An hour with Karl Rove, former Deputy Chief of Staff to President George W. Bush.
Comment by Respectfully Right on Saturday, May 24 at 04:20 AM
Charlie Rose,
Thank you and PBS for airing your interviews.
I think at this point I should note that I happened on this comment section by chance, while looking to re-read your interview with Sandy Weill, and was not directed here.
Maybe to contrast the derision, or air what begs voice, the quality of your interviews and the comfort level and accomodation afforded your guests, allowing for relaxed rapport, and leaving discussion open, creates the refreshing distinction in your show.
They've said it better than I can:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/rove-congress-pushed-bu_b_74039.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/22/rove-lies-iraq-war-vote/
Comment by Patriot on Wednesday, Jan 16 at 11:53 AM
Charlie, the next time you have Karl Rove on your show, could prepare a little bit ... and ask him about the interplay between the Bush - Cheney - Rove - Libby - Rumsfeld - Rice privatization of once-predominantly American institutions such as the armed forces ... in this case, how private armies (such as Blackwater) outnumber US forces in Iraq ...
http://www-tc.pbs.org/moyers/rss/media/BMJ-1128.mp3 ... also, for a change, when you interview the likes of Rove, Rumsfeld, and their minions ... could you ask some hard questions ... and get some concrete answers?
Comment by Independent on Friday, Jan 11 at 12:25 PM
As Rove's non-answers show, he/his administration enjoys following the money. It is interesting to note, that post-Rove (The Base fatigue?), "Smart Money" top 16 of 20 political donors in 2008 are leaning heavily towards the Democrats: Goldman Sachs (73% for Dems), Morgan Stanley (65% for Dems), UBS (61% for Dems), Merrill Lynch (50% for Dems), Lehman Brothers (70% for Dems), Credit Suisse (47% for Dems), Bear Stearns (59% for Dems), FMR (46% for Dems), Bain Capital (55% for Dems), SAC Capital Advisors (96% for Dems), Investment Co Institute (61% for Dems), National Venture Capital Association (54% for Dems), Fortress Investment (92% for Dems), Blackstone (47% for Dems), Citadel (98% for Dems), Citigroup (51% for Dems), Securities Industry and Financial Mkt Association (53% for Dems), Renaissance (98% for Dems), New York Mercantile Exchange (57% for Dems), and Capital Group Companies (47% for Dems). Hmmm ... maybe Newsweek will analyze what percentage of their base is the same as Karl's?
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=F07
History will judge, I predict, Rove to be America's Goebbels, who made fascist policies a reality through propaganda and take-no-prisoners strategy. Sadly, Charlie is usually quite deferential to Americans in power, no matter what the horrific consequences of using that power might be. I wish he had been more rigorous in his follow up questions; but then the tragic trajectory of the Bush administration -- the squandering of hundreds of billions of $, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands, the fall in the moral standing of our nation -- has been aided and abetted by journalists not asking the tough questions.
Michael G - I just realized you may be a writer and take my jibe seriously...I was being playful albeit with a heavy hand. You did not commit any cut and paste illegalities and I am over and outta here.
Comment by Cookie needs pepto on Tuesday, Dec 18 at 08:26 PM
Michael G - you cant epxect me to continue on this thread can you? See you somewhere else under another persona cause every I see Baby Huey up there I feel a little queasy.
Happy holidays to you, too. Ta ta toots!
Comment by Michael G. on Tuesday, Dec 18 at 08:18 PM
Hi Cookie,
You still haven't answered my question. How did I "cut and paste" and what comments did I make that are someone elses? Perhaps you, me and Ms Wong should start our own "Point Counterpoint"....probably more interesting than whats on Cable!
Happy Holidays
Comment by Michael G on Tuesday, Dec 18 at 12:58 PM
Quick note to Ms Wong....actually is was a major campaign issue in the '92 Presidential election!!! Perot warned about NAFTA!!! Remember now? But, don't take my word for it....look it up....or get an historian to do it for you.
As For Cookie....you say that I cut and paste....put your money where you mouth is....show where I did.
Comment by Sarah Wong on Sunday, Dec 16 at 12:14 PM
Michael G -- I refer to the campaign issue that Senator John Kerry made in the presidential election of 2004 because there was an uproar against outsourcing. It was never made into a campaign issue in presidential elections prior to 2004. Perhaps a historian could be able to clarify this point.
Btw, this thread is about that lump of lying mashed potatos named Rove. Too bad we couldn't find a way to export him somehwere. His head is already in lala land.
Michael G - clearly you are the type who cuts and pastes from other people without attribution. It is only forgivable if you are Michael Gambon. Otherwise, it is just sad. Especially if you ARE Ms. Wong.
Comment by Michael G on Saturday, Dec 15 at 06:31 PM
To Ms Wong,
Where have you been. Outsourcing has not been around or an issue since 2004!!! It has been an issue since the 80's!!!! That is when President Reagan decided it was time to dismember the middle class and destroy the Unions. You really need to study economic history. Outsourcing has led to lower prices and greater profits for a select few Corporate Execs and doesn't always filter down to the shareholders. But, at what cost. Jobs that allowed people in the US to support their families and provide health insurance have greatly diminished. Instead, outsourcing has lead to millions of recalls for defective and deadly materials; child and slave labor; in certain places including US territories; sexual crimes and forced abortions....if you like that form of Capitolism....well, what can I say...but, it speaks volumns regarding your understanding of economic matters and perhaps what you think is important. Mr Rose never confronts those issues. He pretends to be a jounalist....he is not....he is a conversationalist....much like Larry King. Can you imagine an interview with Hitler.......Mr Rose would focus on the stength of the economy, his hobbies; but, would he have the courage to ask him about the camps......I doubt it.
I'll help. Journalism and conversation are not interchangeable whether Charlie is pleasant or not. I know you are ignoring me becuase the basic premise of your "dialogue" is faulty. Seems like someone needs to look up the terms being used and it aint me.
Gina/Sarah, i guess this is one of these re-occurring interviews where there is a disconnect between the mission statement and reality. Charlie practices "journalism" with those he fundamentally disagrees ... and with those people he challenges in a conversational/nuanced tone ... which lends itself to intelligent minds. However, with those he fundamentally agrees with (George W Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld ... take a look at the 1998 Donald Rumsfeld+Paul Wolfowitz interview ... where is the challenge to back up their creative intelligence/CIA bashing? ... then fast forward to Karl Rove 2002 and 2007, let alone the GWB interview) ... am I mistaken, or is there an "eager to please, preaching to the choir" series of amens coming from Charlie? That is not journalism; that's Council of Foreign Relations hawkishness of a Kissinger-wannabe.
I agree with Sarah Wong, well-written comment. Journalism is an inherent part of the conversation. The keyword here is (conversation) and Charlie states that at the top of his website. QUOTE: (I believe that there is a place in the spectrum of television for really good conversation, if it is informed, spirited, soulful. -Charlie Rose) It says it all right there. Charlie has kept to that promise. It is a conversation, a dialog between two people, four, five, whatever the number may be who sits at the round table. You cannot deny that each time he sits down with his guests to have this (conversation), whatever your disagreement is with him on his style, what you like or do not like, he brings us the knowledge, with insight and delves into the story his guests have come to tell. Charlie Rose delivers. And his guests return again and again. So it is good conversation that makes people comfortable to talk, and he is a consummate conversationalist unlike no other in this forum of television (journalism). It is from that in which we derive what we have come to watch, learn and be informed. I get something out of that. And that is also why (we) keep coming back again and again.
Comment by Paul Wolfowitz on Thursday, Dec 13 at 11:45 AM
Karl, thank you for rising the strategic questions about reaching out, especially to minority voters. You are the most creative political thinker alive today. History will no doubt show that our policy work (whether yours at the White House or mine at the World Bank and Defense Department) was strategically in America's best interest. On a related tangent, Charlie, in case your viewers missed my security conference at the American Enterprise Institute about U.S. interests in Africa, and what forms of security partnership will protect them most effectively ... please visit the following AEI homepage: http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1571/event_detail.asp
Comment by Sarah Wong on Wednesday, Dec 12 at 06:30 PM
Michael G -- If you ask any corporate executives about outsourcing of jobs, you might get similar answers. That is a result of free trade and technologically possible. The uproar of job outsourcing occurred during the presidential election of 2004. Senator John Kerry used job outsourcing a campaign issue. He would impose tax on those corporations that outsource jobs. But unfortunately he didn't win the presidency and the tax issue didn't fly. I'm not an expert of free trade or outsourcing. But you might get better results by writing to congress on how to deal with job outsourcing. Now turn to the subject of paying for one's clothes. It is common practice for a fashion designer to promote a line of clothing by providing a TV personality a wardrobe. If you look at the credits at the end of a TV program, oftentimes you see ... (the host)'s wardrobe is provided by ... a fashion designer... or a fashion brand name. It's all about advertising, sponsorship. America is a capitalistic society.
Carl Rove ate my puppy, and PBS helped!
And here are 249 links to articles about why Bush is worse than Hitler, and why Iran is a great benevolent country that we should all love and cherish...
Oooh, gotta go, Homeland Security is at my door and want to send me to Guantanamo..... ....How dare you trample my sacred copy of "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives." Fascists!!!!!
Comment by Michael G on Wednesday, Dec 12 at 03:08 PM
This is a response to Ms Wong. PBS is a terrific and treasured entity. But, my comments had little to do with PBS except that over the years Mr Rose has turned to Corporate Underwriters.....Coke, Energy and Financial Services. And, I don't know about you...but, I pay for my clothes...which he does not. Also if you are really a Rose Watcher how can you not see his interviews; especially with Corporate Moguls and not note the absence of truly important pointed questions? Example. His interview with Jack Welch of G.E....not one single question regarding the outsourcing of jobs. Welch was in the forefront of exporting jobs. He couldn't have fawned more over him and his wife. Questions regarding corporate responsibilty and corporate patriotism are sorely lacking from Rose. I still think Mr Rose is a great interviewer and goes many wonderful interviews...usually with Artists, Humanitarians etc...but, when it comes to politics and corporations....he needs to be more than just polite....he needs to be more of a journalist.
Comment by Anonymous on Tuesday, Dec 11 at 03:21 PM
For a better understanding of the dirty tricks used by Bush's Brain ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/7138225.stm ...
BBC's HardTalk program
Why isn't Karl Rove facing legal charges of treason?
Comment by Ex Rose viewer on Monday, Dec 10 at 03:37 PM
One more thing...you might want to watch last Sunday's Meet The Press hour with Giuliani and learn something. Tim Russert stayed to the point with non-partisan questions. He didn't have to resort to fawning over OR attacking Mr. G. He simply allowed Giuliani to expose himself with his own track record. Although Giuliani tried to filibuster his way through the tough questions, it was very apparent that he is a mony-grubbing opportunistic shyster, dealing with the worst of America's enemies.
Tim Russert was prepared. You might learn something from that show.
Comment by Ex Rose viewer on Monday, Dec 10 at 03:24 PM
This interview with Rove is probably the nadir of your journalistic achievements. You gave him a free walk and that is unforgivable - especially with your track record. Shame, Shame.
PS: Do you even read these comments?
Comment by Sarah Wong on Monday, Dec 10 at 02:34 PM
To Michael G -- As a viewer of the Charlie Rose Show, I would like to comment on your first comment posting. The Charlie Rose Show has been on PBS for many years. Over the years, the show has covered a wide range of topics that viewers who tune in for enlightenment, intellect, knowledge, diversity, humanitarianism, and much more... His guests are ranging from the powerful to the little guys, from the very famous to the unknown. The Charlie Rose Show should not be judged by one program, one guest whose viewpoints are the subject of controversy. PBS has been funded by the government, the public, and corporations, which comprise of the democrats, republicans, independents, and so on. The PBS programming should not gear toward one party line. By the way, Charlie Rose often uses props (newspapers, magazines, even old magazines) when relevant.
This is a follow-up to my previous comments.
First.....Why was Rove on in the first place?
There was no book to promote. Seems like this was a chance to promote Rove.
Questions that should have been asked and pursued:
1. The South Carolina primary that sunk McCain.
Using tactics to suggest that McCain and/or his wife we engaged in interacial affairs that produced their daughter. Those charges were grotesque and yet....they worked with the public. Did he orchestrate them and does he condone them ( I think we know the answer...but Rose should have brought it up)
2. Jeff Gannon...remember him.... the gay escort that got a press pass from Rove and had access to the White House over 100 times and he didn't have to sign out? How did that happen and what was Rove's connection to Gannon?
3. The outing of Valerie Plame...wasn't that treason?
well, I could go on and on.
Again, Mr Rose with all respect. You need to answer your critics........or perhaps go on Fox where maybe you really belong.
I must add to the comments of those that found themselves in total disappointment with Mr Rose's interview with Karl Rove. It was in my estimation the most unprofessional, fawning, set up interview I have ever witness. When I say "set up"....wasn't it convenient that Rose had a New York Times newspaper that Rove used to make a point. Mr Rose usually has his notes printed on paper and rarely uses props...How convenient!!! If it wasn't a set up why then didn't Rose use that same issue to refute Rove's claims?
Also, did anyone notice that Mr Rose never challenged or followed up on Rove's assertions; some that we blatently false!
The average informed person could have refuted most of Rove's claims....and Rose has a Staff!
Either they are totally incompetent; or, he chooses to become Larry King Lite!...or maybe he just chooses to give passes to the republicans and the right and the neocons. Look at the interviews over time and you will see an obvious bias to Big Business and to the Right.
I, for one, have taken a radical step. As a fundraising host for a local PBS station; I have told them I will not do a Charlie Rose promo nor will I incorporate him in our fundraising describing our diversity.
My question to you Mr Rose...not that you will read this or the other comments or care about them....but.....why are you on PBS? You clothes are given to you free.....your show is underwritten by Big Business....COKE...for one.
Why don't you get your show on Commercial Television and leave open a space to someone who is not in the pocket of the corporate interests; who will give The American People a real interview show that treats everyone the same; asks the tough questions and shines in the light of what public television was, is and should be all about.
MR Rose....I am soooooo ashamed of you.....I only wish...you shared some of that sentiment.
Could it be that Charlie just gave Rove rope to hang himself with? I didn't see it...but the contention that the Democrats caused Bush et al to go to war...is the most ludicrous thing I've heard in a while...so Mr. Rose just let Karl make a full of himself.
Comment by Iqbal Faizer on Saturday, Dec 8 at 01:06 AM
I am thrilled to see so much criticism of the Karl Rove interview. To those who say it's Mr. Rose's interviewing style to passively allow the interviewee to express him/herself, then such a style should have been used with President Ahmadinejad of Iran. It was not. This is not to say Charlie should not have challenged the president of Iran, but he should have done the same with the far more egregious members of the Bush administration (given the liberal culture and greater options life afforded them in the West), President Bush and Karl Rove included.
Comment by Laura Davis on Saturday, Dec 8 at 12:00 AM
I have been a fan of Charlie Rose and his show for many years. It was with great dismay that I watched his recent interview with Karl Rove. To describe Mr. Rose's attitude to Rove as sychophantic would be understating what happened. Where were the tough questions about Valerie Plame Wilson, the dirty tricks of the campaigns, the despicable and successful attempt to portray Senator Max Cleland, a triple amputee war hero, as a terrorist sympathizer and many other matters? The only place where Mr. Rose brought out the monster in Karl Rove was to draw an oblique analogy between Rove and the late an unlamented Lee Atwater, but I assume that went over most heads. To allow Karl Rove to portray the Democrats in Congress as pushing a reluctant Bush administration into an unwanted Iraq War will have to go down in history as the most egregious error Mr. Rose has ever committed in his distinguished career. I understand that the program is a bastion of civility and politeness and this is most welcome. This does not, however, excuse Mr. Rose from asking tough questions. Can anyone explain what went wrong in this disastrous interview? Was Charlie just having a bad night or is he as intimidated as the rest of the media by the malignant Bush/Cheney administration and their penchant for getting revenge on those perceived as their opponents?
Charlie, Usually you're pretty direct and ask the tough questions, but in an eloquent way, of course. But, it seems like there were some opportunities to dig a little deeper to some of Mr. Rove's answers. He basically just rewrote the story of going to war - again - on your show, without much of a challenge from you.
Comment by Barry Goldwater Jr on Thursday, Dec 6 at 09:37 AM
Charlie, You are a sycophantic fraud of a conversationalist ... you are the Neville Chamberlin of television. Where are the onions when it comes to interviews with those in power? "A really good conversation" is not what you offer ... the Charlie Rose show is a platform for the military-industrial complex and its minions to edge public opinion. Shame on you, Sir.
Comment by Kenneth Y. Tomlinson on Tuesday, Dec 4 at 06:45 PM
Charlie,
In addition to the aforementioned PBS Frontline special focusing solely on Karl Rove, you/your audience might enjoy the following other PBS Frontline specials on the Bush administration:
ENRON: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/regulation/view/
FBI Agent John O'Neill: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/
RUMSFELD Commission: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/view/
BUSH Doctrine: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/view/
CHALABI et al vs Truth: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/view/
BEYOND Petraeus: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/view/
NEOCONS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/
PRIVATE Contractors: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/view/
ABU Ghraib: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/view/
CHIEF Cheney: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
NIXON and Cheney: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/
IRAN and Neocons: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view/
Comment by Kenneth Y. Tomlinson on Tuesday, Dec 4 at 04:25 PM
Charlie,
Before your next interview with Karl, may be you/your viewers should see:
http://www.pbs.org/frontline/rss/redir/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/view/
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/1998/7/20/1/a-conversation-with-donald-rumsfeld-and-paul-wolfowitz-about-nuclear-weapons#comment
vs
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf
Charlie, could you have Kenneth Duberstein (Armitage's political adviser) and William Taft IV discuss.
Thank you.
Don't know if anyone caught this one, but on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, he did a piece on recent acts of revisionist history where he played the tape of Bill Clinton saying he was against the war in Iraq at the outset and Karl Rove blaming the Democrats for getting us into the mess in Iraq. Obviously the word is getting around. There was also mention of this on Washington Week. I'm sure there must have been other places.
I can imagine that Charlie was in the same mind I was when I heard Rove say what he did. I thought - did he just say that? I recorded the show and had to play it back to be certain. I was in total shock - and if Charlie had the same reaction, he was probably in shock too. It's one thing to be prepared to debate a point of view or fact. It's another to have to argue over a fairy tale.
rove has a new column in a major magazine and has a book deal - why alienate him and the his prospective publishers? Aint like Rove said anything new - you can pretty much count on him to make things up, I wonder how many lawyers and - err - factcheck people are going to be getting later hours and stronger glasses.
Comment by Carl McNeely, Vermont on Saturday, Dec 1 at 06:19 PM
Will those who have criticized Charlie Rose PLEASE recognize Mr. Rose's genius in this matter. By not adding any refutation he made Rove's absurd lie abundantly clear. There is no possibility for neocon spin artists to say that Mr. ROSE twisted things or confused ROVE - ROVE fell right into the trap.
If there is anyone in this country who believes ROVE'S preposterous assertion, including Rove himself, then they are delusional. It is now our job to pursue this issue and Charlie gave us clear unambiguous ammunition.
THANK YOU Mr. Rose!!!!
Comment by Blanca DeBree on Saturday, Dec 1 at 09:46 AM
Karl is quite correct that it was the Democrat controlled Congress and Senate, pushed our poor Decider into war against his wishes. Mr. Rove could have also pointed out these other little-known instances, when Democrats pushed us into War:
1967 - Gulf of Tonkin
After declassification of vital documents, it is proven that President Johnson was behind the attack to escalate the Vietnam War.
1950 - North Korean Invasion
It is well known in the same circles where Karl Rove, well, roves, that President Truman secretly asked the North Koreans to invade South Korea in 1950 to start the Korean War.
1941 - Pearl Harbor
Most people in the Bush Administration have known for some time that the lead plane attacking Pearl Harbor was piloted by President Roosevelt, himself.
1917 - Lusitania
President Wilson was aboard the German U-Boat, which sank the Lusitania, leading to the entry of the United States into World War I.
And this is only the events of the 20th Century!
http://blancadebree.blogspot.com
Comment by Marilyn Burki on Thursday, Nov 29 at 03:49 PM
I'm wondering if Charlie deliberately didn't get into alot of argumentative discussion with rove so that what he was going to be out there saying as he pushes his book would be well known with no interference. Those that do following interviews would then be prepared to counter his ridiculous lies creating his own "reality".
Comment by Evejune on Thursday, Nov 29 at 03:33 PM
I missed the interview, but saw the excerpt on MSNBC. Rove's claims about Congress pushing the President by prematurely passing a resolution in October 2002 can easily be refuted. I just re-read Chap. 18 in Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack." This chapter describes how a National Intelligence Estimate was written for submission to Congress. The NIE was full of suppositions and assumptions about the existance of biological and chemical WMD; no proof of their existance or of nuclear weapons. Cheney was at the center of the push for war in Iraq, according to Sen. Bob Graham who was interviewed by Woodward. The NIE was submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 2, 2002. Woodward says that the Senators asked questions but that "No senator had enough of the picture--military planning details were not provided to the Hill and the CIA -plans were highly classified--to frame an effective critique."
Bush then worked with Nicholas Calio, his chief lobbyist, on the final language of the resolution. He also spoke with Dick Gephardt, then House Minority Leader, "who was then generally supportive of the president's course." Publicly, Bush said on Oct 2, "I urge all members of Congress to consider this resolution with the greatest of care. The choice before them could not be more consequential."
Woodward says that the President's October 7th speech in Cincinnati, Ohio was given to win public support, and to lay out the case against Saddam. Woodward then describes various changes that were made through several drafts. For instance, "an unsubstantiated report from British intelligence that Iraq had recently attempted to buy uranium oxide, known as 'yellowcake' from Niger" was deleted at the request of the CIA. This claim made it, of course, into the President's State-of-the-Union address a few months later.
Woodward describes in detail the efforts that the President, Karl Rove, and Nick Calio made to get this resolution passed. It was finally passed by the House on October 11, 296 to 133. The Senate passed it 77 to 23.
There is no suggestion in Woodward's book that the President was reluctant to have this resolution passed. Woodward concluded that the resolution was a "blank check."
Comment by Stephen Sage on Thursday, Nov 29 at 03:27 PM
Has Rose responded to any of these comments? Has he acknowleged that he should not have let Rove's fairy tales go unchallenged? People make mistakes. But if he does not address it, I'm done with him. This is too important.
Comment by JP Heagerty on Thursday, Nov 29 at 03:26 PM
...spin, spin, spin. "Treat collegues with respect..." I think the interview offered plenty of retrospect ammo for this forum.
The good ole Atwater debarking Rove received from the viewing public inadequately relieves the venom stored for so very long by so many. Although a few more debarking sessions are called for and would be so theraputic, I fear it is energy spent unwisely...he could care less. I'm reminded of Auden..."I and the public know what all school children must learn, those to whom evil is done do evil in return." I hope when the Writers strick is over we dont lose gala1's eloquent efforts.
Comment by Karl Leuba on Thursday, Nov 29 at 02:01 PM
There is some value in parsing Rove's repeated claim that Congress forced the President to "rush" into Iraq. Congress did give the President authority, but they set no timetable. It was, without any doubt the President who made the schedule, and Rove is an abject liar if he tries to say otherwise. We could still be waiting for Bush to INVADE, if he had wanted to delay action. Since his initial intent, before 9/11/01, in fact before The First Tuesday in November of 2000, was to conquer Iraq, install a government there that was sympathetic to US demands, and "Finish the job his father started and the Clinton Administration was not finishing as fast as he wanted."
Comment by OCPatriot on Thursday, Nov 29 at 10:22 AM
Dear Mr Rose:
What kind of journalist are you? To let such a lie from Karl Rove go unchallenged? That's sloppy and despicable...
FROM TALKING POINTS MEMO
Your first Word of the Day is exactly, which Merriam-Webster defines as: 1) in a manner or measure or to a degree or number that strictly conforms to a fact or condition. 2) in every respect : altogether, entirely.
Now, who can use the word "exactly" in the context of, say, the 2002 vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq? Karl?
Karl Rove: [T\he administration was opposed to voting on it in the fall of 2002.
Charlie Rose: Because?
Rove: Because we didnâ??t think it belonged in the confines of the election. We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of the election. It seemed it make things move too fast. There were things that needed to be done to bring along allies and potential allies abroad and yet-- ...
Rose: [Y\our argument is you would have had maybe more inspections. You would have been able to build a broader coalition. You could have done a whole lot other things if you didnâ??t have to have a vote, right?
Rove: Right, right, exactly.
Very good, Karl. Our second Word of the Day is lie: 1) to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2) to create a false or misleading impression.
President Bush, would you please cite a couple examples proving that Karl just told a lie the size of, say, Texas??
Comment by Brita Learned on Thursday, Nov 29 at 08:23 AM
Perhaps I missed it, but when did Charlie Rose challenge Rove's bizarre assertion that it was Congress, not the White House, that wanted to attack Iraq and pushed Congress to have a vote to authorize the use of force as soon as possible?
All one has to do to see that this is a lie is to look back at what Bush and his administration actually said at the time, ie: that it was necessary for national security, it would send the wrong message if we didn't do it immediately, etc.
Arianna Huffington's Nov. 28 article on this topic at the HuffingtonPost.com --Karl Rove's Shameless, Remorseless, Soulless Attempt to Rewrite History-- should jog Charlie's memory of the reality of the situation back in Oct 2002.
I remember that at the time I was disgusted with Hillary and John Kerry for going along with the push for war but even more disturbed and afraid of the irrational bloodlust shown in the Bush Administration (and accepted with alarming, disturbing zeal by much of the nation). I already knew then that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 because I bothered to read the less censored foreign press (like the Guardian in Britain) and the alternative press here (like CommonDreams.org).
Is this just another instance of the press reporting as fact neoconservative Republican lies that could easily be disproved with a bit of journalistic investigation and the courage to challenge obvious distortions and lies?
One can tell the quality of a Karl Rove interview by how much it is ignored in the mainstream media. Well done sir, well done!! Can't wait to read the book which will be the first tide of many waves of TRUTH regarding one of our nation's finest leaders, President George W. Bush. Fess up libtards, you know nothing about the decency of this adminstration, and even less about distinguishing between the basics of good versus evil.
Comment by anonymous internet voice on Thursday, Nov 29 at 01:44 AM
Thank you for removing the keyword/meta data tag "Valerie Plame Wilson". i would also like to make a correction: Mr Rove required no questions be asked about the "Valerie Plame Wilson" affair in order to encourage book and speaking tour sales. Thank you Charlie for allowing us to see Mr Rove.
Comment by CaptainObvious on Thursday, Nov 29 at 12:05 AM
I want to first thank Charlie Rose for his commitment to journalistic integrity, something that has been eroding in this country for some time, and which now appears to be in free-fall. I strongly disagree with the individuals who have posted here attacking Mr Rose for failing to take the turdblossom "to task". It's quite clear that nearly all of you have come here from other sites after watching the 10 second clip where the turdblossom tries to rewrite the history of the run-up to the Iraq war. It's shameful that these individuals would attack Mr Rose with such venom without watching the entire program. I appreciate that Mr Rose is able to conduct an hour long interview with the mysterious turdblossom, and ask him some tough questions. Turdblossom is a uber-weasel, and it shouldn't surprise any of you that he is able to wriggle his way out from under Charlie's thumb so easily. I challenge any of you who have attacked Mr Rose to watch the entire program, and then watch any other interview with the turdblossom, and see who asked the tougher questions.
Comment by Carol J on Wednesday, Nov 28 at 09:45 PM
To all your comments: Karl Rove is in dreamland and talked as if he believed himself.
Charlie Rose is courteous and respectful to all his guests. Look at his interview with Mahmoud Amhadinjaed. He probably has rules to go by, his own and PBS. What we need is a micropscope so we can see and hear what Mr. Rose is really thinking. For those of you who use Mr. Rose's program not to support PBS,an excuse is all it is. There is more than one program on PBS. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Comment by Michael on Wednesday, Nov 28 at 09:11 PM
Well, it seems to me that Rove bested Charlie big time. Over and over Charlie did try to bring up substantial issues : charges against the BushCo admin, Rove himself, and just as often it seems to me Rove slipped the grip, turned the tables, and Charlie just let him wiggle away.
Comment by meljomur on Wednesday, Nov 28 at 08:23 PM
Wow, did Rove not get to be on the Daily Show, so instead tried to pretend the Charlie Rose show would have to do??
What astounds me so much about all of this, is that they assume the public is so stupid (come on we are not all republicans), that we don't know the truth!!
Maybe he really is a mad man.
Comment by slamkitty on Wednesday, Nov 28 at 07:55 PM
With all due respect I believe that Mr. Rose fell into the trap that most inside-the-beltway journalists have of showing respect, even affection, for the "winner at all costs". Instead of questioning and rewarding high-minded means, it has become the ends that are of value. While true moral norms place value on the former, Mr. Rose and his ilk elevate and metaphorically drool over the later. Until that changes our country will continue to be dragged into the gutter by the likes of the bushes and roves.
Excellent post Gala1. Mr. Rose, you should be very disappointed in your performance.
I beg your pardon. I find your reasoning to be garbled. It is quite obvious that you donâ??t have to be a rocket scientist to see through Karl Rove as being a behind the scenes manipulative instigator. There is no one more illegitimately sanctimonious than Karl Rove, (which by the way is a prominent platform of the â??RIGHTâ??, I might add)! And I am not 'left, right, north or south', I am an Independent. But you are correct about one thing though, your best assumption about Karl Rove is that he DID miss his criminal trial, via old Scooter boy being made the fall guy. Alas, there is always the civil suit of â??freedom of speechâ?? of the citizens of the United States of America via this forum.
Comment by Left, Left, Left, Right, Left on Wednesday, Nov 28 at 04:41 PM
I doubt Mr Rove could have said anything to please those of you who seem predisposed to hate him. This is a talk show, not a criminal trial. Your opprobrious anger borders on dangerous sanctimony. Though not a fan of many of the administrations policies or tactics, I thought Mr Rove came across as more reasoned and human than the caricature cultivated by the left wing MSM. (NB: I say wing MSM not to deride the MSM as a liberally biased monolith but to acknowledge that the MS has sympathizers on the right, as well. As it should be.)
Comment by Alice B on Wednesday, Nov 28 at 03:38 PM
Charlie Rose should question his own interviewing style when he realizes why KKKarl Rove agreed to sit down with Charlie Rose to be interviewed. KKKarl knew it would be easy. And Charlie didn't disappoint.....KKKarl. But Charlie disappoints me
Comment by Danielle on Wednesday, Nov 28 at 03:15 PM
I am truly astonished att he opportunity that Charlie Rose squandered to ask (nicely, even) Karl Rove to explain these ridiculous remarks. Instead he parrotted back exactly what Rove said, somehow making it seem like Bush was reluctant to go to war. I have honestly never seen someone I thought was a serious journalist go along with an obvious spin to willingly and complicitly. Amazing and so sad
Comment by Fymi Oyo on Wednesday, Nov 28 at 02:22 PM
I never watch Charlie Rose anymore, having long ago grown weary of his shallowness, his penchant for name dropping and his constantly inserting himself in his guest's answers. But I saw the clip of the Rove interview on another website and was directed to this page to read viewers' comments. The most egregious part of the interview wasn't the remarks by Rove (would anyone expect anything different?) but the sycophantic, agreeable Rose actually MAKING HIS CASE FOR HIM:
ROVE: There was a vote.
ROSE: But you were opposed to the vote.
ROVE: But it happened. We donâ??t determine when the Congress votes on things.
ROSE: But you wish it hadnâ??t happened at that time. You would have preferred it did not happen at that time becauseâ?¦your argument is, you would have had maybe more inspection, you would have been able to build a broader coalition, you could have done a whole lot other things if you didnâ??t have to have a vote, right?
ROVE: Right. Right. Exactly.
Contact PBS in protest!!
Comment by Think-it's-still-legal on Wednesday, Nov 28 at 01:54 PM
Tragically for the planet, the list grows of credentialed people who have squandered their gifts and could have/should have made a difference for the greater good, but chose otherwise... After the rove interview, charlie rose assumes his well-deserved place on the list with all the other morally bankrupt/cowardly people.
And, karl, it's not about your apocryphal genius; it's about dumbed-down americans failing to recognize that you, karl, and your admirers confuse real genius with your own sociopathy.
Comment by Eric Braun on Wednesday, Nov 28 at 01:32 PM
Simply put, I am SOOOO disappointed with you Charlie. Of all the useless media that has become apologists for Rove and the Bush regime, and with all your deep intelligence and, what I thought, integrity, I am very disappointed that you let this soul-less and obviously pathological creature speak such Nazi-comparable lies unchallenged. You were my last hope of journalistic integrity and now even that is compromised. You very much owe it to your public to correct this mistake in judgment and ensure that it never happens again on your part.
Comment by Igors Way on Wednesday, Nov 28 at 12:03 PM
Charlie Rose = Larry King
If you're going to let your guests regurgitate lies and propaganda unchallenged, it's much faster for us to just read their press releases.
I will never watch the Charlie Rose show again. I, too, am withholding my annual pledge to PBS until there is a correction. When disinformation on the scale of Rove's goes unchallenge lies take root, and Rose should be ashamed of himself as an interviewer.
let me see if I got this right. Congress "pushed" George Bush to go to war, and he relly didn't want to. Man, Rove has really become pathetic since getting humiliated by the Democrats in 2006. I hate to break it to Karl, but America stopped believing this guy's crap years ago (about the same time America woke up to what a liar George Bush was).
Rove.Cheney and Bush were the ones who started the war in Iraq, and only the most half-witted of Americans believe otherwise. This laughable appearence is just another sad attempt by this fat little loser, to cover the extreme cowardice and incompetence of himself and his two panty wearing girlfriends...Bush and Cheney.
Comment by S.Geddes on Wednesday, Nov 28 at 01:55 AM
I was also disappointed with Mr. Rose and his interview with Rove. Rove is doing nothing different then he has ever done, completely oblivious if someone suggests perhaps there were mistakes made, all his life he wanted to "create" a president and he did it with playdough man. Why anyone wants to clean up the mess left behind by this administration is beyond me, they all skate and they have done so much harm to us all. Shame on you Mr. Rose for not taking him to task. I know you are a Republican but you have had some near death experiences, hasn't that taught you anything? It isn't nice to play God and that is what Rove has done. Unfortunately I don't see things getting any better.
Comment by anonymous internet voice on Wednesday, Nov 28 at 01:36 AM
Correction required? The meta data tag "Valerie Plame Wilson" be removed from this episode.
Proposition: At the last minute, in order to conduct the interview, Mr Rove required questions about Valerie Plame Wilson not be asked for fear of his exposure to civil litigation.
Hope for the future...that Mr Rove, like Mr Rumsfield will not be able to travel freely to places such as Germany, where they could stand trial for war crimes.
Comment by I do have a memory on Tuesday, Nov 27 at 11:12 PM
Perhaps Karl was unaware that in an October 5, 2002 radio address to the nation and again in an October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinatti, his boss specifically lobbied for Congress to pass the resolution to authorize force against Iraq. Those are just two of many examples on the White House website that unambiguously contradict Rove's contention that the Administration's hand was forced by (a Republican) Congress during a political season. This is one piece of history that Mr. Rove can simply not re-write - even with the help of compliant radio show hosts.
Charlie, you attacked Viggo Mortensen more for wearing a t-shirt and poor old Harold Pinter for daring to point out the treasonous and poison acts of the Bush Administration yet you let Karl Rove (one of the ones most responsible for orchestrating those policies) off the hook. The Republicans usually try to wait, at least, 20 years or so before they try to rewrite history, hoping such events as Donald Rumsfield visiting Saddam Hussein or CIA support of the Mujahadeen would have slipped far from our memory. But Karl Rove thinks we're gullible enough not to remember what his media henchman, including Charlie Rose, tried to ram down our throats as "facts" a mere 5 years ago. Gee, has it already been that long. Time flies when your under quasi-fascist control. Let the insufferable Roves of the world slip into a distant memory and confine his un-Democratic methods to the dustbin of history once and for all. Don't buy his book and don't give him another inch of space in print or on the air. It's hard enough to erase the memory of his attepts at dancing away as it is. Da horror, da horror.
Comment by Jack NYC on Tuesday, Nov 27 at 10:59 PM
Geez what a torrent of venom. God knows Charlie will never be confused with Russert and the "gotcha" types but I saw the Rove piece and I thought it was the usual softball approach. As far as Charlie's style goes I think there is a place for more friendly dialogue and Charlie often gets more that way. Liberals please turn down the hate.
Don't you just love the way these talking heads slip and slide and slither their way through the terminologies they use to deceive?
"Trajectories (of figures of deaths??)"
Jesus..
Unbelievable.. Makes me want to weep.
How anybody can allow such a slime ball to dribble all over the truth like this is just beyond me..
To give this reincarnated Goebbels such an unchallenged platform is a complete cop out.
"The Press has done a good job...??..##%"
JESUS H Christ.
You are a disgrace Rose.
Mr. Rose,
I have been a fan of Frontline and your show
for years. I still like Frontline but can no longer count myself a fan of the Cahrlie Rose Show. I am deeply dissappointed that you allowed
Karl Rove to spew lies on your media platform.
You failed to challenge classic Rove propaganda.
Next time I see you at the 21 Club you can be sure I will challenge you. I won't be
writing another check to PBS until I see there is a correction or an apology to the faithful
viewers of your show.
why is everyone so surprised that rose did not challenge rove and his outrageous lies? charlie rose is a sycophant, a shill, an embarassing ass kisser and a passive jackass posing as a legitimate interviewer. granted, he does have a good diversity of guests but has anyone ever really seen him challenge anyone of importance?? he has no balls and is too afraid of rocking the boat or putting anyone on the spot. he knows his place and his role and he sticks to them...karl rove has already become the henry kissinger of our time in that he is given media forums as if he has some intellectual currency to spew his nonsense despite the fact that he has not one ounce of legitimacy. the sad thing is that there are people out there that will believe what rove said about iraq....was it gore vidal that once called the u.s. the "united states of amnesia"?... we know nothing of our own history but seem fascinated with and know all about brad pitt and angelina jolie...rove is propaganda personified...the big lie in living color
Comment by katherine on Tuesday, Nov 27 at 03:25 PM
It's not Rove's presence on the show per se that bothers me -- I mean, come on, everyone should get to say his piece, even if it's just a figment of his imagination. But Charlie Rose's complicit silence as Rove smiles and wags that finger and raises those eyebrows and says that the Bush Admin did not want to go to war in 2002 -- that it is somehow solely Congress's fault -- is, above much else, disheartening.
We count on people like you, Mr. Rose, to conduct interviews and to hold people accountable for their words and actions. What we don't need is one more "interviewer" who sits back and allows his subjects to throw around lies completely unquestioned, completely unchecked. Especially when interviewing a man made famous by his capacity to lie to anyone about anything.
Imagine Rove's satisfaction. I hope he doesn't take Charlie Rose's complicity as indication that he's fooled the rest of us.
I to read all the comments also and saw how quite a few of them just happened to show the writers ability to cut and paste.
I've watched Rose for way to many years to admit and I'm ready to tell him and PBS, which happens to be my favorite charity, that they are damn close to losing a 25 year plus supporter of PBS. I felt like I not only had my pocket picked by PBS I was also stab in the back by Charlie Rose.
Dear Mr. Rose
I don't have any objection to listening to another point of view, however, I am vehemently opposed to you giving a traitor and pathological liar a repectable forum to spew his special kind of idiocy. This man (and I use the term loosely) has commited treason against the United States and should be in prison, yet here he is on your show attempting to rewrite history. Please use more discretion and class in selecting people to interview.
Comment by dick rasile on Tuesday, Nov 27 at 02:30 PM
I can't believe what I'm reading. Someone told me how Carl Rove had no balls. After reading this crap he's must have balls like a stud ram.
It is time for people to stop watching these kind of so called interviews. How did we ever allow TV Newspeople to sit back with their mouths clamped shut and not do what we have all expected of them.
If the one time great interviewer was expecting to clear up anything by Interviewing Carl Rove then he has become a big time dreamers. This man has a long history of fast talking the best legal minds.
We are lucky that Jack Abramoff never interned with a pro like Rove. If he would have we'd still be trying to convict him and his crooks.
Wait until Rove takes over the planned GW Bush library, he'll have students and historians convinced that George Bush was in fact our best President in the past hundred years.
Mr. Rose,
As a long time fan of yours I am truly mystified at this interview. Why would you become so complicit in these lies? No challenge, rebuttal, anything? This makes you a pawn and I am holding my breath that your going to re-air this interview bracketed with the facts. Rove must be exposed, anything less and you are practically a supporter of the Rove lies. Please don't let this go uncorrected.
This is unbecoming for Charlie Rose: to give an audiance to a lier, an outright lier.
Also, it is a shame that Newsweek provide this guy to continue to bs away forever.
Comment by Brit Hume on Tuesday, Nov 27 at 12:23 PM
I would challenge Robert Novak to back up the claim that Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein (Armitage's political adviser) and William Taft IV (who was the State Department legal adviser when Armitage was deputy secretary) in any way pressured Richard Armitage to confirm Valerie Plame's identity. What is Robert Novak going to say next, that Karl Rove and the President of the United States ok'd the maneuver?
Karl Rove is soooooo eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil, he is even eviler than Skeletor! I read somewhere that he eats black children (baked with an apple in their mouth) for breakfast, and he also beats up women just for the fun of it. He likes to kill people just to see the expression in their eyes when they die. He hates all people that are not white, in fact he even hates all people that are white and don't wear glasses. He shoots people who don't wear glasses sometimes and then laughs with an evil laugh, which can be heard for miles.
All he wants to do is spread evilness in the world, and he also plans to tear down the White House and erect a Skeletor Castle in its place with smoke machines around it which make it look even eviler. There will be a torture chamber in the basement, because, as we all know, he loves to torture people, especially "little people", which he calls "little devils". We should all be really really scared of Karl Rove, the most evil man in history. And don't read his Newsweek column, he is using brand new CIA developed mind control techniques in order to gain control over the nation and make us all commit suicide by laughing too hard and suffocating from watching too much Family Guy.
I remember Rove's smirk when one of the reporters outside of his house as he was getting into his car asked him, how was he doing that morning, the morning Scooter Libby was indicted for lying to the Grand Jury and Rove said he was doing GREAT! Everything was fine with Rove because he knew HE wasn't going to jail or going to be indicted because Libby was the fall guy. Obviously there we no lessons to learn from 'Watergate'!! This time they got away with it!
Sorry! Dave,
But the last time I looked Chomsky wasn't a Washington policymaker! carl "little ducky boy" rove led this country into a illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.(Not to mention the 100 other decision he participated in when he was in the bush regime!)(Whether you like Saddam Hussein or not....)(He didn't attack America on 9/11)
It wasn't 20 Iraqis that attacked Amerca but 14 Saudi Arabians (I know a girl from Saudi Arabia who told me she was ashamed that 14 of the alleged terrorist were from Saudi Arabia) and 5 Egyptians!When people say they thought he had WMD how was we suppose to know since lil bush pulled the inspector out before their final report!(He knew he didn't have them yet!)
With me it isn't about "left" or "right" but,
good vs. evil!!!!
Charlie, as much as I had great anticipations for this interview with Karl Rove, I was very disappointed, in your preview you mention the CIA leak and show Valerie Plame's appearance before the congressional committee, yet you had nothing on the subject, instead you let Rove feed us all kinds of diabolical theories and his believes. I would have been satisfied had I had heard him talk about his role on the outing of cia covert's case; MacLellan has implicated Rove in the outing of Plame, and you never gave him the chance to rebuttal that accusations. Over all I think Rove is certainly genius and he deserves everyone's complimentations for his ingenuity, he is an excellent staffer, but had to leave his job early on for reasons so unclear; its good that GWB failed on the social security issue. The social security case needs to be studied in a non-partisan environment whith experts evaluating the move ahead of time so we know what to expect. For the first time, Charlie: you failed a little short on this interview. I hope you bring Rove back to your program again to finish off those.
Comment by complexity on Monday, Nov 26 at 04:23 PM
I love to see the "other side", that we don't get a chance to see much in the "liberal media", but I don't trust anyone who doesn't think before he speaks at all, he isn't just a robot of politics.
Comment by Priorities on Monday, Nov 26 at 01:00 PM
One thing that Rove got right is that Americans need to reform our health care system. The system is expensive and inefficient. Health insurance companies are dropping coverage on record numbers of people when they become ill. HealthNet in California was fined because it gave an incentive of $20,000 to staff who could drop 15 sick people each month! Health insurance is basically highway robbery right now. Who knows, maybe the Repulicans will have the guts to take this challenge on. We certainly need reform.
Comment by Robert Novak on Monday, Nov 26 at 10:01 AM
Karl, In your upcoming book, please focus a chapter on the environment that my article brings up in The Weekly Standard, October 16th, 2006 ("Who Said What When: The rise and fall of the Valerie Plame 'scandal'", book review of "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War," by Michael Isikoff and David Corn). In that Weekly Standard article I write: "I don't know precisely how Isikoff flushed out Armitage [as Novak's original source\, but Hubris clearly points to two sources: Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, Armitage's political adviser, and William Taft IV, who was the State Department legal adviser when Armitage was deputy secretary.
Comment by Richard Perle on Monday, Nov 26 at 09:28 AM
Charlie and Karl, Maybe, for accountability and transparency's sake,
your subsequent conversation should more resemble the BBC's HardTalk program: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/7108199.stm
A little give - and - take is never a bad thing.
PD - I have no idea what you are on about :-) but it is funny anyway. I think Rove's time at the gorgefest has passed and what he needs is good hot sauna and some aloe juice.
Poor! Charlie Rose,(I feel so sorry! for him....) how did he let this little ducky looking "smelly skunk"! get away with so many lies! is a mystery only God, Allah, The Creator, (What ever name you may refer to him/her as...will be able to correct one day!)(I agree wholeheartedly with Sheila B. JR, Cookie and Amy.)Why didn't Charlie Rose asks him:Where is OBL? Why did (14) Saudi Arabian and (5) Egyptians get away with killing nearly 2000+ "innocent" Americans on 9/11? (Pakistan funded 9/11( Somebody please kick Mursharraf evil_utt to the curb!)(lil bush Puppet boy!) and Afghanstan trained the alleged terrorist!)WAKE UP! AMERICA Why are we really in Iraq? Hint:(Oil)Why did Americans let the real culprits attack America and go "unpunished"? (I really don't understand?)Why are we Pestering Iran? Syria? Palestine? etc...(red herrings!)Next time rove appear on your show Rose please asks him these questions: Is condi rice still ugly? Is william kristol and ann coulter still evil? Is o'reilly still a freak? and is rush still fat? Is cheney a crook? and when will "lil bush" learn to read? (I never capitalize people names whom I don't respect!)
Charlie what is your problem? like Juliette Ramirez I watched you host that "stupid" faux debate on c-span! What a sham!(You keep away from Brian Lamb!)and to think I use to respect you!(and I even thought you were cuter than Clooney!)(NOT ANY MORE!)
Comment by Carol Swaratz on Sunday, Nov 25 at 10:49 AM
Charlie, your show is an important part of my daily life. Thank you for bringing good conversation to TV. I think you let Rove get by with one, however. Rove's arguments about Congress's authorization war in Iraq should be challenged. I believe that the Democrats wanted the vote before the 2002 elections, but Rove's assertion that the resolution forced the administration into war before they were ready is not credible. I hope you have an opportunity to
Charlie Rose, Thank you and PBS for airing your interviews. I think at this point I should note that I happened on this comment section by chance, while looking to re-read your interview with Sandy Weill, and was not directed here. Maybe to contrast the derision, or air what begs voice, the quality of your interviews and the comfort level and accomodation afforded your guests, allowing for relaxed rapport, and leaving discussion open, creates the refreshing distinction in your show.
They've said it better than I can: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/rove-congress-pushed-bu_b_74039.html http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/22/rove-lies-iraq-war-vote/
please subscribe news letter thank u god bless
Listening to Mr. Rove clearly illustrates the critical principle that when reading "history" one must always be aware of who wrote it.
Charlie, the next time you have Karl Rove on your show, could prepare a little bit ... and ask him about the interplay between the Bush - Cheney - Rove - Libby - Rumsfeld - Rice privatization of once-predominantly American institutions such as the armed forces ... in this case, how private armies (such as Blackwater) outnumber US forces in Iraq ... http://www-tc.pbs.org/moyers/rss/media/BMJ-1128.mp3 ... also, for a change, when you interview the likes of Rove, Rumsfeld, and their minions ... could you ask some hard questions ... and get some concrete answers?
As Rove's non-answers show, he/his administration enjoys following the money. It is interesting to note, that post-Rove (The Base fatigue?), "Smart Money" top 16 of 20 political donors in 2008 are leaning heavily towards the Democrats: Goldman Sachs (73% for Dems), Morgan Stanley (65% for Dems), UBS (61% for Dems), Merrill Lynch (50% for Dems), Lehman Brothers (70% for Dems), Credit Suisse (47% for Dems), Bear Stearns (59% for Dems), FMR (46% for Dems), Bain Capital (55% for Dems), SAC Capital Advisors (96% for Dems), Investment Co Institute (61% for Dems), National Venture Capital Association (54% for Dems), Fortress Investment (92% for Dems), Blackstone (47% for Dems), Citadel (98% for Dems), Citigroup (51% for Dems), Securities Industry and Financial Mkt Association (53% for Dems), Renaissance (98% for Dems), New York Mercantile Exchange (57% for Dems), and Capital Group Companies (47% for Dems). Hmmm ... maybe Newsweek will analyze what percentage of their base is the same as Karl's? http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=F07
History will judge, I predict, Rove to be America's Goebbels, who made fascist policies a reality through propaganda and take-no-prisoners strategy. Sadly, Charlie is usually quite deferential to Americans in power, no matter what the horrific consequences of using that power might be. I wish he had been more rigorous in his follow up questions; but then the tragic trajectory of the Bush administration -- the squandering of hundreds of billions of $, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands, the fall in the moral standing of our nation -- has been aided and abetted by journalists not asking the tough questions.
Michael G - I just realized you may be a writer and take my jibe seriously...I was being playful albeit with a heavy hand. You did not commit any cut and paste illegalities and I am over and outta here.
Michael G - you cant epxect me to continue on this thread can you? See you somewhere else under another persona cause every I see Baby Huey up there I feel a little queasy. Happy holidays to you, too. Ta ta toots!
Hi Cookie, You still haven't answered my question. How did I "cut and paste" and what comments did I make that are someone elses? Perhaps you, me and Ms Wong should start our own "Point Counterpoint"....probably more interesting than whats on Cable! Happy Holidays
oh my it sure does! But wouldnt that mean you would be more respectful of intellecual property? ;-P
Cookie....no I am not Michael Gambon....but I have worked with him.....does that count :-)
Quick note to Ms Wong....actually is was a major campaign issue in the '92 Presidential election!!! Perot warned about NAFTA!!! Remember now? But, don't take my word for it....look it up....or get an historian to do it for you. As For Cookie....you say that I cut and paste....put your money where you mouth is....show where I did.
Michael G -- I refer to the campaign issue that Senator John Kerry made in the presidential election of 2004 because there was an uproar against outsourcing. It was never made into a campaign issue in presidential elections prior to 2004. Perhaps a historian could be able to clarify this point.
LOL Cookie, Now there's we can agree upon! (Karl Rove)
Btw, this thread is about that lump of lying mashed potatos named Rove. Too bad we couldn't find a way to export him somehwere. His head is already in lala land.
Michael G - clearly you are the type who cuts and pastes from other people without attribution. It is only forgivable if you are Michael Gambon. Otherwise, it is just sad. Especially if you ARE Ms. Wong.
To Ms Wong, Where have you been. Outsourcing has not been around or an issue since 2004!!! It has been an issue since the 80's!!!! That is when President Reagan decided it was time to dismember the middle class and destroy the Unions. You really need to study economic history. Outsourcing has led to lower prices and greater profits for a select few Corporate Execs and doesn't always filter down to the shareholders. But, at what cost. Jobs that allowed people in the US to support their families and provide health insurance have greatly diminished. Instead, outsourcing has lead to millions of recalls for defective and deadly materials; child and slave labor; in certain places including US territories; sexual crimes and forced abortions....if you like that form of Capitolism....well, what can I say...but, it speaks volumns regarding your understanding of economic matters and perhaps what you think is important. Mr Rose never confronts those issues. He pretends to be a jounalist....he is not....he is a conversationalist....much like Larry King. Can you imagine an interview with Hitler.......Mr Rose would focus on the stength of the economy, his hobbies; but, would he have the courage to ask him about the camps......I doubt it.
I'll help. Journalism and conversation are not interchangeable whether Charlie is pleasant or not. I know you are ignoring me becuase the basic premise of your "dialogue" is faulty. Seems like someone needs to look up the terms being used and it aint me.
Gina/Sarah, i guess this is one of these re-occurring interviews where there is a disconnect between the mission statement and reality. Charlie practices "journalism" with those he fundamentally disagrees ... and with those people he challenges in a conversational/nuanced tone ... which lends itself to intelligent minds. However, with those he fundamentally agrees with (George W Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld ... take a look at the 1998 Donald Rumsfeld+Paul Wolfowitz interview ... where is the challenge to back up their creative intelligence/CIA bashing? ... then fast forward to Karl Rove 2002 and 2007, let alone the GWB interview) ... am I mistaken, or is there an "eager to please, preaching to the choir" series of amens coming from Charlie? That is not journalism; that's Council of Foreign Relations hawkishness of a Kissinger-wannabe.
Is journalism and conversation the same thing to you?
I agree with Sarah Wong, well-written comment. Journalism is an inherent part of the conversation. The keyword here is (conversation) and Charlie states that at the top of his website. QUOTE: (I believe that there is a place in the spectrum of television for really good conversation, if it is informed, spirited, soulful. -Charlie Rose) It says it all right there. Charlie has kept to that promise. It is a conversation, a dialog between two people, four, five, whatever the number may be who sits at the round table. You cannot deny that each time he sits down with his guests to have this (conversation), whatever your disagreement is with him on his style, what you like or do not like, he brings us the knowledge, with insight and delves into the story his guests have come to tell. Charlie Rose delivers. And his guests return again and again. So it is good conversation that makes people comfortable to talk, and he is a consummate conversationalist unlike no other in this forum of television (journalism). It is from that in which we derive what we have come to watch, learn and be informed. I get something out of that. And that is also why (we) keep coming back again and again.
I thought Paul could spell.
Karl, thank you for rising the strategic questions about reaching out, especially to minority voters. You are the most creative political thinker alive today. History will no doubt show that our policy work (whether yours at the White House or mine at the World Bank and Defense Department) was strategically in America's best interest. On a related tangent, Charlie, in case your viewers missed my security conference at the American Enterprise Institute about U.S. interests in Africa, and what forms of security partnership will protect them most effectively ... please visit the following AEI homepage: http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1571/event_detail.asp
George - I feel your pain. But answer me this -if these people thought Charlie would give them a quiz would they show up?
sarah - poutsourcing was an issue way before 2004. Where were you in the late 90's?
Michael G -- If you ask any corporate executives about outsourcing of jobs, you might get similar answers. That is a result of free trade and technologically possible. The uproar of job outsourcing occurred during the presidential election of 2004. Senator John Kerry used job outsourcing a campaign issue. He would impose tax on those corporations that outsource jobs. But unfortunately he didn't win the presidency and the tax issue didn't fly. I'm not an expert of free trade or outsourcing. But you might get better results by writing to congress on how to deal with job outsourcing. Now turn to the subject of paying for one's clothes. It is common practice for a fashion designer to promote a line of clothing by providing a TV personality a wardrobe. If you look at the credits at the end of a TV program, oftentimes you see ... (the host)'s wardrobe is provided by ... a fashion designer... or a fashion brand name. It's all about advertising, sponsorship. America is a capitalistic society.
Carl Rove ate my puppy, and PBS helped! And here are 249 links to articles about why Bush is worse than Hitler, and why Iran is a great benevolent country that we should all love and cherish... Oooh, gotta go, Homeland Security is at my door and want to send me to Guantanamo..... ....How dare you trample my sacred copy of "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives." Fascists!!!!!
Finally! The answer the question: what does Charlie Rose have in common with Winona Ryder?
This is a response to Ms Wong. PBS is a terrific and treasured entity. But, my comments had little to do with PBS except that over the years Mr Rose has turned to Corporate Underwriters.....Coke, Energy and Financial Services. And, I don't know about you...but, I pay for my clothes...which he does not. Also if you are really a Rose Watcher how can you not see his interviews; especially with Corporate Moguls and not note the absence of truly important pointed questions? Example. His interview with Jack Welch of G.E....not one single question regarding the outsourcing of jobs. Welch was in the forefront of exporting jobs. He couldn't have fawned more over him and his wife. Questions regarding corporate responsibilty and corporate patriotism are sorely lacking from Rose. I still think Mr Rose is a great interviewer and goes many wonderful interviews...usually with Artists, Humanitarians etc...but, when it comes to politics and corporations....he needs to be more than just polite....he needs to be more of a journalist.
For a better understanding of the dirty tricks used by Bush's Brain ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/7138225.stm ... BBC's HardTalk program Why isn't Karl Rove facing legal charges of treason?
One more thing...you might want to watch last Sunday's Meet The Press hour with Giuliani and learn something. Tim Russert stayed to the point with non-partisan questions. He didn't have to resort to fawning over OR attacking Mr. G. He simply allowed Giuliani to expose himself with his own track record. Although Giuliani tried to filibuster his way through the tough questions, it was very apparent that he is a mony-grubbing opportunistic shyster, dealing with the worst of America's enemies. Tim Russert was prepared. You might learn something from that show.
This interview with Rove is probably the nadir of your journalistic achievements. You gave him a free walk and that is unforgivable - especially with your track record. Shame, Shame. PS: Do you even read these comments?
To Michael G -- As a viewer of the Charlie Rose Show, I would like to comment on your first comment posting. The Charlie Rose Show has been on PBS for many years. Over the years, the show has covered a wide range of topics that viewers who tune in for enlightenment, intellect, knowledge, diversity, humanitarianism, and much more... His guests are ranging from the powerful to the little guys, from the very famous to the unknown. The Charlie Rose Show should not be judged by one program, one guest whose viewpoints are the subject of controversy. PBS has been funded by the government, the public, and corporations, which comprise of the democrats, republicans, independents, and so on. The PBS programming should not gear toward one party line. By the way, Charlie Rose often uses props (newspapers, magazines, even old magazines) when relevant.
This is a follow-up to my previous comments. First.....Why was Rove on in the first place? There was no book to promote. Seems like this was a chance to promote Rove. Questions that should have been asked and pursued: 1. The South Carolina primary that sunk McCain. Using tactics to suggest that McCain and/or his wife we engaged in interacial affairs that produced their daughter. Those charges were grotesque and yet....they worked with the public. Did he orchestrate them and does he condone them ( I think we know the answer...but Rose should have brought it up) 2. Jeff Gannon...remember him.... the gay escort that got a press pass from Rove and had access to the White House over 100 times and he didn't have to sign out? How did that happen and what was Rove's connection to Gannon? 3. The outing of Valerie Plame...wasn't that treason? well, I could go on and on. Again, Mr Rose with all respect. You need to answer your critics........or perhaps go on Fox where maybe you really belong.
I must add to the comments of those that found themselves in total disappointment with Mr Rose's interview with Karl Rove. It was in my estimation the most unprofessional, fawning, set up interview I have ever witness. When I say "set up"....wasn't it convenient that Rose had a New York Times newspaper that Rove used to make a point. Mr Rose usually has his notes printed on paper and rarely uses props...How convenient!!! If it wasn't a set up why then didn't Rose use that same issue to refute Rove's claims? Also, did anyone notice that Mr Rose never challenged or followed up on Rove's assertions; some that we blatently false! The average informed person could have refuted most of Rove's claims....and Rose has a Staff! Either they are totally incompetent; or, he chooses to become Larry King Lite!...or maybe he just chooses to give passes to the republicans and the right and the neocons. Look at the interviews over time and you will see an obvious bias to Big Business and to the Right. I, for one, have taken a radical step. As a fundraising host for a local PBS station; I have told them I will not do a Charlie Rose promo nor will I incorporate him in our fundraising describing our diversity. My question to you Mr Rose...not that you will read this or the other comments or care about them....but.....why are you on PBS? You clothes are given to you free.....your show is underwritten by Big Business....COKE...for one. Why don't you get your show on Commercial Television and leave open a space to someone who is not in the pocket of the corporate interests; who will give The American People a real interview show that treats everyone the same; asks the tough questions and shines in the light of what public television was, is and should be all about. MR Rose....I am soooooo ashamed of you.....I only wish...you shared some of that sentiment.
Could it be that Charlie just gave Rove rope to hang himself with? I didn't see it...but the contention that the Democrats caused Bush et al to go to war...is the most ludicrous thing I've heard in a while...so Mr. Rose just let Karl make a full of himself.
I am thrilled to see so much criticism of the Karl Rove interview. To those who say it's Mr. Rose's interviewing style to passively allow the interviewee to express him/herself, then such a style should have been used with President Ahmadinejad of Iran. It was not. This is not to say Charlie should not have challenged the president of Iran, but he should have done the same with the far more egregious members of the Bush administration (given the liberal culture and greater options life afforded them in the West), President Bush and Karl Rove included.
I have been a fan of Charlie Rose and his show for many years. It was with great dismay that I watched his recent interview with Karl Rove. To describe Mr. Rose's attitude to Rove as sychophantic would be understating what happened. Where were the tough questions about Valerie Plame Wilson, the dirty tricks of the campaigns, the despicable and successful attempt to portray Senator Max Cleland, a triple amputee war hero, as a terrorist sympathizer and many other matters? The only place where Mr. Rose brought out the monster in Karl Rove was to draw an oblique analogy between Rove and the late an unlamented Lee Atwater, but I assume that went over most heads. To allow Karl Rove to portray the Democrats in Congress as pushing a reluctant Bush administration into an unwanted Iraq War will have to go down in history as the most egregious error Mr. Rose has ever committed in his distinguished career. I understand that the program is a bastion of civility and politeness and this is most welcome. This does not, however, excuse Mr. Rose from asking tough questions. Can anyone explain what went wrong in this disastrous interview? Was Charlie just having a bad night or is he as intimidated as the rest of the media by the malignant Bush/Cheney administration and their penchant for getting revenge on those perceived as their opponents?
Charlie, Usually you're pretty direct and ask the tough questions, but in an eloquent way, of course. But, it seems like there were some opportunities to dig a little deeper to some of Mr. Rove's answers. He basically just rewrote the story of going to war - again - on your show, without much of a challenge from you.
Charlie, You are a sycophantic fraud of a conversationalist ... you are the Neville Chamberlin of television. Where are the onions when it comes to interviews with those in power? "A really good conversation" is not what you offer ... the Charlie Rose show is a platform for the military-industrial complex and its minions to edge public opinion. Shame on you, Sir.
Charlie, In addition to the aforementioned PBS Frontline special focusing solely on Karl Rove, you/your audience might enjoy the following other PBS Frontline specials on the Bush administration: ENRON: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/regulation/view/ FBI Agent John O'Neill: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/ RUMSFELD Commission: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/view/ BUSH Doctrine: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/view/ CHALABI et al vs Truth: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/view/ BEYOND Petraeus: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/view/ NEOCONS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/ PRIVATE Contractors: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/view/ ABU Ghraib: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/view/ CHIEF Cheney: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/ NIXON and Cheney: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/ IRAN and Neocons: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view/
Charlie, Before your next interview with Karl, may be you/your viewers should see: http://www.pbs.org/frontline/rss/redir/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/view/
Every tyrant needs a propagandist. Adolph and Joe. George and Charlie.
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/1998/7/20/1/a-conversation-with-donald-rumsfeld-and-paul-wolfowitz-about-nuclear-weapons#comment vs http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf Charlie, could you have Kenneth Duberstein (Armitage's political adviser) and William Taft IV discuss. Thank you.
Don't know if anyone caught this one, but on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, he did a piece on recent acts of revisionist history where he played the tape of Bill Clinton saying he was against the war in Iraq at the outset and Karl Rove blaming the Democrats for getting us into the mess in Iraq. Obviously the word is getting around. There was also mention of this on Washington Week. I'm sure there must have been other places. I can imagine that Charlie was in the same mind I was when I heard Rove say what he did. I thought - did he just say that? I recorded the show and had to play it back to be certain. I was in total shock - and if Charlie had the same reaction, he was probably in shock too. It's one thing to be prepared to debate a point of view or fact. It's another to have to argue over a fairy tale.
rove has a new column in a major magazine and has a book deal - why alienate him and the his prospective publishers? Aint like Rove said anything new - you can pretty much count on him to make things up, I wonder how many lawyers and - err - factcheck people are going to be getting later hours and stronger glasses.
Will those who have criticized Charlie Rose PLEASE recognize Mr. Rose's genius in this matter. By not adding any refutation he made Rove's absurd lie abundantly clear. There is no possibility for neocon spin artists to say that Mr. ROSE twisted things or confused ROVE - ROVE fell right into the trap. If there is anyone in this country who believes ROVE'S preposterous assertion, including Rove himself, then they are delusional. It is now our job to pursue this issue and Charlie gave us clear unambiguous ammunition. THANK YOU Mr. Rose!!!!
Karl is quite correct that it was the Democrat controlled Congress and Senate, pushed our poor Decider into war against his wishes. Mr. Rove could have also pointed out these other little-known instances, when Democrats pushed us into War: 1967 - Gulf of Tonkin After declassification of vital documents, it is proven that President Johnson was behind the attack to escalate the Vietnam War. 1950 - North Korean Invasion It is well known in the same circles where Karl Rove, well, roves, that President Truman secretly asked the North Koreans to invade South Korea in 1950 to start the Korean War. 1941 - Pearl Harbor Most people in the Bush Administration have known for some time that the lead plane attacking Pearl Harbor was piloted by President Roosevelt, himself. 1917 - Lusitania President Wilson was aboard the German U-Boat, which sank the Lusitania, leading to the entry of the United States into World War I. And this is only the events of the 20th Century! http://blancadebree.blogspot.com
I'm wondering if Charlie deliberately didn't get into alot of argumentative discussion with rove so that what he was going to be out there saying as he pushes his book would be well known with no interference. Those that do following interviews would then be prepared to counter his ridiculous lies creating his own "reality".
I missed the interview, but saw the excerpt on MSNBC. Rove's claims about Congress pushing the President by prematurely passing a resolution in October 2002 can easily be refuted. I just re-read Chap. 18 in Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack." This chapter describes how a National Intelligence Estimate was written for submission to Congress. The NIE was full of suppositions and assumptions about the existance of biological and chemical WMD; no proof of their existance or of nuclear weapons. Cheney was at the center of the push for war in Iraq, according to Sen. Bob Graham who was interviewed by Woodward. The NIE was submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 2, 2002. Woodward says that the Senators asked questions but that "No senator had enough of the picture--military planning details were not provided to the Hill and the CIA -plans were highly classified--to frame an effective critique." Bush then worked with Nicholas Calio, his chief lobbyist, on the final language of the resolution. He also spoke with Dick Gephardt, then House Minority Leader, "who was then generally supportive of the president's course." Publicly, Bush said on Oct 2, "I urge all members of Congress to consider this resolution with the greatest of care. The choice before them could not be more consequential." Woodward says that the President's October 7th speech in Cincinnati, Ohio was given to win public support, and to lay out the case against Saddam. Woodward then describes various changes that were made through several drafts. For instance, "an unsubstantiated report from British intelligence that Iraq had recently attempted to buy uranium oxide, known as 'yellowcake' from Niger" was deleted at the request of the CIA. This claim made it, of course, into the President's State-of-the-Union address a few months later. Woodward describes in detail the efforts that the President, Karl Rove, and Nick Calio made to get this resolution passed. It was finally passed by the House on October 11, 296 to 133. The Senate passed it 77 to 23. There is no suggestion in Woodward's book that the President was reluctant to have this resolution passed. Woodward concluded that the resolution was a "blank check."
Has Rose responded to any of these comments? Has he acknowleged that he should not have let Rove's fairy tales go unchallenged? People make mistakes. But if he does not address it, I'm done with him. This is too important.
...spin, spin, spin. "Treat collegues with respect..." I think the interview offered plenty of retrospect ammo for this forum. The good ole Atwater debarking Rove received from the viewing public inadequately relieves the venom stored for so very long by so many. Although a few more debarking sessions are called for and would be so theraputic, I fear it is energy spent unwisely...he could care less. I'm reminded of Auden..."I and the public know what all school children must learn, those to whom evil is done do evil in return." I hope when the Writers strick is over we dont lose gala1's eloquent efforts.
There is some value in parsing Rove's repeated claim that Congress forced the President to "rush" into Iraq. Congress did give the President authority, but they set no timetable. It was, without any doubt the President who made the schedule, and Rove is an abject liar if he tries to say otherwise. We could still be waiting for Bush to INVADE, if he had wanted to delay action. Since his initial intent, before 9/11/01, in fact before The First Tuesday in November of 2000, was to conquer Iraq, install a government there that was sympathetic to US demands, and "Finish the job his father started and the Clinton Administration was not finishing as fast as he wanted."
Dear Mr Rose: What kind of journalist are you? To let such a lie from Karl Rove go unchallenged? That's sloppy and despicable... FROM TALKING POINTS MEMO Your first Word of the Day is exactly, which Merriam-Webster defines as: 1) in a manner or measure or to a degree or number that strictly conforms to a fact or condition. 2) in every respect : altogether, entirely. Now, who can use the word "exactly" in the context of, say, the 2002 vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq? Karl? Karl Rove: [T\he administration was opposed to voting on it in the fall of 2002. Charlie Rose: Because? Rove: Because we didnâ??t think it belonged in the confines of the election. We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of the election. It seemed it make things move too fast. There were things that needed to be done to bring along allies and potential allies abroad and yet-- ... Rose: [Y\our argument is you would have had maybe more inspections. You would have been able to build a broader coalition. You could have done a whole lot other things if you didnâ??t have to have a vote, right? Rove: Right, right, exactly. Very good, Karl. Our second Word of the Day is lie: 1) to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2) to create a false or misleading impression. President Bush, would you please cite a couple examples proving that Karl just told a lie the size of, say, Texas??
Perhaps I missed it, but when did Charlie Rose challenge Rove's bizarre assertion that it was Congress, not the White House, that wanted to attack Iraq and pushed Congress to have a vote to authorize the use of force as soon as possible? All one has to do to see that this is a lie is to look back at what Bush and his administration actually said at the time, ie: that it was necessary for national security, it would send the wrong message if we didn't do it immediately, etc. Arianna Huffington's Nov. 28 article on this topic at the HuffingtonPost.com --Karl Rove's Shameless, Remorseless, Soulless Attempt to Rewrite History-- should jog Charlie's memory of the reality of the situation back in Oct 2002. I remember that at the time I was disgusted with Hillary and John Kerry for going along with the push for war but even more disturbed and afraid of the irrational bloodlust shown in the Bush Administration (and accepted with alarming, disturbing zeal by much of the nation). I already knew then that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 because I bothered to read the less censored foreign press (like the Guardian in Britain) and the alternative press here (like CommonDreams.org). Is this just another instance of the press reporting as fact neoconservative Republican lies that could easily be disproved with a bit of journalistic investigation and the courage to challenge obvious distortions and lies?
One can tell the quality of a Karl Rove interview by how much it is ignored in the mainstream media. Well done sir, well done!! Can't wait to read the book which will be the first tide of many waves of TRUTH regarding one of our nation's finest leaders, President George W. Bush. Fess up libtards, you know nothing about the decency of this adminstration, and even less about distinguishing between the basics of good versus evil.
Thank you for removing the keyword/meta data tag "Valerie Plame Wilson". i would also like to make a correction: Mr Rove required no questions be asked about the "Valerie Plame Wilson" affair in order to encourage book and speaking tour sales. Thank you Charlie for allowing us to see Mr Rove.
I want to first thank Charlie Rose for his commitment to journalistic integrity, something that has been eroding in this country for some time, and which now appears to be in free-fall. I strongly disagree with the individuals who have posted here attacking Mr Rose for failing to take the turdblossom "to task". It's quite clear that nearly all of you have come here from other sites after watching the 10 second clip where the turdblossom tries to rewrite the history of the run-up to the Iraq war. It's shameful that these individuals would attack Mr Rose with such venom without watching the entire program. I appreciate that Mr Rose is able to conduct an hour long interview with the mysterious turdblossom, and ask him some tough questions. Turdblossom is a uber-weasel, and it shouldn't surprise any of you that he is able to wriggle his way out from under Charlie's thumb so easily. I challenge any of you who have attacked Mr Rose to watch the entire program, and then watch any other interview with the turdblossom, and see who asked the tougher questions.
To all your comments: Karl Rove is in dreamland and talked as if he believed himself. Charlie Rose is courteous and respectful to all his guests. Look at his interview with Mahmoud Amhadinjaed. He probably has rules to go by, his own and PBS. What we need is a micropscope so we can see and hear what Mr. Rose is really thinking. For those of you who use Mr. Rose's program not to support PBS,an excuse is all it is. There is more than one program on PBS. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Well, it seems to me that Rove bested Charlie big time. Over and over Charlie did try to bring up substantial issues : charges against the BushCo admin, Rove himself, and just as often it seems to me Rove slipped the grip, turned the tables, and Charlie just let him wiggle away.
Charlie Rose: he's the real thing. Well, as much as Coke is, anyway.
Wow, did Rove not get to be on the Daily Show, so instead tried to pretend the Charlie Rose show would have to do?? What astounds me so much about all of this, is that they assume the public is so stupid (come on we are not all republicans), that we don't know the truth!! Maybe he really is a mad man.
Exactly the reason I love the show. Absence of pundit-ism is the kind of journalism that is journalism at its finest.
With all due respect I believe that Mr. Rose fell into the trap that most inside-the-beltway journalists have of showing respect, even affection, for the "winner at all costs". Instead of questioning and rewarding high-minded means, it has become the ends that are of value. While true moral norms place value on the former, Mr. Rose and his ilk elevate and metaphorically drool over the later. Until that changes our country will continue to be dragged into the gutter by the likes of the bushes and roves. Excellent post Gala1. Mr. Rose, you should be very disappointed in your performance.
I beg your pardon. I find your reasoning to be garbled. It is quite obvious that you donâ??t have to be a rocket scientist to see through Karl Rove as being a behind the scenes manipulative instigator. There is no one more illegitimately sanctimonious than Karl Rove, (which by the way is a prominent platform of the â??RIGHTâ??, I might add)! And I am not 'left, right, north or south', I am an Independent. But you are correct about one thing though, your best assumption about Karl Rove is that he DID miss his criminal trial, via old Scooter boy being made the fall guy. Alas, there is always the civil suit of â??freedom of speechâ?? of the citizens of the United States of America via this forum.
I doubt Mr Rove could have said anything to please those of you who seem predisposed to hate him. This is a talk show, not a criminal trial. Your opprobrious anger borders on dangerous sanctimony. Though not a fan of many of the administrations policies or tactics, I thought Mr Rove came across as more reasoned and human than the caricature cultivated by the left wing MSM. (NB: I say wing MSM not to deride the MSM as a liberally biased monolith but to acknowledge that the MS has sympathizers on the right, as well. As it should be.)
Charlie Rose should question his own interviewing style when he realizes why KKKarl Rove agreed to sit down with Charlie Rose to be interviewed. KKKarl knew it would be easy. And Charlie didn't disappoint.....KKKarl. But Charlie disappoints me
I am truly astonished att he opportunity that Charlie Rose squandered to ask (nicely, even) Karl Rove to explain these ridiculous remarks. Instead he parrotted back exactly what Rove said, somehow making it seem like Bush was reluctant to go to war. I have honestly never seen someone I thought was a serious journalist go along with an obvious spin to willingly and complicitly. Amazing and so sad
I never watch Charlie Rose anymore, having long ago grown weary of his shallowness, his penchant for name dropping and his constantly inserting himself in his guest's answers. But I saw the clip of the Rove interview on another website and was directed to this page to read viewers' comments. The most egregious part of the interview wasn't the remarks by Rove (would anyone expect anything different?) but the sycophantic, agreeable Rose actually MAKING HIS CASE FOR HIM: ROVE: There was a vote. ROSE: But you were opposed to the vote. ROVE: But it happened. We donâ??t determine when the Congress votes on things. ROSE: But you wish it hadnâ??t happened at that time. You would have preferred it did not happen at that time becauseâ?¦your argument is, you would have had maybe more inspection, you would have been able to build a broader coalition, you could have done a whole lot other things if you didnâ??t have to have a vote, right? ROVE: Right. Right. Exactly. Contact PBS in protest!!
Tragically for the planet, the list grows of credentialed people who have squandered their gifts and could have/should have made a difference for the greater good, but chose otherwise... After the rove interview, charlie rose assumes his well-deserved place on the list with all the other morally bankrupt/cowardly people. And, karl, it's not about your apocryphal genius; it's about dumbed-down americans failing to recognize that you, karl, and your admirers confuse real genius with your own sociopathy.
Simply put, I am SOOOO disappointed with you Charlie. Of all the useless media that has become apologists for Rove and the Bush regime, and with all your deep intelligence and, what I thought, integrity, I am very disappointed that you let this soul-less and obviously pathological creature speak such Nazi-comparable lies unchallenged. You were my last hope of journalistic integrity and now even that is compromised. You very much owe it to your public to correct this mistake in judgment and ensure that it never happens again on your part.
Charlie Rose = Larry King If you're going to let your guests regurgitate lies and propaganda unchallenged, it's much faster for us to just read their press releases.
I will never watch the Charlie Rose show again. I, too, am withholding my annual pledge to PBS until there is a correction. When disinformation on the scale of Rove's goes unchallenge lies take root, and Rose should be ashamed of himself as an interviewer.
Viggo Mortensen = t-shirt + truth = unserious hippie. Karl Rove = business suit + lies = Very Serious Person who belongs on Charlie Rose
let me see if I got this right. Congress "pushed" George Bush to go to war, and he relly didn't want to. Man, Rove has really become pathetic since getting humiliated by the Democrats in 2006. I hate to break it to Karl, but America stopped believing this guy's crap years ago (about the same time America woke up to what a liar George Bush was). Rove.Cheney and Bush were the ones who started the war in Iraq, and only the most half-witted of Americans believe otherwise. This laughable appearence is just another sad attempt by this fat little loser, to cover the extreme cowardice and incompetence of himself and his two panty wearing girlfriends...Bush and Cheney.
I was also disappointed with Mr. Rose and his interview with Rove. Rove is doing nothing different then he has ever done, completely oblivious if someone suggests perhaps there were mistakes made, all his life he wanted to "create" a president and he did it with playdough man. Why anyone wants to clean up the mess left behind by this administration is beyond me, they all skate and they have done so much harm to us all. Shame on you Mr. Rose for not taking him to task. I know you are a Republican but you have had some near death experiences, hasn't that taught you anything? It isn't nice to play God and that is what Rove has done. Unfortunately I don't see things getting any better.
Correction required? The meta data tag "Valerie Plame Wilson" be removed from this episode. Proposition: At the last minute, in order to conduct the interview, Mr Rove required questions about Valerie Plame Wilson not be asked for fear of his exposure to civil litigation. Hope for the future...that Mr Rove, like Mr Rumsfield will not be able to travel freely to places such as Germany, where they could stand trial for war crimes.
Perhaps Karl was unaware that in an October 5, 2002 radio address to the nation and again in an October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinatti, his boss specifically lobbied for Congress to pass the resolution to authorize force against Iraq. Those are just two of many examples on the White House website that unambiguously contradict Rove's contention that the Administration's hand was forced by (a Republican) Congress during a political season. This is one piece of history that Mr. Rove can simply not re-write - even with the help of compliant radio show hosts.
Charlie, you attacked Viggo Mortensen more for wearing a t-shirt and poor old Harold Pinter for daring to point out the treasonous and poison acts of the Bush Administration yet you let Karl Rove (one of the ones most responsible for orchestrating those policies) off the hook. The Republicans usually try to wait, at least, 20 years or so before they try to rewrite history, hoping such events as Donald Rumsfield visiting Saddam Hussein or CIA support of the Mujahadeen would have slipped far from our memory. But Karl Rove thinks we're gullible enough not to remember what his media henchman, including Charlie Rose, tried to ram down our throats as "facts" a mere 5 years ago. Gee, has it already been that long. Time flies when your under quasi-fascist control. Let the insufferable Roves of the world slip into a distant memory and confine his un-Democratic methods to the dustbin of history once and for all. Don't buy his book and don't give him another inch of space in print or on the air. It's hard enough to erase the memory of his attepts at dancing away as it is. Da horror, da horror.
Geez what a torrent of venom. God knows Charlie will never be confused with Russert and the "gotcha" types but I saw the Rove piece and I thought it was the usual softball approach. As far as Charlie's style goes I think there is a place for more friendly dialogue and Charlie often gets more that way. Liberals please turn down the hate.
Rove = fiction. His comments will not even make a poor novel.
Don't you just love the way these talking heads slip and slide and slither their way through the terminologies they use to deceive? "Trajectories (of figures of deaths??)" Jesus.. Unbelievable.. Makes me want to weep. How anybody can allow such a slime ball to dribble all over the truth like this is just beyond me.. To give this reincarnated Goebbels such an unchallenged platform is a complete cop out. "The Press has done a good job...??..##%" JESUS H Christ. You are a disgrace Rose.
Mr. Rose, I have been a fan of Frontline and your show for years. I still like Frontline but can no longer count myself a fan of the Cahrlie Rose Show. I am deeply dissappointed that you allowed Karl Rove to spew lies on your media platform. You failed to challenge classic Rove propaganda. Next time I see you at the 21 Club you can be sure I will challenge you. I won't be writing another check to PBS until I see there is a correction or an apology to the faithful viewers of your show.
why is everyone so surprised that rose did not challenge rove and his outrageous lies? charlie rose is a sycophant, a shill, an embarassing ass kisser and a passive jackass posing as a legitimate interviewer. granted, he does have a good diversity of guests but has anyone ever really seen him challenge anyone of importance?? he has no balls and is too afraid of rocking the boat or putting anyone on the spot. he knows his place and his role and he sticks to them...karl rove has already become the henry kissinger of our time in that he is given media forums as if he has some intellectual currency to spew his nonsense despite the fact that he has not one ounce of legitimacy. the sad thing is that there are people out there that will believe what rove said about iraq....was it gore vidal that once called the u.s. the "united states of amnesia"?... we know nothing of our own history but seem fascinated with and know all about brad pitt and angelina jolie...rove is propaganda personified...the big lie in living color
It's not Rove's presence on the show per se that bothers me -- I mean, come on, everyone should get to say his piece, even if it's just a figment of his imagination. But Charlie Rose's complicit silence as Rove smiles and wags that finger and raises those eyebrows and says that the Bush Admin did not want to go to war in 2002 -- that it is somehow solely Congress's fault -- is, above much else, disheartening. We count on people like you, Mr. Rose, to conduct interviews and to hold people accountable for their words and actions. What we don't need is one more "interviewer" who sits back and allows his subjects to throw around lies completely unquestioned, completely unchecked. Especially when interviewing a man made famous by his capacity to lie to anyone about anything. Imagine Rove's satisfaction. I hope he doesn't take Charlie Rose's complicity as indication that he's fooled the rest of us.
Why did not you challenge Rove. I had more respect for you. Had it been a DEM you would have nailed them the the wall....
Way to go Charlie. The only thing worse than corrupt leaders are people who have the opportunity to challenge them and don't.
I to read all the comments also and saw how quite a few of them just happened to show the writers ability to cut and paste. I've watched Rose for way to many years to admit and I'm ready to tell him and PBS, which happens to be my favorite charity, that they are damn close to losing a 25 year plus supporter of PBS. I felt like I not only had my pocket picked by PBS I was also stab in the back by Charlie Rose.
Dear Mr. Rose I don't have any objection to listening to another point of view, however, I am vehemently opposed to you giving a traitor and pathological liar a repectable forum to spew his special kind of idiocy. This man (and I use the term loosely) has commited treason against the United States and should be in prison, yet here he is on your show attempting to rewrite history. Please use more discretion and class in selecting people to interview.
I can't believe what I'm reading. Someone told me how Carl Rove had no balls. After reading this crap he's must have balls like a stud ram. It is time for people to stop watching these kind of so called interviews. How did we ever allow TV Newspeople to sit back with their mouths clamped shut and not do what we have all expected of them. If the one time great interviewer was expecting to clear up anything by Interviewing Carl Rove then he has become a big time dreamers. This man has a long history of fast talking the best legal minds. We are lucky that Jack Abramoff never interned with a pro like Rove. If he would have we'd still be trying to convict him and his crooks. Wait until Rove takes over the planned GW Bush library, he'll have students and historians convinced that George Bush was in fact our best President in the past hundred years.
Mr. Rose, As a long time fan of yours I am truly mystified at this interview. Why would you become so complicit in these lies? No challenge, rebuttal, anything? This makes you a pawn and I am holding my breath that your going to re-air this interview bracketed with the facts. Rove must be exposed, anything less and you are practically a supporter of the Rove lies. Please don't let this go uncorrected.
This is unbecoming for Charlie Rose: to give an audiance to a lier, an outright lier. Also, it is a shame that Newsweek provide this guy to continue to bs away forever.
I would challenge Robert Novak to back up the claim that Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein (Armitage's political adviser) and William Taft IV (who was the State Department legal adviser when Armitage was deputy secretary) in any way pressured Richard Armitage to confirm Valerie Plame's identity. What is Robert Novak going to say next, that Karl Rove and the President of the United States ok'd the maneuver?
Somebody call Penn and Teller! Cause that was some major Bull#%! Wednesday night!
Karl Rove is soooooo eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil, he is even eviler than Skeletor! I read somewhere that he eats black children (baked with an apple in their mouth) for breakfast, and he also beats up women just for the fun of it. He likes to kill people just to see the expression in their eyes when they die. He hates all people that are not white, in fact he even hates all people that are white and don't wear glasses. He shoots people who don't wear glasses sometimes and then laughs with an evil laugh, which can be heard for miles. All he wants to do is spread evilness in the world, and he also plans to tear down the White House and erect a Skeletor Castle in its place with smoke machines around it which make it look even eviler. There will be a torture chamber in the basement, because, as we all know, he loves to torture people, especially "little people", which he calls "little devils". We should all be really really scared of Karl Rove, the most evil man in history. And don't read his Newsweek column, he is using brand new CIA developed mind control techniques in order to gain control over the nation and make us all commit suicide by laughing too hard and suffocating from watching too much Family Guy.
"brilliant strategist but without a human connection." And an indomitable bullshit artist. We're talkin' nonpareil. Wow.
I remember Rove's smirk when one of the reporters outside of his house as he was getting into his car asked him, how was he doing that morning, the morning Scooter Libby was indicted for lying to the Grand Jury and Rove said he was doing GREAT! Everything was fine with Rove because he knew HE wasn't going to jail or going to be indicted because Libby was the fall guy. Obviously there we no lessons to learn from 'Watergate'!! This time they got away with it!
Sorry! Dave, But the last time I looked Chomsky wasn't a Washington policymaker! carl "little ducky boy" rove led this country into a illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.(Not to mention the 100 other decision he participated in when he was in the bush regime!)(Whether you like Saddam Hussein or not....)(He didn't attack America on 9/11) It wasn't 20 Iraqis that attacked Amerca but 14 Saudi Arabians (I know a girl from Saudi Arabia who told me she was ashamed that 14 of the alleged terrorist were from Saudi Arabia) and 5 Egyptians!When people say they thought he had WMD how was we suppose to know since lil bush pulled the inspector out before their final report!(He knew he didn't have them yet!) With me it isn't about "left" or "right" but, good vs. evil!!!!
Charlie, as much as I had great anticipations for this interview with Karl Rove, I was very disappointed, in your preview you mention the CIA leak and show Valerie Plame's appearance before the congressional committee, yet you had nothing on the subject, instead you let Rove feed us all kinds of diabolical theories and his believes. I would have been satisfied had I had heard him talk about his role on the outing of cia covert's case; MacLellan has implicated Rove in the outing of Plame, and you never gave him the chance to rebuttal that accusations. Over all I think Rove is certainly genius and he deserves everyone's complimentations for his ingenuity, he is an excellent staffer, but had to leave his job early on for reasons so unclear; its good that GWB failed on the social security issue. The social security case needs to be studied in a non-partisan environment whith experts evaluating the move ahead of time so we know what to expect. For the first time, Charlie: you failed a little short on this interview. I hope you bring Rove back to your program again to finish off those.
oh please - this show and teevee in general is a veritable circus of righties dropping by.
I love to see the "other side", that we don't get a chance to see much in the "liberal media", but I don't trust anyone who doesn't think before he speaks at all, he isn't just a robot of politics.
One thing that Rove got right is that Americans need to reform our health care system. The system is expensive and inefficient. Health insurance companies are dropping coverage on record numbers of people when they become ill. HealthNet in California was fined because it gave an incentive of $20,000 to staff who could drop 15 sick people each month! Health insurance is basically highway robbery right now. Who knows, maybe the Repulicans will have the guts to take this challenge on. We certainly need reform.
Karl, In your upcoming book, please focus a chapter on the environment that my article brings up in The Weekly Standard, October 16th, 2006 ("Who Said What When: The rise and fall of the Valerie Plame 'scandal'", book review of "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War," by Michael Isikoff and David Corn). In that Weekly Standard article I write: "I don't know precisely how Isikoff flushed out Armitage [as Novak's original source\, but Hubris clearly points to two sources: Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, Armitage's political adviser, and William Taft IV, who was the State Department legal adviser when Armitage was deputy secretary.
Charlie and Karl, Maybe, for accountability and transparency's sake, your subsequent conversation should more resemble the BBC's HardTalk program: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/7108199.stm A little give - and - take is never a bad thing.
PD - I have no idea what you are on about :-) but it is funny anyway. I think Rove's time at the gorgefest has passed and what he needs is good hot sauna and some aloe juice.
Poor! Charlie Rose,(I feel so sorry! for him....) how did he let this little ducky looking "smelly skunk"! get away with so many lies! is a mystery only God, Allah, The Creator, (What ever name you may refer to him/her as...will be able to correct one day!)(I agree wholeheartedly with Sheila B. JR, Cookie and Amy.)Why didn't Charlie Rose asks him:Where is OBL? Why did (14) Saudi Arabian and (5) Egyptians get away with killing nearly 2000+ "innocent" Americans on 9/11? (Pakistan funded 9/11( Somebody please kick Mursharraf evil_utt to the curb!)(lil bush Puppet boy!) and Afghanstan trained the alleged terrorist!)WAKE UP! AMERICA Why are we really in Iraq? Hint:(Oil)Why did Americans let the real culprits attack America and go "unpunished"? (I really don't understand?)Why are we Pestering Iran? Syria? Palestine? etc...(red herrings!)Next time rove appear on your show Rose please asks him these questions: Is condi rice still ugly? Is william kristol and ann coulter still evil? Is o'reilly still a freak? and is rush still fat? Is cheney a crook? and when will "lil bush" learn to read? (I never capitalize people names whom I don't respect!) Charlie what is your problem? like Juliette Ramirez I watched you host that "stupid" faux debate on c-span! What a sham!(You keep away from Brian Lamb!)and to think I use to respect you!(and I even thought you were cuter than Clooney!)(NOT ANY MORE!)
Charlie, your show is an important part of my daily life. Thank you for bringing good conversation to TV. I think you let Rove get by with one, however. Rove's arguments about Congress's authorization war in Iraq should be challenged. I believe that the Democrats wanted the vote before the 2002 elections, but Rove's assertion that the resolution forced the administration into war before they were ready is not credible. I hope you have an opportunity to