Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals
by Jane Mayer
Buy it
by Jane Mayer
Buy it
07/31/2007
Richard Holbrooke
A conversation with Richard Holbrooke
Keywords:
A conversation about foreign policy with former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke.
DVD
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Audio
Audio available through Audible.com.
Audio available through Audible.com.
Transcripts
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Transcripts available through Voxant.
This was an interview of a current political operative. President Bush is the cause of all of our problems and Barak Obama will solve all of them - real original. When are we going to realize that our problems and advantages are bigger than one person? This interview could have been straight from any of the cable news programs. By the way, it would have been just as upsetting to have the names switched (i.e. Clinton is the cause of all of our problems and Bush will solve all of them.) How about some intellectual honesty on the program. That is why I love watching this show.
I caught this show during the wee hours this AM and found myself hearing sensibility from Mr. Holbrooke. How refreshing! I find myself wishing we could vote for members of the President Cabinet. I'd love to see this man as our new Secretary of State but regret we must wait another five months for that possibility. Great show, Charlie!
The feedback comments explained why you must have had the staff cut off the Richard Holbrooke interview that I was watching this morning.I wondered why the playback quit halfway through. Be good to yourself and take a significant summer vacation. Your listeners can't risk having you wind up in another hospital in Paris. Your light on important contemporary topics is a national resource that shouldn't be allowed to run out.
I thought this was a tough interview but not an unfair one. CR was trying to get at specifics and Holbrook offered few. CR was trying to help his viewers, in his words 'get their arms around' the issue and Holbrook said diplomacy is like jazz, its an artform. I think Charlie was tough. During the interview you could clearly see his facial expressions. He was getting mad, but he also contained it well. When I read some of the comments of this interview before I saw it, I thought I was going to see him lose it. He never did. Finally Charlie didn't seem drunk as some of you stated. If he was drunk he would have slurred his speech and started saying stupid things. I saw no evidence of this. Charlie was clearly on his game, give him credit for this.
Charlie probably had a double shot of espresso before the show...it is obvious that Holbrooke and Rose are friends, so what you were seeing was a conversation between friends, not an interview, per se. This kind of programming has merit because Rose often asks the kind of hard, probing questions that the audience would like to see posed. What exactly would Holbrooke propose to the Iranians. Rose did get clarification. If you want Larry King, watch Larry King. If you want Rose, watch Rose.
I watch Charlie Rose almost every night as it helps my wife go to sleep and it keeps me up. But this one made me laugh, Comment by Raymond Leone on Wednesday, Aug 8 at 06:12 PM "I've also been watching your show for many years now, but have to agree with the overwhelming previously stated opinions of the Holbrooke interview. While the majority of your interviews have been relatively fair and balanced, when it concerns politics, you've been giving me the definite impression that you're very conservative and perhaps evensupportive of the neocons." The day that any show on PBS is supportive of any type of conservative movement, I may have to begin taking anxiety medication. If you find Charlie Rose conservative, then you've been drinking the special kool aid for far too long... WOW!!! How about the night that Charlie had Craig Newmark of Craig's List on. This guy was saying that he got most of his news and information from "newsman" Jon Stewart and from the Daily KOS. Now, a truly "conservative" or even moderate interviewer would have pounced all over that but Charlie let it go and agreed that these were reputable resources. There is a reason that conservative talk radio is so popular and FOX cable news is so popular... Conservative reporting cannot be found on the mainstream media and some moderate-conservatives are eager to hear the other side. So, cut Charlie a break. Anyone that was once on 60 Minutes has earned his stripes as a liberal and doesn't deserve your knit picking... Really!!
Dear Mr. Rose: I was watching your conversation with Mr. Holbrooke and was very interested in what he had to say. Unfortunately, you continually interrupted him and cut him off while he was in the process of responding to your questions. I finally got so frustrated that I reluctantly gave up and quit watching the conversation. Since I have been watching your program for a long time, I have noticed that you have a tendency to interrupt and cut off guests in the midst of their responses, sometimes finishing their sentences for them(presunming to know what they are going to say)when you appear to have a very intense interest in the particular topic or issue. I hope that you will be able to minimize this irritating habit in the future as I believe you have one of the very best and informative interview programs on television. Sincerely, Dave Nowak
I've also been watching your show for many years now, but have to agree with the overwhelming previously stated opinions of the Holbrooke interview. While the majority of your interviews have been relatively fair and balanced, when it concerns politics, you've been giving me the definite impression that you're very conservative and perhaps evensupportive of the neocons. What is especially distressing, as stated by so many, is your habit of constantly interrupting your guests ad nauseum! Because of your stature and previous reputation, you've attracted many "names" to your show; I especially love the interviews with people in the performing arts, for whom you appear to have much more respect and interrupt them less frequently. I would hate to abandon what has til now been a really good program. Hopefully you will take all these many comments to heart-thank you-ray leone
It was disturbing to see Charlie so agitated and rude with Holbrooke when he's been so obsequious with wealthy CEOs and with George Bush. Is he drinking? He looks drunk and disheveled many of the nights that he's agitato. The Charlie Rose Show is becoming a Dorian Gray reality show. I hope he gets help and avoids the crash he seems to be heading for.
I agree with most here. Charlie really went over the top in interrupting and badgering his guest. Holbrooke was providing invaluable insight and constructive ways of proceeding but CR was so excited that he was constantly embellishing his questions ad nauseam. Mr. Holbrooke was not smiling at the end and did not say a word. How frustrating it must have been for him. I was screaming at the TV to CR to shut the f... up! Another hour with Mr. Holbrooke would be a great redress.
Charlie, PLEASE do not talk so much! Also you interrupt your guests incessantly. It is very difficult to comprehend what they are saying as you interject too much.
You're my all-time favorite interviewer, Charlie. We all have bad days, when we're emotionally unsettled, but hopefully there will be enough professional fortitude not to let that overpower the quality of our work. I agree with Eileen - you need to take care of yourself. Something is apparently eating at you inside, and it unfortunately got projected on Richard Holbrooke. You were so agitated, I wondered if you were on cocaine. Please take time to rest, and let whatever is bothering you have space to run its course, so we can enjoy the old, brilliantly socially astute Charlie Rose, whom we value so much. (Mindfulness Based Stress Release, as taught by Dr. Jon Kabat-Zinn at U. Mass. might help!)
Charlie, you've been doing pretty good at not interrupting people since your over-the-top binge with Christopher Hitchens. Unfortunately, you seem to be slipping back into your old ways however. It happened with Wesley Clarke and you were especially obnoxious with Mr. Holbrooke. I don't think either guest ever got to finish a sentence. You seem to be interviewing yourself so that you can let your guests know how much you know. I've been watching your show for years. But this is beginning to get tiresome. Please let your guests talk.
Guys, Charlie was not too rude with Mr. Holbrook. First, this is a conversation show - not an interview show. They obviously know & respect each other, and their conversation was what makes this show great: ie, it was as if we are eavesdropping on two friends having an informed chat. It's human, messy, real and informed. Great! Second, I was GRATEFUL to Charlie for FINALLY tackling the wooliness and abstractness with which commentators talk about diplomacy. He SHOULD be putting them on the spot to say "what does it mean to say "talk to Syria"? He was exasperated and so was I - good on you, Charlie, for trying to pin him down. It was brilliant, and I felt he was speaking for all of us. Well done!
Sam Doberman is WRONG. Charlie Rose does read (some first sentence others in entirety) the post interview commentary. Do our comments change him - No. But inform him, to be sure, yes. TO BUSY SAIS SAM DOBERMAN - asinine. 'Today is the tomorrow you were talking about yesterday'.
Charlie I have watched your show daily for a long time. Because it is on too late in the evening for me here in San Jose, CA, I video tape it daily. I was particularily disappointed watching your interview of Richard Holbrook. You were rude and constantly interrupted him and I wondered why you were so angry? I don't watch your show to see you have a temper tantrum! This was an important guest and I wanted to hear more from him that you were allowing. I stopped watching Larry KIng on CNN because he is rude and constantly interrupts his guests. Lately you seen to be falling into the same pattern. Please take a vacation or something to calm yourself down and go back to your more laid back style of previous years and let your guests speak!! Thanks for listening.
I agree there was no CR agitation and little interrupting tonight with Rudy Guliani as opposed to the interview with Richard Holbrooke. The fact that CR gave the former NYC mayor one full hour and only a half hour for Ambassador Holbrooke may explain some of it. I feel the constant dumping on Charlie here about his sometimes awkward presentation and the way he handled Holbrooke is way over-stated. His program is still by far the best conversation around in the vast sea of mostly TV wasteland.
Sam Doberman wrote, "Tonight's show with Guliani will be an obsequious love fest...". Well, I'm writing this post while watching the show, and Sam is right. While Charlie still interrupted Rudy, it wasn't as much as last night and his demeanor wasn't nearly as "agitated".
Unprofessional? Read Charlie's motto: '.. an informed, soulful, and spirited conversation.' Charlie carries that through every time, and has been. That is why people who run billion dollar companies get their fix before they goto sleep. Its not about profession. Charlie , as an American, SHOULD be aggressive and furious about such a topic that has is hard to understand but must be done. Moreover we all have a level of emotional attachment, especially Charlie who can pick these people's brain. And I am FOR the interruptions: Why they are the same questions I have for the guest and he must be interrupted for the rest of the conversation to be informed.
This was the most obnoxious and unprofessional interview I've ever seen Charlie give. Is there a reason he was so abrupt with Mr. Holbrooke? Besides not letting him talk at all, he clearly and awkwardly cut him off at the end. Please stop interrupting Charlie; we want to hear what your important guests have to say. It's not about you for crying out loud!
Charlie's tendency to interrupt can get annoying indeed. But in this case, I think it may have been called for. Especially toward the end. Charlie was clearly frustrated. And for good reason! How long have we been talking about this? Iran and Iraq. Talking and talking, postulating solutions... and here we are still. This is a bloody frustrating issue! Everything seems to be getting worse! Rhetoric can make solutions sound easy. We all follow the arguments of people like Holbrooke and nod, "oh yeah that makes sense, diplomatic talks with Iran". But Charlie prods (interrupts) and asks, "what is that exactly?" Every American should know what the issues are and what's at stake-- but for some reason we don't. It's not popular knowledge. What's on the table? How do you negotiate with Iran? When an American diplomat is one on one with an Iranian diplomat, what do they talk about, specifically? Kudos to Charlie!
Charlie forgot to ask Dick Holbrooke about Kosova independence matter. I said "forgot" because at the beginning of the interview Charlie mentioned that he was going to have the guest talk about Kosova, among other topics ... It is sad also that Charlie kept interrupting Dick on and on again ... I wonder whether he is aware of his "habit" ...
uh, folks, Charlie doesn't read this mail; the great man is too busy. And if any of his staff read it, they don't tell him of the criticism lest he get his feelings hurt. The C.Rose show still garners viewers because he is able to attract a great variety of top notch guests on very important topics. However Rose's style is frequently designed to show off Charlie. Yes, he is a right wing hawk who is likely to get bent out of shape over people who have a very different viewpoint. Rose does best where he is aware that he doesn't know much as on the good science programs. Tonight's show with Guliani will be an obsequious love fest -- unless Rose has another favorite. He has been rather simpering over the Republican's choice over who the Democratic nominee ought to be: Clinton. (this is because they think she will be the easiest Democrat to beat; witness the fact that there have been no attacks on Clinton by pundits -- just expressed admiration on her "certain" nomination!) If you want to watch a really good interviewer, who really listens to and learns from his guests, watch Tavis Smiley -- also on PBS, but late. It's on at 1 am here. sam
Mr. Rose, You have the viewership, the most important guests, the distribution, the perfect Texas Mug, and a descent sense of humour. But please, just please, let me hear a little more of what the guest has to say. Give him time to answer in his own words, not in the words of your next redirection. I know you have a lot of questions, and a limited period of time, and you are excited, and passionate, but let the guest go on a little. Let them feel like they can answer in complete sentences. Mr. Holbrooke was very gracious and obviously likes you very much. I wonder. Either that or he just knows you are the one who is going to have the serious foreign policy people on with any regularity. But I think he likes you. But you made him call upon his enormous diplomatic skills, just to get the words out there to answer your questions. To the point: The guest has to breath... You have to learn when to stop your voice, for the sake of getting an answer.
To me the most important point mentioned in the interview was how Iran was helpful to us(and had a moderate president in 2001)when we went into Afghanistan. As a build-up to an Iraq invasion though, we alienated Iran and it's election gave us the anti-Bush - Ahmadinejad. If we would actually learn lessons, we'd know that we sow what we reap. Holbrooke pointed out that among the Iranian population America remains popular. There is a way to use this to our advantage - if we desire it. I don't think hot-blooded hawks want that. I have come to the conclusion following Charlie's agressive interruptions last night, that he is a hot-blooded hawk.
Charlie has actually posted at HuffPost to invite readers to watch tonight's interview with Mr. Giuliani. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charlie-rose/my-interview-with-rudy-gi_b_58808.html I don't want to watch, but I'll be curious to see if he treats Rudy as rudely as he did Mr. Holbrooke.
Agree with most of the comments that CR needs to restrain himself more, and give his visitor some time to speak without interruption. He has a tendency towards this and it can be very irritating. Perhaps more rest and/or medications might be of use.
SUALHM - SHUT UP AND LET HIM TALK!
The Holbrooke interview was a bit disappointing but mainly because of Holbrooke! I had to laugh when Holbrooke said Iranians want their so called 4 diplomats and we should use that as negotiation leverage--LOL That was sophomoric at best, Holbrooke! He also seem not to be in touch with Syria's or Saudi's disproportionate insurgency support in Iraq. If he is marked as the next Secretary of State I take Rice, better yet Albright, or even better Brzezinski or Kissinger any day!
I, too, feel dismayed at Charlie Rose's conduct during the interview with Richard Holbrook. CR was agitated and intrusive. He blocked most of RH's responses. Something was mighty wrong, compared with CR's customary procedure with interviewees. Comments already submitted by others speculate on a gamut of reasons. I would wonder is CR ill or overworked? Is his ego getting the better of his respect for both the interviewee and the viewer? Is he over-agitated by the perplexity of the subject matter itself? Is he affected by something within management of the media? Other? One really would want to understand, because such performance is a major disappointment and indignity. I concur that CR himself needs to examine this and hopefully make an understandable response to viewers.
Mr. Rose: Your "interview" with Richard Holbrooke was outrageous -- as in hostile, rude, and abusive. Your disgusting ego has always made me sick, but your determination to shock us with yet another new low goes now beyond comprehension. It never matters to you who the leading world figure is as your "guest" either. You always think you have more important things to say than any of them. I swear, if I see your damned left hand in the shot -- ready to cut the guest off again -- I'm going to throw something at the screen. Maybe it's time to change your format to a lecture series given that you're practically there anyway. I watched you some 40 years ago when yours was the last program before sign-off for CBS. You still completely suck at what you do. And I don't care who sponsors you, it doesn't change the fact that you are an abusive meglomaniac. Horrified, Mr. Duris Maxwell, LL.B
I have often thought that Mr. Rose talks over and more than his guests. It is maddening! But I will say that on the subject of Iraq...Mr. Holbrooke sounded a lot like Congressman Ron Paul...much to my satisfaction! And Rose did not call Holbrooke names like quirky, unworthy, weird, or wacky. He was brilliant! Ron Paul for President 2008!!!
You were brilliant with Holbrooke last night Charlie; just brilliant. It is important to educate your viewers â?? need I say Americans â?? about these matters that I find other television programs treat in a rather superficial way. We have been conditioned to sound bite size discourse. This is very damaging to public appreciation of issues, leading to misguided expectations of what needs to be done or what can be achieved. Of course the US has to talk to the likes of Iran and Syria if it hopes to get anywhere in todayâ??s Middle East. Clear thinking and forward-looking intelligent people should not buy into this sclerotic thinking of a century or so ago that you do not talk to dictators or leaders from third rate or piddling little powers â?? who may be critical to your achieving your objectives. The idea that the most powerful nation in the world can be afraid to talk to anyone directly for cosmetic reasons of optics, PR, or for fear of bestowing some legitimacy to its opponents and detractors is ludicrous. When the US gets to seriously engage with Iran, it should keep in mind that positive results may take some time to obtain. There is a deep-seated mistrust of the US in that part of the world. They are very reluctant to share information or to open up to westerners in any official capacity. Every move the west makes is looked upon with scepticism, with a wary vigilance and expectations for underhandedness. They understand that the US is driven principally by self-interest. Also, keep in mind that they are a philosophical people. They deliberate, negotiate, haggle; they do not work on Wall Street time or pace with a short-term focus, fast decision making, and quick results: a â??what are you going to do for me this trading day, quarter or market cycleâ?? mentality. So, it should not surprise anyone that it might take several attempts before there is traction in any engagement with Iran. Our expectations should be informed by former Secretary Bakerâ??s fifteen or so â??visitsâ?? to Syria before he got anywhere with them. That is why it is so important to start talking now, and often. At the end of the day, they have their extremists just as we have ours, but they are human, they are amenable to influence, and some of their interests intersect with ours. Tyler Hodgson
C. Rose :: I'm not surprised by the comments regarding this show :: My response is a little different though :: my concern is that your agitation was not intentional but related to an imbalance :: and dangerous for your overall health and especially your heart :: are you taking care of yourself ? :: [diet, exercise, relaxation, rest/sleep !?\ you look tired and sounded overought :: could you put yourself in the hands of Dr. Mehmet Oz and Dr. Herbert Benson ? :: more and more you are losing your poise, stepping on toes (verbally) and answering your own questions before the guest has a chance ! :: I hope you do live to be 100 ! ~*~ eileen
Comment by Joe O on Wednesday, Aug 1 at 01:12 PM Charlie, Thank you for being a man of passion and conviction. Your treatment of Richard Holbrooke was generous and respectful. You gave the man an opportunity to take a stand and set himself apart from the rest of the pack on national television, but he declined. You have a viewing audience full of voters who are sick of swallowing the tepid, noncommittal, neutral, prepackaged, safe, sound-bites by fence-sitting, self-promoting officials, presidential candidates, and assortment of wannabes. Please continue to hold these people accountable! Thank you, Charlie. Joe O ------------------------------------------ Joe O, Well put. All these posters seem to have the same agenda, since CR only pressed when Mr. Holbrooke was dancing around and giving vague answers. I would have been disappointed if CR hadn't pushed AH and let him just gotten away with sound bites. AH is being very careful and vague so not to ruin his chances of taking the Sec. of State role and CR did a good job to press. The alternative would have been a dull interview without much insight. BTW, CR only pressed him for a few minutes. So I am not sure what all the fuss is about.
Dear Mr. Rose. I must join the chorus of viewers who expressed their displeasure with last night's program with Richard Holbrooke. Your constant interrupting of guests to tell them your views or second guessing a response has become intolerable. It seems the more distinguished the guest is, the more you badger them. Do you ever view the tapes after a program is broadcast? As a professional journalist, I find it helpful to listen to a taped interview to hear how I handled an interview. It's an enlightening experience. Maybe you should try that to see how boorish you've become when you have distinguished guests on your program.
When Mr. Holbrooke speaks I stop and listen. What is the point of inviting this seasoned scholar if you don't intend to listen? Common courtesy would allow him to finish a thought before you jump ahead stepping on his thoughts. I was very disappointed at the way this one sided discussion was handled Charlie. Please remember, a good host "listens" and allows his other guests (like me)to listen also.
Charlie, I am left wondering after the Holbrooke interview. I can only surmise that he was needing to hide something that he thinks we should not know about, or could be dangerous to reveal, otherwise you would not have so avidly pressed him. You are so extremly knowledgeable and have such sensitivity to the most dificult issues surrounding the Iraq problem you were no doubt expecting the same consideratin from Amb. Holbrooke, which was not forthcoming. I am not sure if you ever reply to us, but I wish you could explain your point of view about this interview. I am still left wondering, what was REALLY going on there? I think you did answer my question actually, you wanted more specifics, what is to be done, provide us with sensitive explanation of the personalites involved; blow by blow; block by block tactics to invoke, and this was certainly not forthcoming from your visitor. He was an absolute "model" of diplomacy. Even more infuriating....
I am becoming increasingly dismayed at Charlie Rose's hectoring of guests- guests who are carefully chosen,and who have valuable things to say, such as both Mr Holbrooke and the journalists who preceded him in last night's show. I noticed this same impatience and discourtesy recently towards the authors of two books on Hillary Clinton. Yet his conduct of the monthly Science conversations is exemplary. Please remind Mr Rose that his function as an interviewer is to ask questions which have a "through line", then to LISTEN to the answers. Our understanding of these important issues would be immensely increased if, as the interviewer, he stopped interrupting while the experts he recruits try to answer his questions thoughtfully and clearly. This constant badgering can appear designed to show off his own knowledge. These are harsh comments, I know, but I would like the old Charlie Rose back, please!
Re: interview with R. Holbrook. While I listen to Charlie because he has interesting guests, I wish someone would tell him to stop interrupting his guests and let them finish their thoughs because he jumps in to speak more then they do. It is the guest thoughts we want to listen to not Charlie's. Tell him to listen more and talk less. The guest is only there a few minutes hardly time to talk solve all the worlds problems, select afew and stick to them.
At the risk of seeming to "pile on," I must agree emphatically with the many comments in this space that deplore, resent and protest your pushy, rude, disruptive, arrogant, arrantly overbearing manner in the conversation with Ambassador Holbrooke. One aspect that is especially distressing is that your bullying misconduct last night is becoming more frequent in your interviews with guests whose views we need and deserve to hear. not unique. You were equally discourteous, pushy, petulant, captious, etc. in your recent interview with Gen. Wesley Clark. I haven't yet seen viewers' comments on that, but I'd wager they are as full of consternation as the comments on this Holbrooke show. You have a precious,unique franchise and responsibility with your program. We depend on your good judgement, courtesy to guests, and interviewing skill to showcase their knowledge and opinions, not yours.Your emphasis should be on the the rights and needs of your viewers, rather than ranting along with the petulance of a popinjay. Don't behave like this again, Charlie. Particularly on discussions of the dire situation the US and the world faces in Iraq, and with regard to Israel/Palestine.
We all love the Charlie Rose show for its consistent presentation of timely topics and engaging, intelligent guests. But, as yesterday's dreadful interview with Richard Holbrooke demonstrates, Charlie continues to sabotage his own program by stubbornly hanging on to his maddeningly bad interviewing habits: interrupting guests just as they are about to say something very interesting or central to the discussion, talking as much or more than his guests and skewing objectivity by constantly defending the Bush Administration and/or conservative viewpoints. His futile ranting during last night's interview took up so much airtime that there was no chance of discussing a key Holbrooke theme, Kosovo. The interview was reminiscent of the infamously botched Noam Chomsky interview of a few years ago.
Charlie, with great respect to you, your producer and your show, I must tell you that like others that have commented, I too, was disappointed with the way in which you interracted with Amb. Holbrooke last night. As I listen to the tape I made of the show (I taped it because I hold Amb Holbrooke in the highest regard and you were on very late last night in my town), I regret not learning more about his observations and ideas because you repeatedly interrupted him. In fact, you might have someone on your staff count his spoken words and yours. I haven't, but I think you'd be suprised how much you talked. Now, I don't think you mean't to interrupt him to the extent you did. Understandably, your frustration with the international quagmire in which the U.S is in and the inability of anyone in the current administration to move the ball forward may have gotten the better of you last night. I agree with a previous commenter that you appeared to be agitated. Yes, we all desperately want answers and solutions. We're Americans. However, I fear the reality is we won't begin to see them until January 20, 2009. This is a tragedy. Charlie, I highly value your show and the insight you bring to the table. Please don't succumb to the manner in which other talk show hosts conduct themselves. You distinguish yourself quite effectively, I think, from the others. While I think Amb Holbrooke should have been given the full hour, he wasn't, so next time, maybe, cut back the number of topics you want to cover (you never did get to discuss Kosovo), and let the guy finish answering your questions! As you said yourself, he may very well be our next Sec'y of State. I hope so. You really do good work. Just become a little more of a listener. Enough said, and stay healthy! Cheers, Bob
"I believe there is a place in the spectrum of television for good conversation. If it is informed, spirited and soulful." CR That's one out of three with Mr Holbroke. Contraversy is good for ratings, but I would expect to let a professional say his piece when asked. His 'job' career is in diplomacy. That is not a check-box function. What other tools/ incentives may used concurrently would need be asked of someone higher up the ladder. Lets keep away from the other bone-head talk-program tactics and stick to presenting opinions. We may all learn something.
Shame on Charlie Rose for last nightâ??s interview with Richard Holbrooke! I believe this time he finally spent more than half the hour interrupting his guest, who demonstrated his amazing diplomatic patience by refusing to get fussed. Could this have been because the agenda was to push him as â??everybodyâ??s choice for the next Democratic Secretary of Stateâ??? Or to push Hillary Clinton, whose husband Holbrooke identified as the most popular American abroad? In his shoe-licking introduction, Charlie forgot to mention that Holbrooke is currently working on her campaign; instead he just blabbed away, preened himself, and giggled over how often Holbrooke watches his show. Ick! Peo-ple from North Carolina are meant to be more modest.
Like so many others, I really wanted to hear the interview with Richard Holbrooke. Considering the dismal situation we're in, it seems we need as much foreign policy education as we can get. However, because of Rose's extraordinarily egotistical interview style, I finally had to turn this interview off - after scaring the dog by yelling at Charlie to SHUT UP too many times. I was angry & frustrated for the rest of the night. I'm so pleased to see that I'm not the only one very disappointed at not being allowed to hear a deeper interview because of the ego of the interviewer. Rose could take some lessons from Terry Gross, if his ego would let him.
Charlie, Thank you for being a man of passion and conviction. Your treatment of Richard Holbrooke was generous and respectful. You gave the man an opportunity to take a stand and set himself apart from the rest of the pack on national television, but he declined. You have a viewing audience full of voters who are sick of swallowing the tepid, noncommittal, neutral, prepackaged, safe, sound-bites by fence-sitting, self-promoting officials, presidential candidates, and assortment of wannabes. Please continue to hold these people accountable! Thank you, Charlie. Joe O
TAKE A CHILL PILL EVERYONE! I know where most of you are coming from. CR interview or as most of you alleged "interruption" was BRILLIANT! So he pressed a bit to get the answers from the ambassador. Because he wasn't really giving any specific answer. What did AH really said or was saying that it's "interruption" was that catastrophic. As an avid viewer of the show, I can tell you what the "Brilliant" ambassador was saying was nothing new, unique or brilliant. What did he offer that hasn't been said before. In fact, in my opinion he did show to poses any deep knowledge of region, he must of have been in Turkey and missed the article by LA times that most problems in Iraq are caused by the Saudis, yet he made very little point of that. Nor, he must of have seen the show about how Saudi king gave the green light, by calling us the illegitimate invaders. As the issue about Iran, this is where CR pressed a bit. Since all AH was saying is talk to Iran without giving any specifics. AH either doesn't have any knowledge of Iran and the region or he is just regurgitating the special interest groups message. The fact is, any dialogue with Iran has to include or be mindful of: 1, Iran's main platform. Iran's regime's is in power based on over throwing the "US poppet", the Shah. Therefore, the regime will not be able to officially shake hands with US even if internally wants to. This has been the consistent pattern. Just read the taped conversation between Oliver North during the arms deal with Iranian, where ON asks if Iranian's want President RR to say good things about Iran. Iranians didn't say much to that. The regime has a base of supporters on anti-Americanism, in someways is similar to Christian right candidate and anti-abortion. In this analogy if Christian right candidate wants to have flexibility in that topic, they are not going to say that publicly even if they would support it behind closed walls lest losing their core supporters. 2, History with Saddam. Given that we supported Saddam with satellite intelligence, Chemical Weapons and more during the war with Iran where Iranian's lost in some reports nearly one million soldiers, they are not going to be very sympathetic to our needs in Iraq unless there is a common ground with our needs and theirs. 3, Our long-term plans in Iraq. Related to the above point, the problem is we have not indicated what we really want out of Iraq and what our long-term intentions are. What if our intentions and what might be the best course of Iraqis and Iraq is not the same? Are we willing to sacrifice the good of Iraqis for our interests or the other way around? So unless we are clear about that, Iranians are not going to see a common ground as easily as we want them to. 4, Axis of evil. We are still paying the price of that speech. If you are Iran marked with destruction and you have the largest naval unit near your waters and over 100,000 soldiers next door you are going to do two things. Either give the key to the city or do anything you can to survive. Well they are not going to give us the key to their city. So they are going to look at what the party you have been dealing with has done. The administration felt Iran's olive branch in supporting our role in Afghanistan was a show of weakness and they wanted to milk that. Well it backfired and Iranians changed course and played the strength card. We need to get out of that axis of evil if we want to have a conversation with them. 5, Nuclear Pakistan. Iran still mindful of Saddam and a powerful neighbor. They had the upper hand in war with Saddam until the chemical weapons send a strong signal. They feel the same about Nuclear Pakistan potential against them. It's funny to me how all these analyst prophesize nuclear arm race if Iran has a nuclear weapon, and some how they conveniently forget to mention Pakistan. If we are serious about US security and non-proliferation we need get Pakistan to give up their nukes or pressure them before or while we are negotiating with the Iranians. 6, right to be a regional power. Iran will try to be a regional power, and it has more of a right than we do. Our negotiation has to find a balance between our interest and their ambition to be a regional power. Any regional power will work hard to maintain their power and as long as there is a common ground with our interest, given it's stability in Iraq they will be working hard to support ours. 7, Saudi Arabia. I am stunned that we have not taken a stronger stance against Saudi Arabia. In issues of Democracy, human rights, Terrorism and 9/11, Taliban fanatical /fundamentalist Islamic views and supporting the insurgency in Iraq they are a worst offender than Iran. Yet, we are willing to look away and only pressure Iran. What is the message here to Iran and the region and the world? The issue is that both countries want to have regional power. Or at least, Saudis want to have a region where their right to kingdom is not challenged or questions by their own people. 8, Do we have a larger plan. This point might be redundant, but we need to be clear about our intentions for the region as a whole. The interesting is, if you read CIA's declassified paper, they had predicted Iran's influence and planning to place a Iranian-friendly power in Iraq when Saddam goes. In fact, CIA (you can read this on their paper) predicted they will be able to move quicker than the rest and it will not make Israel, or Saudis very happy. Yet with that knowledge and prediction we overthrew Saddam. Iranian's can read the same analysis are must be wondering why we removed Saddam. Was it just a blunder? Maybe maybe not. They don't know until we in our negotiation find a common ground not just on Iran but the Region. I am not saying I have the answers, but in contrast to AH I have a base to strategies on and he offered very little and CR pressed him on that. In fact it was in that point when AH begin to elaborate a bit more. But overall, in contrast to the interview with Brzezinski, Kissinger or Odom, I was not that impressed with AH from offering anything new, insightful, or in depth. He might be a good negotiator, but he is not a strategist. Lastly, I have yet to hear anyone talk about Iraq from the perspective of Iraqis. And in my opinion this is where the problem is. Let's face it, the policy of preemption can become a long-term policy of America so long as we are willing to pay the price if we were wrong in our judgment. In other words if we attack a country preemptively and made a mistake in the case of Iraq we are committed to fixing it before we pack and leave. Every serious argument I have heard, is only around what is good for us and not what is important for the Iraqis. We have taken a country and destroyed all means it has to survive and we are just going to pack and leave. Regardless of where you stand with the Administration we need to leave Iraq at least the same condition we found it, if not better. We have destroyed the lives of millions and we don't seem to show any compunction about it and I think ultimately this will be our undoing in having the moral high ground in years to come.
Your interview of Mr. Holbrooke was a disaster. Not only your behavior. constantly interrupting him, almost screeming at times asking him for complicated answers and not giving enough time for a sensible interview about a complicated subject. I hope you apologize to him and your viewers.
I join the chorus of people who suffered greatly from your interruptions to Amb. Holbrooke last night. The Ambassador was brilliant, and has a wonderful grasp of the situation in the Middle East. I was hanging on to his every word and learning from his expertise. At least we got to hear him somewhat, but we need much more of him.
I think you got over enthusiastic about the subject and forgot to shut up and listen to Mr. Holbrooke. You were so busy asking and refining the questions that your guest didn't get a chance to speak!!! You owe him another visit soon, so he can give his answers. A whole hour with him getting a word in edgewise!!!
MY GOODNESS CHARLIE..WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO LEARN TO LISTEN MORE THAN YOU TALK...??? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING ALL THESE INTERESTING GUESTS IF YOU DON'T GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS ??? HOWEVER I MUST SAY YOU ARE DELIGHTFUL TO LOOK AT..!!!!
I agree with many of the comments re: CR's constant interruptions, agitation, and speechifying instead of a reasoned discussion with Holbrooke. This was surely one of the most disturbing CR interviews I've seen. Compare CR's provocative and discourteous tone with Holbrooke to CR's apparent obsequiousness when interviewing Pres. Bush recently. The contrast is startling. In both interviews, for different reasons, vital questions go unasked and unanswered.
Charlie, Learn to listen. Hal Holbrooke is a brillent man and your audience missed much of what he wanted to impart by your constant loud interruptions. You were rude because he didn't agree with you. Frances Fife
Charlie, isn't the purpose of having a conversation with your guest to learn what he has to say? For Christ's sake, let the guy talk!! You were not only boorish but something of a tautologist. We all know you're a bright guy Charlie, but we tune in to appreciate the brightness of your guests, there's no need to keep demonstrating your grasp of worldly goings on. Big disappointment tonight.
Mr. Rose: Richard Holbrooke is well worth a hearing. He may be right or he may be wrong, but he has many insights to share----That is if you would just stop yakking and let him talk! You have many fascinating guests, and I appreciate your show, but sometimes (as tonight), you seem unable or unwilling to stop interrupting--until long after you've made your point. Are we always going to suffer the risk of your wrecking the flow and articulation of your guests' views?
Charlie Rose What's going on? You seemed so unreasonably agitated during your interview with former Amb. Holbrook this evening. Why don't you let your guests finish their thoughts before you challenge them? Please try and listen more carefully. Challenge? YES! But stop the inappropiate interruptions. Thanks, Joe D.
I must echo the comments of so many in your audience. I cannot remember one of your shows where you interupted you guest as frequently as you did mister Holbrooke. I feel robbed of so much information that mister Holbrooke tried to present.Your constant interuptions destroyed any continuity that the show could have developed. A great opportunity to learn was lost by the constant interruptions.
I comment only in defense of C/R.. All of you who have a problem with the form of the interview, take a second look and focus on the substance of what C/R was piercing to find from a guest who has a high regard for Charlie Rose and enjoys the high level spirited back and forth. Ambassador Holbrooke would have it no other way....view past interviews. Everyone parades the concept of talking to Iran but fail to realize that Iran has no interest whatsoever in working for our interests.......................Charlie's point. Phillip Urso Russo
Why is it that so many alleged brilliant left-leaning foreign policy experts like Mr. Holbrooke constantly blurt out (as he did once again tonight on C.R.) that during the Vietnam War it proved wrong when so many claimed that "the dominoes would fall," if America abandoned South Vietnam? This is an ignorant, seemingly arrogant distortion of facts - and a dangerous one. Several dominoes DID FALL when almost simultaneously independent nations Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam all became communist dictatorships in the rout of spring 1975. Thailand was so terribly frightened at the prospect of being surrounded by on the march Red armies it became highly unstable politically in the midst of Congress pulling the rug out from under Saigon in summer 1973 - virtually authorizing several dominoes would collapse in South East Asia. The Thais saw the U.S. was dissolving into a questionable ally or one that if allowed to keep American basing rights might give pretext for Hanoi to invade their sovereign territory. From January 1979 to mid 1980's saw constant blustering and limited clashes from tens of thousands of Vietnam's troops occupying Cambodia, extending to the Cambodian-Thai border where Bangkok was forced to deploy large military force to repel shelling and incursions. China did move to reign in Vietnam by attempting to "teach them a lesson" as Beijing launched a short but savage border war with Hanoi one month after the Vietnamese attacked to rout the Khmer Rouge and occupy Cambodia. It's simply obvious that Mr. Holbrook is not very smart or like so many left-wing elites expects most of the public is brain-dead dumb, full of amnesia, or just doesn't give a hoot. What a horribly scary thought or maybe just a sarcastic joke when Charlie said he's a top candidate for Secretary of State in any possible new Democratic administration in 2009. Lastly, I heard the late Jack Valenti say the exact same absurd, "not a single domino fell in S.E. Asia" BS in an interview on MSNBC earlier this year with Chris Matthews and go not only unchallenged but cheered on by the silly host. Shame on you Charlie Rose for not calling Holbrook on it tonight, because I know you're damn smarter than that pompous loud mouth Matthews.
What's wrong, Charlie? We have seen you give a pass to guests who have a fraction of the integrity and wisdom of Richard Holbrooke. But with him, you were increasingly impatient and abrupt, and then completely cut him off without even the "thank you" you give to much less interesting or honorable individuals, yet he was gentleman enough not to react, but, instead, to lend us his considerable insight into the complexities of this difficult situation.
I am a regular viewer and, in general, have a high regard for your show. However, this evening's interview with Ambassador Holbrooke was a dissaster. The interview was most notable for your constant interruptions as Ambassador Holbrooke was responding to your questions. There were many times during the interview when my wife and I just wanted you to shut up and let the man talk. He has a lot of inportant information to convey and your interview deprived us of the opportunity to hear much of what he appeared eager to convey.
Dear Charlie Rose, I am sorry, to say that you messed up with ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Too many interruptions and did not treat your guest with the respect he deserves. -----------Ajit Jani
Ambassador Holbrooke is a good man. His world view is precise yet he has visceral discord about squaring the world he views and the diplomatic model he swears allegiance to. He believes in drawing down and leaving Iraq - when by his own admission the most despotic, dangerous and strategic nation for many a reason lay next door. He somehow hopes that pressure once at the table will have any effect on Iran. China's entrance as a proxy keeper rest's upon what civilization will utilize Iran. Whether Israel's existence will be that of a squirrel or a lion rests upon Iran. America's legitimate aims at energy containment of China, success in Iraq, rests upon Iran. The Ambassador fails to lead on this point. Iran can not be viewed within the prizm of any other unsuccessful event in American foreign policy. Iran the linchpin to continued American preeminence, in many a way. So, my question what happens if talking doesn't change a thing, then what? Phillip Urso Russo
Dear Mister Rose, I am an incoming freshman at Seton Hall University's John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations. I thought tonight's conversation with Mr. Holbrooke was wonderful, but I would have liked to see your conversation with him fill the entire hour. I am a devoted fan of the show. I find it not only fascinating, but uplifting as well. Thank you!
Hello Mister Rose, I must preface my message by stating I have watched and enjoyed your show for years. But tonight, I watched your interview with Mister Holbrooke and I must ask you: Why were you so abrupt with your guest? I understand the Iraq/Middle East is America's most pressing issue for this decade (maybe the next decade, as well). But I couldn't help noticing you appeared to be rather "agitated" and curt. Did he say/do anything off-camera that provoked you? I did not sense Mister Holbrooke was being evasive in his reponses. Am I mis-reading the interview??? Sincerely, Art_Teac