Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
Keyword Tag Cloud
04/24/2007
George W. Bush
A conversation with the President of the United States
Keywords:
A conversation with President George W. Bush about Iraq and other challenges and opportunities for the country in the remainder of his presidency.
Glad to see Jr. veto the no-torture bill. The desent to the bottom should be accelerated enough that an upward bounce becomes more feasible. His endorsement of McCain, along with evangelical pastor John Hagee, should contribute to the demise of the neocon arrogance. If not we'll deserve everything we'll surely reap. Glub, glub.
why do they think his answers were anything but sincere? why is it so damning to use the soul as a reference to where things like the want for equality among people to be placed? that word has nothing to do with religion, that word is too general. Many politicians may be old people functioning on burnout senile mode, convinced that the only way to do politics is to "play" politics and that the only way to represent people of this country( my neighbors) is to "survive" a political verbal social trivial asskicking from people with different opinionssocial dexterity and tactical cunning who hold it as a soul purpose to be out to get you . Bush seems to get that. And he seems to be learning how to spot and handle these situations. I am convinced that he isn't one of them anymore. he seems to be a servant onlly to the comittments which he has presented to the people and said that he would be to. no side agendas.
why do they think his answers were anything but sincere? why is it so damning to use the soul as a reference to where things like the want for equality among people to be placed? that word has nothing to do with religion, that word is too general. Many politicians may be old people functioning on burnout senile mode, convinced that the only way to do politics is to "play" politics and that the only way to represent people of this country( my neighbors) is to "survive" a political verbal social trivial asskicking from people with different opinionssocial dexterity and tactical cunning who hold it as a soul purpose to be out to get you . Bush seems to get that. And he seems to be learning how to spot and handle these situations. I am convinced that he isn't one of them anymore. he seems to be a servant onlly to the comittments which he has presented to the people and said that he would be to. no side agendas.
I'll be moving back to Europe in July with my family. I've been here, this time around, for over five years and I'm eligible to apply for citizenship but instead will not do so. I love New York City. It's a nation unto itself. Unfortunately, it happens to be in the USA. My wife and I (she's English, I'm Irish) are now concerned that America has well and truely lost its way in the world and has rather been left behind. Its best days are long since past. America simply does not look after its young people very well and therefore it is not where we would like our children to grow up. We came here to experience New York and it has been amazing. We thought that it might be for a few years but were open to the possibility of staying throughout our children's education. However, the presidency of George Bush has been such a disaster that we now must leave. I still cannot understand how the general public elected such a person into such high office. It boggles the mind, quite frankly. George W. Bush and his crew have done the United States an enormous disservice. We decided to come to America for a while to broaden our global perspectives. And they most certainly have been broadened. Now it's time to go. I'm lucky I have the option. Americans, please put the Democrats back in power. Any one of them will do. You might just be able to get your fine country back on track before it's too late.
Your choice of guests is great and you generally are an excellent interviewer. However many times you cut off or interrupt the speaker as he or she is trying to elucidate an explanation important to his or her position. This was especially the case with Naomi Klein tonight and Paul Krugman last night. We know you are smart and informed but we want to hear what the guest has to say. Back off and give them the chance to finish the thought being explicated even if you want to get on to something else.
there are many mysteries in life. two that puzzle me are the acceptance, popularity, and reverance for howard stern and madonna. of course, since these two "made it big", there have been many others. two of them are hill and billy clinton. two manipulating, transparent liars. if you didn't write off billy when he lied about inhaling and draft dodging, then i guess you could swallow his "depends on what you mean by" defense with his girlfriend. and hilly staying with him afterward, speaks about her single-minded, whatever it takes mentality to get what she wants. grow up. just becuase you envy their status does not mean they are intelligent or worthy. they insult your intelligence and you thank them for it.
I am an Iranian and like many other Iranians, I admire President Bush for his democracy agenda. For many Iranians like me, Bush is the only and real hope for a better future. In spite of whatever that is happening now in Iraq, I believe one day the Iraqis will thank him and America for removing Saddam. I wish he could stay longer in office so that he could help Iranians get rid of mullahs too and join the free world. God bless you Mr President.
DIMWIT. ENOUGH SAID.
I am trying to listen to Bill Clinton and you Charlie are yapping away as usual trying to appear smarter than Bill. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Would you please shut up for God sake and let us listen to Bill.
I am trying to listen to Bill Clinton and you Charlie are yapping away as usual trying to appear smarter than Bill. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Would you please shut up for God sake and let us listen to Bill.
Now days TV shows, including yours, can be seen by the people all over the world. For the hosts of these shows, learning some about the world outside of USA is very helpful, especially when you interview foreigners. Try to be more professional, even the person that you interview is not from your favorit country. Remember, the people all over the world are watching, and they are very intelligent.
"Give my chance a plan to work"
Mr. Bush is the best president in my life time. He is better than Ronald. The worst was Jimmy Carter and I voted for Carter twice. Clinton raped that woman. Charlie Rose is a Zero. Thanks
Have he No shame..? Lying, Killing, all in the name of Profit..! He (Bush) is the very problem with the USA..! Rich kids that never grow up.. but who's family passes the power on to them..!!! Damn Shame...!!!
Just selected, not elected. My mind reflexively recalls the bumper sticker "Richard M. Nixon used to be the worst President ever." It feels like we are living another country's nightmare. And I am tired of "journalists" who ask direct questions yet just settle for responses instead of demanding answers--a predicament spanning the networks of all persuasions. Bill Moyers digs in; George Stefanopoulos is often persistent, but ultimately ends up settling for what he's given. What can you do, it's not a senate hearing--and let's face it, the Bush administration members wouldn't show up anyway, much less give it up, even if it was a senate hearing. I say, on to The Hague.
I guess it was a little hard interviewing the Anti-Christ.
Just thought I would aloow everyone to rate this joke for me to see if I am missing the humor in it somehow. http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-trifecta.htm
My comment is simply this... While I was not expecting Charlie Rose to aggressively interrogate our president, or help lower his already poor ratings, however, I did expect Charlie to address the concerns his viewers have with GW and provide answers of some sort. And, while I do appreciate the importance of allowing GW to provide his own answers and perspective, I would have liked Charlie to guide the conversation better and actually address and get answers to important issues. This is not the time for "casual" conversation.
My comment is simply this... While I was not expecting Charlie Rose to aggressively interrogate our president, or help lower his already poor ratings, however, I did expect Charlie to address the concerns his viewers have with GW and provide answers of some sort. And, while I do appreciate the importance of allowing GW to provide his own answers and perspective, I would have liked Charlie to guide the conversation better and actually address and get answers to important issues. This is not the time for "casual" conversation.
George Bush is a clown wannabe. He can't hide his character no matter how he tries. His trifecta joke doesn't have me laughing one bit though.
I think the American People have been taken for a ride. Personally I dont think Mr. Bush is running our country, I think our VP a select few with hidden agendas are enacting plans many years in the making. I think we are now tumbling down a very dangerous path that may take many years to recover from our injuries. I am amazed at the amount of control this group has over our goverment.
Some time ago you commented that "Nobody likes war." That still sticks with me. You surely did not mean that; it had to have been an utterance that was made only as a reflex. Only the truly naive believe that - many see war primarily as an opportunity to cash in, or to believe that greatness (or the potential for it) is in being a 'wartime' president, etc., etc. Human destruction is of little or no consequence to these types.
Some time ago you commented that "Nobody likes war." That still sticks with me. You surely did not mean that; it had to have been an utterance that was made only as a reflex. Only the truly naive believe that - many see war primarily as an opportunity to cash in, or to believe that greatness (or the potential for it) is in being a 'wartime' president, etc., etc. Human destruction is of little or no consequence to these types.
Some time ago you commented that "Nobody likes war." That still sticks with me. You surely did not mean that; it had to have been an utterance that was made only as a reflex. Only the truly naive believe that - many see war primarily as an opportunity to cash in, or to believe that greatness (or the potential for it) is in being a 'wartime' president, etc., etc. Human destruction is of little or no consequence to these types.
IMPEACH 'EM BOTH!
Thank you for this immensely informative interview Charlie, your hard work is greatly appreciated.
Charlie Rose did a soft job with President Bush. Was this do to respect or was he told no toughnest??????????? Also the first 1 or 2 minutes of the tape kept pausing.
Now is the chance for Bush to demonstrate his courage. Fight for one day in Iraq. Our real men and women are dying due to lies this fellow told.
This comment, in no way, is an endorsement of this administration. However, to MURRAY and Co., GROW UP. Your rant was - well, a rant. We need, we must, if only, then etc....... WAKE UP Doctor. America is not an ivory tower nation - but a player and as such must act as such. Phillip Urso Russo
You're just one person, Murray, one-three hundred millionth of the population. The voice of reason has always been the minority. And unfortunately, this is a democracy.
Servant Bush An Order to the President of the USA === According to the Constitution of the USA, government should be servant of people to execute the will of people. According to the self-rule right, the President of a government-of-people by-people for-people is supposed to be our servant to execute our will. Accordingly, I, Murray M. Morgan, hereby, order President Bush to, immediately and without any second of delay: 1. put stop to interference in the internal affairs of Iran (including their peaceful nuclear program), 2. put stop to bullying/coercive/humiliating treatment of Iranians (which also includes their rough government that, is up to the people of Iran only to, in the absence of feeling of any sort of threat rise against and re-establish their self-rule in there) 3. remove all of our [pirating\ naval forces from the Persian Gulf and vicinity (in the Indian Ocean) 4. evacuate all our military/clandestine-military bases abroad (specially the ones located in the Middle East and Central Asian countries) and bring all the personnel therein home 5. put stop to all his infringements on Citizens liberties (nowadays known to everybody) and put stop to indirect/coercive censorships. 6. It is the equal-and-with-respect treatment of others that assures peace and constant flow of oil to Europe and our country. It also pours water on all the inflamed sentiments that as a result puts end to "terrorism" which is, sinfully, abused so much these days by corporative military industrial complex that Late President Eisenhower warned us against their undue and detrimental influence -- that has created a sort of Parasitic Imerialism. Therefore, it, also, hereby President Bush is ordered to put stop to Parasitic Imperialism that should be carried out with co-operation of the conscionable members of the Congress and Senate which, for sure, does NOT include the war-mongring Senator Joseph Lieberman. The era of imperialism is over. It is era of co-existance in peace that would, only, be possible through with-respect and equal-regrding of others. So is ordered in the presence of God on this July 23rd 2007 and so would be executed by the Servant Bush.
Dear Viewers, Charlie Rose understands that truth, at times is best uncovered, when the interviewee decides to fail the Charlie Rose moment and the class - with everything but veracity............. The opportunity was for the President to grasp - Not for Charlie to put on his dental cap.......... Phillip Urso Russo
I think people should stop attacking Charlie. He's trying to be fair. The purpose of the interview seemed to be, let Bush explain his position in a non-threatening environment, and wherever his deficiencies are, the audience will know. It is a debate between two parties, and both are absolutely certain that they're right, and the opponent is wrong. He was giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I do think the President refers to a shallow, over-simplified version of reality. And I think what Charlie does is he convinces himself to see the world from everybody's perspective. If Charlie seemed over-simplified or uncritical in the interview, it was because Bush contaminated him.
Charlie Rose is such a phony. The way he sucked up to Bush with that disgusting softball interview on 4/24/07 was almost criminal. To dignify that fascist murderer Bush in any way is unconscionable. But Charlie really went beyond the pale by kissing Bush's ass. I have no use for Chuck anymore and I'm fed up with his incredibly pretentious theatrics. When he starts speaking slowly at the end of a sentence and enunciating words he's at his most egotistical. When he does that it's like he thinks that every word that comes out of his mouth are pearls of wisdom to be etched in stone on Mt. Olympus. What an egomaniacal narcissist he is. Charlie Rose thinks he walks on water. He's insufferable.
We are in a constitutional crisis and the congress and the press have stood by in silence. Tonight Bill Moyers began a serious discussion about impeachment. I hope that you will continue the conversation.
RE:Comment by Chuck on Sunday, May 6 at 01:37 AM You asked the question "(1) How many Al-Qaeda members have been removed from this planet while Bush was in office and how many when Clinton was in office? (2) Same question for the Taliban?" and so on. I recommend you watch the CR interview with George HW Bush and Scowcroft. At 37:55: "We're the United States. You don't measure the extent of your victory by how many people you kill. Some might, we don't do it that way." Father Knows Best. Stop being so simplistic.
"That with a swerd he sholde lese his heed;/Ther nas non other remedye ne reed,/But taketh his leev, and homward he him spedde;/Let him be war, his nekke lyth to wedde!" --Geoffrey Chaucer, c. 1340-1400
43 plans to be remembered in a positive way. Who's putting that together? "Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth." I hope the CR interview will show us 43 as good as he might be or ever hope to get. I regularly watch & admire CR, he has NEVER broadcast ANY OTHER interview of such an inept person as I believe "W" made clear to all.
So, so softball. I saw Al Gore and Harry Shearer on Gore's book tour a couple of days ago in Beverly Hills. The crowd was totally sympathetic to Gore and were shouting, pleading for him to run for president. Nevetheless, Shearer challenged him on many of the issues that Gore was presenting. Not so with Rose and Bush, it was a total love fest. This hoodlum has lied to the American people and abused his powers to an astonishing degree and yet Rose didn't challenge him on anything. Very weak.
How can al Qaeda do with a few thousand untrained and illequiped hotheads what the US cannot do with over a hundred thousand trained professionals and hundreds of billions of dollars? I wonder if Chuck can explain how "these radical terrorists finally do take control of the Mid East and finally do (indirectly) impose their radical theology on all you hard line Bush haters and finally do squeeze you until you squeal to get your freedom and economy back, like you once had it... how long after that will it take before you finally wise the F up???" when the US can't even impose order on Iraq. Maybe Chuck is saying God is on THEIR side!
To "You Loose"... You are so wright!!!!!
gosh, with the heading "most popular" above this video, it looks like Bush is more popular in Charlie's world than in the rest of the country. : -).
The speech George W. Bush SHOULD give: Normally, I start these things out by saying "My Fellow Americans." Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer. I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: there's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office. The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out. Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton Administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in. Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security. We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this â??blood for oil" thing. If I was trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied People Died' crap either. If I was the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty. Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named 'Clinton' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you? You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to outspend and out-tech them. That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you. And the bastards are all over the globe. You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor'. Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops. Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dammit, you might just as well Fedex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing. In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol. I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching. I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads. So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall. Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there're just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008. So that's it. God bless what's left of America. Some of you know what I mean.
Chuck - sorry, Chuck. I don't follow you. You're complaining about the response to our actions, which you and I I'm sure abhor. The problem is that we created the circumstances for such a response. A less hubristic leadership would have predicted the obvious and either abstained or planned accordingly. They did neither. Accountability?
After an hour of listening to the leader of the free world, I realized I had learned nothing. I would have learned more about the situation in iraq had weird al yankovic been on for the 'entire hour'. Nice softball questions. But ironically i can't blame charlie. Why bother challenging the mentally challenged? I will say this: Bush's belief that history will vindicate him is the most pathetic aspect of this man's psychological denoument. He has neither the experience in history, foreign policy and world affairs nor the credentials to intelligently draw such a conclusion. He must be relying on those experienced fellows who surround his nest to build this conclusion - the same people who gave him the war and everything else. sad.
For the first time ever, I did not shut the TV when I saw the president. The thought of Charlie interviewing him was fascinating because to my way of thinking, they are opposites in style and sensitivity. Rather than Charlie awed by the prez, I thought he had great sympathy and chose his remarks and questions with care. Charlie could have creamed him at any point in the interview, and then the prez would have clammed up. I felt that I got a glimpse of the prez as a real human being, and my heart went out to him. He's made a big stinking mess of his presidency and he knows it. But he got some good impartial air time and I think it took guts for him be interviewed by someone who did it with a lot of finesse. Thanks for a superb program.
To all the hot air, do nothing, let us all be like deer in the head lights and wait to see if we can get run over because you are afraid of your own shadow Eligits of the world... you sow what you reap and so do the people in Iraq and the Mid East. They now have a chance to dig themselves out of the mess all their radical, murdering tribal brothers and sisters have cooked up to solve their problems. They can stop killing each other any time they want. Blaming THEIR problems on Bush and worrying that THEY will come after us when they get done killing each other is one of the lamest arguments of our century. The thing that worries me the most is not the violent nature of the hordes living in the Middle East but the pacifist, do nothing but jabber, jabber, let's have a chat fest and blame everything on whom ever is our Pres at the time nature of most of the folks we have here at home. The idea that all the ills and problems of the world are somehow the fault of our Pres and that somehow he should have all the answers and he should fix them all over night is so lame it is beyond belief. Example: If a car bomber blows up a hundred people in a market THAT is the fault of car bomber NOT the fault of Bush. If 100 people in the Middle East or Europe then decide to hate Americans as a result and side with the car bomber and his buddies vs. trying to find and arrest the rest of his buddies before they set off the next car bomb then THAT is their problem NOT our problem. We can HELP them solve these problems. But, until they (and most of the folks here at home and abroad too) wise up and realize that Bush did not cause all these problems and that blaming him sure as hell will NOT solve all these problems then nothing positive is ever going to happen to some day set things right. You follow me?
I think the interview was Bush in a nutshell. The most telling moment was when CR threw him a lifeline (was it a trap?) about "acceptable level of violence". It turned my stomach to see the president grasp onto that idea like a drowning man. Well done.
I believe that your interview could have been more intense and you could have probed more. I suspect that you layed off due to respect to the office. However, I also believe that you did not have to to a Mike Wallace type of interview. Bush's antics, his non-presidental manner, his seat of the pants approach to answers and situations shows the public what we really have here...an arrogent and embarraasment as a president, and we re-elected him, so we no one else to blame ourselves.
so right chuck, hehe. finally a rational individual emerges from the sea of liberal whining. bush is actually both a brilliant tactician and a crafty chameleon. he disguises himself as an inarticulate fool with no plan....but is actually a genius terrorist fighter who had this thorough well thought out plan the whole time. he totally had me fooled....but luckily i read your earth shattering analysis. U! S! A! U! S! A! ps. for every one "terrorist" killed (plus half a million innocent civilians or so) we have spawned 2 terrorists as the result of the invasion. i hope the families of the hundreds of people killed every day as a result of this stupid war are as aware of your perspective as we are. now either staying in iraq OR leaving will have terrible results and there is no clear solution. bush is my hero.
For those of you who happen to venture into this dribble late in the game, as I have, and who still want some tough questions tossed out to supply your feeding frenzy, try these on for size... (1) How many Al-Qaeda members have been removed from this planet while Bush was in office and how many when Clinton was in office? (2) Same question for the Taliban? (3) Same question for various other radical insurgent types crawling all over the Mid East... including Saddam and his ilk? (4) Where did we kill over 75% of these gang bangers in the past 4 years? Hint: The answer begins with an I. (5) Having killed all these low lifes, how many are now left to strike at us vs. before? (6) GWB has repeated, many times over, that the war against the terrorists is going to take a LONG time to win... at the current rate can anyone guess how much longer it will take to get rid of the rest of the Al-Qaeda and Taliban members that Clinton allowed to be trained for over 8 years while he knowingly sat by and did nothing? (7) IF people in the Middle East join these radical factions and keep taking pot shots at us and our allies, as they have done year after year for who knows how many past hunting seasons, are they (a) people we want to kiss and hug every night before we go to bed or (b) people we want to strongly consider putting out of their misery B4 they do the same to us one day? And (8) when these radical terrorists finally do take control of the Mid East and finally do (indirectly) impose their radical theology on all you hard line Bush haters and finally do squeeze you until you squeal to get your freedom and economy back, like you once had it... how long after that will it take before you finally wise the F up??? There. Now you have your tough questions, like CR should have asked GWB, I suppose. So, what are your easy answers, smart asses (is that an oxymoron or what)?
It's too bad this guy sucks up to one type of American and intentionally polarizes us by barking at another type of American. More time with Rose and less of people like Cheney fawning over O'Reilly would help.
Daniel Dick's comment in this stream dated Friday, Apr 27 at 09:33 PM encapsulates the views described by many as the basis of their disappointment with this interview when he refres to the "Big Lie Theory". However, this theory, itself, is open to serious criticism. In my view, it is just inaccurate. Mere repetition of falsehood alone is insufficient to cuase people to believe it. When the repetitious lie is accompanied by closed society tactics of intimidation and constraint of free discussion, association and press, then - but only then - is the Big Lie sufficient to craft public opinion. Open society features allow citizens the "intellectual space" to weigh evidence and arguments - exactly the way Mr, Dick has down in his comment. If we are looking for the "Big Lies" in our societies, we need to look at our common assumptions and conclusions, not our disagreements.
Great job Charlie, You exposed the man for what he is, an unintelligent buffoon who could not manage a used car lot! Some of your viewers do not understand the art of the interview in a situation such as this because they need spoon feeding and are incapable of reading between the lines. This is why the fool became president! Thankyou so much for the glimpse.
Could it be as simple as trumping up charges to occupy a country that Al Qaida would fight us for occupation? Thus creating a forum for a war which was not on our own soil???
I can understand why many are disappointed that Charlie didn't probe into Bush & co.'s extremely troubling actions and misbehaviors. (I believe the president and his administration should be investigated so the public can fully learn of any wrongdoings that have occurred, and to have those responsible held accountable for their actions.) However, even so, as some commenters here have said, it is also valid for Charlie give the president a forum to speak at length. This interview was framed as a respectful conversation -- not an interrogation with questions we all know would force the president to clam up. By letting the president speak at length, I think we all got a chance to hear and learn more than we would have otherwise.
Watch the Christopher Hitchens 7/15/05 interview. He says kinda the same thing, but he's ten times more articulate.
Sadly, upon reading all the comments posted about Charlie's interview with our President,I've concluded that either 99% of the audience live in blue states or else those of us in the red states have more important things to do than blather against Charlie's "handling" (sounds like they want an inquisition!) of the interview. Thanks again for occasionally scheduling someone in the much larger part of the United States want to see and hear.
Knowing contraints were huge, you did it Charlie! Who else has interviewed GW? Think I know how YOU feel, congratulations on pulling it off. Stay strong - Love your show!
Charlie- you mentioned Darfor and then let him talk away from it with out saying a word about. I did like the way you got him to say that he would get out of Iraq if Maliki asked us to leave. .Now if the Iraqi people would hold a referendum on it they could vote the U.S. out! What a great way to end an occupation.
I understand that Charlie doesn't need to *cross-examine* him, but he didn't even ask *follow-up* questions. You can be respectful an still hold someone accountable. Just once hold out the very specific words of the adminsitration, i.e. the "imminent mushroom cloud" words of Rice, the "based on real facts" by Powell, the "slam dunk," the (already debunked) Nigerian "evidence" etc., etc. and let the President explain himself. The President's only answer was to point to the almost entirley unrelated fact that Hussein was giving $ to suicide bombers in Israel is lazy, lame distraction.
I have always thought that Charlie Rose is a fair and impartial man. Well, maybe this is not true. I start to have my doubts! Let me explain. For example, in this interview, when Bush talks about Hezboullah attacked Israel, Charlie added â??they kidnapped two soldiersâ??. When Bush said, let have a democracy in the middle-east for the first time in the history, Charlie did not add Iran had a democratic government in 1950 (almost 60 years ago!) but the US and CIA overthrown it with a coup in 1953! Hey Charlie, try to keep your credibility by being fair, impartial and exact all the time. You look like another man in front of an authority (someone like Bush). I am really surprised at you
I have always thought that Charlie Rose is a fair and impartial man. Well, maybe this is not true. I start to have my doutsâ?¦ For example, in this interview, when Bush talks about Hezboullah attacked Isreal, Charlie added â??they kidnapped two soldiersâ??. When Bush said, letâ??s have a democracy in the middle-east for the first time in the history, Charlie did not added Iran had a democratic government in 1950 (almost 60 years ago) but the US and the CIA overthrown it with a coup in 1953! Hey Charlie, try to keep your credibility by being fair, impartial and exact all the time. You look like another man in front of an authority (someone like Bush). I am really surprised at you ...
Comment by Open Mind on Sunday, Apr 29 at 04:19 PM Le Peu: If you think Democrats have more credibility than the GOP that's fine. The trouble is, half of them deny that a war on terror even exists. My concern about this is not based on fear, but the understanding that it will take only one or two of these freaks w/ a rogue nuclear briefcase to bring one of our large cities to its knees. And this has nothing to do w/ '24'. I too am a student of international relations (& journalism), like our friend in denial Garrett, and have been aware of these missing cases since the mid-1990s. Some say nothing can be done to make them harmful to the general public. I hope for all of our sakes this is true. This will not prevent the concept from becoming reality when Iran has full nuclear capabilities. These people want us all DEAD. All you have to do is read bin Laden's book to know it is true. Don't take it from me, it has escaped the horse's mouth in published form, just like Hitler's 'My Struggle' did in 1924. Are you paying attention? --------------------------------------------------------------- You call yourself a student of international relations and of journalism and accuse Democrats of denyong that a war on terror exists. You sound like our notoriously-brave vice-President. You have lost our attention as well as your credibility. If wars are to be fought, the GOP look like fools compared to Dems. GOP should get lost and stay lost.
Le Peu: If you think Democrats have more credibility than the GOP that's fine. The trouble is, half of them deny that a war on terror even exists. My concern about this is not based on fear, but the understanding that it will take only one or two of these freaks w/ a rogue nuclear briefcase to bring one of our large cities to its knees. And this has nothing to do w/ '24'. I too am a student of international relations (& journalism), like our friend in denial Garrett, and have been aware of these missing cases since the mid-1990s. Some say nothing can be done to make them harmful to the general public. I hope for all of our sakes this is true. This will not prevent the concept from becoming reality when Iran has full nuclear capabilities. These people want us all DEAD. All you have to do is read bin Laden's book to know it is true. Don't take it from me, it has escaped the horse's mouth in published form, just like Hitler's 'My Struggle' did in 1924. Are you paying attention?
At minute:second 25:42 of the interview The President looks away from the interviewer and downward immediately after stating that he will use all means of diplomacy before using force with Iran. Should we believe him?
You want fear? AlGore says we have fewer than 8 years and 9 months before the planet goes up in smoke due to global warming. You are ill. Oh, and sorry to say, but President Bush is not running in 2008. Your fool candidates should either 1) find a new punching bag, OR 2) get some issues to run on so they have something to offer the American people. The MSM sold their empty bill of goods in 2006, but the American people will wise up eventually and you will have to move to a real socialist state. Not here, not ever!!! What they have to offer is credibility - something that the GOP no longer has...except with certain individuals. Have to go out.
Pepe, Ha!! Another Episodic Apologist. You want fear? AlGore says we have fewer than 8 years and 9 months before the planet goes up in smoke due to global warming. You are ill. Oh, and sorry to say, but President Bush is not running in 2008. Your fool candidates should either 1) find a new punching bag, OR 2) get some issues to run on so they have something to offer the American people. The MSM sold their empty bill of goods in 2006, but the American people will wise up eventually and you will have to move to a real socialist state. Not here, not ever!!!
The typical 95% Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers ranting on this site are sickening. Find help. The president's 'big picture' perspective of Iraq and the Global War on Terror are accurate. The rest of you are in DENIAL. Stop projecting your ignorance/hatred onto this man, he is a good human being and an effective leader..........The absolute freedoms of you nutter libs will die first, so WAKE UP. This is exactly the fearmongering which George Will referenced this morning which will be the Republican foreign policy equivalent of Herbert Hoover's economic policies, causing them to be kept out of power for decades. Old FDR said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, and the GOP thrives on fear. What effective losers not leaders.
He tried, but you can see that he did not go to the Actor's Studio.
President Bush, for all of your brillance, is hardly simplistic. Stop reading The Nation and start reading some books. You are wrong, the overall policies of this administration, whose degrees trump yours by several hundred, I presume, are RIGHT.
My apologies for contributing a post which has moved the discussion from comments on the show to a debate perhaps more suited to a different forum. I am only responding because (and this will be my only response) I feel this is a good opportunity to address the overly simplistic worldview which got us into this abominable predicament in the first place. 1) I don't believe 9/11 had anything to do with my logic, but rather with this administration not engaging in preventive measures to respond to this increasing threat and warnings based on evidence Bin Laden was planning to attack with airliners (if my response is to be comprehensive, I suppose that I should add that members of the administration were shaking hands with Hussein and securing campaign contributions from the Bin Laden family throughout the 80's an 90's) 2) A foreign policy outlook which reduces complex factors into simply good or evil is one which is likely to lead to war rather than peace, 3) Mainstream Muslims are more interested in peace than a Caliphate--the extent to which they are presently interested in the latter is the product of the 'war on terror', which they have widely perceived as a war on Islam, and this was the goal of the extremists who attacked us (I am paying attention-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301816.html), 4) For the record, my education includes BA's in both political science and international relations (with a minor in religion), an MA in public policy, a JD, and a post-grad weeknights from 11pm-12am on PBS.
Mr. Rose, very disappointing interview. I guess we all have our down days! SK
While the President's account may have seemed accurate to an "open mind" within the historical context provided in the interview, an informed mind is not in denial but rather understands that the explanations were self-serving in neglecting key details. From whence exactly has the terror we fight sprung? There are numerous factors involved (certainly including extreme religious ideology), however a perspective that overlooks our country's long list of often disrespectful expressions of "soft power," is incomplete. Such policies have conveniently been lucrative to friends, and members, of our administration, while (as a forthcoming State Dept. report shows) creating more terrorists and terrorism. I'll lastly add that I disagree with those who feel disserved by the fact that the interview was on the soft side; the President's relatively relaxed candor made for what I felt were some supremely entertaining moments--Mr. Bush's content expressions after responding to questions reflected that he felt he was playing in Mr. Rose's (all-star) league in terms of suavite and intelligence! Anyone ever see the Steve Martin movie "The Jerk?"
I'll admit, I've not actually seen the show yet, came here for the video. However, I'm a big fan of Mr. Rose & President Bush. The typical 95% Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers ranting on this site are sickening. Find help. The president's 'big picture' perspective of Iraq and the Global War on Terror are accurate. The rest of you are in DENIAL. Stop projecting your ignorance/hatred onto this man, he is a good human being and an effective leader.
I feel sad that our Country justified pre-empting a war for any reason. This is the true loss of innocence which now deeply divides our Nation. Bush, to my mind's eye, is just an icon representing a Nation blindly striking out about 911, not knowing who to blame or fight. Bush represents the anguish of our inner souls. Isn't it obvious? That leaves every one of us responsible.
I look forward to Charlie's interview of Tenet, who says it was Cheney and not Dubya that took us into Iraq. As for Dubya, someday I'll see him in a Crawford bar, buy him a beer, and hear again the decisions he had to make.
If Bill Moyers interviewed the dolt, he might ask real questions and demand real answers. Of course, that won't happen.
All in all, I though Charlie did a great job interviewing our ignorant president. He engaged GWB in conversation and the fact that GWB spoke "so carefully" highlighted his ineloquence, his lack of intelligence, and his inability in general to lead our country. GWB spoke so carefully, so slowly, just barely able to get his words out...it was very revealing. Good job Charlie Rose!
I could not bring myself to continue to watch this "interview" as Mr. Rose seemed intimidated by being that close to the president, maybe any president. It looked to me as though Mr. Rose was primarliy providing a platform for the whole series of lies that Bush has been shown to spous\t, over and over again, as Goebbels once did for Hitler. The whole charade that Bush + Cheny + Rice + Powell + Rove +++ are allowd to broadcast is pure Geobbels, "Repeat a lie often enough and the people will come to believe it." I didn't notice Mr. Rose challenging this doctrine of the big lie at all. I wonder why not? What happened to you here, Mr. Rose?
Dear Charlie: Please include ALL of the theme song at the end of each program as has been the case in the past. I love that music and miss hearing it at the end of each and every show. J.K.
Let us consider this part of Bush conversation: â??I do think it is important for me to explain â?¦ why I made the decision I made. I believe that if Iraq would fall apart and there would be a vacuum and in that vacuum would come extremist elements. These are same extremists elements are now trying to derail this young democracy and then that could lead to a regional conflagration and then you have radical Sunnis and radical Shiites competing for domination and they would share a common enemy, etc. â??And I had a decision to make â?¦ I made the decision to go in.â?? We can summarise it in this way: If Iraq would fall apart there would be a the vacuum and if there is a vacuum it would have tragic consequences for the Iraqis and for the US (regional conflagration, civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, groups that would have a common enemy (US, Israel, moderate governments, for example), embolden extremists, etc.) Therefore I (George Bush) made the decision to go in (to make the surge). In logical terms it would have the form: If A then B and if B then C therefore D (which pretends to say if D then not C) Lets assume that A then B is unquestionable, If Iraq fall apart there would be a vacuum, since it is almost a tautology: if the government fails to govern there is an absence of government. Lets assume also that B then C is unquestionable, if there is a vacuum (of government) in Iraq there would be the tragic consequences for the Iraqis and for the US, on which almost everyone can agree (it was part of the French argument why the US should not go into Iraq by the way) Two things are missing in Bush argument: 1) We need to agree that if D then not B, i.e. If we make a surge, Iraq would not fall apart. 2) We need to agree that not A then not B, i.e. If Iraq does not fall apart there would be no tragic consequences for the Iraqi and for the US. But: 1) The assertion that â??If we make a surge, Iraq would not fall apart and there would not be a vacuum. is hidden in the argument but not explained and not the object of an agreement. One proposition of the argument, necessary to make the conclusion, is not proposed to examination. It is simply alleged to be true without discussion and even without mention. However, it could be a proposition on which ones can have doubts. It can be argued that this is a major point to examine. Does a surge guarantee or gives better chance to the strengthening of the government. It could be true but it is rather odd that the conclusion on that is assumed to be true already in the argument to make the surge while it is precisely the usefulness of the surge and not the virtue of a stable government that is questioned. It can almost be said that we have here a petitio principii: the surge will work because we take for granted that it will work. 2) From A then B we cannot infer that not A then not B, i.e. from If there is a vacuum there would be tragic consequences, we cannot infer that if there is no vacuum there would not be tragic consequences. This is pure logic, a logical fallacy that is called denying the antecedent. There can be tragic consequences from other reasons, without a vacuum of power. And this is another important point to examine, because the presence of American troops could also have tragic consequences that have to be compared with the consequences of a surge. If we take the proposition â??if there is no vacuum there would not be tragic consequencesâ?? alone it could also be said a causal fallacy in the sense that the complex cause of the regional fragile stability, of the extremism, of the sectarian violence, is reduced to one part of it, the instability of the government. Therefore, the â??explanationâ??, if not completely illogical, explains nothing. It does say what are the objectives of Bush, on which everyone can agree, but it does not say why he thinks this will work. The question if the â??breathing spaceâ?? will be sufficient for Iraqi government to function is still open by is own words. In other words, we know now that it has to work. Period. In this argument it could be said also that there is the suggestion of what can be called a fallacy of ambiguity. The â??decision to go inâ?? is an equivocation in the sense it has potentially the double meaning of making the surge and going into Iraq initially. But we know that the instability in Iraq is due to the fact of a first decision to go in. Therefore there is a tendency here to permute the effect and the cause, which another causal fallacy in logic.
When Charie talked with former Defense Minister of Iraq, Ali Allawi on 04/11/07, he learned that the US just does not clearly say to the Iraqis what the US wants and what goals the US has. I wish Charlie asked Bush why that is the case.
Thank you for your "civil" interview with the President. The spotlight was on him and not you and I appreciated that. He appeared calm and relaxed and pleased with opportunity to explain his position on several issues especially the Irag situation. I learned so much more than I do with his press conferences where each interrogator is trying for one- upmanship and a desire for the camera to be focused on him/her.
I thought CR did a poor job interviewing. In a time where there are rumors galore about secrecy within the White House he didn't ask one question about Rove's involvment in the firing of US attorneys. There was not a single question/comment about the Valerie Plame issue. All you saw was a weak reporter sit there in awe of being able to interview the President. Shame on CR!
To Paul Sleeter, Justin Kleavland: very good observations. I certainly was not swayed to agree with the President in any way, but it was refreshing to see that he could speak more comfortably than what we are used to seeing. I believe CR did his job well--he knows Bush does not have the intellect of any of his other guests. If he toughened up on him, it would be pointless. If you make someone comfortable they just might reveal something you otherwise wouldn't get. Bravo to C. Stephen White To Sam: the best interviews, are conversations.
.."plan B is to make plan A work.." -talk about an ideological point of view
I think the problem with high profile people who often have a lot to hide is that you never really see their personal side. They are disengenuous. Their responses are always calculated. They are spectators in their own lives. Don't think you are seeing their human side because that implies they have an emotional life and they do not. If they did they would not make decisions that they know will cost thousands of innocent lives. Decisions that are made for reasons of personal gain and not for the reasons that have been brainstormed and stated to the public. The man is a sociopath...warm and effusive when it benefits him as well as capable of pulling the trigger when that benefits him. Bush, Kissinger, and other political leaders don't get asked tough questions because they won't answer them. The ground rules are laid ahead of time and if these people consent to be interviewed it is because the interviewer follows the rules. I don't think CR added anything to the body of knowledge we already have about this president. CR's strong point is in being an interviewer, not a journalist and certainly not an investigative journalist. Leave that to the likes of Seymour Hirsch.
A wasted oppurtunity by Mr. Rose to get beyond the President's oh-so familiar talking points.
My fellow Americans, How did we get in this mess? How did this man get to be President? Is he the best Republicans can offer? Is he the best a Democracy can produce? I sometimes feel like I'm living in the "Twilight Zone"....Someone please wake me up! I've forced myself to watch our clueless....I mean fearless leader, and I'm absolutely SICK! President Bush is a disgrace! Why isn't he being Impeached? WHY?!? I pray that my country and the world recovers from Bush's reign of destruction. Just think this man has his finger on a button that could destroy the world...very sobering!! Mission Accomplished!
Looked like charlie was trying to keep the secret service guy standing behind his chair from slaping him
To interview a war criminal in the way CR did, is a crime in itself.
This interview was handled in a subtle manor, more so than others I've seen Mr. Rose handle. Initially I too was disappointed in the lack of tough questions. However, as this interview progressed I could see the president ease and open up. This was a rare glimpse that I feel was only possible through the skill of Mr. Rose and I thank Mr. Rose for this. I did not change any of my opinions regarding the presidents choices and reasons for the war. I felt that Mr. Rose's light handed approach allowed the viewer to see the president, hear his reasons for his decisions, with a minimum of static. In my opinion this only highlighted the lack of reasoning and poor judgement that has plagued the Presidents war efforts in Irag.
Charlie didn't just not follow-up or go into any depth on Bush's assertions, Charlie helped the President by finding words for him that he was unable (incapable?) of finding for himself. Charlie's consant wish to be "liked" and "respected" got the better of him again. Charile goes through hoops when the likes of Kissinger, Friedman, Watson, etc. make appearances on the show. Once again, instead of tough journalism we got milky, murky conversation. Nevertheless, I like Charlie and his show, and am concerned that he looks real tired and stressed out.
I thought the interview revealed a side of Bush I have never seen and it provided a better understanding of the man. He appeared more 'human, although I strongly disagree with his policies. Charlie, you done good!
I would never describe Bush as "innovative" unless it's being innovative in ways to lie to Americans and to destroy the Constitution along with the world reputation of America. Nor would I describe his "stay the course" strategy as being that of one who is interested in "change." Where were the follow-up questions to challenge his unfounded statements? Charlie is usually better than this.
The president said that the Iraqi people want to "bring people to justice that are murderers". Well, Mr. President, perhaps that is why they are going after our soldiers. The president said we are fighting â??a group of extremists that want to bomb us". Mr. President, that may be how the Iraqi people view us. The White Death By Chris Floyd Published: November 11, 2005 This week, the broadcast of a shattering new documentary provided fresh confirmation of a gruesome war crime covered by this column nine months ago: the use of chemical weapons by U.S. forces during the frenzied destruction of Fallujah in November 2004. Using filmed and photographic evidence, eyewitness accounts and the direct testimony of U.S. soldiers who took part in the attacks, the documentary -- "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre" -- catalogs the American use of white phosphorus shells and a new, "improved" form of napalm that turned human beings into "caramelized" fossils, with their skin dissolved and turned to leather on their bones. The film was produced by RAI, the Italian state network run by a government that backed the war. Vivid images show civilians, including women and children, who had been burned alive in their homes, even in their beds. This illegal use of chemical weapons -- at the order of the Bushist brass -- and the killing of civilians are confirmed by former U.S. soldiers interviewed on camera. "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah," said one soldier, quoted in The Independent. "In military jargon, it's known as Willy Pete. Phosphorus burns bodies; in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone. ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 meters is done for." The broadcast is an important event: shameful, damning, convincing. But it shouldn't be news. Earlier this year, as reported here on March 18, a medical team sent to Fallujah by the Bush-backed Iraqi interim government issued its findings at a news conference in Baghdad. The briefing, by Health Ministry investigator Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, was attended by more than 20 major U.S. and international news outlets. Not a single one of these bastions of a free and vigorous press reported on the event. Only a few small venues -- such as the International Labor Communications Association -- brought word of the extraordinary revelations to English-speaking audiences. Yet this highly credible, pro-American official of a pro-occupation government confirmed, through medical examinations and the eyewitness testimony of survivors -- including many civilians who had opposed the heavy-handed insurgent presence in the town -- that "burning chemicals" had been used in the attack, in direct violation of international and U.S. law. "All forms of nature were wiped out" by the substances unleashed in the assault, including animals that had been killed by gas or chemical fire, said ash-Shaykhli. But apparently this kind of thing is not considered news anymore by the corporate gatekeepers of media "truth." To Our Readers Has something you've read here startled you? Are you angry, excited, puzzled or pleased? Do you have ideas to improve our coverage? Then please write to us. All we ask is that you include your full name, the name of the city from which you are writing and a contact telephone number in case we need to get in touch. We look forward to hearing from you. Email the Opinion Page Editor As we noted here in March, ash-Shaykhli's findings were buttressed by direct testimony from U.S. Marines filing "after-action reports" on web sites for military enthusiasts back home. There, fresh from the battle, soldiers talked openly of the routine use of Willy Pete, propane bombs and "jellied gasoline" (napalm) in tactical assaults in Fallujah. As it says in the scriptures: By their war porn ye shall know them. This week, as in March, the Pentagon said it only used white phosphorus shells in Fallujah for "illumination purposes." But the documentary's evidence belies them. Although there are indeed many white bombs bursting in air to bathe the city in unnatural light, the film clearly shows other phosphorus shells raining all the way to the ground, where they explode in fury throughout residential areas and spread their caramelizing clouds. As Fallujah biologist Mohamed Tareq says in the film: "A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multicolored substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact." The slaughter in Fallujah was a microcosm of the entire misbegotten enterprise launched by those two eminent Christian statesmen, U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair: a brutal act of collective punishment for defying the imperial will, a high-tech turkey shoot that mowed down the just and unjust alike, an idiotic strategic blunder that has exacerbated the violence and hatred it was meant to quell. The vicious overkill of the Fallujah attack -- where an estimated 1,200 civilians died while almost all of the targeted insurgents slipped away beforehand -- alienated large swaths of previously neutral Ira