
I hate being poor, but the alternative takes effort. - What most poor people in the U.S. believe
bingo !!
February 7, 2007 - 11:22 ET by brewskiNail meet hammer. You stole my thunder.
Yeah... I'm guessing the amou
February 7, 2007 - 08:59 ET by BruzillaYeah... I'm guessing the amount poured down the hole in Iraq was about 50% of what was poured down the hole for Medicare during the same period.
Gee I hate to be such a nerd, but....
February 7, 2007 - 10:39 ET by SportPoliticsGee I hate to be such a nerd, but....will any one of these great billion dollar news reporting agencies ever make an assessment concerning how much of the money is spent on salaries, wages and profits for US companies vs foreigners making money off the effort ?
I understand it's tough, since Bush murdered 600,000 Iraqis, and Halliburton owns the Iraq oil fields.
For some reason they aren't WHINING in any analysis about who is actually recieving the billions in payments. ( that Halliburton word is the only exception, and even then they never seem to offer total cost of war vs how much H ( R&B) has been paid. I suspect it is to small a percentage for them to report it and still whine.
Will anyone of them ever give us even a listing of the total in wages paid to the military ( hence US ) out of the crybabying over Bush' requests for 74.4 billion supplemental,or whatever ?
I find it to be quite disturbing that a basic set of facts is nowhere to be found from these babbling cacaphonic retards.
Average of 140,000 troops for 4 years @ $50,000 a year LOWBALL. That's 28 billion in wages.
Is there any concept of proportion in any newsheads jabbering yapper anymore ?
I know, numbers are boring. They can't do the percentages, unless they are full out lying and exaggerrating some how much do you hate Bush for what he's gotten all of us into now Ollie poll.
They've been lying for so long about all the statistics they push on seatbelt deaths and this and that disease and every ailment under the sun, and how manywomen are raped worldwide persecond, that it must have become second nature for them to just babble on, without a thought in the matter.
What, win the cold war agains
February 7, 2007 - 11:35 ET by ucWhat, win the cold war against centralized governments and not in America let our cities and states have first opportunity to set themselves apart with higher aims and goals? So Hillary wants to take oil profits and also severely cut oil demand, and, if I get it right use their profits to ruin their future profits. James, did you have too much to eat?
Mismanaged Funds
February 7, 2007 - 11:41 ET by dagdaI found it interesting that they are having a heart-attack about funds missing in Iraq, but not as much from Katrina. Appears to be about the same about of greed going on.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
If we hadn't spent all that m
February 7, 2007 - 09:01 ET by sublight68If we hadn't spent all that money on Iraq and the War on Terror, we could have spent it here at home cleaning up the smoldering rubble of American cities.
9/11 was evidently just a one-time anomoly for these people. Everything would've been fine if that war-mongering, oil-greedy Bush hadn't gone and riled things up.
Sub, great point.What good wo
February 7, 2007 - 09:33 ET by midnight cowboySub, great point.
What good would all those books be that the libs would rather buy, once they became radioactive.
I just don't understand the l
February 7, 2007 - 09:54 ET by sublight68I just don't understand the logic, that everything else would be exactly the same if we hadn't gone into Iraq. It's like saying, if I hadn't spent all that money on chemotherapy I could've bought a boat. No, you'd be dead.
sunblight
February 7, 2007 - 10:45 ET by SportPoliticsWere all going to cook to death, into extinction, by sunblight,and the unednable process begins cascading out of control in less than 9 years now. It's not just Al Gore saying this. On cspan a couple days ago, the flaming left freak that headed up some government agency and constasntly testified as an expert before congress said it WILL precipitate an EXTINCTION LEVEL EVENT,like we have seen over the course of billions of years such as that which wipedout the dinosaurs.
It's not just kookoball Al Gore babbling that. I guess congress is used to saying all sorts of crap, so they must have taken it with a grain of salt when they unanimously voted down the Kykookball treaty.
Ahh, so where were you guys ? Yes, we don't have to worry about nuked US cities, since we'll all be dead according to the Gore anyway.
Hmmmm, "enough to build
February 7, 2007 - 09:37 ET by HumanEventsHmmmm, "enough to build 700 new elementary schools in each state". Why specify elementary? Maybe the image of 5-10 year olds will better tug at the emotions of viewers than schools for 10-17 year olds too. And these are all government (or "public") schools, of course. To these liberal Democrat elitists, a parent who wants their child in a private school but can't afford it shouldn't have a voucher to be able to (even though the same liberal Democrat elitists send their own children to private schools).
It's always such an enormous laugh when the libs, who have taxed and spent for years at mind boggling rates, use "It costs so much money" as a dig at a GOP initiative (which in this case they went along with him anyway [I know John, before you voted against it]).
when a liberal says something
February 7, 2007 - 09:58 ET by Conservative in the Artswhen a liberal says something like this just counter back with:
"Just think of how many poor people we could have fed, or how many schools we could have built if we didn't shill out millions on NPR and urine art?"
Such a liberal left political
February 7, 2007 - 10:31 ET by ucSuch a liberal left political take smacks of "THE WORLD IS FLAT" but let us be sure not to make it any "flatter" or fairer. No: Let us be better world citizens from them and a lot of "only in our back yard" defense of rights. These are the now there is only one superpower post cold war victory days still and still such days for countries around the world to hear from all of us about whether our system really works and is worth working off of.???
Well, I don't trust CNN to report on the sun rising.
February 7, 2007 - 10:41 ET by acaiguanaWell, I don't trust CNN to report on the sun rising.
Aside from that, Pollack only represents what I have known to be a fact for many years, the incestious nature of the News community.
Aside from that, I'll address this canard.
Subtracting the funds that were Iraqi to begin with; the amount of 'waste' surely starts to fall apart. Wars are expensive. That took a lot of work, huh?
Taking out of context the Terrorist attack on the New York Financial Center of the WTC; the impact of the recession produced by Bill 'good time irrational exuberance' Clinton; and the incredible cost of having 11 million undocumented aliens living in the US (not to mention the expense of trying to protect our borders over the past 6 years) is not only poor analysis but disingenous to the maximum.
These two think tanks (I am quite familiar with Brookings due to a youthful indescretion of brief Liberal bent) and the so-called 'progressive' National Priorities Project (can you read FAR LEFT LIBERAL - boys and girls) are both packed with staffers who only think they know what they are doing.
Most of these people are (to steal from Stormin' Norman) not analyists nor are they trained in analysis. I venture to say that when one who is only marginally brilliant comes up with a 'brilliant' idea that the follow through is less than sparkling.
Pretty much my 'analysis' of all this.
:-)
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
"I have not slept with t
February 7, 2007 - 11:37 ET by uc"I have not slept with that newsperson, have you, Hillary"?
He/she that doesn't learn from Clinton history is doomed to repeat it.
Typical liberal. Always loo
February 7, 2007 - 11:15 ET by Al CzervikTypical liberal. Always looking to spend while in the same breath complaining about the deficit. If we're going to play hypothetical games we could talk about how much we could reduce taxes or pay down our debt. Maybe we could look at the earmarks in congress and figure out how much we could reduce taxes if we weren't funding pork projects in every district.
With stories like this goin
February 7, 2007 - 14:41 ET by sarcasmoWith stories like this going around, I think it's hardly bias to say waste has taken & is-taking place. It's reality, folks, so get used to it: This war was, is, and will-be about money. And believe me, if a Democrat had been running this war, I'd be blaming the Democrat. I may not be popular, but I'm damn-sure consistent.
JMR
That kind of reminds me of Ju
February 7, 2007 - 20:07 ET by Dad GummitThat kind of reminds me of Judas fussing at Mary Magdeline for pouring perfume on Jesus' feet. Was Judas a liberal? Wanted to sell that perfume to help the poor (and line his own pockets).... Yup. Classic liberal. Take someone else's property to benefit poor (and self) while thinking you did something to help.
"A wise man's heart inclines him toward the right, but a fool's heart toward the left"- Ecclesiastes 10:2