A conversation with Meghan O'Sullivan, former deputy national security adviser on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Comment by joe t on Tuesday, May 13 at 01:06 PM
So, Lucifer has a daughter. The red hair is a nice touch. You'd have to expect that they can really talk. I see Charlie has moved on from pandering to corporate interests to pandering to the devil himself.
Let me just say, if we spent half as much trying to beat our moon shot as we spend trying to beat our Vietnams we might actually be in a better place.
Comment by Allan Ramesh on Monday, May 12 at 08:43 PM
Thanks for pointing out that Energy Security and climate change may be the biggest challenges for the future President. Too bad our Presidential candidates McCain and Clinton offer us tax breaks on gasoline for the summer driving month instead of straight talk in response. Jack up demand and leave us in a bigger hole.... Politics as usual on the hill.
Morally bankrupt policies defended by someone who is a "foreign policy wonk" who finally got her hands dirty and realizes the real destructive implications of our actions.
One million Iraqi civilians dead, four million refugees, and terrible loss of our credibility. Who will stand up and accept responsibility?
She got a job teaching at Harvard and we canâ??t figure out why jobs are going offshore. The red necks graduating from her class better know Mandarin.
Tabs -- you canâ??t get laid - jack off as much you as you can and shoot ducks. Your toes will be shat on by the Chinese and Indians...
Comment by John Bladen on Sunday, May 11 at 04:27 PM
Ms. O'Sullivan's appearance on the show was a surprise to me. Most hard line republicans have been avoiding anything but carefully worded sound bytes since the "mission accomplished" speech...
I don't agree with her position, but I commend Ms. Sullivan for her willingness to appear on Charlie's show, and answer the tough questions she had to know were coming. She clearly has hope for the war yet, though it is tempered these days. I wish I could share that optimism. She makes some good arguments in favour of maintaining the action, but these are predicated on a quasi-positive outcome that is never explained. The "if we leave it will be worse" warning suggests there is an outcome possible that isn't horrific... and frankly I can't see one. If there is a path to success, I'd like to hear a detailed version of it from anyone in the loop... unfortunately, details seem never to be on the agenda, just more buzzwords.
What a great 8 years this has been! The liberals don't understand that no one has information until they try things and see how they work out. The Middle East analysis of G.H.W Bush's administration was too old to be worth anything.
The liberals do not appreciate the greater safety and security we all have because of people like Meghan O'Sullivan. We need to work hard to get McCain in the Whitehouse so that Meghan and the other hard-working Republicans that have given us 8 years of peace and prosperity can come back to secure our future.
Stay the course!
What a beautyful attractive young woman,and, articulate,gentle and sexy! Having said that,
dear Meghan, how many years you lived in Middle East, Africa or simply abroad to be eligible for such a sensitive post you got?!
How much did you know about the world culture, religion, etc. at this young age?! ANY REAL EXPERIENCE?! NO WONDER US IS IN SO MUCH TROUBLE SHAPING ITS FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS THE WORLD!!
Comment by Tom McGill on Thursday, May 8 at 06:27 PM
She gave a candid look at decision making under fire. It is much easuer to be right after he decision than before or during. This is a problem we all face when we try to make decisions. Let the critics appy the same rigor to their decisions and see how they make out.
Comment by James Garrison on Wednesday, May 7 at 10:54 AM
The irony of it all! Finally, we find a (former) Bush administration official who is willing to admit mistakes, embraces the need to learn lessons from them, and even - gasp - talks about the need for humility in the use of American power! And, the reaction? The left can't stand it!
Comment by Joe O'Connor on Wednesday, May 7 at 01:05 AM
Viewing Meghan Oâ??Sullivanâ??s appearance on the Charlie Rose show left me very favorably impressed with her knowledge, analysis, and ability to express these regarding the situations in Iraq, the good, the bad and the ugly. Iâ??m not without some knowledge of these subjects and the Middle East. Sheâ??s clearly used her time well to gather a global grasp of the subjects. Iâ??m waiting for the book.
In reading the posts here, Iâ??m surprised by her detractors, which number more than Iâ??d expect. Perhaps itâ??s liberal bias of the show's audience. Surely though, she can rest comfortably knowing that nearly all of these seem to be getting their knowledge by reading bumper stickers.
Comment by Peter Aiken on Tuesday, May 6 at 06:12 PM
It was easy to see your frustration, Charlie Rose, in your interview of Meghan O'Sullivan of Harvard. The same frustration I had watching her: how can anyone so smart be so incredibly dumb? Had she ever heard of, or read, the book THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST? A book about the brilliant Ivy League men who put us into Vietnam, where we wallowed in abject stupidity for ten years, killing untold numbers of Vietnamese and over 40,000 of our own troops, some among them my good friends.
The writer Tim O'Brien, who fought in Vietnam and wrote of his experiences there, was asked about the similarity of Iraq War to Vietnamese War. He said - and I must paraphrase - that it was the same thing. We don't speak the language, we don't know the culture, we don't have the same religion, we know absolutely nothing of their history. And our military was geared up for a tank war in Europe. Meghan knew the Green Zone in Iraq and how to stay out of the sun. Maybe similar to the US Embassy in Saigon - before the Tet Offensive and before the fiasco of retreat. Everything Meghan said I heard before - a long time ago in 1969.
We should all strive to live by the better angels of our nature. However the reality of this world is that our circumstances don't always allow us to do so. Sometimes toes get stepped on in the process of achieving our goals and ambitions. It is disingenuous for one to eat the fruit of the tree that was grown in the soil of the attainment of those goals and ambitions and cry foul at the same time. That is where the American Left is at today, crying foul while eating the fruit.
The American left would be far better served accepting the fact that America acts in her own self interest, which the left derives benefit from and sometimes in those actions toes are stepped on. Those actions where toes are stepped on are part of the process that provides 3 meals a day for Americans both right and left. If the Left were truly so altruistic they would turn in their dinner plate and share their food with those who are less fortunate than America. That isn't happening, they enjoy eating their dinner and pontificating about how foul the gathering of it is.
To Charlie Rose:
I just listened to the interview a 2nd time just to make sure I didn't miss anything the first time around. I heard correctly the first time. Dr. O'Sullivan was clear and lucid and right on target with her explanations of how we got there, what we did wrong, how the errors were made and where we need to go from here. Her courage to admit the errors should be applauded. We must remember that Dr. O'Sullivan didn't create the policies - that was done above her, and she didn't stoop to blaming others - even though that is where the blame resides. We know she is not in the tank for the Administration from her extensive biography and the fact that she wakes up to NPR! My guess is she was one of the dissenting voice that was not heeded.
Charlie Rose - have you read the other comments in this section from the left? It's really embarrassing to their cause. It's actually scary. I think every rock at MoveOn.org, the DailyKos and the Huffington Post was overturned and the bugs ran out and started typing madly on their computers. I think your audience is a little out there - somewhere between Pluto and the next galaxy.
As I said earlier, the truth hurts and the left was gored by Dr. O'Sullivan and they are screaming like a stuck pig. Free speech is OK as longs as it's from the left.
Charlie - aren't you ashamed by the left's behavior? I'm surprised that you don't turn Republican just so you can disassociate yourself from them! They all sound like Jeremiah Wright.
Good interview Charlie. Meghan shows how difficult the job at hand in Iraq is. Hope she and her replacements succeed to make a viable democratic Iraq stand on its feet. Iraqis deserve nothing less after decades of Saddam tyranny and death and destruction of the current war...
Comment by Pat Croft on Tuesday, May 6 at 01:05 PM
Charlie, After this interview, I can fully appreciate why we are having the trouble we are having in Iraq. Whomever quiped we learn by our mistakes got it wrong where life and death was at stake. Meghan was miss informed then as she is now. These people really did think they would have become hero's to their actions and achieve certain fame. This was nothing more than more political buzz with how good their intentions were without any association with the reality of the situation and responsibility. I would guess that this person has a hard time sleeping at nights.
speechless... she is absolutely shameful. the US is at present a disaster, greatly due to the Iraq war. for her, after these 5+ years of failure in Iraq, to not take even a minute aspect of responsibility is absolutely shameful. why this administration, including her, is not being charged with war crimes is beyond comprehension.
shame on you Meghan O'Sullivan.
It is so sad to see the apologists try to come up with new ways to wiggle out of responsibility. This was the special adviser on Iraq and Afghanistan in 2005 and 2006, two of the most "special" years of those wars. The worst part about it, is that these "experts" whose real expertise is delivering failure leave the administration and are rewarded by organizations such as Harvard and CNN (see T. Snow and F. Townsend).
She gives you the non-answer about not knowing what you get and the unknown price. Well how about the follow up question to her...Let's say, Iraq becomes a peaceful democracy...how much is that worth to you...1000000 lives and $1 trillion? If not, what do you think is a fair price to pay for that outcome?
Charlie, please stop giving these people so many chances to put excuses ("...mistakes were made but you need to understand the context..."). They just need to admit that they were not prepared at all for the job and now they have the blood of hundreds of thousands (Soldiers + Iraqis) , a $500+billion price tag and a weaker USA on their hands.
So, Charlie, I have seen most of your interviews with "significant" people concerning Iraq. I was hoping that at some point you would ask or discuss the following topics: 1) Is the invasion of Iraq in your opinion a violation of international law? 2) How would you compare/contrast it to the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union? 3) There are today at least 2.2 million external refugees, 2 million internal refugees, and 1 million "excess" deaths caused by the war. If the US withdrew tomorrow how could the next 5 years possibly be worse than the last 5 years? 25% of the population is now either dead or displaced. 4) How would you compare the "interference" of Iran in Iraq to the "interference" of Saudi Arabia in Iraq?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties#The_second_study_.282006.29
I was also hoping you would consider inviting Dilip Hiro on your show:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilip_Hiro
Wasn't there an O'Sullivan who advised Bonnie Prince Charlie to attack over marshy, uneven ground at the Battle of Culloden? This was done against the advice of all Prince Charles' field commanders, but unfortunately he listened to O'Sullivan who had no military experience and was basically just a political secretary. This caused the defeat of the Highlanders and banished the Stuarts from England and Scotland forever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culloden
History does have a habit of repeating itself. The original O'Sullivan, Prince Charles' Secretary was also supposed to be a genius.
Here's the link again about Sandy Berger. It got cut off in my previous Comment. I have put it in two pieces, so please put it together to read it:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/
archive/200805/NAT20080505c.html
Jerry - you are right on target.
The fact that so many vitriolic comments were written about Dr. O'Sullivan is proof that she spoke the truth and the truth really hurts the left and the "blame America first" crowd.
Also, we should not forget what the Clintons did to the Serbians. He was impeached for the wrong reason - he should have been impeached for a war which was not approved by Congress (unlike Iraq). Wesley Clark should be tried for war crimes.
How come it's OK to bring troops from home from Iraq, but not the Balkans?
Read this article and see why Kosovo was about oil and how the Clintons lied (again) about why we went to war.
http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19991209pipenmax.php
Also, let's not forget that Sandy Berger stole documents from the National Archives.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200805/NAT20080505c.html
It's amazing how short the memory is on the left!
HEADLINE: "Prototypical 'A' student sells soul to help 1 million Iraqis lose their lives so that she can get a nice job." This bimbo got on my bad side immediately when she made that "you dont know what deal your getting until you know what you bought" comment. If more people like her have been in charge of our government, it comes as no surprise that Iraq is currently in the 7th ring of hell (she would argue its only the 3rd).
If I learned anything from this interview, it's that if you look pretty, can talk a lot of BS, and leave your moral conscience at home, you will get far in life. Meanwhile, others will suffer.
Comment by Jerry Baker on Monday, May 5 at 09:35 PM
I've read every book there is on the Iraq, so I am happy to add some knowledge about who Meghan O'Sullivan is to this string of comment. First, if people can open their minds enough, they may be interested to know she is an independent, not a republican! Bob Woodward - and others - have catalogued how Rumsfeld and Cheney fired her from the group that volunteered to go to Iraq in 2003 because she did not have "the correct political views." It was only Colin Powell's intervention that restored her to the effort. Almost every book talks about O'Sullivan being the exception to the raft of ideological people. According to critical writers like George Packer - she was a breath of fresh air, committed to doing the right thing, and pushed back against decisions like deba'athification and was responsible for seeing that army members were paid even after the army was disbanded. So, as someone below said, one should look a little closer at what she did and hold the people at the top responsible for decisions.
It takes little imagination to understand how Meghan O'Sullivan fit in with the Bush cabal and perpetuated the insanity - her appointment to Harvard's Kennedy School of Government is the equivalent of hiring Alberto Gonzalez to teach constitutional law and Jeffrey Skilling to teach business ethics... well done crimson!!
Let us move the discussion past the "Green Zone Girl." The question is does the United States still have the intestinal fortitude to be a Super Power? When the British occupied Iraq back in the 1920s and their troops were fired upon by the Iraqis, they would go into the village and take out 10 men and shoot them. That sent a message to the Iraqis not to mess with them. To be a Super Power means dirty deeds have to be done dirt cheap or you cease to be a Super Power. Being a Super Power is not a popularity contest. To keep enjoying the fruits and perks of a Super Power means getting your hands dirty sometimes. That is the cold hard reality of this world. Call it evolution and survival of the fittest if you will. Now how to go about being a Super Power. The model that Augustus Caesar laid down is about the best. Augustus never lived in a big palace and kept saying to the Romans that in another 5 years or so when things got better he would return Rome to being a Republic again. He fully realized that the only way he would ever cease to be a Caesar was feet first, and on occasion people went missing. During his reign of 40 or so years Rome enjoyed a Golden Age of prosperity. Unfortunately the Bush Administration and the NEO Boobs that influence its direction have failed to take that warning to heart, and have told the world it "our way or the highway." Mother always told me, "To give em a reach around to make em feel good about themselves when your screwing em." That is in essence what the Bush Administration has failed to do and you can see the results in how the world views us. Is this damage permanent, probably not unless the next administration follows the same practices, then the pattern has become set. Contrary to the beliefs of the Left, McCain is no GW Bush and will not represent 4 more years of the same thing. McCain may keep the principles of the Bush Admin BUT NOT THE PRACTICES. McCain's problem is that he doesn't convey that very well and the left keeps picking away. Hillary is smart enough and shrewd enough to know the realities of the game as she has had enough practice at it. However in practice Hillary is a morally bankrupt person, and will do or say anything to manipulate things to her own ends. The ends justifies the means is her motto, and that clarity of purpose is what made the Clinton's so successful. In other words they just out manipulated everybody else. Barrack Obama is a shape cookie and a quick study to be sure. One can see that on a weekly basis in his campaign. Besides the rhetoric of his campaign for "change" what is the reality of that message. If he should become President of the USA the day he steps into office he is going to face a huge amount of inertia in the government bureaucracy, political establishment and be facing all those special entrenched interests. Either he will modify his position to go along, to get along, or he will be marginalized as Jimmy Carter was back in the 1970's. The real danger is that Obama will use the bully pulpit to institute "change" that will eliminate dissent from the system by limiting it, which will then entrench the party that is in power permanently. Meaning the Democratic Party, which on face of it, the left will love. at least until the day that they don't like something that the government is doing to them. However as the campaign has progressed Barrack Obama has made choices which seem to indicate that he is going along to get along with the status quo. After all you have to prove yourself to be a reliable political operative to become president of the USA. That is how you get enough support to make it into the office.
Comment by David Dzidzikashvili on Monday, May 5 at 04:00 PM
Generally I think its good for Americans to try to avoid labels (Liberal vs Conservative) and try to concentrate more on compromise and communication with general public.
O'Sullivan has her agenda just like anyone else who wears blue or red label have their own political views and agendas.
Comment by mead compostion on Monday, May 5 at 03:38 PM
One more academic with the right opinions put into a key role with no experience or skillset for the actual job. But I'll bet her powerpoint presentations with requisite hand gestures is quite nifty.
The lefties forget that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons ready to attack us from off our own shores! Suddenly they all forget the threat he posed to us with his WMD!
I do not understand why Bush replaced Rumsfeld. He had him there for so long and should have let him finish the job!
Meghan O'Sullivan can stand proudly with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith and the President for the success we are bringing to Iraq.
Great interview of the gorgeous & intelligent woman who should be considered for the VP spot on the McCain ticket. We did the right thing taking down Saddam the thug and removing the clear & present WMD threat - certainly Saddam had WMD programs + had according to several credible reports had several hundred WMD (and this isn't mentioning the sarin roadside bomb cooked off in Baghdad in 2004).
Clearly, if America cuts & runs from Iraq, we will lose almost if not all credibility on Afghanistan and other major efforts for world peace. Plus, I wish the lefties would be more fair to Dr. Sullivan.
I also notice the lower rating of this video because she's a righty and the high rating of videos for lefties like Jimmy "I met with anti-Semetic, genocidal Hamas" Carter and the like. Sadly, a part of this country Annetta H. is always wearing ideological blinders and part of them just may hate this country, hate our troops and think we're the root of all evil... I find that appalling.
Comment by George DeMott on Monday, May 5 at 02:28 PM
I do blame the America people for allowing our leaders to move on Iraq at the time. We the people are ultimately responsibly for the actions of our nation.
I am amazed by the people that now state what was known by the informed Americans before we attacked. I also believe that many of our leaders, that knew the truth, were cowards and did not stand strong at the time.
Dr. O'Sullivan; "lessons learned"
My belief: So much lost for our human ignorance. The information and management knowledge was already available to predict the current results. I do not feel "lessons learned" justifies or excuses what we did and it doesn't make me feel all warm inside.
Mr. Rose; "neighbors involved?" My belief: The neighbors knew better!
I did enjoy the interview, probably because it strengthens my beliefs.
I was very upset the day we attacked. My young high school daughter cried and stopped following world events. She is currently a science graduate student at an Ivy League school.
Best to all!
Comment by Bill Braun on Monday, May 5 at 02:19 PM
There is no doubt that Meghan O'Sullivan is a bright, articulate, scholarly and reflective woman. My concern, however, is the organizing principle or lens she looks through when interpreting the data of her experience. Several times she invited us to visualized what the Middle East would look like had we not gone to war with Iraq. She then, confidently, stated the realities we would now face if Hussein were still in power. Given the immeasurable number of variables in the unfolding of history, how can she speak with such confidence, especially, if other means were used. Also, why did every major religious group throughout the world oppose our going to war with Iraq? What did they "see" that this administration did not "see"? The administration "sold" the war to us on the premise that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States not that he was just a "bad guy". No one would disagree that the Middle East will never be the same because of this war and our presence. Could that not be said about any disaster?
Bill Braun
Comment by Douglas Scott Treado on Monday, May 5 at 02:14 PM
Having just viewed on PBS (it's May 5, 2008) Charlie Rose's "interview" with Meghan O'Sullivan--and having read at least half of the previous comments--I can say that at least Charlie was a little more questioning (when that was possible)--
Ms. O'Sullivan seems to be a "gentler" Ann Coulter--who never seems to want to stop her carefully practiced and controlled talking, which is very much in the "apologist" mode.
Anyone involved in the Bremer period in Iraq must be considered "mad"--given their policies and the implementation of ridiculous decisions at that time. Both Bremer and O'Sullivan were "babes in the woods" on this one--just hired wonks who deserve to be roundly criticized...And we all continue to pay for it, including the more than 10,000 American dead, triple that number in American seriously maimed and wounded, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed as well at the "insurgents"...
Interesting too, that Harvard and Georgetown universities have become "academic reward centers for failed diplomatic/security types" like Tenet, O"Sullivan and so many others.
All of this is idiocy. I would suggest that many of these persons be sent to Gitmo--maybe after some lengthy detention they may come to recognize their stupidity, carelessness and assorted war crimes. (Add Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld, Woo, Gonzales and many others of the Bush oligarchy to this group. They should all be ashamed of themselves.)
However, arrogance, power and greed seem so manifest since 2000 in the Bush Administration, that I don't think it matters much to them....I really wonder about Charlie, too. Whenever is the "Press" going to ask some tough questions, and expect answers?
Comment by Annetta Harwin on Monday, May 5 at 01:00 PM
I am really stunned by this whole chain of comments. I am no supporter of the war in Iraq, but I do recognize a talented person when I see one and Ms. -- I should say Dr. -- O'Sullivan certainly is one. As a person from the left, I think we should all take a look at ourselves and ask if we are not reacting so strongly to her because she came across capable and articulate - and certainly was more nuanced than any other defender of the policy I have seen. The question that stands out most in my mind is why didn't the Bush administration use her more to explain Iraq to Americans? They would have been smart to do so. I'd also question where everyone makes the assumption that she has no basis for expertise. Has anyone looked at her bio? I did, and found out she has a doctorate from Oxford and has published multiple books and articles on the Middle East while at the Brookings Institution (a left leaning think tank!). Add that to 2 years in Iraq and I am willing to admit that she has more expertise than this entire chain of commenters put together. Let's not try to destroy good people just because we don't agree with them. Shame on us.
I'm reminded of the excellent book about Vietnam by David Halberstam, "The Best and The Brightest", about how Kennedy and LBJ surrounded themselves by the smartest most capabale people they could find. Unfortunately, they had no experience with SE Asia and their arrogance blinded themselves to the realities of the situations they were in. Meghan seesm to the heir apparent to Bundy, McNamara and the rest. Very bright, very arrogant and very wrong.....
Comment by BurningFeet on Monday, May 5 at 09:18 AM
Remarkable, isn't it, that such deference can be shown to someone who has been shown concretely wrong time after time, after time? I mean, really, a founding member of the Coalition Provisional Authority?
"As supervisor of lookouts, I feel we have learned lessons learned and in future the HMS Titanic will encounter no more extreme cold water events."
And she's training future lookouts at Harvard? Oh boy.
The hate that spews forth from the left in this comment page is quite amusing and completely vindicates the conservative view that liberals are truly more intolerant of other's views and only encourage free speech when it is from the left.
Yes, Iraq had many errors in judgment, but so did WWII. Did the myopic people who wrote these comments ignore Ken Burns documentary, 'The War'. My guess is they did because they were afraid to learn the truth.
Many great things have happened in Iraq as well, but we never hear about them. Even John Burns has told us that much.
That being said, Ms. O'Sullivan admitted where the administration went wrong and that takes far more courage than the Bush-haters sniping from behind their elite and fecal duck-blinds.
And, why don't the bile spewers put the blame where it belongs - there were decision makers higher up the food chain than Ms. O'Sullivan? The reason you attack her is you just lash out in all directions without thought or reason.
Regarding the criticisms of Charlie Rose's interviewing - I have always thought Charlie Rose was left of center veering to the left. Maybe he is finally wising up and becoming educated and seeing the light because he is reading the pabulum in these comments!
I have been stewing over this interview for two days.I don't know which is worse: that Ms. O'Sullivan somehow achieved this mythical "experise, and was subsequently rewarded with an important academic post after getting so many things so wrong; OR how she could continue to go unchallenged in a number of continuing misses and bad guesses.
"Experts on Iraq" should all be held to their past analysis and past mistakes. Would you hire an electrician to wire your bathroom if several people had died following his other jobs? The analogy holds.
Her argument to continue assumes soldiers as fodder. Are they Charlie? Rose is of the VietNam generation and therefore should know rationalizing and justifaction when he sees it. And stupidity.
O'Sullivan made stupid mistakes. She has been awarded a Harvard position, and a softball interview. When will this madness end?
There is a good reason why Charlie's wife divorced him and they are still good friends. She left because he just would not shut up and listen. Now when she wants to tell him how she feels she phones him and when he will not shut up, she just hangs up. Easier than locking herself in the bathroom and crying.
Comment by John Thompson on Saturday, May 3 at 07:31 PM
I'm not a regular viewer of Charlie Rose's program but found his O'Sullivan interview to be shocking and enlightening. I'm not particularly concerned with Rose's politics nor preoccupied with whether he challenged her where and when he "should" have. I am convinced that this woman should be speaking all around the country saying just what she said last night. If that doesn't wake people up, we're in worse trouble than needing to switch to Bill Moyers.
It does look this Comment Board of Mr Rose's has become a pick apart the guest and eviscerate them forum. We the viewer have to realize that no guest is without flaw in their logic or position. It is the nature of being human. To some extent criticism of Mr Rose's questioning is a reflection of the viewers own ideological frustration with a guest which is then projected onto Mr Rose as being biased. For Mr Roses part, he is there to elicit information from his guests. As an interviewer it is better to be cordial and offer hospitality to obtain the information than to create a hostile atmosphere where no guest in their right mind would appear. It is not Mr Rose's fault that some guests are not forth coming, self serving, ignorant, arrogant, liars and or thieves. They all have some agenda or ego need to fulfill with their appearance. Mr Roses forum is just about the best of its kind with the least amount of entertainment value interjected into it. As far as being a commentator on this Board I do bear my own culpability. I do pass value judgements, however I do try and stay statement or position specific. I basically deconstruct a guests position or statements into there basic elements trying to fit it into a rational that tells me who they are, what they are about and what they are trying to convey. Usually even the most guarded of guests will utter a sentence or two that gives away the whole farm. One just has to listen and be paying attention to those subtle little shifts.
Hey Jeremy.
"Things have gotten so bad with Charlie Rose's interviewing style that I can't watch him anymore."
I agree. But I just had to TIVO last night's show. How often does one see a former fashion model who later became a Iraq-Afghanistan "expert" try to contextualize and explain away the biggest strategic and operational blunder in American history?
"We tune in to listen to diverse points of view and this is increasingly difficult if [Charlie's\ fragile ego constantly gets in the way. [Charlie has\ always had a propensity to talk over, to interrupt and now it seems bully [his\ guests. Will you please shut up and listen more."
You got that right.
"And by the way, if you took your job seriously you would apologize to Arianna Huffington for showing her such lack of respect."
Corrrectimundo, Jeremy.
â?¢
Hey, Kunkel:
"Act I of the Meghan O'Sullivan Rehabilitation Campaign on the Charlie Rose Show."
Nice.
"Charlie Rose has become the punch line. What's the joke? It's the fact that anyone watches this program."
Very nice.
â?¢
And, finally, Mr. Carr:
"I'll be targeting my financial support toward Bill Moyers and definitely not Charlie Rose."
Rose doesn't need you or your money. Besides, it's disrespectful to mention Moyers and Rose in the same breath. [Disrespectful to Moyers, that is.\
Thanks to all.
BK
Charlie, I have watched your shows almost religiously but your interview with Madam O'Sullivan was a real stinker. She is a young fast talker who has mastered the thesaurus but shows no wisdom on any level.She gave no information of value and god help us if she is ever asked to make a decision of consequence regarding Iraq. Young,arrogant and without solutions. Worst interview I've ever seen on your show, especially letting her get away with all of her cutsey arrogance and lack of insight. Going forward Ms. O'Sullivan I would ask Harvard to enroll you in AirHeads 101 and keep you there until you reach voting age.
To equate the lack of patriotism because one would have liked insightful questions makes no sense. You cannot claim to be an "expert" and then make the mistakes that were made because you just did not understand the culture. It's understanding the complexities of the culture before you go in that should have been the main focus of this invasion and could have led to a more democratic Iraq 5 years ago. Charlie made this a one-sided interview. And, I am sure the Americans know deep in their hearts that we will not be out in 16 months because we have to protect the region. In fact, the way Charlie interviewed some of Huffington's flawed beliefs would have worked well here. The media didn't create Rev. Wright, Obama did by injecting him into his campaign as his "mentor", "spiritual advisor", "father figure" etc., etc. He knew the ideas this man stood for before he finally had to denounce him. But once again the media is blamed for covering Rev. Wright's appearances to protect Obama rather than investigate why Obama did not question Wright's beliefs before the campaign. Hillary also has her "pile", but the media is not as forgiving. However, if Obama hadn't sought the nomination, Charlie and others would be singing Hillary's praises and forgiving her sins. Bottom Line: No one in the media (Fox, PBS, Times, Post) shows any objectivity.
I would like to see both Meghan O'Sullivan and Gary Berntsen on the same show at the same time to discuss Afghanistan. I believe it would be interesting and highly enlightening to see them both discuss their opinions on the topic to each other.
Comment by Jeremy Warshaw on Saturday, May 3 at 01:52 PM
Things have gotten so bad with Charlie Rose's interviewing style that I can't watch him anymore.
I think Maury listens more and interrupts less that Mr Rose.
It's not a conversation, it's not an afternoon soap, it's not even a morning talk show, it is, or should be, an intelligent and respectful questioning of intelligent and informed people. We tune in to listen to diverse points of view and this is increasingly difficult if your fragile ego constantly gets in the way. You have always had a propensity to talk over, to interrupt and now it seems bully your guests.
Will you please shut up and listen more. As they say, the reason you have 2 ears and only 1 mouth is that you can listen twice as much as you talk. Wouldn't that be nice?
And by the way, if you took your job seriously you would apologize to Arianna Huffington for showing her such lack of respect.
The problem is that most Americans DO think.
They think to question why we 'support' democracy in Iraq this way while not doing so in Saudi Arabia or Egypt.
Simply buying into a line is not being patriotic.
Believing that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11 because they say so is not being patriotic.
Megah Sullivan may be giving her view of the last 4 years in Iraq, but by glossing over or obscuring the decisions that led us there, she is doing the country no service and merely helping enable it's citizens to be mislead again in the future.
Comment by Sue Kelemen on Saturday, May 3 at 01:12 PM
Reading through the comments was painful. Are these really thinking Americans or just Bush haters!
Megan O'Sullivan spent five years in Iraq, so I want to listen to her. She is not giving a capsul view (like some politicians) of what mistakes have been made and the best way to improve life in Iraq which will benefit America. Megan gave an inside view of how the middle eastern people view America and how they have protected their fragil way of life for centuries governed by dictators. She gave a forward looking opinion to stay and back up the Iraq people in their struggle to free themselves and develop a democracy.
Who are these Americans that don't know our history and the hardships our forefathers endured to be free.
How can Americans be so short sighted?
Megan did try to justify the mistakes, but she did give a resonable argument for staying in Iraq and finishing what we started.
Why is it he was more respectful to this woman than to any guest who supports Hillary?
Did she say her background was that of an academic policy strategist prior to the Bush White House? Charlie never dealt with what in her background made her such "an expert" of the region except for the fact she agreed with the Bush scenario. And, she actually thought the Iraqis would just go to work the next day as usual? Doesn't sound like she really understood that country. She even admitted not knowing understanding the force of Sadam's hold over the entire infrastructure. He not only ran the country, he ran everything. So how does one go to work when the next day when the glue that held that economy together was no longer in the picture? Some expert! Charlie was in awe of the fact she lectures at Harvard, and was not going to burn any ties with that university.
So when one finally gets to ask the hard questions of someone who was part of the Iraq war equation, we get a guy who looks like he really wants to ask her out on a date instead.
Comment by John Bain on Saturday, May 3 at 12:46 PM
Meghan O'Sullivan states that there are important lessons to be learned, yet repeats the hackneyed phrase that we must â??move forwardâ??, as if further discussion of the multitude of mistakes is somehow detrimental.
Note to Meghan: The diagnostic process is to first thoroughly discuss the errors in past decision-making, lest â??moving forwardâ?? without such thorough review, you repeat the same or make similar mistakes.
The prior point made of hypothesizing an Iran-Iraq arms race while refusing to answer uncomfortable hypothetical questions regarding past mistaken decisions was dead-on and highlights her hypocrisy.
She authoritatively insists that standing up a government in Iraq cannot be done in a mere 16 months. What, then, were the plans and the timetable that she and others like her had expertly arrived at prior to the war that would have had Iraq a self-governing country after Saddamâ??s removal? How much time was that task allotted in her own pre-war, detailed planning â?? 18 months? 24 months? 1000 months? Did she think they would â??wing itâ??? Did she have the notion of any plan at all? Or was she so smug in the complacency of a calcified group-think reasoning that she was willing to gamble (to date) the lives of over 4,000 of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties on a faith-based outcome?
Her current Harvard credentials confer no esteem to her or that institution while others pay for her pre-war INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS at tremendous price in limbs and life. And while she ponders how many different ways the passively voiced â??mistakes were madeâ?? can be phrased for her eventual book, the country continues to pay for â??the mistakes madeâ?? - and made needlessly.
Comment by Paul Kunkel on Saturday, May 3 at 10:13 AM
The Meghan O'Sullivan interview was laughable. It only takes a moment to look at the record and discover the many blunders that were created or enabled by Ms. Bush-bot.
Billions of wasted taxpayer dollars, tens of thousands of US dead (maimed, dismembered, permanently scarred and ruined) and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead (maimed, dismembered, permanently scarred, ruined) later, what do we see? Act I of the Meghan O'Sullivan Rehabilitation Campaign on the Charlie Rose Show.
Someone else on this comments page mentioned that Ms. Bush-bot is "book smart" but "world dumb". Oh really? I can cite many examples in which Ms. Bush-bot knows much less than she should. For example, in one of the first policy/strategy meetings after the invasion of Afghanistan, a place that O'Sullivan knew very little about when she was put "in charge," one of the State Department experts sitting at the Big Table mentioned the problem of Al Qaeda fleeing to Pakistan and referenced the Durand Line ... Meghan O'Sullivan drew a blank, then objected. It turns out she had never heard of the Durand Line (that's the artificial political border between Afghanistan and Pakistan that was drawn by British Colonial forces right through the age-old region known as Pashtunistan. Five years ago, Ms. Bush-bot-in-Charge didn't even know the basic facts about Afghanistan. But last night, she says, "I've flown over those rugged mountains," by way of explaining that US forces couldn't have captured or killed Osama Bin Laden anyway. Charlie knew that statement was false. He has already interviewed Gary Berntsen the author of "Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander". Charlie knows that the team Gary Berntsen lead into eastern Afghanistan during the latter part of 2001 found Bin Laden, had a firm visual sighting on the man in the mountains south of Jalalabad. Berntsen's team "painted" the target area with their handheld laser devices and called in the air strikes ... which did not arrive ... because ... back in Washington, Rumsfeld was engaged in a turf war with the CIA over who would take the lead in the Afghanistan war. Rumsfeld ordered that the military would not play second fiddle to the CIA in Afghanistan. So US airpower was ordered not respond to Gary Berntsen's request for an airstrike on Osama Bin Laden. No one has contradicted Gary Berntsen's account ... until last night, when we hear Ms. Bush-bot dismiss the idea of killing or capturing Bin Laden, and we see Charlie nodding in agreement.
Finally, why didn't Charlie ask about Bush-bot's most recent bone-headed episode? Agreeing to give a public speech at an Indiana University in January of this year, then demanding that the contents of the speech be "off the record" â?? not for quotation by anyone. The request was ridiculous. Even the Harvard School of Whatever (Ms. Bush-bot's current hiding place) had to admit that no one can, or should, ask for a public speech at a public university paid for with public (or tax-exempt) funds to be "off the record." So the Indiana University refused Ms. Bush-bot's request. And she called in sick at the last minute complaining of a tummy ache (or perhaps it was cold feet). So the event was cancelled. You can't make this stuff up, folks. Yet does Charlie even ask about it?
Q: After last night's hilarious performance, the previous night's offensive treatment of Ariana Huffington, and Charlie's annoying tendency to talk over, interrupt and/or fillibuster (people he disagees with) or fawn over (people who fit his own cultural, political or enconomic mold), night after night after night, why does anyone take Charlie Rose seriously? IMO, Charlie Rose has become the punch line. What's the joke? It's the fact that anyone watches this program.
Comment by Lance M. Grolla on Saturday, May 3 at 07:18 AM
Meghan Sullivan: (1)SMART AND SUPERFICIAL. SHE HAS MADE A CAREER OF HIDING BEHIND HER INTELLIGENCE. She uses her quick brain as a fence, a wall of shallow words to hide the fact she has no useful knowledge about Iraq; and doesn't seem to care; or worse, isn't even aware she's book-smart, but wise-dumb. (2) Yes, she met many people in Irag, but they spoke two languages, one to pander her, and a second behind her back (a tactic your guest last night, Fareed Z., warned about) (3)Fareed should have been at the table with Meghan, he would have shattered her thin brittle shell. (4)I suspect you didn't challenge her because she was an obvious mistake. Why waste your breath on the superficial. You simply gave up and let her prattle on until her time thankfully ended.
Comment by Iskandar Rabeendran on Saturday, May 3 at 06:18 AM
I'm glad everybody else saw through her.
Since Charlie got temporarily incapacitated by the spell of her magnetic charisma, here's the interesting question for Mrs O'Sullivan, : "Why should we listen to your opinion when your decisions have been wrong year (2003) after year (2004) after year (2005) after year (2006) after year (2007) ?"
My conclusion is that it is indeed possible for someone to be at the same time very smart and completely obtuse.
This was a fascinating interview.
My God Charlie. Contrast this with the job you did on Arianna Huffington the other night and your ideological bias becomes all too evident. Where you confronted Arianna at every turn, interrupting and berating her constantly, refusing to listen to virtually anything she said and changing the subject whenever she was about to make a point, you let this apologist for President Bush have free and unfettered rein, just as you recently did with Karl Rove, Karen Hughes and others.
Saddam was "undermining" the sanctions? What would Hans Blix say to that? Yet you let it go unchallenged. Ditto with her assertion that he would have had WMDs by now. How could anyone know that, and on what basis? Then she said that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, and the war pre-empted their plans. Excuse me? What has our presence done except to increase the Irani sense of nuclear urgency?
Yet Charlie had nothing to say. No challenges. No follow-up questions.
At that point I shut the program off. When I want that kind of "fair and balanced" programming I can always switch to the Fox network.
I used to advocate watching your show because of your neutrality, skill in asking the right questions, ability to listen intently to the answers, and transparency. What's happened? Did you dupe us, and are your partisan stripes finally showing?
Good luck Charlie. You're losing longtime patrons in droves. I'm only the latest.
Charlie-
Proving my last comment to a tee. Enabling with softballs.
Who in the world would pay forty plus grand a year to have their kids taught by somebody who has been repeatedly wrong and yet still clings to her failed ideology? I always thought a track record of success was the keystone of a meritocracy. I wonder how Harvard justifies this hiring decision?
I think her repetition of the post-invasion "we didn't anticipate" line was the worst... considering the State Dept. had detailed planning based on expected ramifications... plans that were intentionally ignored based on neocon ideology.
Runner up was her blaming the CIA for bad intel when we now know the CIA expressed caveats galore and Rummy's invented intel group was the source of the bad intelligence.
I understand the concept of opposition research... knowing your enemy... you can't counter their arguments if you don't know them... I get it.
Paying vast sums to have them educate your children I do not understand.
Giving such people a platform on PBS yet again ignoring knowing the vast majority in America are wise to this cadre's shenanigans and see right through them suggests Charlie thinks little about his viewers or this country.
Comment by CURT BROOKS on Saturday, May 3 at 04:11 AM
Charlie you were good but, yet to easy on this stammering Bush robot. If this young red head is credenttialed with Harvard -- I am not impressed with her stammering response to your questions. Bush has killed the country financialy for the next 8 years. OBAMA is my next vote for President. I am White and Male.
Now comes Tabs<><><><><><>Our little girl is an intellectual robot. Let us only discuss her big manure dropping. To effect she said that if the US of A had not taken Sodaminsane out, the sanctions would have eroded, Sodaminsane would wholeheartedly be pursuing nukes, an arms race in the hood would have ensued and property values in the hood would have gone down. Excuse me, say that again. Exactly what would the USA being doing while all this was happening, sitting around with its thumb up its a$$. That hypothesis is utter and complete flower food. Another nomination of for the Forest Gump award. Ohhh, what the he11 let us pick another turgid statement it is Friday night. It took her how long to figure out that strength is the only thing that is respected in the hood. That kindness or vacillation is viewed as weakness. And since we are picking at her, she discovered that decisions are made with incomplete data and on the fly. Isn't that called the fog of war. Ouuuu Ouuu and big news is that she did affirm that Wolfiewitz is a moron with a PhD with her description of how the Iraqi Bureaucracy was constructed to support Sodaminsane and once Sodaminsane left it collapsed. This is in direct contravention with Wolfiewitz's statement that, "It will be no more difficult to reconstitute Iraq than it was France after WW2." Other than that she was a perfectly delightful guest, who was good looking.
Wow this is really amazing to watch. This woman cannot be believed. Her lectures at the Kennedy School must be highly entertaining. She seems to have less self-awareness than a trout.
How could anyone believe a word out of this woman's mouth? I would hate to have her as my professor!! Can anyone imagine that? She talks about what she learned! for crying out loud we needed someone in her job who has already learned! I can not believe this.
Comment by DWDALLAM on Saturday, May 3 at 02:53 AM
Rose asks the million dollar question: Should have we gone into Iraq in teh first place?
O'sullivan asks Rose to imagine an Iraq today if we hadn't gone in. Iran and Iraq would be in a nuclear arms race. . . .
Soon after, Rose asks O'sullivan a hypothetical of his own, to which O'sullivan refuses by saying that she doesn't deal in hypothetical situations.
So here we have a Totalitarian Worldview, which is one of absolute certitude: We can go to war based on hypothetical situations, but we can't question that same war with hypothetical situations. What this amounts to is something like "Don't Question Us Because We Have the Truth."
One wonders why softball Charlie didn't call her on that contradiction in method. What a bunch of BS. I'm proud I'm no longer a PBS member.
I agree with most of the comments preceding mine. I believe Ms. Sullivan is simply justifying her involvement in this administration's decimation of Iraq and the weakening of our country's position in the world. She is merely an apologist for the Bush administration and herself. For all of her education, what a light weight she is. It is no wonder that the Iraq War is such a failure with people of her ilk being involved in a war that has been prosecuted with a such total lack of understanding of the region. How dare she say the war will end up to be a good thing for us and for the region, when the reasons given for going there were so clearly bogus. Charlie, she was not worth our time.
Comment by Steve S. on Saturday, May 3 at 02:35 AM
Meghan O'Sullivan is absolutely the most brilliant and personable speaker I've yet seen in the Bush administration, but I could not help thinking that every word was pure PR. This woman seems too young to have a well formed grasp of foreign relations. It hardly seems possible that someone so fresh out of college could be a deputy national security advisor. Was she chosen for the post simply because she was easily manipulated and is such a pleasant spokesman for the Bush crusade? I wish Charlie could have answered that question for me.
As for Charlie Rose "pandering to the far right", I've seen enough of his interviews to know that is impossible. This viewer should have tuned in the night before. The interview with Fareed Sakaria was just riveting. This is the attitude and worldview or next secretary of state (or President) should have.
Comment by Enrique Gonzalez on Saturday, May 3 at 01:56 AM
Ms O'Sullivan is one of the most dishonest people I have ever seen in your program. What her credentials were when she was "advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan" Did she even spoke arabic? She kept saying "I learn..., We learn,..." How she can live with herself knowing that her "education" have cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and more than 4000 american lives? She claims that this country have to move on in the discussion about Iraq and forget the past mistakes. Here Charlie Rose should have asked Should the responsible pay the consequences of their mistakes? or Are we going to reward them with positions in academia like in Ms O'Sullivan case? Now, in an act of supreme dishonesty Ms O'Sullivan is profiting with her participation in the planing and execution of the criminal iraqi war, teaching in Harvard University (shame on them) when she (and the whole Bush administration) should be indicted for crimes of war and crimes against humanity.
Comment by Diane Williams on Saturday, May 3 at 01:40 AM
Huh? Come on Charlie. Chris Freed's "more gray areas than a Jasper Johns' painting" perfectly summed up your interview with O'Sullivan. Those of us who stay up late to watch your program deserve better.
Comment by Bruce Wayne on Saturday, May 3 at 01:02 AM
Charlie, this is the last straw. You have obviously begun to pander to the far right by not asking the hard questions or responding to the obvious errors of your guests. Do you know the difference between the "news" and the "truth?" So sadly, you have become wedded to the news rather than to the truth--- your journalistic responsibility. BTW, man is she hot. I saw you blushing.
Comment by Crank Bait on Saturday, May 3 at 01:01 AM
Simply astounding. Among Ms. O'Sullivan's many ignorance's is the unawareness that the sudden removal of societal structure might result in looting and pillaging. Her surprise at discovering this truism being repeated in Baghdad after our leaders decimated Iraqi society proves that her incompetence matches that of her Neoconservative comrades.
Anyone who has studied or endured a destructive natural disaster knows that societal boundaries are the first casualty. Certainly an unnatural disaster counts for as much?
The woman is a fool. She should be tossed into the waste heap of incompetent failures along with Cheney and Rumsfeld and the balance of the Pax Americana devotees.
Comment by piling on on Saturday, May 3 at 12:47 AM
Total agreement with Jason M. Plagiarized from his post cause it deserves repeating: "The fact that you failed to challenge the idea that if Saddam had not been removed that we would now be in the midst of an Iran-Iraq 'cold war' was baffling and disgusting."
Comment by arrested development on Saturday, May 3 at 12:38 AM
This grade school perception about power (bullies) being respected in the ME, so therefore we should extend indefinitely, is so fatuous she is childishly nauseating and about all you could expect from a Shrubby. Another great incentive for the Democratic party. Get her out of there!
Mr. Rose your interview this evening left me nauseous. Despite being an avid viewer of your program your refusal to ask tough and direct questions of many of the Bush administration apologists, Ms O'Sullivan being the latest example, is reprehensible. The fact that you failed to challenge the idea that if Saddam had not been removed that we would now be in the midst of an Iran-Iraq 'cold war' was baffling and disgusting. I fail to see a fair and balanced debate of the ideas on your program - unless the ideas do not mesh with your own. I suggest that your program be prefaced with a disclaimer that the interviews conducted are far more editorial than reportage. Reading the few comments above I am obviously not alone in my opinion about Ms. O'Sullivan's stance and statements however you should be the one to challenge these statements rather than 'nod knowingly' and move on with the interview.
Comment by air head inc. on Saturday, May 3 at 12:25 AM
This air head will be one of the first champions of going to war with Iran. A real motor-mouth that has a surreal superficiality about her that readily spews pre-canned thoughts right out of the Bush-Cheney play book. She does not deserve to be heard. Her explaining, style and assertions are so self aggrandizing and arrogant she has to be a tremendous help to be removed from the scene.
Comment by ObamaRepublican on Saturday, May 3 at 12:25 AM
once again, Charlie "I pitch softballs to my right wing buddies" Rose is a complete let down... boy he is on the attack and hardly lets guest get a word in edgewise when they're Democrats, but when they're NeoCons, he not only quietly listens and lets them spew their talking points, he actually helps them along in making them. SHAME ON YOU Charlie Rose... the dead soldiers who gave their lives and their families deserve better...
You cannot dispute that Meghan O'Sullivan spent @ 5 years in Iraq. Consequently, I think she has a better handle of what has happened, is happening and might happen in the future. I only wish Charlie had not interrupted her during her answers to his questions. He did not seem to listen to her and make follow-up questions to her responses but just continued the anti-Iraq rhetoric. It is apparent what his position on the war is by his comments. I am amazed how many people now claim to always have been against the war. Obama claims he was against the war but he wasn't in the Senate then so didn't vote. Ms. O'Sullivan gave a negative picture of what the area might be like if we did not go in. Others have made the same observation. If she is right, then what do we do next? I haven't lived there and made it my agenda to study the situation. Therefore, I think her views have merit. One can ignore them but to do so without careful study - not just listening to the rhetoric - would be foolish. The fact that she tried to give a balanced report - pro's and con's - gives her ideas value.
Comment by Raul de Brigard on Friday, May 2 at 11:55 PM
In private business, when a CEO fails, his Board replaces him with new leadership. Many a CEO will say "I made the mess, I know best how to cure it". But the reality is that companies that have followed this advice have almost always made things worse. We need new people to straighten out Iraq. I am interested in what Meghan has to say, but I don´t see her leading us out of this mess.
Part of the problem is confidence in leadership. I have no confidence in Bush, he screwed up so badly. I have a hard time having any confidence in Meghan, knowing she was a senior adviser at the time the worst mistakes were made. That is a problem, because even if she is right in what she said, no person can succeed who can´t build up confidence in the course they are recommending. A good example of how replacing leadership can make the world of a difference is the Department of Defence: only after Rumsfelt was replaced did we start seeing the kinds of policy changes and the kind of confidence in leadership needed to turn straighten out the military. Unfortunately he is still hampered by inadequate the failed policies of his boss and his counterparts in other depts, including State. We are blind to how the conflict of Israel has hampered our ability to make progress in the entire Middle East, and we are hampered by a policy that labels as "terrorist" anyone who doesn´t play by our rule book.
Meghan should write books, so as to recount her experience, and her perceptions, which adds to our understanding of the situation. But it is time we look for new leadership. We need thoughtful people who are listeners as well as leaders, and who can tackle future policy in Iraq with enough trust from all of us that he/she is free to chart a course which does not necessarily reflect the standard Republican or Democrat solution to the war.
We also need to have a realistic understanding of the Iraqui cultural and political realities, and who acts based on the reality of the situation there, nit the fairy tales. Basra has shown the extraordinary weakness of the Iraqui army to this date. The have no air force, and they have no heavy armor to speak of. They have extremely limited logistical capabilities with which to support a fighting front. Their communication infrastructure in equally primitive. Even if you dismiss the fact that many of the soldiers will not fight, all you have there is a bunch of soldiers on pick-ups. They do have some intelligence capability but even on that count it is amazing how they underestimated the resistance they would be facing.
The political pretence that the Shia, Sunny and Kurds, if we stay there long enough, will form a balanced government based on democratic principles shows a total lack of understanding of this country. The aftermath to the previous Western occupation (by the British) showed the fallacy of this illusion.
A very smart girl, apparently, or at least highly verbal, but seemingly sorely lacking in experience and perspective as she says. Reminds me too much of Condoleeza Rice. It was a little less than 30 yrs earlier that we had left Vietnam, so I suspect she will see another such in her lifetime.
Comment by Chris Free on Friday, May 2 at 11:42 PM
iraqis respect power --
so we should stick around
waiting for the next ied;
ohhh k; you're the smarty pants;
way too early -- if iraq's gonna turn on a dime
why do does it have to be on *our* dime and how
do we know when the turning is over?
iraq -- more gray areas than a jasper johns painting.
Comment by Michael Carr on Friday, May 2 at 11:34 PM
This interview was absolutely reprehensible. All that Ms. O'Sullivan gave us was "talking points." While giving us a sophomoric, high-school level of discourse, incorporating what her and her ilk would normally dismiss as left-wing psycho-babble, I offer these counter arguments to their myths:
A. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
B. What are we getting for what we are paying for? What is (disgustingly) -- the bargain?
We're not paying for this... we're borrowing the money from China.
C. The Iraqis have clearly stated that they want us out. There is no "partnership," or "having their backs" for any extended period.
D. Success is not possible. This was ill-conceived at best, and illegal and completely immoral at worst.
E. My favorite: "we won't do another Iraq..." "In my lifetime." Hello? The saber-rattling on Iran completely contradicts those statements.
I am stunned each and every day... if I conducted my job as these people have done for the last five years, I would have been fired for merely one of these transgression. Just one...
Shame, shame shame! These people have been wrong, wrong, wrong on each and every detail concerning "intelligence," "facts," and "reality."
These people have completely mortgaged our future and safety in the most unacceptably subprime way possible. When do we show them the door?
I'll be targeting my financial support toward Bill Moyers and definitely not Charlie Rose
Comment by Michael Carr on Friday, May 2 at 11:34 PM
This interview was absolutely reprehensible. All that Ms. O'Sullivan gave us was "talking points." While giving us a sophomoric, high-school level of discourse, incorporating what her and her ilk would normally dismiss as left-wing psycho-babble, I offer these counter arguments to their myths:
A. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
B. What are we getting for what we are paying for? What is (disgustingly) -- the bargain?
We're not paying for this... we're borrowing the money from China.
C. The Iraqis have clearly stated that they want us out. There is no "partnership," or "having their backs" for any extended period.
D. Success is not possible. This was ill-conceived at best, and illegal and completely immoral at worst.
E. My favorite: "we won't do another Iraq..." "In my lifetime." Hello? The saber-rattling on Iran completely contradicts those statements.
I am stunned each and every day... if I conducted my job as these people have done for the last five years, I would have been fired for merely one of these transgression. Just one...
Shame, shame shame! These people have been wrong, wrong, wrong on each and every detail concerning "intelligence," "facts," and "reality."
These people have completely mortgaged our future and safety in the most unacceptably subprime way possible. When do we show them the door?
I'll be targeting my financial support toward Bill Moyers and definitely not Charlie Rose
Comment by Michael Carr on Friday, May 2 at 11:34 PM
This interview was absolutely reprehensible. All that Ms. O'Sullivan gave us was "talking points." While giving us a sophomoric, high-school level of discourse, incorporating what her and her ilk would normally dismiss as left-wing psycho-babble, I offer these counter arguments to their myths:
A. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
B. What are we getting for what we are paying for? What is (disgustingly) -- the bargain?
We're not paying for this... we're borrowing the money from China.
C. The Iraqis have clearly stated that they want us out. There is no "partnership," or "having their backs" for any extended period.
D. Success is not possible. This was ill-conceived at best, and illegal and completely immoral at worst.
E. My favorite: "we won't do another Iraq..." "In my lifetime." Hello? The saber-rattling on Iran completely contradicts those statements.
I am stunned each and every day... if I conducted my job as these people have done for the last five years, I would have been fired for merely one of these transgression. Just one...
Shame, shame shame! These people have been wrong, wrong, wrong on each and every detail concerning "intelligence," "facts," and "reality."
These people have completely mortgaged our future and safety in the most unacceptably subprime way possible. When do we show them the door?
I'll be targeting my financial support toward Bill Moyers and definitely not Charlie Rose
So, Lucifer has a daughter. The red hair is a nice touch. You'd have to expect that they can really talk. I see Charlie has moved on from pandering to corporate interests to pandering to the devil himself. Let me just say, if we spent half as much trying to beat our moon shot as we spend trying to beat our Vietnams we might actually be in a better place.
Thanks for pointing out that Energy Security and climate change may be the biggest challenges for the future President. Too bad our Presidential candidates McCain and Clinton offer us tax breaks on gasoline for the summer driving month instead of straight talk in response. Jack up demand and leave us in a bigger hole.... Politics as usual on the hill.
Morally bankrupt policies defended by someone who is a "foreign policy wonk" who finally got her hands dirty and realizes the real destructive implications of our actions. One million Iraqi civilians dead, four million refugees, and terrible loss of our credibility. Who will stand up and accept responsibility?
She got a job teaching at Harvard and we canâ??t figure out why jobs are going offshore. The red necks graduating from her class better know Mandarin. Tabs -- you canâ??t get laid - jack off as much you as you can and shoot ducks. Your toes will be shat on by the Chinese and Indians...
could someone PLEASE PLEASE get Tabs a job!
George you're a true statesman. Finally a voice of reason among these milquetoast postings. God bless you, and God bless America.
Ms. O'Sullivan's appearance on the show was a surprise to me. Most hard line republicans have been avoiding anything but carefully worded sound bytes since the "mission accomplished" speech... I don't agree with her position, but I commend Ms. Sullivan for her willingness to appear on Charlie's show, and answer the tough questions she had to know were coming. She clearly has hope for the war yet, though it is tempered these days. I wish I could share that optimism. She makes some good arguments in favour of maintaining the action, but these are predicated on a quasi-positive outcome that is never explained. The "if we leave it will be worse" warning suggests there is an outcome possible that isn't horrific... and frankly I can't see one. If there is a path to success, I'd like to hear a detailed version of it from anyone in the loop... unfortunately, details seem never to be on the agenda, just more buzzwords.
What a great 8 years this has been! The liberals don't understand that no one has information until they try things and see how they work out. The Middle East analysis of G.H.W Bush's administration was too old to be worth anything. The liberals do not appreciate the greater safety and security we all have because of people like Meghan O'Sullivan. We need to work hard to get McCain in the Whitehouse so that Meghan and the other hard-working Republicans that have given us 8 years of peace and prosperity can come back to secure our future. Stay the course!
What a beautyful attractive young woman,and, articulate,gentle and sexy! Having said that, dear Meghan, how many years you lived in Middle East, Africa or simply abroad to be eligible for such a sensitive post you got?! How much did you know about the world culture, religion, etc. at this young age?! ANY REAL EXPERIENCE?! NO WONDER US IS IN SO MUCH TROUBLE SHAPING ITS FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS THE WORLD!!
She gave a candid look at decision making under fire. It is much easuer to be right after he decision than before or during. This is a problem we all face when we try to make decisions. Let the critics appy the same rigor to their decisions and see how they make out.
The irony of it all! Finally, we find a (former) Bush administration official who is willing to admit mistakes, embraces the need to learn lessons from them, and even - gasp - talks about the need for humility in the use of American power! And, the reaction? The left can't stand it!
Viewing Meghan Oâ??Sullivanâ??s appearance on the Charlie Rose show left me very favorably impressed with her knowledge, analysis, and ability to express these regarding the situations in Iraq, the good, the bad and the ugly. Iâ??m not without some knowledge of these subjects and the Middle East. Sheâ??s clearly used her time well to gather a global grasp of the subjects. Iâ??m waiting for the book. In reading the posts here, Iâ??m surprised by her detractors, which number more than Iâ??d expect. Perhaps itâ??s liberal bias of the show's audience. Surely though, she can rest comfortably knowing that nearly all of these seem to be getting their knowledge by reading bumper stickers.
It was easy to see your frustration, Charlie Rose, in your interview of Meghan O'Sullivan of Harvard. The same frustration I had watching her: how can anyone so smart be so incredibly dumb? Had she ever heard of, or read, the book THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST? A book about the brilliant Ivy League men who put us into Vietnam, where we wallowed in abject stupidity for ten years, killing untold numbers of Vietnamese and over 40,000 of our own troops, some among them my good friends. The writer Tim O'Brien, who fought in Vietnam and wrote of his experiences there, was asked about the similarity of Iraq War to Vietnamese War. He said - and I must paraphrase - that it was the same thing. We don't speak the language, we don't know the culture, we don't have the same religion, we know absolutely nothing of their history. And our military was geared up for a tank war in Europe. Meghan knew the Green Zone in Iraq and how to stay out of the sun. Maybe similar to the US Embassy in Saigon - before the Tet Offensive and before the fiasco of retreat. Everything Meghan said I heard before - a long time ago in 1969.
We should all strive to live by the better angels of our nature. However the reality of this world is that our circumstances don't always allow us to do so. Sometimes toes get stepped on in the process of achieving our goals and ambitions. It is disingenuous for one to eat the fruit of the tree that was grown in the soil of the attainment of those goals and ambitions and cry foul at the same time. That is where the American Left is at today, crying foul while eating the fruit. The American left would be far better served accepting the fact that America acts in her own self interest, which the left derives benefit from and sometimes in those actions toes are stepped on. Those actions where toes are stepped on are part of the process that provides 3 meals a day for Americans both right and left. If the Left were truly so altruistic they would turn in their dinner plate and share their food with those who are less fortunate than America. That isn't happening, they enjoy eating their dinner and pontificating about how foul the gathering of it is.
To Charlie Rose: I just listened to the interview a 2nd time just to make sure I didn't miss anything the first time around. I heard correctly the first time. Dr. O'Sullivan was clear and lucid and right on target with her explanations of how we got there, what we did wrong, how the errors were made and where we need to go from here. Her courage to admit the errors should be applauded. We must remember that Dr. O'Sullivan didn't create the policies - that was done above her, and she didn't stoop to blaming others - even though that is where the blame resides. We know she is not in the tank for the Administration from her extensive biography and the fact that she wakes up to NPR! My guess is she was one of the dissenting voice that was not heeded. Charlie Rose - have you read the other comments in this section from the left? It's really embarrassing to their cause. It's actually scary. I think every rock at MoveOn.org, the DailyKos and the Huffington Post was overturned and the bugs ran out and started typing madly on their computers. I think your audience is a little out there - somewhere between Pluto and the next galaxy. As I said earlier, the truth hurts and the left was gored by Dr. O'Sullivan and they are screaming like a stuck pig. Free speech is OK as longs as it's from the left. Charlie - aren't you ashamed by the left's behavior? I'm surprised that you don't turn Republican just so you can disassociate yourself from them! They all sound like Jeremiah Wright.
Good interview Charlie. Meghan shows how difficult the job at hand in Iraq is. Hope she and her replacements succeed to make a viable democratic Iraq stand on its feet. Iraqis deserve nothing less after decades of Saddam tyranny and death and destruction of the current war...
Charlie, After this interview, I can fully appreciate why we are having the trouble we are having in Iraq. Whomever quiped we learn by our mistakes got it wrong where life and death was at stake. Meghan was miss informed then as she is now. These people really did think they would have become hero's to their actions and achieve certain fame. This was nothing more than more political buzz with how good their intentions were without any association with the reality of the situation and responsibility. I would guess that this person has a hard time sleeping at nights.
Great interview. Charlie proved that this woman is insane
speechless... she is absolutely shameful. the US is at present a disaster, greatly due to the Iraq war. for her, after these 5+ years of failure in Iraq, to not take even a minute aspect of responsibility is absolutely shameful. why this administration, including her, is not being charged with war crimes is beyond comprehension. shame on you Meghan O'Sullivan.
It is so sad to see the apologists try to come up with new ways to wiggle out of responsibility. This was the special adviser on Iraq and Afghanistan in 2005 and 2006, two of the most "special" years of those wars. The worst part about it, is that these "experts" whose real expertise is delivering failure leave the administration and are rewarded by organizations such as Harvard and CNN (see T. Snow and F. Townsend). She gives you the non-answer about not knowing what you get and the unknown price. Well how about the follow up question to her...Let's say, Iraq becomes a peaceful democracy...how much is that worth to you...1000000 lives and $1 trillion? If not, what do you think is a fair price to pay for that outcome? Charlie, please stop giving these people so many chances to put excuses ("...mistakes were made but you need to understand the context..."). They just need to admit that they were not prepared at all for the job and now they have the blood of hundreds of thousands (Soldiers + Iraqis) , a $500+billion price tag and a weaker USA on their hands.
So, Charlie, I have seen most of your interviews with "significant" people concerning Iraq. I was hoping that at some point you would ask or discuss the following topics: 1) Is the invasion of Iraq in your opinion a violation of international law? 2) How would you compare/contrast it to the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union? 3) There are today at least 2.2 million external refugees, 2 million internal refugees, and 1 million "excess" deaths caused by the war. If the US withdrew tomorrow how could the next 5 years possibly be worse than the last 5 years? 25% of the population is now either dead or displaced. 4) How would you compare the "interference" of Iran in Iraq to the "interference" of Saudi Arabia in Iraq? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties#The_second_study_.282006.29 I was also hoping you would consider inviting Dilip Hiro on your show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilip_Hiro
Wasn't there an O'Sullivan who advised Bonnie Prince Charlie to attack over marshy, uneven ground at the Battle of Culloden? This was done against the advice of all Prince Charles' field commanders, but unfortunately he listened to O'Sullivan who had no military experience and was basically just a political secretary. This caused the defeat of the Highlanders and banished the Stuarts from England and Scotland forever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culloden History does have a habit of repeating itself. The original O'Sullivan, Prince Charles' Secretary was also supposed to be a genius.
Here's the link again about Sandy Berger. It got cut off in my previous Comment. I have put it in two pieces, so please put it together to read it: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/ archive/200805/NAT20080505c.html
Jerry - you are right on target. The fact that so many vitriolic comments were written about Dr. O'Sullivan is proof that she spoke the truth and the truth really hurts the left and the "blame America first" crowd. Also, we should not forget what the Clintons did to the Serbians. He was impeached for the wrong reason - he should have been impeached for a war which was not approved by Congress (unlike Iraq). Wesley Clark should be tried for war crimes. How come it's OK to bring troops from home from Iraq, but not the Balkans? Read this article and see why Kosovo was about oil and how the Clintons lied (again) about why we went to war. http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19991209pipenmax.php Also, let's not forget that Sandy Berger stole documents from the National Archives. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200805/NAT20080505c.html It's amazing how short the memory is on the left!
HEADLINE: "Prototypical 'A' student sells soul to help 1 million Iraqis lose their lives so that she can get a nice job." This bimbo got on my bad side immediately when she made that "you dont know what deal your getting until you know what you bought" comment. If more people like her have been in charge of our government, it comes as no surprise that Iraq is currently in the 7th ring of hell (she would argue its only the 3rd). If I learned anything from this interview, it's that if you look pretty, can talk a lot of BS, and leave your moral conscience at home, you will get far in life. Meanwhile, others will suffer.
I've read every book there is on the Iraq, so I am happy to add some knowledge about who Meghan O'Sullivan is to this string of comment. First, if people can open their minds enough, they may be interested to know she is an independent, not a republican! Bob Woodward - and others - have catalogued how Rumsfeld and Cheney fired her from the group that volunteered to go to Iraq in 2003 because she did not have "the correct political views." It was only Colin Powell's intervention that restored her to the effort. Almost every book talks about O'Sullivan being the exception to the raft of ideological people. According to critical writers like George Packer - she was a breath of fresh air, committed to doing the right thing, and pushed back against decisions like deba'athification and was responsible for seeing that army members were paid even after the army was disbanded. So, as someone below said, one should look a little closer at what she did and hold the people at the top responsible for decisions.
It takes little imagination to understand how Meghan O'Sullivan fit in with the Bush cabal and perpetuated the insanity - her appointment to Harvard's Kennedy School of Government is the equivalent of hiring Alberto Gonzalez to teach constitutional law and Jeffrey Skilling to teach business ethics... well done crimson!!
Let us move the discussion past the "Green Zone Girl." The question is does the United States still have the intestinal fortitude to be a Super Power? When the British occupied Iraq back in the 1920s and their troops were fired upon by the Iraqis, they would go into the village and take out 10 men and shoot them. That sent a message to the Iraqis not to mess with them. To be a Super Power means dirty deeds have to be done dirt cheap or you cease to be a Super Power. Being a Super Power is not a popularity contest. To keep enjoying the fruits and perks of a Super Power means getting your hands dirty sometimes. That is the cold hard reality of this world. Call it evolution and survival of the fittest if you will. Now how to go about being a Super Power. The model that Augustus Caesar laid down is about the best. Augustus never lived in a big palace and kept saying to the Romans that in another 5 years or so when things got better he would return Rome to being a Republic again. He fully realized that the only way he would ever cease to be a Caesar was feet first, and on occasion people went missing. During his reign of 40 or so years Rome enjoyed a Golden Age of prosperity. Unfortunately the Bush Administration and the NEO Boobs that influence its direction have failed to take that warning to heart, and have told the world it "our way or the highway." Mother always told me, "To give em a reach around to make em feel good about themselves when your screwing em." That is in essence what the Bush Administration has failed to do and you can see the results in how the world views us. Is this damage permanent, probably not unless the next administration follows the same practices, then the pattern has become set. Contrary to the beliefs of the Left, McCain is no GW Bush and will not represent 4 more years of the same thing. McCain may keep the principles of the Bush Admin BUT NOT THE PRACTICES. McCain's problem is that he doesn't convey that very well and the left keeps picking away. Hillary is smart enough and shrewd enough to know the realities of the game as she has had enough practice at it. However in practice Hillary is a morally bankrupt person, and will do or say anything to manipulate things to her own ends. The ends justifies the means is her motto, and that clarity of purpose is what made the Clinton's so successful. In other words they just out manipulated everybody else. Barrack Obama is a shape cookie and a quick study to be sure. One can see that on a weekly basis in his campaign. Besides the rhetoric of his campaign for "change" what is the reality of that message. If he should become President of the USA the day he steps into office he is going to face a huge amount of inertia in the government bureaucracy, political establishment and be facing all those special entrenched interests. Either he will modify his position to go along, to get along, or he will be marginalized as Jimmy Carter was back in the 1970's. The real danger is that Obama will use the bully pulpit to institute "change" that will eliminate dissent from the system by limiting it, which will then entrench the party that is in power permanently. Meaning the Democratic Party, which on face of it, the left will love. at least until the day that they don't like something that the government is doing to them. However as the campaign has progressed Barrack Obama has made choices which seem to indicate that he is going along to get along with the status quo. After all you have to prove yourself to be a reliable political operative to become president of the USA. That is how you get enough support to make it into the office.
Meghan O'Sullivan. Please, tell me she isn't Irish. zzzzz.
Ohhhhh lets just call her the "Green Zone Girl"
Generally I think its good for Americans to try to avoid labels (Liberal vs Conservative) and try to concentrate more on compromise and communication with general public. O'Sullivan has her agenda just like anyone else who wears blue or red label have their own political views and agendas.
One more academic with the right opinions put into a key role with no experience or skillset for the actual job. But I'll bet her powerpoint presentations with requisite hand gestures is quite nifty.
The lefties forget that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons ready to attack us from off our own shores! Suddenly they all forget the threat he posed to us with his WMD! I do not understand why Bush replaced Rumsfeld. He had him there for so long and should have let him finish the job! Meghan O'Sullivan can stand proudly with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith and the President for the success we are bringing to Iraq.
Great interview of the gorgeous & intelligent woman who should be considered for the VP spot on the McCain ticket. We did the right thing taking down Saddam the thug and removing the clear & present WMD threat - certainly Saddam had WMD programs + had according to several credible reports had several hundred WMD (and this isn't mentioning the sarin roadside bomb cooked off in Baghdad in 2004). Clearly, if America cuts & runs from Iraq, we will lose almost if not all credibility on Afghanistan and other major efforts for world peace. Plus, I wish the lefties would be more fair to Dr. Sullivan. I also notice the lower rating of this video because she's a righty and the high rating of videos for lefties like Jimmy "I met with anti-Semetic, genocidal Hamas" Carter and the like. Sadly, a part of this country Annetta H. is always wearing ideological blinders and part of them just may hate this country, hate our troops and think we're the root of all evil... I find that appalling.
I do blame the America people for allowing our leaders to move on Iraq at the time. We the people are ultimately responsibly for the actions of our nation. I am amazed by the people that now state what was known by the informed Americans before we attacked. I also believe that many of our leaders, that knew the truth, were cowards and did not stand strong at the time. Dr. O'Sullivan; "lessons learned" My belief: So much lost for our human ignorance. The information and management knowledge was already available to predict the current results. I do not feel "lessons learned" justifies or excuses what we did and it doesn't make me feel all warm inside. Mr. Rose; "neighbors involved?" My belief: The neighbors knew better! I did enjoy the interview, probably because it strengthens my beliefs. I was very upset the day we attacked. My young high school daughter cried and stopped following world events. She is currently a science graduate student at an Ivy League school. Best to all!
There is no doubt that Meghan O'Sullivan is a bright, articulate, scholarly and reflective woman. My concern, however, is the organizing principle or lens she looks through when interpreting the data of her experience. Several times she invited us to visualized what the Middle East would look like had we not gone to war with Iraq. She then, confidently, stated the realities we would now face if Hussein were still in power. Given the immeasurable number of variables in the unfolding of history, how can she speak with such confidence, especially, if other means were used. Also, why did every major religious group throughout the world oppose our going to war with Iraq? What did they "see" that this administration did not "see"? The administration "sold" the war to us on the premise that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States not that he was just a "bad guy". No one would disagree that the Middle East will never be the same because of this war and our presence. Could that not be said about any disaster? Bill Braun
Having just viewed on PBS (it's May 5, 2008) Charlie Rose's "interview" with Meghan O'Sullivan--and having read at least half of the previous comments--I can say that at least Charlie was a little more questioning (when that was possible)-- Ms. O'Sullivan seems to be a "gentler" Ann Coulter--who never seems to want to stop her carefully practiced and controlled talking, which is very much in the "apologist" mode. Anyone involved in the Bremer period in Iraq must be considered "mad"--given their policies and the implementation of ridiculous decisions at that time. Both Bremer and O'Sullivan were "babes in the woods" on this one--just hired wonks who deserve to be roundly criticized...And we all continue to pay for it, including the more than 10,000 American dead, triple that number in American seriously maimed and wounded, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed as well at the "insurgents"... Interesting too, that Harvard and Georgetown universities have become "academic reward centers for failed diplomatic/security types" like Tenet, O"Sullivan and so many others. All of this is idiocy. I would suggest that many of these persons be sent to Gitmo--maybe after some lengthy detention they may come to recognize their stupidity, carelessness and assorted war crimes. (Add Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld, Woo, Gonzales and many others of the Bush oligarchy to this group. They should all be ashamed of themselves.) However, arrogance, power and greed seem so manifest since 2000 in the Bush Administration, that I don't think it matters much to them....I really wonder about Charlie, too. Whenever is the "Press" going to ask some tough questions, and expect answers?
I am really stunned by this whole chain of comments. I am no supporter of the war in Iraq, but I do recognize a talented person when I see one and Ms. -- I should say Dr. -- O'Sullivan certainly is one. As a person from the left, I think we should all take a look at ourselves and ask if we are not reacting so strongly to her because she came across capable and articulate - and certainly was more nuanced than any other defender of the policy I have seen. The question that stands out most in my mind is why didn't the Bush administration use her more to explain Iraq to Americans? They would have been smart to do so. I'd also question where everyone makes the assumption that she has no basis for expertise. Has anyone looked at her bio? I did, and found out she has a doctorate from Oxford and has published multiple books and articles on the Middle East while at the Brookings Institution (a left leaning think tank!). Add that to 2 years in Iraq and I am willing to admit that she has more expertise than this entire chain of commenters put together. Let's not try to destroy good people just because we don't agree with them. Shame on us.
I'm reminded of the excellent book about Vietnam by David Halberstam, "The Best and The Brightest", about how Kennedy and LBJ surrounded themselves by the smartest most capabale people they could find. Unfortunately, they had no experience with SE Asia and their arrogance blinded themselves to the realities of the situations they were in. Meghan seesm to the heir apparent to Bundy, McNamara and the rest. Very bright, very arrogant and very wrong.....
Remarkable, isn't it, that such deference can be shown to someone who has been shown concretely wrong time after time, after time? I mean, really, a founding member of the Coalition Provisional Authority? "As supervisor of lookouts, I feel we have learned lessons learned and in future the HMS Titanic will encounter no more extreme cold water events." And she's training future lookouts at Harvard? Oh boy.
Gen. Sanchez's memoir: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19861.htm
The hate that spews forth from the left in this comment page is quite amusing and completely vindicates the conservative view that liberals are truly more intolerant of other's views and only encourage free speech when it is from the left. Yes, Iraq had many errors in judgment, but so did WWII. Did the myopic people who wrote these comments ignore Ken Burns documentary, 'The War'. My guess is they did because they were afraid to learn the truth. Many great things have happened in Iraq as well, but we never hear about them. Even John Burns has told us that much. That being said, Ms. O'Sullivan admitted where the administration went wrong and that takes far more courage than the Bush-haters sniping from behind their elite and fecal duck-blinds. And, why don't the bile spewers put the blame where it belongs - there were decision makers higher up the food chain than Ms. O'Sullivan? The reason you attack her is you just lash out in all directions without thought or reason. Regarding the criticisms of Charlie Rose's interviewing - I have always thought Charlie Rose was left of center veering to the left. Maybe he is finally wising up and becoming educated and seeing the light because he is reading the pabulum in these comments!
When will we get to see Eliot Abrams, Bush's other expert on Iraq? Add Ms. O'Sullivan to the show and you could title it "Beauty and the Beast"!
I have been stewing over this interview for two days.I don't know which is worse: that Ms. O'Sullivan somehow achieved this mythical "experise, and was subsequently rewarded with an important academic post after getting so many things so wrong; OR how she could continue to go unchallenged in a number of continuing misses and bad guesses. "Experts on Iraq" should all be held to their past analysis and past mistakes. Would you hire an electrician to wire your bathroom if several people had died following his other jobs? The analogy holds. Her argument to continue assumes soldiers as fodder. Are they Charlie? Rose is of the VietNam generation and therefore should know rationalizing and justifaction when he sees it. And stupidity. O'Sullivan made stupid mistakes. She has been awarded a Harvard position, and a softball interview. When will this madness end?
There is a good reason why Charlie's wife divorced him and they are still good friends. She left because he just would not shut up and listen. Now when she wants to tell him how she feels she phones him and when he will not shut up, she just hangs up. Easier than locking herself in the bathroom and crying.
I was impressed w/ Ms. Sullivan and wishing Charlie would talk less so I could hear more of what she had to say.
I'm not a regular viewer of Charlie Rose's program but found his O'Sullivan interview to be shocking and enlightening. I'm not particularly concerned with Rose's politics nor preoccupied with whether he challenged her where and when he "should" have. I am convinced that this woman should be speaking all around the country saying just what she said last night. If that doesn't wake people up, we're in worse trouble than needing to switch to Bill Moyers.
It does look this Comment Board of Mr Rose's has become a pick apart the guest and eviscerate them forum. We the viewer have to realize that no guest is without flaw in their logic or position. It is the nature of being human. To some extent criticism of Mr Rose's questioning is a reflection of the viewers own ideological frustration with a guest which is then projected onto Mr Rose as being biased. For Mr Roses part, he is there to elicit information from his guests. As an interviewer it is better to be cordial and offer hospitality to obtain the information than to create a hostile atmosphere where no guest in their right mind would appear. It is not Mr Rose's fault that some guests are not forth coming, self serving, ignorant, arrogant, liars and or thieves. They all have some agenda or ego need to fulfill with their appearance. Mr Roses forum is just about the best of its kind with the least amount of entertainment value interjected into it. As far as being a commentator on this Board I do bear my own culpability. I do pass value judgements, however I do try and stay statement or position specific. I basically deconstruct a guests position or statements into there basic elements trying to fit it into a rational that tells me who they are, what they are about and what they are trying to convey. Usually even the most guarded of guests will utter a sentence or two that gives away the whole farm. One just has to listen and be paying attention to those subtle little shifts.
Hey Jeremy. "Things have gotten so bad with Charlie Rose's interviewing style that I can't watch him anymore." I agree. But I just had to TIVO last night's show. How often does one see a former fashion model who later became a Iraq-Afghanistan "expert" try to contextualize and explain away the biggest strategic and operational blunder in American history? "We tune in to listen to diverse points of view and this is increasingly difficult if [Charlie's\ fragile ego constantly gets in the way. [Charlie has\ always had a propensity to talk over, to interrupt and now it seems bully [his\ guests. Will you please shut up and listen more." You got that right. "And by the way, if you took your job seriously you would apologize to Arianna Huffington for showing her such lack of respect." Corrrectimundo, Jeremy. â?¢ Hey, Kunkel: "Act I of the Meghan O'Sullivan Rehabilitation Campaign on the Charlie Rose Show." Nice. "Charlie Rose has become the punch line. What's the joke? It's the fact that anyone watches this program." Very nice. â?¢ And, finally, Mr. Carr: "I'll be targeting my financial support toward Bill Moyers and definitely not Charlie Rose." Rose doesn't need you or your money. Besides, it's disrespectful to mention Moyers and Rose in the same breath. [Disrespectful to Moyers, that is.\ Thanks to all. BK
Charlie, I have watched your shows almost religiously but your interview with Madam O'Sullivan was a real stinker. She is a young fast talker who has mastered the thesaurus but shows no wisdom on any level.She gave no information of value and god help us if she is ever asked to make a decision of consequence regarding Iraq. Young,arrogant and without solutions. Worst interview I've ever seen on your show, especially letting her get away with all of her cutsey arrogance and lack of insight. Going forward Ms. O'Sullivan I would ask Harvard to enroll you in AirHeads 101 and keep you there until you reach voting age.
To equate the lack of patriotism because one would have liked insightful questions makes no sense. You cannot claim to be an "expert" and then make the mistakes that were made because you just did not understand the culture. It's understanding the complexities of the culture before you go in that should have been the main focus of this invasion and could have led to a more democratic Iraq 5 years ago. Charlie made this a one-sided interview. And, I am sure the Americans know deep in their hearts that we will not be out in 16 months because we have to protect the region. In fact, the way Charlie interviewed some of Huffington's flawed beliefs would have worked well here. The media didn't create Rev. Wright, Obama did by injecting him into his campaign as his "mentor", "spiritual advisor", "father figure" etc., etc. He knew the ideas this man stood for before he finally had to denounce him. But once again the media is blamed for covering Rev. Wright's appearances to protect Obama rather than investigate why Obama did not question Wright's beliefs before the campaign. Hillary also has her "pile", but the media is not as forgiving. However, if Obama hadn't sought the nomination, Charlie and others would be singing Hillary's praises and forgiving her sins. Bottom Line: No one in the media (Fox, PBS, Times, Post) shows any objectivity.
I would like to see both Meghan O'Sullivan and Gary Berntsen on the same show at the same time to discuss Afghanistan. I believe it would be interesting and highly enlightening to see them both discuss their opinions on the topic to each other.
Things have gotten so bad with Charlie Rose's interviewing style that I can't watch him anymore. I think Maury listens more and interrupts less that Mr Rose. It's not a conversation, it's not an afternoon soap, it's not even a morning talk show, it is, or should be, an intelligent and respectful questioning of intelligent and informed people. We tune in to listen to diverse points of view and this is increasingly difficult if your fragile ego constantly gets in the way. You have always had a propensity to talk over, to interrupt and now it seems bully your guests. Will you please shut up and listen more. As they say, the reason you have 2 ears and only 1 mouth is that you can listen twice as much as you talk. Wouldn't that be nice? And by the way, if you took your job seriously you would apologize to Arianna Huffington for showing her such lack of respect.
The problem is that most Americans DO think. They think to question why we 'support' democracy in Iraq this way while not doing so in Saudi Arabia or Egypt. Simply buying into a line is not being patriotic. Believing that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11 because they say so is not being patriotic. Megah Sullivan may be giving her view of the last 4 years in Iraq, but by glossing over or obscuring the decisions that led us there, she is doing the country no service and merely helping enable it's citizens to be mislead again in the future.
Reading through the comments was painful. Are these really thinking Americans or just Bush haters! Megan O'Sullivan spent five years in Iraq, so I want to listen to her. She is not giving a capsul view (like some politicians) of what mistakes have been made and the best way to improve life in Iraq which will benefit America. Megan gave an inside view of how the middle eastern people view America and how they have protected their fragil way of life for centuries governed by dictators. She gave a forward looking opinion to stay and back up the Iraq people in their struggle to free themselves and develop a democracy. Who are these Americans that don't know our history and the hardships our forefathers endured to be free. How can Americans be so short sighted? Megan did try to justify the mistakes, but she did give a resonable argument for staying in Iraq and finishing what we started.
Why is it he was more respectful to this woman than to any guest who supports Hillary? Did she say her background was that of an academic policy strategist prior to the Bush White House? Charlie never dealt with what in her background made her such "an expert" of the region except for the fact she agreed with the Bush scenario. And, she actually thought the Iraqis would just go to work the next day as usual? Doesn't sound like she really understood that country. She even admitted not knowing understanding the force of Sadam's hold over the entire infrastructure. He not only ran the country, he ran everything. So how does one go to work when the next day when the glue that held that economy together was no longer in the picture? Some expert! Charlie was in awe of the fact she lectures at Harvard, and was not going to burn any ties with that university. So when one finally gets to ask the hard questions of someone who was part of the Iraq war equation, we get a guy who looks like he really wants to ask her out on a date instead.
Meghan O'Sullivan states that there are important lessons to be learned, yet repeats the hackneyed phrase that we must â??move forwardâ??, as if further discussion of the multitude of mistakes is somehow detrimental. Note to Meghan: The diagnostic process is to first thoroughly discuss the errors in past decision-making, lest â??moving forwardâ?? without such thorough review, you repeat the same or make similar mistakes. The prior point made of hypothesizing an Iran-Iraq arms race while refusing to answer uncomfortable hypothetical questions regarding past mistaken decisions was dead-on and highlights her hypocrisy. She authoritatively insists that standing up a government in Iraq cannot be done in a mere 16 months. What, then, were the plans and the timetable that she and others like her had expertly arrived at prior to the war that would have had Iraq a self-governing country after Saddamâ??s removal? How much time was that task allotted in her own pre-war, detailed planning â?? 18 months? 24 months? 1000 months? Did she think they would â??wing itâ??? Did she have the notion of any plan at all? Or was she so smug in the complacency of a calcified group-think reasoning that she was willing to gamble (to date) the lives of over 4,000 of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties on a faith-based outcome? Her current Harvard credentials confer no esteem to her or that institution while others pay for her pre-war INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS at tremendous price in limbs and life. And while she ponders how many different ways the passively voiced â??mistakes were madeâ?? can be phrased for her eventual book, the country continues to pay for â??the mistakes madeâ?? - and made needlessly.
The Meghan O'Sullivan interview was laughable. It only takes a moment to look at the record and discover the many blunders that were created or enabled by Ms. Bush-bot. Billions of wasted taxpayer dollars, tens of thousands of US dead (maimed, dismembered, permanently scarred and ruined) and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead (maimed, dismembered, permanently scarred, ruined) later, what do we see? Act I of the Meghan O'Sullivan Rehabilitation Campaign on the Charlie Rose Show. Someone else on this comments page mentioned that Ms. Bush-bot is "book smart" but "world dumb". Oh really? I can cite many examples in which Ms. Bush-bot knows much less than she should. For example, in one of the first policy/strategy meetings after the invasion of Afghanistan, a place that O'Sullivan knew very little about when she was put "in charge," one of the State Department experts sitting at the Big Table mentioned the problem of Al Qaeda fleeing to Pakistan and referenced the Durand Line ... Meghan O'Sullivan drew a blank, then objected. It turns out she had never heard of the Durand Line (that's the artificial political border between Afghanistan and Pakistan that was drawn by British Colonial forces right through the age-old region known as Pashtunistan. Five years ago, Ms. Bush-bot-in-Charge didn't even know the basic facts about Afghanistan. But last night, she says, "I've flown over those rugged mountains," by way of explaining that US forces couldn't have captured or killed Osama Bin Laden anyway. Charlie knew that statement was false. He has already interviewed Gary Berntsen the author of "Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander". Charlie knows that the team Gary Berntsen lead into eastern Afghanistan during the latter part of 2001 found Bin Laden, had a firm visual sighting on the man in the mountains south of Jalalabad. Berntsen's team "painted" the target area with their handheld laser devices and called in the air strikes ... which did not arrive ... because ... back in Washington, Rumsfeld was engaged in a turf war with the CIA over who would take the lead in the Afghanistan war. Rumsfeld ordered that the military would not play second fiddle to the CIA in Afghanistan. So US airpower was ordered not respond to Gary Berntsen's request for an airstrike on Osama Bin Laden. No one has contradicted Gary Berntsen's account ... until last night, when we hear Ms. Bush-bot dismiss the idea of killing or capturing Bin Laden, and we see Charlie nodding in agreement. Finally, why didn't Charlie ask about Bush-bot's most recent bone-headed episode? Agreeing to give a public speech at an Indiana University in January of this year, then demanding that the contents of the speech be "off the record" â?? not for quotation by anyone. The request was ridiculous. Even the Harvard School of Whatever (Ms. Bush-bot's current hiding place) had to admit that no one can, or should, ask for a public speech at a public university paid for with public (or tax-exempt) funds to be "off the record." So the Indiana University refused Ms. Bush-bot's request. And she called in sick at the last minute complaining of a tummy ache (or perhaps it was cold feet). So the event was cancelled. You can't make this stuff up, folks. Yet does Charlie even ask about it? Q: After last night's hilarious performance, the previous night's offensive treatment of Ariana Huffington, and Charlie's annoying tendency to talk over, interrupt and/or fillibuster (people he disagees with) or fawn over (people who fit his own cultural, political or enconomic mold), night after night after night, why does anyone take Charlie Rose seriously? IMO, Charlie Rose has become the punch line. What's the joke? It's the fact that anyone watches this program.
Meghan Sullivan: (1)SMART AND SUPERFICIAL. SHE HAS MADE A CAREER OF HIDING BEHIND HER INTELLIGENCE. She uses her quick brain as a fence, a wall of shallow words to hide the fact she has no useful knowledge about Iraq; and doesn't seem to care; or worse, isn't even aware she's book-smart, but wise-dumb. (2) Yes, she met many people in Irag, but they spoke two languages, one to pander her, and a second behind her back (a tactic your guest last night, Fareed Z., warned about) (3)Fareed should have been at the table with Meghan, he would have shattered her thin brittle shell. (4)I suspect you didn't challenge her because she was an obvious mistake. Why waste your breath on the superficial. You simply gave up and let her prattle on until her time thankfully ended.
I'm glad everybody else saw through her. Since Charlie got temporarily incapacitated by the spell of her magnetic charisma, here's the interesting question for Mrs O'Sullivan, : "Why should we listen to your opinion when your decisions have been wrong year (2003) after year (2004) after year (2005) after year (2006) after year (2007) ?" My conclusion is that it is indeed possible for someone to be at the same time very smart and completely obtuse. This was a fascinating interview.
My God Charlie. Contrast this with the job you did on Arianna Huffington the other night and your ideological bias becomes all too evident. Where you confronted Arianna at every turn, interrupting and berating her constantly, refusing to listen to virtually anything she said and changing the subject whenever she was about to make a point, you let this apologist for President Bush have free and unfettered rein, just as you recently did with Karl Rove, Karen Hughes and others. Saddam was "undermining" the sanctions? What would Hans Blix say to that? Yet you let it go unchallenged. Ditto with her assertion that he would have had WMDs by now. How could anyone know that, and on what basis? Then she said that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, and the war pre-empted their plans. Excuse me? What has our presence done except to increase the Irani sense of nuclear urgency? Yet Charlie had nothing to say. No challenges. No follow-up questions. At that point I shut the program off. When I want that kind of "fair and balanced" programming I can always switch to the Fox network. I used to advocate watching your show because of your neutrality, skill in asking the right questions, ability to listen intently to the answers, and transparency. What's happened? Did you dupe us, and are your partisan stripes finally showing? Good luck Charlie. You're losing longtime patrons in droves. I'm only the latest.
Meghan O'Sullivan: 1/ worked for D.P. Moynihan, then G.W. Bush. 2/ succumbed to the dark side of the force.
Charlie- Proving my last comment to a tee. Enabling with softballs. Who in the world would pay forty plus grand a year to have their kids taught by somebody who has been repeatedly wrong and yet still clings to her failed ideology? I always thought a track record of success was the keystone of a meritocracy. I wonder how Harvard justifies this hiring decision? I think her repetition of the post-invasion "we didn't anticipate" line was the worst... considering the State Dept. had detailed planning based on expected ramifications... plans that were intentionally ignored based on neocon ideology. Runner up was her blaming the CIA for bad intel when we now know the CIA expressed caveats galore and Rummy's invented intel group was the source of the bad intelligence. I understand the concept of opposition research... knowing your enemy... you can't counter their arguments if you don't know them... I get it. Paying vast sums to have them educate your children I do not understand. Giving such people a platform on PBS yet again ignoring knowing the vast majority in America are wise to this cadre's shenanigans and see right through them suggests Charlie thinks little about his viewers or this country.
Charlie you were good but, yet to easy on this stammering Bush robot. If this young red head is credenttialed with Harvard -- I am not impressed with her stammering response to your questions. Bush has killed the country financialy for the next 8 years. OBAMA is my next vote for President. I am White and Male.
Now comes Tabs<><><><><><>Our little girl is an intellectual robot. Let us only discuss her big manure dropping. To effect she said that if the US of A had not taken Sodaminsane out, the sanctions would have eroded, Sodaminsane would wholeheartedly be pursuing nukes, an arms race in the hood would have ensued and property values in the hood would have gone down. Excuse me, say that again. Exactly what would the USA being doing while all this was happening, sitting around with its thumb up its a$$. That hypothesis is utter and complete flower food. Another nomination of for the Forest Gump award. Ohhh, what the he11 let us pick another turgid statement it is Friday night. It took her how long to figure out that strength is the only thing that is respected in the hood. That kindness or vacillation is viewed as weakness. And since we are picking at her, she discovered that decisions are made with incomplete data and on the fly. Isn't that called the fog of war. Ouuuu Ouuu and big news is that she did affirm that Wolfiewitz is a moron with a PhD with her description of how the Iraqi Bureaucracy was constructed to support Sodaminsane and once Sodaminsane left it collapsed. This is in direct contravention with Wolfiewitz's statement that, "It will be no more difficult to reconstitute Iraq than it was France after WW2." Other than that she was a perfectly delightful guest, who was good looking.
Wow this is really amazing to watch. This woman cannot be believed. Her lectures at the Kennedy School must be highly entertaining. She seems to have less self-awareness than a trout.
How could anyone believe a word out of this woman's mouth? I would hate to have her as my professor!! Can anyone imagine that? She talks about what she learned! for crying out loud we needed someone in her job who has already learned! I can not believe this.
Rose asks the million dollar question: Should have we gone into Iraq in teh first place? O'sullivan asks Rose to imagine an Iraq today if we hadn't gone in. Iran and Iraq would be in a nuclear arms race. . . . Soon after, Rose asks O'sullivan a hypothetical of his own, to which O'sullivan refuses by saying that she doesn't deal in hypothetical situations. So here we have a Totalitarian Worldview, which is one of absolute certitude: We can go to war based on hypothetical situations, but we can't question that same war with hypothetical situations. What this amounts to is something like "Don't Question Us Because We Have the Truth." One wonders why softball Charlie didn't call her on that contradiction in method. What a bunch of BS. I'm proud I'm no longer a PBS member.
I agree with most of the comments preceding mine. I believe Ms. Sullivan is simply justifying her involvement in this administration's decimation of Iraq and the weakening of our country's position in the world. She is merely an apologist for the Bush administration and herself. For all of her education, what a light weight she is. It is no wonder that the Iraq War is such a failure with people of her ilk being involved in a war that has been prosecuted with a such total lack of understanding of the region. How dare she say the war will end up to be a good thing for us and for the region, when the reasons given for going there were so clearly bogus. Charlie, she was not worth our time.
Meghan O'Sullivan is absolutely the most brilliant and personable speaker I've yet seen in the Bush administration, but I could not help thinking that every word was pure PR. This woman seems too young to have a well formed grasp of foreign relations. It hardly seems possible that someone so fresh out of college could be a deputy national security advisor. Was she chosen for the post simply because she was easily manipulated and is such a pleasant spokesman for the Bush crusade? I wish Charlie could have answered that question for me. As for Charlie Rose "pandering to the far right", I've seen enough of his interviews to know that is impossible. This viewer should have tuned in the night before. The interview with Fareed Sakaria was just riveting. This is the attitude and worldview or next secretary of state (or President) should have.
Ms O'Sullivan is one of the most dishonest people I have ever seen in your program. What her credentials were when she was "advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan" Did she even spoke arabic? She kept saying "I learn..., We learn,..." How she can live with herself knowing that her "education" have cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and more than 4000 american lives? She claims that this country have to move on in the discussion about Iraq and forget the past mistakes. Here Charlie Rose should have asked Should the responsible pay the consequences of their mistakes? or Are we going to reward them with positions in academia like in Ms O'Sullivan case? Now, in an act of supreme dishonesty Ms O'Sullivan is profiting with her participation in the planing and execution of the criminal iraqi war, teaching in Harvard University (shame on them) when she (and the whole Bush administration) should be indicted for crimes of war and crimes against humanity.
Huh? Come on Charlie. Chris Freed's "more gray areas than a Jasper Johns' painting" perfectly summed up your interview with O'Sullivan. Those of us who stay up late to watch your program deserve better.
Charlie, this is the last straw. You have obviously begun to pander to the far right by not asking the hard questions or responding to the obvious errors of your guests. Do you know the difference between the "news" and the "truth?" So sadly, you have become wedded to the news rather than to the truth--- your journalistic responsibility. BTW, man is she hot. I saw you blushing.
Simply astounding. Among Ms. O'Sullivan's many ignorance's is the unawareness that the sudden removal of societal structure might result in looting and pillaging. Her surprise at discovering this truism being repeated in Baghdad after our leaders decimated Iraqi society proves that her incompetence matches that of her Neoconservative comrades. Anyone who has studied or endured a destructive natural disaster knows that societal boundaries are the first casualty. Certainly an unnatural disaster counts for as much? The woman is a fool. She should be tossed into the waste heap of incompetent failures along with Cheney and Rumsfeld and the balance of the Pax Americana devotees.
Total agreement with Jason M. Plagiarized from his post cause it deserves repeating: "The fact that you failed to challenge the idea that if Saddam had not been removed that we would now be in the midst of an Iran-Iraq 'cold war' was baffling and disgusting."
This grade school perception about power (bullies) being respected in the ME, so therefore we should extend indefinitely, is so fatuous she is childishly nauseating and about all you could expect from a Shrubby. Another great incentive for the Democratic party. Get her out of there!
Mr. Rose your interview this evening left me nauseous. Despite being an avid viewer of your program your refusal to ask tough and direct questions of many of the Bush administration apologists, Ms O'Sullivan being the latest example, is reprehensible. The fact that you failed to challenge the idea that if Saddam had not been removed that we would now be in the midst of an Iran-Iraq 'cold war' was baffling and disgusting. I fail to see a fair and balanced debate of the ideas on your program - unless the ideas do not mesh with your own. I suggest that your program be prefaced with a disclaimer that the interviews conducted are far more editorial than reportage. Reading the few comments above I am obviously not alone in my opinion about Ms. O'Sullivan's stance and statements however you should be the one to challenge these statements rather than 'nod knowingly' and move on with the interview.
This air head will be one of the first champions of going to war with Iran. A real motor-mouth that has a surreal superficiality about her that readily spews pre-canned thoughts right out of the Bush-Cheney play book. She does not deserve to be heard. Her explaining, style and assertions are so self aggrandizing and arrogant she has to be a tremendous help to be removed from the scene.
once again, Charlie "I pitch softballs to my right wing buddies" Rose is a complete let down... boy he is on the attack and hardly lets guest get a word in edgewise when they're Democrats, but when they're NeoCons, he not only quietly listens and lets them spew their talking points, he actually helps them along in making them. SHAME ON YOU Charlie Rose... the dead soldiers who gave their lives and their families deserve better...
Shame on you for giving air time to this Bush-apologist bimbo.
You cannot dispute that Meghan O'Sullivan spent @ 5 years in Iraq. Consequently, I think she has a better handle of what has happened, is happening and might happen in the future. I only wish Charlie had not interrupted her during her answers to his questions. He did not seem to listen to her and make follow-up questions to her responses but just continued the anti-Iraq rhetoric. It is apparent what his position on the war is by his comments. I am amazed how many people now claim to always have been against the war. Obama claims he was against the war but he wasn't in the Senate then so didn't vote. Ms. O'Sullivan gave a negative picture of what the area might be like if we did not go in. Others have made the same observation. If she is right, then what do we do next? I haven't lived there and made it my agenda to study the situation. Therefore, I think her views have merit. One can ignore them but to do so without careful study - not just listening to the rhetoric - would be foolish. The fact that she tried to give a balanced report - pro's and con's - gives her ideas value.
In private business, when a CEO fails, his Board replaces him with new leadership. Many a CEO will say "I made the mess, I know best how to cure it". But the reality is that companies that have followed this advice have almost always made things worse. We need new people to straighten out Iraq. I am interested in what Meghan has to say, but I don´t see her leading us out of this mess. Part of the problem is confidence in leadership. I have no confidence in Bush, he screwed up so badly. I have a hard time having any confidence in Meghan, knowing she was a senior adviser at the time the worst mistakes were made. That is a problem, because even if she is right in what she said, no person can succeed who can´t build up confidence in the course they are recommending. A good example of how replacing leadership can make the world of a difference is the Department of Defence: only after Rumsfelt was replaced did we start seeing the kinds of policy changes and the kind of confidence in leadership needed to turn straighten out the military. Unfortunately he is still hampered by inadequate the failed policies of his boss and his counterparts in other depts, including State. We are blind to how the conflict of Israel has hampered our ability to make progress in the entire Middle East, and we are hampered by a policy that labels as "terrorist" anyone who doesn´t play by our rule book. Meghan should write books, so as to recount her experience, and her perceptions, which adds to our understanding of the situation. But it is time we look for new leadership. We need thoughtful people who are listeners as well as leaders, and who can tackle future policy in Iraq with enough trust from all of us that he/she is free to chart a course which does not necessarily reflect the standard Republican or Democrat solution to the war. We also need to have a realistic understanding of the Iraqui cultural and political realities, and who acts based on the reality of the situation there, nit the fairy tales. Basra has shown the extraordinary weakness of the Iraqui army to this date. The have no air force, and they have no heavy armor to speak of. They have extremely limited logistical capabilities with which to support a fighting front. Their communication infrastructure in equally primitive. Even if you dismiss the fact that many of the soldiers will not fight, all you have there is a bunch of soldiers on pick-ups. They do have some intelligence capability but even on that count it is amazing how they underestimated the resistance they would be facing. The political pretence that the Shia, Sunny and Kurds, if we stay there long enough, will form a balanced government based on democratic principles shows a total lack of understanding of this country. The aftermath to the previous Western occupation (by the British) showed the fallacy of this illusion.
A very smart girl, apparently, or at least highly verbal, but seemingly sorely lacking in experience and perspective as she says. Reminds me too much of Condoleeza Rice. It was a little less than 30 yrs earlier that we had left Vietnam, so I suspect she will see another such in her lifetime.
iraqis respect power -- so we should stick around waiting for the next ied; ohhh k; you're the smarty pants; way too early -- if iraq's gonna turn on a dime why do does it have to be on *our* dime and how do we know when the turning is over? iraq -- more gray areas than a jasper johns painting.
This interview was absolutely reprehensible. All that Ms. O'Sullivan gave us was "talking points." While giving us a sophomoric, high-school level of discourse, incorporating what her and her ilk would normally dismiss as left-wing psycho-babble, I offer these counter arguments to their myths: A. There were no weapons of mass destruction. B. What are we getting for what we are paying for? What is (disgustingly) -- the bargain? We're not paying for this... we're borrowing the money from China. C. The Iraqis have clearly stated that they want us out. There is no "partnership," or "having their backs" for any extended period. D. Success is not possible. This was ill-conceived at best, and illegal and completely immoral at worst. E. My favorite: "we won't do another Iraq..." "In my lifetime." Hello? The saber-rattling on Iran completely contradicts those statements. I am stunned each and every day... if I conducted my job as these people have done for the last five years, I would have been fired for merely one of these transgression. Just one... Shame, shame shame! These people have been wrong, wrong, wrong on each and every detail concerning "intelligence," "facts," and "reality." These people have completely mortgaged our future and safety in the most unacceptably subprime way possible. When do we show them the door? I'll be targeting my financial support toward Bill Moyers and definitely not Charlie Rose
This interview was absolutely reprehensible. All that Ms. O'Sullivan gave us was "talking points." While giving us a sophomoric, high-school level of discourse, incorporating what her and her ilk would normally dismiss as left-wing psycho-babble, I offer these counter arguments to their myths: A. There were no weapons of mass destruction. B. What are we getting for what we are paying for? What is (disgustingly) -- the bargain? We're not paying for this... we're borrowing the money from China. C. The Iraqis have clearly stated that they want us out. There is no "partnership," or "having their backs" for any extended period. D. Success is not possible. This was ill-conceived at best, and illegal and completely immoral at worst. E. My favorite: "we won't do another Iraq..." "In my lifetime." Hello? The saber-rattling on Iran completely contradicts those statements. I am stunned each and every day... if I conducted my job as these people have done for the last five years, I would have been fired for merely one of these transgression. Just one... Shame, shame shame! These people have been wrong, wrong, wrong on each and every detail concerning "intelligence," "facts," and "reality." These people have completely mortgaged our future and safety in the most unacceptably subprime way possible. When do we show them the door? I'll be targeting my financial support toward Bill Moyers and definitely not Charlie Rose
This interview was absolutely reprehensible. All that Ms. O'Sullivan gave us was "talking points." While giving us a sophomoric, high-school level of discourse, incorporating what her and her ilk would normally dismiss as left-wing psycho-babble, I offer these counter arguments to their myths: A. There were no weapons of mass destruction. B. What are we getting for what we are paying for? What is (disgustingly) -- the bargain? We're not paying for this... we're borrowing the money from China. C. The Iraqis have clearly stated that they want us out. There is no "partnership," or "having their backs" for any extended period. D. Success is not possible. This was ill-conceived at best, and illegal and completely immoral at worst. E. My favorite: "we won't do another Iraq..." "In my lifetime." Hello? The saber-rattling on Iran completely contradicts those statements. I am stunned each and every day... if I conducted my job as these people have done for the last five years, I would have been fired for merely one of these transgression. Just one... Shame, shame shame! These people have been wrong, wrong, wrong on each and every detail concerning "intelligence," "facts," and "reality." These people have completely mortgaged our future and safety in the most unacceptably subprime way possible. When do we show them the door? I'll be targeting my financial support toward Bill Moyers and definitely not Charlie Rose
Once