Charlie Rose

pod43  05/23/2009 02:05 AM Report

Mr. Brooks’ assertion of the symmetry of historical distortion by Cheney and Obama

on the torture issue is dimensionless: He points out that Cheney's approach was out by Bush's

second term, and so Obama's position is inaccurate, the assumption being that Rice and Gates rectified the situation. This is nonsense on its face. Many of the outcomes of Cheney's

influence on policy, and on Bush have left the country with a political version of nuclear waste,

with no way to dispose of it without creating real risks and harm. Obama isn't digging into the past to make issues from nothing: that past is digging into us hard-and now! I have a feeling that this process of being bitten from behind from the, as yet unfelt, terrible consequences

of the four year Cheney administration, really hasn't even begun yet. God knows the time bombs they've scattered in this very shaky world. I'm really perplexed as to how Mr. Brooks could miss the asymmetry of the process as it’s unfolded between Cheney and Obama.

Torture is not relevant here, for presumably it has ceased as a public policy. The central issue is its unending, and dangerously unpredictable wake. Really, how can one miss that? The real issue here is when does conviction cross the line, and how do we as citizens evaluate this very point. I respect differing opinions, but not when a powerful guy seeks secrecy and locks down the chance for anyone to refute and vet his basic assumptions. We need to identify philistinism early, especially amongst the brightest and most powerful of us. Conviction has little virtue if it is not informed, especially when the lack of being informed is due to rigidity, which has its roots in

personality structure- scholarship and scientific method are nullified. This is truly a tragic

circumstance in anyone's life- when leaders have this problem, we ALL pay.

IRISH  04/28/2009 03:55 PM Report

Excellent interview with D.Brooks. Prez Obama may be too far in front of the voters willingness to change their behaviour wrt education, climate change, oil, taxes, health care, etc. and it is correct in Brook's estimation that changing behaviour via govt policy may be risky. In any event the American people have elected a president who is the most capable in leading the country back to some kind of normality. We must remember the media and voters concerns after his winning the presidency focusing on his "lack of experience". Surely not now!

ShalomFreedman  04/26/2009 12:07 PM Report

The major part of the interview has to do with analysis of the policies and personality of President Obama and his Administration. Though he is a Conservative Brooks has been and continues to be a strong supporter of President Obama. I think he shares the feeling of the overwhelming majority of the people that the present President is an extraordinarily competent, responsible and capable leader. His great intelligence is a central part of this leadership quality as he is not afraid to work with and contradict first- rate minds.

Brooks raises the question of whether the President whose plans and ideas are so ambitious will know 'limitations' when the time comes to recognize and accept them.

I have the sense that the great confidence the people of America and the world have in the new President is going to be a central factor in his truly bringing about a dramatic change for the good in many areas of life.

ShalomFreedman  04/26/2009 01:38 AM Report

Brooks is a master commentator. His analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian peace - process is right on the mark. Charlie Rose is not usually so stubborn in opposing a guest's analysis but he is suffering from the same failure to recognize a harsh reality that other advocates of imaginary peace are.

On other issues Brooks brings a sophistication and inside knowledge which are simply informative.

I was surprised that more was not said about his remark about the Middle West not recovering from the present economic crisis. This does not seem to me a one- sentence issue.

doodahdaze  04/25/2009 08:56 AM Report

Mr. Brooks is a fair and thoughtful guy, but I wish he would stop lowering his voice and mumbling when he's making a point; it's difficult to hear.

slovik  04/25/2009 04:35 AM Report

Hey REMant I don't think Churchill was much of a liberal (flipped parties twice?). Praised for Mussolini for anticommunist reasons, against Indian independence, problems with the vote for women, and more, hardly classifies as a Liberal. And I still believe he was the greatest man of WW2. The easy thing to do was a nonaggression pact w Hitler, which Hitler wanted so he could look east. Without Churchill WW2 would have been much worse. Nukes accross Europe.

Obama policies on banks is distasteful to say the least. All options are. I think he is enlisting the crooks for a fix which will be faster and maybe less expensive. Otherwise they wash their hands of it all and pick the bones for more profit. Nationalizing would get us a big dead brick.

I hear and the see the media loves Obama whine so often I want to offer cheese. People I know with this argument forget or don't want to remember the continuous pass Team Bush got for years. I remembering seeing him standing @ the DMZ in Korea saying "I hate that man" ( lil' Kim), My President said he hated a foreign leader attacked Iraq and we wonder why everyone wants the bomb now. I would. No media complaint at all. They suck up for access now.

Brooks is at least honest. I share few of his views and want him to speak often. Challenges my perceptions like no Neocon can.

Christopher  04/25/2009 03:41 AM Report

We cannot accuse David of not being a realist. Excellent interview.

REMant  04/24/2009 07:17 PM Report

Burke, like Churchill, was a Liberal, not a Tory conservative. FDR came into office as a Jacksonian, not a Progressive. He may never have been a Progressive at heart, which I think can be seen in the legislation. In the 1830's and 40's, the railroads were built in all the wrong places not because of government involvement, but because of the absence of it. The banks failed because they were completely unregulated and became involved in stuff like railroad speculation. In Indiana, where there was good regulation, that didn't happen.

Obama may manage well enough, but so far I find his policies inconsistent. There is no excuse for his position on the banks. It is flouting the law, and it is holding up reconstruction as well as rewarding cupidity. The problem with the mkt is not the mkt, itself, but the Progressive and monetarist easy money policy.

Nation-building is all very well, but there are vastly different nations, and the Liberal model is but one of them, and, unfortunately probably neither the most desirable, nor the most desired.

Churchill was wrong in crisis frequently. Fortunately ppl could and did ignore him. Self-confidence is fine, of course, as long as it not misplaced.

I don't know about Biden, but I do feel more and more that the Obama camp has or had struck some deal with the Clintonians, regarding Israel and Wall St in particular.

BCS20  04/24/2009 02:44 PM Report

I don't understand to the fear of Obama's "rock-star-image". Since when is it bad to be popular? There is no evidence that it is effecting his judgement or policy; and I'm not sure how I see being popular could effect judgement in a negative way. We've spent approximatley the past 6 years with a president that everyone hates -- including the rest of the world. Its a nice change to have a president that everyone -- including the rest of the world -- likes and admires.

tartufe  04/24/2009 01:54 PM Report

David's got an engaging, almost merry delivery. He may think a little too fast at times. Or to be fair when he departs from what I want him to think.

The incessant Obama-fest by Charlie and more cautiously so by David is encroaching on old-hat.

Obama for me is becoming too exposed and rock-star-image dependent to be a good thing. His substance to image is dropping to 50:50. His war (Af-Pak) is deteriorating as is his overstuffing banks with (unwanted?) money.

He's been ransomed by two powerful oligarchs: M-I and Financial. Obeisance to them will ultimately cost our nation and progeny dearly - long term.