A conversation about President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney with David Brooks

with David Brooks
in Current Affairs
on Friday, May 22, 2009 * * * * *

Sorry, this video isn’t available at the moment; please check back soon.

play

E-mail this video:

Distribute this video:

Share on:

Close
Description

A conversation about President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney with David Brooks of "The New York Times"

Video Share Options
Share
Buy Amazon DVD
Keywords:
Debate
Dick Cheney
terrorism
Obama

In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:

itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/10327

Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.

Close
  • Comments 11
    Post new comment
    1. wjwilson  06/21/2009 06:31 PM Report

      Canadian born David Brooks is not an impartial reporter. Brooks still is insisting the Iraq war was not a mistake and U.S. got to do as much as possible, not for sake of America, similar to Joseph Lieberman. Thomas Lauren Friedman has changed his position and he is trying to make up for it. Charlie Rose, please try to invite impartial reporters, which are trying to get to the truth by not bending it.

    2. Stellar  05/31/2009 09:09 PM Report

      David is wishy-washy. I like him sometimes and other times I don't. I guess he has to please the republican base when writing his columns.

      That said, I think David really likes Obama, but he can't really show it. And that's what makes him wishy-washy.

    3. IRISH  05/28/2009 04:11 PM Report

      Brooks is just about the only conservative realist remaining in the ideological world of polluted conservatism.

    4. Christopher  05/27/2009 03:37 PM Report

      David doesn't get that the difference between Bush 1 and 2nd term and Obama 1st term is that you get the impression that the Bush adm. thought it was acceptable to torture for National Security and Obama does not. Not only that, the Bush adm. incorrectly judged that waterboarding was not tortue. It is that disconnect with mainstream America. Also, Cheney does not get that the "24" attitude towards terrorism is Hollywood. It does not happen like in "24". Also, Obama correctly highlights that there are higher principles at stake. Would I like to live in China to avoid 9/11? The answer is no.

      Having that said, I really enjoy David Brooks' opinions and he is a right winger who seems honest when he explains the way he sees things. He should definetly be a regular guest.

    5. tartufe  05/27/2009 01:25 PM Report

      -daze that's what govts do - waste resources. Particularly ours. If it slows they outsource it to Citigroup, AIG et al.

    6. doodahdaze  05/26/2009 08:11 PM Report

      tartufe, If that's the argument FOR scrapping the Guantanamo Bay facility. Then WOW! What a REALLY STUPID ACT OF GOVERNMENT WASTE OF RESOURCES!!!

      So basically hitting the table and yelling bad table will satisfy the terrorist baby that stubbed his toe on the table leg, and "the world" will love us again. Wow, wish I was smart enough to figure all that out. I guess I better get with the program, "Yes we can! Yes we can!"... <sigh> I feel so much better now. <sigh>

    7. tartufe  05/26/2009 05:36 PM Report

      Obama needs to clamup and do. NPR interviewed CO security prison and community with upshot that they could/would/willingly take them on. Quantanamo has evolved into a loom-large symbollism that needs to be dulled in the memory of history. Elstwise it's evils will be kept on the world's conscience ad nauseum. Exactly what we don't need.

      Terrorists remembering someday may give Cheney his petulant little-boy I-told-you-so minute.

    8. REMant  05/26/2009 03:56 PM Report

      I thought Cheney makes a good point in saying that much of this has been overblown, but it is in the last analysis mostly the Bush admin's fault that it has. However, I think, his statement regarding Guantanamo was hypocritical and self-serving, and likely aimed at finding a "don't ask, don't tell" issue to disrupt the Dems, so I'd have to consider him an agent provocateur in his own right. Otherwise as Brooks said a couple of times Friday there doesn't seem to be much difference except in the public relations. Staging the speech in the National Archives, was, IMHO, as stupid as anything the Obama's have ever done. On the question of efficacy, I would think that if a terrorist knew that holding out would aid the success of a particular mission you would not get him to break, regardless, and only when things look hopeless for him, by which time whatever you get will be of less value.

    9. doodahdaze  05/26/2009 12:19 PM Report

      Not sure I heard any mention of Guantanamo Bay in this interview. I think to shut down that facility would be an EXTREMELY STUPID act on the part of Obama and would be a sign of poor decisions and a lack of intelligent priorities to come.

      Get ready for Jimmy Carter again.

    10. doodahdaze  05/26/2009 11:36 AM Report

      That's why David Brooks is my new voice of reason. Thanks Charlie

    11. RWillis  05/26/2009 11:23 AM Report

      David Brooks seems to be one of the very few reasonable conservative voices in the media these days.

      Very good interview.