Charlie Rose

FLPatriot  09/24/2010 03:45 PM Report

Very good interview Mr.Rose. I was impressed by both of you. It was refreshing to see and honest dialog between the two of you. All I can say to many who have posted below is you may want to go to AE911truth and realize that 9/11 was an inside job done by rouge elements in this Country. Maybe we need to get the log out of our eye before we try to get the splinter out of Iran's eye. The mega-phonies on this site will just try to throw dirt in the air but honest readers will realize that there are millions of us truthers who now realize that we are living in a Country where criminals in our Govt. can get away with killing thousands of us on TV and think they can get away with it. Truth will always rise to the top. Many of you realize that 9/11 was an inside job but you are afraid to come forward and let others know this. Don't be, over 80% of the American people now know the Govt. is not telling us the truth about 9/11.

Truther are the majority in this Country now.

Charlie, can you go and get Richard Gage to come on your show? There are now Architects,Engineers,Military Officers,Pilots,and so many more that I could not count who know that what the American Govt. told us about 9/11 is a lie.

Anyone who would take just a few minutes and research what really happened could find this out easily. That is why so many now know that we can not trust our Govt. Tyranny will always come from your Govt. These criminals have bankrupted this Country and their not done yet.

They mean to go in Iran and kill another million women and children. We must be careful for what we wish for because Iran is not Iraq. As a retired US Army soldier, let me say that our military is about spent. 9 years of war is taking its toll on these men and women. Enough of the yearning to kill people.

Why don't we do like Ron Paul says and just come home.

andi76  09/23/2010 02:32 AM Report

I agree with Laiby_kamal. It's when I listen to an intelligent man like Dr. Ahmadinejad, that I am ashamed of our government and how stupid we probably look to other countries. The Iranian people are good people. We all do want one thing, and that is to live in peace. I respect the cultures of other countries, religion, and of people. The American government has NEVER shown this to other countries in my eyes. I was really hoping for "change" with Obama, heck I even voted for him, but I have a felling that the "change" will not happen until we FIX what is wrong HERE, in our country and keep our noses out of "other peoples business". We have bombs, it seams every other country has them and we pick on the ones that don't, We should look at OUR faults and Fix them!!! I don't worry about another country blowing us up, I am SCARED TO DEATH that OUR own government will blow us up!!!! SERIOUS!!! I KNOW in my heart that the Bush administration and other Americans were involved in 9/11 ...... And its not the end...... Our own government is to blame!!!! I am disappointed in America and what it stands for, of course what do expect of a country that was born from stealing and lying???? I think we will destroy ourselves, and God have mercy on the leaders of this country.

Laiby_kamal  06/29/2010 11:59 PM Report

Iam 30 years old from Iraq I belive in God and the profet (SAW) Mohammed in the same way i belive that pepole should have there own way of life and there won point of veiw and there own values. why should we our the Iraniens live the way the ammarican choose to Uss? its world of democracy or its A big jock . and we Iraqees are not foold by the Iraqee freedome war or other bullshit maybee the ammaricans can bee foold with this silly name for awar to controle oil for the beniffit of ammarican pepole.we are pepole not appes that can bee teacted what is wrigth or what is wrong if the politicain of the us welly cares about the amaricans I wander why the persedent Obbama faced all these critics agians his plane to improve the health care for poor pepole in the US ?why all these spending on war instade of improve the life of the poor amarican ? well the amaricans I think have the same problem as we do because the gridy of some of the congres men and the marhsalls of the comming wars!!

bradashrton  06/11/2010 05:22 PM Report

Good interview - charlie. Highlights some of the root causes to the lack of progress in the relationship between the us and iran. iran and the us both have some genuine and acceptable concerns and interests. it appears there is ample ground to build relations should we finally have a sincere interest to do so.

jgarbuz  05/29/2010 10:42 AM Report

Jewish scientists who fled Germany and Hungary were the how and why the US acquired the atomic bomb the first place. Israel had all the nuclear knowledge soon after it was reborn. When the Arabs refused to make peace after 1949, and when the US refused to give Israel a formal treaty of alliance (which it still does not have), and because Khruschev threatened to nuke Israel back in 1956 during the Suez crisis, Israel (in cooperation with France) was forced to go nuclear. Only a handful of Muslim states recognize the Jewish state even today so Israel is really the only state on earth that has a legitimate reason to have nukes. No one is threatening to eliminate the US, UK, Russia, France, China, India or Pakistan, or even Iran, but the eventual elimination of the Jewish state remains the ultimate Holy Grail of all Arab and most Muslim nations.

At any rate, Israel does not sit on top of nearly half the world's oil supplies, but Iran does.

If the world wants to see a nuclear Iran dominate the oil supplies and the water routes to and fro, and feels that a weakened or an eliminated Israel will somehow placate the future ambitions of the Supreme Leader Khameini and his spokesman Ahmadinejad, I have a country to sell them: The Czech Republic. Does anyone still remember Czechoslovakia and "peace in our times," circa 1938?

slightly_optimistic  05/10/2010 08:01 AM Report

Nuclear proliferation was the subject of an interview last month in 'Conversations with History'.

The former US ambassador to the IAEA emphasised the big picture. He said Washington wants to see the Middle East free of nuclear weapons. Many other countries also want to see this, but perhaps on a shorter time scale. There's no deadline as yet.

Anyway for the foreseeable future the global community won't be able to supply nations with protection, so each country might want to make its own arrangements.

But possessing the ultimate in weaponry is no guarantee of security. Britain was apparently prevented from using it when the Falkland Islands were invaded.

alimostofi  05/09/2010 09:01 AM Report

The illegal ruler states

"MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Yes. It’s better than the economy here in the

United States because in the past three years of economic crisis we’ve had

a positive economic growth.

The volume of our trade is not anywhere close to the volume of trade

the United States has. The volume of your trade is much larger. But in

world crisis, in a global crisis when you’re economy was going down, our

economy was still showing a positive trend, because our economy is based

indigenous and based on Iran’s own internal resources primarily. It’s not

based on global resources.

So we don’t really have a major problem. We don’t worry about

sanctions either. We’re worried that the opportunity for creating a better

world and world peace are getting lost."

Can he explain why the Tepix has fallen in the past three months?

http://www.iranbourse.com/WebCharts/ChartPic_000048.png?896384c7-1306-4f99-aaca-4c80bcc00205

take5  05/08/2010 06:47 PM Report

This man back pedals faster than a nine year old high on sugar. His constant diversions throughout the conversation leaves one to wonder what truth still lurks behind Iran's twisted form of government. And yet there is merit in his point of world governance and the effect of globalization on those who do not wish to partake. How much can the global powers that be control world development before we can call it a one world regime?

I was impressed with the strength Charlie possessed as an interviewer, while still maintaining a level of professionalism. If only Larry King had, had the same level when speaking to President Ahmadinejad about the Holocaust. What a sad instance in American Journalism that interview turned out to be.

slightly_optimistic  05/08/2010 05:50 AM Report

A growing appetite everywhere for sophisticated weaponry? Certainly the lack of global security is increasingly apparent.

The Chilcot inquiry into the UK's involvement in Iraq is shedding some light on the problem.

11plus1  05/07/2010 04:19 PM Report

Yeah Charlie Rose is my favorite interviewer when it comes to stuff like this,however I did not see Ahmadinejad being questioned about supplying the taliban with IED's. How can talks go forward without that crucial issue not being addressed? On the flip side of the coin if Mexico and Canada got invaded by Iran i could see how that would put U.S. in the same sort of position. But then again i do not see those governments launching attacks on anyone based on extremism. Nor would the U.S. ever allow such a thing, but u know in the spirit of "walking in some one else's shoes" Was the issue on his do not ask list or what, or did i just miss it?

Fiorangela  05/06/2010 10:37 PM Report

gunjoe, -- or, telling stories might signal a cultural variation on forms of communicating, different from American style that has become habituated to sound bites, bullet point, talking points. I thought it more old fashioned than a "tactic for controlling the interview." Frustrated the bejabbers out of ol' Charlie 'this is all about me' Rose, that's fer shur.

machngunjoe  05/06/2010 07:56 PM Report

Anyone else notice Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's tactic is to control the interview by telling long stories?

Ricardo_Amaral  05/06/2010 05:01 PM Report

“Time for a nuclear samba”

By Pepe Escobar

Asia Times (Hong Kong) – May 7, 2010

It does not necessarily take two to samba - but if you samba as a group the result is much more infectious. Brazil has advanced a proposal to unblock the Iranian nuclear dossier that is in fact the common view among the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China), the emerging geopolitical counter-power to United States hegemony.

Iran has all but agreed that Brazil should be the mediator between Tehran and the United Nations - rather than the axis of the US, Britain and France inside the UN Security Council, plus Germany - to finally settle the Iranian nuclear dossier. According to the Fars news agency, after his visit early this week to New York, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, in a phone call with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, told him that Iran had agreed with the

Brazilian proposal for a nuclear fuel swap deal for the Tehran research reactor, which produces medical isotopes for cancer treatment. The proposal will be discussed in detail when Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva visits Tehran by the end of next week.

The Brazilian government - on a "soft" collision course with the Barack Obama administration - has been positioning itself as a mediator for some time. The nuclear swap was first proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) late last year in Vienna. The idea was for Iran to transfer the bulk of its low enriched uranium abroad and have access to nuclear fuel rods supplied by France.

The negotiation stalled after Tehran proposed that the swap might take place in Japan, Brazil or Turkey. Brazil's Lula, by the end of April, suggested the better idea was for the swap to take place in a country neighboring Iran. Then Tehran settled on its own island of Kish. The swap inside its own borders was considered by Iran as a question of national sovereignty. The US and the Europeans rejected it.

Ahmadinejad's position on the swap - which is the position of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as well as the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps - developed just as the Iranian president, in New York, publicly refused the US/European Union tactic of always bundling together nuclear weapons and use of nuclear energy in the same discussion. In a call that rang across the developing world, Ahmadinejad pulled no punches. He denounced the Security Council and the IAEA as being manipulated against non-nuclear states and expressly demanded the world to cease development of nuclear weapons and to ban production, storage, proliferation, maintenance and use of nuclear weapons.

Looks like the UN apparently was paying attention. Apparently. On Wednesday, the five permanent Security Council members, in a joint statement, supported the idea of making the Middle East a nuclear-weapons-free zone. That would let the (nuclear) cat out of the bag - forcing Israel to declare itself a nuclear power and join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The chances of this happening under a Benjamin Netanyahu government are slim.

In fact, Washington paid only lip service to this nuclear-free wishful thinking because it is avidly courting the Arab vote to back up a Security Council fourth round of sanctions against Iran. It remains to be seen whether Arab states, mostly US clients, will be duped by this. They do want a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East for real, Israel included.

Egypt - which chairs the powerful 118-nation Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) - has circulated a proposal to the 189 signatories of the NPT calling for a conference by 2011 on turning the Middle East into a nuclear-weapons-free zone. Inevitably, the US is now trying to persuade Egypt to "soften" its tone and basically wait and see.

The non-aligned countries in the developing world, as well as the BRICs, may have understood the "real" danger behind the (non-existent) Iranian bomb: it is Israel's behavior for decades that has carried the threat of a nuclear war in the Middle East, not a non-existent Iranian "bomb".

And then there's the ever-shifting sanctions front. What is now clear is what was already clear last month: no new sanctions before July, if at all. Both Russia and China are turning the US-drafted sanctions package into sand. BRIC member Brazil, alongside Turkey, the current non-veto power Security Council members, also don't want sanctions.

All eyes now focus on the Brazil-Iran meeting late next week. If there's a global politician that can breach the enormous divide between US/European aggressiveness and the military dictatorship of the mullahatariat, it is Lula. He's from the West, he's from the global south and he's a hell of a charming negotiator. The time has come for a real nuclear samba.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE07Ak01.html

.

slightly_optimistic  05/06/2010 09:34 AM Report

A report today says Brazil has advanced a proposal to address the Iranian nuclear impasse that is the common view among the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China), emerging world powers.

Moreover Iran, feeling persecuted by a western axis (the US, Britain and France inside the UN Security Council, plus Germany) "has all but agreed" that Brazil should be the mediator between Tehran and the United Nations.

Should the BRIC's be acceptable to the UN as mediators?

richardknox  05/06/2010 03:36 AM Report

Charlie ,thats just too hard. I had to look away.

Not because of his rambling but because of your extreme discomfort and frustration.

To your credit you carried on. You hung in there but no one else could.I lasted 25.55. Which now that I look at it was pretty good . Please don't do that again . Wait for him to ask to talk to you."My friend Mr. Charlie Rose"

RezaRob  05/06/2010 02:58 AM Report

Don't get me wrong, Iran IS in general a rather peaceful nation, just not to it's own citizens!

RezaRob  05/06/2010 02:55 AM Report

Many thanks Charlie for interviewing Mr. Ahmadinejad. I do hope that Iran and America will work together in the future.

In regards to suppression of political dissent, Ahmadinejad sweet talked his way out of your question by making comparisons to window breaking in the U.S. Then, how can he explain the executions and this Amnesty International report: 'http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/shocking-execution-iran-protesters-condemned-2010012 8'

Can Ahmadinejad also explain the vicious practice of stoning in our "peaceful" land (see Amnesty International again)?

Thanks again.

Fiorangela  05/06/2010 12:34 AM Report

TTT, First, Iran is not MY country and Ahmadinejad is not MY leader; I am the first-generation American daughter of Southern European/ naturalized Americans.

Second, I wonder how you would assess the stability of Israel's government: unlike the US as well as Iran, its flag is a religious symbol, its government functions under the symbol of the menorrah, its state holidays are Jewish religious holy days, its raison d'etre is based on a religious text.

In contrast, Iran has a secular constitution; its government is predominantly secular in structure, with interlocking and counterbalancing offices devised more to prevent overthrow by outside forces than in deference to religious authority. Iran does operate under Islam in much the same way the US is broadly structured under Christian principles. Iran's cultural traditions, in fact, the core of Iranian character and culture, is Zoroastrian, not Islamic; Islam was 'imposed' on Iran only 1300 years ago. Zoroastrianism is the prototype of many Christian doctrines and also heavily influenced Jewish ethical principles.

Your statement, "No matter what I say you will see it differently" is a reflection of a bad habit Americans have of believing that expressions of opinion are the equivalent of an argument; they are not.

lipservice  05/05/2010 10:10 PM Report

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

The NPT consists of a preamble and eleven articles. Although the concept of "pillars" appears nowhere in the NPT, the treaty is nevertheless sometimes interpreted as a three pillar system, with an implicit balance among them:

non-proliferation,

disarmament, and

the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.

Article I:Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices.

Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.

Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Article IV: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Article VI. The states undertake to pursue "negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament", and towards a "Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".

Article X. Establishes the right to withdraw from the Treaty giving 3 months' notice. It also establishes the duration of the Treaty (25 years before 1995 Extension Initiative).

THERE IS NO SINGLE CREDITABLE EVIDENCE THAT IRAN FLOUTS THE NPT RULES OR DEVELOPES NUKES.

lipservice  05/05/2010 10:10 PM Report

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

The NPT consists of a preamble and eleven articles. Although the concept of "pillars" appears nowhere in the NPT, the treaty is nevertheless sometimes interpreted as a three pillar system, with an implicit balance among them:

non-proliferation,

disarmament, and

the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.

Article I:Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices.

Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.

Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Article IV: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Article VI. The states undertake to pursue "negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament", and towards a "Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".

Article X. Establishes the right to withdraw from the Treaty giving 3 months' notice. It also establishes the duration of the Treaty (25 years before 1995 Extension Initiative).

THERE IS NO SINGLE CREDITABLE EVIDENCE THAT IRAN FLOUTS THE NPT RULES OR DEVELOPES NUKES.

TexasTeaTime  05/05/2010 07:44 PM Report

Fiorangela:

Iran’s government is unstable because of it structure. Religion and government are woven together. Religious groups have a history of subverting the facts to keep power despite innocent bystanders. The USA has a constitution that explicitly separates the government and religion, despite this fact, there has been over 200 years of debates and changes/struggles in our culture and laws. So, when I say Iran is unstable it is based on the history of countries that have changed government structure.

“I think not. Therefore, pfffft. Begone. You have no standing.” Thank you that was funny.

No matter what I say you will see it differently. But, from what I can see Iran has an image problem. Your semi-elected (again church and state interwoven) leader Ahmadinejad speaks with a passion of retaliation instead of reconciliation. He has lead your country in a direction that shows no signs of avoiding confrontation. We have had similar problems with our country. George Bush is a good example. Bush has created a lot of problems for the US while trying to fix others.

By the way in 1983 Iran was in a war with Iraq…hmm ...I wonder why there nuclear aspirations started off so poorly.

In the end, Iran has an image problem.

betz55  05/05/2010 07:21 PM Report

I am constantly amazed at Rose's AIPAC talking points and agenda, you'd think the man would know that most of the world has caught on to the Israel Lobby agenda of demonizing and warmongering Iran to divert attention from their own nuclear program and amassed warheads.

President Ahmadinejad should have made Rose look ridiculous as to why he was not acknowledging Israels exceptionalism on this issue.

All the President of Iran had to say to Charlie was "if the US and Israel want Iranian nuclear transparency then Israel better be just as tranparent".

All the President of Iran had to say to Charlie about student demonstrations and deaths was "Kent State".

All the President of Iran had to say to Charlie about his "disputed elections" was Bush v Gore.

Charlie looked like an AIPAC shill making the US an open hypocrite while railing against Irans nuclear development.

Iran hasn't invaded anyone since the Islamic revolution, although it has supported a number of terrorist organizations and engaged in various forms of covert action.

The United States has also backed terrorist groups and conducted covert ops during this same period, and attacked a number of other countries, including Panama, Grenada, Serbia, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan.

Iran has never interfered in US internal affairs, but the US has a long record of interfering in Iranian affairs. In 1953 the US overthrew Iran’s popular prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq and installed a puppet who tortured Iranians who desired political independence.

Despite this and other American offenses against Iran, Ahmadinejad repeatedly expressed Iran’s interest to be on friendly terms with the United States, only to be repeatedly rebuffed.

Yet Rose was browbeating him to answer why he wouldn't make the 'first move' towards 'reaching out' to Obama.

Rose, the next time, in Tehran, leave the AIPAC, WINEP, JINA, and ADL talking points at home and realize you are talking to the democratically elected President of a country who NEVER said he wanted to wipe Israel of the map. Unlike the Israeli's who want to wipe the Palestinans off the map. Don't be an AIPAC shill, be a journalist and do your homework.

mutex  05/05/2010 05:48 PM Report

Fiorangela, your 'want to buy a gun' analogy is excellent. The problem is that most people are unaware of the reason for the NPT and the IAEA. Many American politicians question why Iran would even want nuclear energy given that they have so much oil but under the NPT the nations that have nuclear technology are not only suppose to tolerate member nations acquiring this technology they are suppose to HELP them get it.

As President Ahmadinejad has said many times, Iran is suject to verification by the IAEA that it is living up to its responsibilities under the NPT but the United States is subject to no such verification. The United States is suppose to provide Iran assistance in acquiring nuclear power technology under the NPT but no such assistance has been forthcoming.

It is extremely ironic that so many uninformed Americans call for 'nuking' Iran because Ahmadinejad is a 'nut job' but they have nothing to say about India, Pakistan and Israel who refuse to even sign the agreement let alone live up to their 'responsibilities'.

If most Americans were made aware of the truth regarding U.S. foreign policy over the last 60 years they would be stunned. Since these people want to believe their country is this shining beacon of freedom and democracy and the media is in business to tell the people what they want to hear we fortunately don't have to worry about the truth ever getting much exposure. The best we are ever treated with is 'mistakes were made'.

They fail to mention that these 'mistakes' have been repeated by the U.S. government over an over again around the world.

Fiorangela  05/05/2010 03:28 PM Report

>>>“they could have done it with conventional weapons” is a bad argument for Iran’s sake.<<<

I agree it’s a weak argument, but not based on the example you cite, which is off-point and illogical. You say:

>>> For example: I am not guilty because “I didn’t kill that person with a gun because I also had a knife and could have killed them with a knife”. This type of argument means, yes I am guilty but your facts about how I am guilty are wrong so they don’t count.<<<

The critical element in the situation is not whether Iran is or is not “guilty” of having committed an act – Iran committed NO act inflicting harm on Israel. Rather, the accusation against Iran is that it INTENDS to harm Israel. Based on that presumed INTENTION, Iran is to be denied nuclear technology because based on that flawed presumption, Iran would use that nuclear technology to harm Israel.

I maintain that the INTENTION of Iran to harm Israel CANNOT be sustained because if Iran truly intended to harm Israel, it had the means to carry out that intention without the necessity of developing nuclear weapons to do so.

>>> Additionally, Iran doesn’t recognize Israel as a country which further illustrates its disdain for Israel.<<<

And this matter why? One doesn’t have to do back flips to discover that Iran has “disdain” for ‘the zionist entity;’ Iranians will tell you so quite openly. Iranians have a great deal of respect and a feeling of protectiveness towards Jews; Iranians feel that both Israel’s Jews and its Muslim Arabs are being ill-treated by zionism, a political movement that had its origins in central Europe. Although Herzl is the ‘father’ of zionism, Russian and Eastern European Jews formed the philosophical and operational foundations of the zionism that is being carried out today in Israel. Key among those foundation doctrines is Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall doctrine, which, in essence, holds that Israeli Jews must kill Arabs until Arabs submit to Jewish dominance. Ian Lustick explains the doctrine more extensively here: http://www.edmaysproductions.net/webvideo/irannuke.wmv

Now, that’s a pretty disgusting foundation on which to build a state. Zionism uses holocaust simultaneously to maintain Israeli Jews in a state of perpetual trauma; a “kind of death cult,” in Lustick’s words, and to sustain the West in a state of perpetual guilt – a situation Karin Friedemann describes as “The Emotional Violence of Jewish Advocacy” http://karinfriedemann.blogspot.com/2009/02/emotional-abuse-of-israel-advocacy.html Any challenge to the holocaust narrative undermines these two pillars of zionist control over Israeli Jews as well as the West, particularly American Jews and Americans who support and enable zionism. Please listen to Lustick until his concluding statement: “This is a very dangerous situation.” Ahmadinejad arouses the passion that he does because zionism has placed holocaust at the heart of Israeli Jewish identity, and Ahmadinjad challenges that identity, in addition to shaking the foundations of zionist control over Jews as well as those held in check by holocaust guilt.

>>>Sovereign rights of Iran.

The well being of many out weight the well being of the few. Iran’s unstable government (non-secular) has chosen a path opposed by a majority of world’s governments. <<<

What makes you think that Iran’s government is “unstable?” Iranians had an election; it was controversial; some protests took place; the situation is being managed by the Iranian people and their leaders. Flynt Leverett argues persuasively that the Green Movement is not nearly the phenomenon that many in the US want it to be; that much as you or others may not like it, a majority of Iranians voted for Ahmadinejad; that the US would do well to form coherent policies based on facts as they are. See www.raceforiran.com

>>>Iran has chosen a path opposed by a majority of world’s governments.”<<<

Aahh, but do “the majority of world’s governments” have a right to vote in Iran? I think not. Therefore, pfffft. Begone. You have no standing.

>>>>The community of nations has painstakingly set a course for the future where nuclear weapons are a threat to global security. In the USA, when you apply for a gun permit there is a background check looking at criminal history, even a small blemish can be ground for denying access.<<<<

Interesting example; let’s work with it.

Let’s say you wish to embark on a nuclear development program (you want to buy a gun). You subscribe to the proper protocols (join the NPT), fill out all the applications documenting your “unblemished” record, which are approved by all the appropriate agencies, (as Iran did in 1983), but a wealthy politician (the USofA) leaned on the guy who owns the gun shop and forced him to reject your permit to own a gun/nuclear technology (as the USofA did re Iran in 1983).

You study the rules again and figure out ways to own a gun within the letter of the law, but that do not require that you once again encounter that wealthy, well-connected politician, and you do acquire a gun.

Meanwhile, several of your neighbors – let’s call them Izzy, Indie, and Pak – ALL own really big guns; they’ve never even attempted to conform to the “painstakingly set…course” for getting a permit for their guns; moreover, one of these neighbors, Izzy, has a criminal history of violent acts as well as of using its guns/nuclear weapons as blackmail to extract concessions from other states, and the other two neighbors, Indie and Pak, have threatened each other with their guns/nukes – tad more than “small blemishes” on their records, which would have and should have been grounds for “denying access” to a permit to own a gun/nuclear weapon.

How do you feel about having a clean record, following the “painstaking” protocol, yet being denied the right to own a gun, while your neighbors, Izzy, Indie, and Pak, flouted the law, had “blemished” records, DO possess guns/nuclear weapons, and, to boot, use those guns/nuclear weapons to threaten you and your family? What would you do, TTT?

mcsconsult  05/05/2010 02:49 PM Report

Jpauldavid: I disagree. Scott Pelley's interview was not Petulant at all. He, rightfully, challenged Ahmd's assertions. Nothing rude about that at all. He was very polite.

Look, if your interviewing someone who believes that planes were not hijacked on 9/11, it is incumbent on the questioner to at least present to the denier, the facts. If at that point, the interviewee persists in his ignorance, then, it is appropriate to let the comments speak for themselves. That is the difference. No crime in being ignorant or stupid.

TexasTeaTime  05/05/2010 02:14 PM Report

Mutex:

The significance of denying the holocaust is an attempt to further solidify opposition to Israel. Attacking the historical narrative as to compound another reason why Israel’s conception is “unjust.” So there is a hint of regional politics. Furthermore, and I think more significant is the fact that denying he holocaust creates a large trust issue. Western history records an event called the holocaust which has eye witness accounts from soldiers, civilians and media from many different countries. When Amjd tries to rewrite history it servers only to highlight a “radical” view that is “out of touch” with the western world. So Amjd’s task of representing a valid counter argument is hurt when it looks as though his motives are questionable.

Firangela:

“they could have done it with conventional weapons” is a bad argument for Iran’s sake. For example: I am not guilty because “I didn’t kill that person with a gun because I also had a knife and could have killed them with a knife”. This type of argument means, yes I am guilty but your facts about how I am guilty are wrong so they don’t count. Additionally, Iran doesn’t recognize Israel as a country which further illustrates its disdain for Israel.

Sovereign rights of Iran.

The well being of many out weight the well being of the few. Iran’s unstable government (non-secular) has chosen a path opposed by a majority of world’s governments. The community of nations has painstakingly set a course for the future where nuclear weapons are a threat to global security. In the USA, when you apply for a gun permit there is a background check looking at criminal history, even a small blemish can be ground for denying access.

Fiorangela  05/05/2010 11:50 AM Report

TexasTeaTime:

Facts are important, TTT, so perhaps it's you who needs to "clear up some absurd" statements.

You wrote: >>>"For those who come to Amjd's or Iran's rescue please note that his comments in the past have shown to be aggressive toward Israel. "Blowing them off the map" <<<

For the umpteenth time, neither Ahmadinejad nor any Iranian threatened to "blow Israel off the map." If that was the Iranian goal, they could have done it with conventional weapons; they have not. In fact, the 25,000 Jews resident and represented in Iran are quite secure and happy to be in and remain in Iran.

>>>>and denying the holocaust. <<<

Ahmadinejad did not "deny the holocaust." Iran DID convene a conference to explore the holocaust which I, for one, would have liked to see proceed and be reported on seriously: If people really mean "never again" when they say never again, then it seems to me it's extremely important to understand ALL the causative factors. I think it's time to stop bashing the German people; it's similarly non-productive to recite, "Hitler was evil" and believe one has arrived at a slam-dunk conclusion. It provides no explanation, no way forward, no understanding of what behaviors can be changed so that the same dolorous outcome will not repeat itself. Tragically, the world IS watching similar causal behaviors and murderous responses occur, between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs, the subject of your next point:

>>>>Using secret forces in Lebanon and Iraq against the USA. <<<<

Iran is not using "secret forces" in Lebanon, it did at one time support Hezbollah in Hez's resistance to Israeli occupation. Hez has since evolved into a comparatively mainstream, representative political and social movement.

>>>>Is Israel innocent in its attempts to colonize in its own borders, No.<<<<

It is curious that, on the one hand, you bash Iran for "denying the holocaust," and on the other hand, bash Iran for supporting resistance to Israel's attempted ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs. Tell me what acts resulted in the deaths of more innocent people, Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, the Tehran Holocaust conference, or Israel's invasions and attacks on Lebanon in 1982, Lebanon in 2006, and Gaza in 2008-2009?

>>>Iran should take the long road and cooperate with the UN, Russia, China and US because he will spare his people and the region more heart ache. Plus, I don’t see the reason for the other parties to back down.<<<<

Why should Iran cede any single one of its sovereign rights?

Can you please state one, single, good reason for the US to be making the demands on Iran that it is making? What rights does US have to Iran's territory, resources, access to Iran's littoral territories, government, or form of Iranian Constitution and political organization?

mutex  05/05/2010 10:51 AM Report

I have been looking for an answer to this question for a long time. Perhaps someone here can help me.

Much is made of people who 'deny the holocaust' but I am hard pressed to think of another truth we are ALL obliged to acknowledge. We can deny that the moon landing took place. We can deny the official version of JFK's assasination. We can even deny the existence of God and no one in the media seems to get particularly upset.

I understand the significance of the holocaust for Jews but why is it so important for everyone else to acknowledge this event and the sacred number '6 million'? Why is there no similar outrage for the huge number of gypsies killed under Hitler?

I'm not being argumentative, I really want to know.

TexasTeaTime  05/05/2010 07:37 AM Report

Charlie did a great job. Most of the comments seem petty and don’t recognize what a great opportunity it is to hear another version from Amjd. And I don't think he missed his mark as far as journalism. There should be no expectations, each interview has its own life. Charlie gave Amjd plenty of space which allowed for an in-depth discussion.

For those who come to Amjd's or Iran's rescue please note that his comments in the past have shown to be aggressive toward Israel. "Blowing them off the map" and denying the holocaust. Using secret forces in Lebanon and Iraq against the USA. Is Israel innocent in its attempts to colonize in its own borders, No.

Iran should take the long road and cooperate with the UN, Russia, China and US because he will spare his people and the region more heart ache. Plus, I don’t see the reason for the other parties to back down.

Until he clears some of these aggressive and absurd statements Charlie will get many miles out of his relationship.

Ricardo_Amaral  05/05/2010 07:16 AM Report

Estevan: Iran is an Islamic Totalitarian state. These people seek to have Islam as the sole way of life. They don't believe in separation of church and state. Any rationalist knows that Godel's theorems imply the fallacy of all religions that consider themselves consistent…It's time we recognize that we have a superior culture (whose flag is on the moon?) based on the search for truth, knowledge, and individual freedom, and that in order to defend ourselves, we should take action against those that attack us. Oh, and we should take their oil too, because gas is too expensive.

******

Ricardo: In 1953 Iran had secular democratically elected government until the United States through the CIA overthrew their government and placed a US puppet as its dictator.

The United States created the mess in Iran that the US is crying like a baby that it is a bad government – and once more the US has been trying very hard to destabilize the government of that country and calling them all kinds of names.

I wonder how angry the American people would be if the United States had a foreign country interfering on its internal affairs like the United States has been interfering in the internal affairs of Iran for the last 60 years.

By the way, I don’t remember the Iranian government trying at any time to overthrow the American government and trying to replace the US president with a dictator and a puppet of the Iran’s government.

The United States is out of line and not Iran - is the opinion of many countries around the world and not the other way around.

Regarding your comments about having a superior culture you need a reality check on that one.

As the stock market and banking system is collapsing, a number of corporate scandals emerge such as Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Adelphia Communications, Arthur Anderson, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, sub-prime scandal, hedge fund scandals, Bernie Madoff scandal, Goldman Sachs scandal, and many others. As the debt load reaches new highs in the economy, the result is a record-breaking number of personal and corporate bankruptcies, (GM, Chrysler) as is the case in the United States today.

The symbols of American economic superiority are collapsing one after another: GM and Chrysler, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, and now the ultimate champion of Wall Street “Goldman Sachs”. (Very quickly the entire world is finding out that "Goldman Sachs" is nothing more than a "Bernie Madoff" in steroids).

All the symbols of American capitalism, and economic system are falling down one after another: General Motors, Chrysler, the US space program, Wall Street, and so on…

The symbols of American technology the space program is on its last leg with the Space Shuttle program finally achieving the goals that they had settled for that program to be reached by 1980. The Shuttle Space program is being phased out after some Shuttles blew up on the way up, and another blew up on re-entry, and they reached the goals of 1980. (That program is only 30 years behind schedule.)

Today, the US space program is in complete decline and NASA can’t be successful and has a hard time even to lift a balloon.

That brings back to mind that cartoon that I saw on one of the New York newspapers a few days ago regarding NASA – showing the two American astronauts dressed as if they were going to space exploration, they were inside the basket of this hot air balloon and they were ready for their flight.

And there were two people watching and saying to each other just look what has happened to the US space program today.

Anyway, what is going on today with the Obama administration regarding NASA still is better than what was happening during the Bush administration.

George W. Bush (The Decider) decided to impress the world with his latest idea that the United States should land a man in the Sun.

When he announced to the press his new space exploration plans some journalists said that could not be done.

George Bush replied immediately that after meeting with his closest cabinet advisors he had made a suggestion since he had figured out by himself a solution for landing an American in the Sun – the solution was very simple, and all they had to do is to land the American astronaut in the Sun during the night when the temperature it is cooler.

.

jpauldavid  05/05/2010 01:09 AM Report

mcsconsult - Granted Amjd is a bizarre interview, but Scott Pelley's interview of same was low-grade "journalism". Pelley was petulant when Amjd controlled the interview and ran hoops around him. The 60 Minutes user boards were full of disgust afterward, and I haven't watched a Scott Pelley piece since. At least Charlie still has access to Amjd, and with common sense, like him or not, we can judge for ourselves where Amjd's mind and views are at. I think Charlie did fairly well with a difficult interviewee.

salgadoce  05/05/2010 12:42 AM Report

I'm glad Charlie Rose isn't a statesmen, and isn't handling any negotiations that would potentially affect me.

mcsconsult  05/04/2010 10:22 PM Report

I agree with the others here who say its probably enough from this guy. It was interesting the first time. Then, the second was OK. By the third interivew it became ponderous. Last night was difficult to watch frankly.

First, Charlie came off a bit too deferential. It's great to be polite, but come on. He let him just drone at length spewing conspiracies. If your going to interview these guys then, please, please, challenge them where warranted. Ahmd simply fillibusters and doesn't answer questions. Watch your colleague, Scott Pelley's interview with him. Pelley was excellent.

Those points aside, interviewing Ahmadinejad cannot be easy. He answers nothing. He says the same exact thing interview to interview. And, if you actually try to challenge him on every falsehood, he accuses you of being "CIA."

Nevertheless, there is a Responsibility to stop smiling for a moment and ask who it is he is talking about when repeatedly referring to a small group of nefarious people behind the scenes who are pulling Mr. Obama's strings (this story has a familiar ring to it), controlling him, and preventing him from talking.

gleapman  05/04/2010 09:38 PM Report

I usually enjoy watching the show. The one thing I find annoying is that Rose regularly interrupts his guests, usually when they are saying something insightful. It comes across like, "Hey, I'm Charlie Rose and what I have to say is more important than what you want to say." Often, he's thinks he has something funny to say and, like a little kid, can't control himself. He's getting progressively worse with the interruptions and I find myself watching the show less and less as a result.

Along comes Ahmadinejad, rambling on about nothing and all "Interrupt Charlie" can do is sit there with a stupid grin on his face. Wow. (Apparently it's okay to interrupt General Petraeus, but not the Iranian nut-job.) Ahmadinejad just filibustered your butt right through the interview. I hope Rose was embarrassed that he let Ahmadinejad control the whole hour.

I agree with a previous poster who suggested Rose sounded like a diplomat, not a journalist. I think his ego took over and he convinced himself that instead of conducting an interview, he should use his hour with the nut to produce the diplomatic breakthrough the past four presidents and the current one have failed to achieve. Instead, he got neither. He just gave Ahmadinejad a free hour of airtime to say whatever he wanted. How sad. It was painful to watch.

ksjayhawk  05/04/2010 09:29 PM Report

I have a suggestion, Mr. Rose. Don't do any more interviews with Ahmadinejad. He's longwinded..., doesn't stop talking. He doesn't say anything that makes any sense or has any value. As a viewer, I can tell you I flipped the channel after about 5 minutes. Life is too short to listen to him and his actions are what matters, not his words.

Estevan  05/04/2010 09:19 PM Report

Ricardo_Amaral, Iran is an Islamic Totalitarian state. These people seek to have Islam as the sole way of life. They don't believe in separation of church and state. Any rationalist knows that Godel's theorems imply the fallacy of all religions that consider themselves consistent. The US was attacked by Islamic totalitarians on 9/11, since they believe that the way we live our day to day lives is an abomination. It's time we recognize that we have a superior culture (whose flag is on the moon?) based on the search for truth, knowledge, and individual freedom , and that in order to defend ourselves, we should take action against those that attack us. Oh, and we should take their oil too, because gas is too expensive.

lesv  05/04/2010 08:32 PM Report

Wow, and I thought Lloyd Blankfein was slippery.

Thanks You CR for the interview. I don't suppose you can get another translator? One who doesn't change his inflection as much as she does.

Lastly, he does have a few good points. He has the US Army on two borders and the Navy on the third. (Russia on the fourth).

He's also very clear that if this doesn't settle out, the US is done for. I'd really like to understand what he's talking about. It's very similar rhetoric to what we heard from his predecessor. It would be nice to know what they are talking about.

citizen49a  05/04/2010 04:49 PM Report

Fiorangelena...You are correct. Iran is no threat. Mr. Rose got off easy during the interview. Amjad answered every question asked by Rose throughly, and backed up his responses. Lets face it, Iran is seen by the West as a strategic fungible, Colonial type asset, and their country showing independence and not caving in to demands of the West has its consequences. These consequences include slander, propaganda, hypocricy, double standards and made up fear (they will get nukes and use 'em) by their adversaries (the West). Amjad cleraly defined to Rose that this was indeed occuring to his far from perfect country. Iran's recent record on human rights is not good at all, like other US trading partners including Saudi Arabia and of course China...

Other historical facts regarding Iran include:

-Democratically elected gvt. there was overthrown in '50's by West Led CIA coup, installing ruthless, phony elected post coup dictator Shah of Iran...a known human rights abuser...

-US gave Iran its first nuclear reactor for power purposes

-US backed Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranians during Iran-Iraq war

Peace

Fiorangela  05/04/2010 04:02 PM Report

abrowdy, care to explain the threat that Ahmadinejad or ANY Iranian for that matter, poses to the US?

Was the man arrested re Times Square incident an Iranian? No.

Was the Detroit underwear bomber Iranian? No.

Was the Ft. Hood shooter Iranian? No.

Was the Shoebomber Iranian? No.

Were the 9/11 plotters/doers Iranian? No.

Were the people who attacked WTC in 1990s Iranian? No.

Was McVeigh riled about Iran? Was he Iranian? No.

Were Iranians at Ruby Ridge? No.

Were Iranians involved in Waco? No.

Did Iranians cause the BP oil spill? No.

Did Iranians cause Valdez? No.

Did Iranians cause you to step in dog poo? Next time look where you walk.

And at all times, think critically before you spew nonsense.

Fiorangela  05/04/2010 03:41 PM Report

mutex and robdverity, thank you for cogent comment. I agree completely.

ShalomFreedman, agreed with your statement also: Charlie Rose is a disgrace. An arrogant, wise-arse poorly-informed disgrace. He should not be permitted to occupy American airspace; it gives the false impression that he represents mainstream American values and thinking. Charlie Rose does not represent most Americans or their values. Please know that, Mr. Ahmadinejad.

alimostofi  05/04/2010 03:07 PM Report

Mr Rose

Why don't you interview some intelligent Iranians who have contributed a lot in this world.

All you have done so far is to make the world think that Iranians are like Ahmadinejad. Moreover Ahmadinejad thinks that the people who watch your program approve of him. We know that that is not true. So why do you interview him?

Ricardo_Amaral  05/04/2010 03:02 PM Report

jjfullerton said: “The USA has 5,000 plus nukes. The best place to put a few is right on top of Tehran”

*****

Ricardo: People with your mentality not only justify, but also gives Iran the right to develop nuclear weapons to be able to defend their country against people like you.

.

Ricardo_Amaral  05/04/2010 02:51 PM Report

I wonder why Charlie did not mention last night that Brazil is voting “NO” at the UN regarding that farce about voting for more sanctions against Iran?

Brazil is voting “NO” because these sanctions are just a farce and another way of trying to destabilizing the Iranian economy.

If there’s one country around the world that needs nuclear weapons to protect their country and their citizens – that country it is Iran, since the United States has been meddling and destabilizing the internal affairs of that country since the CIA overthrew their democratically secular government in 1953.

Besides this country that is a constant threat to Iran for the last 60 years, today has an army fighting wars in both sides of Iran.

Not only that but the US government has been very clear that they have been running covert operations inside Iran to destabilize the current government.

I would take with a grain of salt about the demonstrations inside Iran that the media shows on television when you consider that there are many groups inside Iran that are receiving money from US sources to agitate the people to give the impression that there is a lot of people against the Iranian government.

These demonstrations are designed for show at the BBC and CNN than anything else.

Despite what the UN does regarding Iran, president Lula of Brazil has a planned trip to Iran in May 2010, and one of the objectives of this trip is to increase international trade between Brazil and Iran – with or without this farce called UN sanctions.

Everybody knows that there are two countries behind these UN sanctions against Iran: the United States, and Israel.

If the idea is to have a Middle East as a nuclear weapons free zone then why Israel does not give up its nuclear arsenal?

Why the UN is not voting sanctions against Israel as well?

.

jjfullerton  05/04/2010 02:49 PM Report

The USa has 5,000 plus nukes. The best place to put a few is right on top of Tehran

jjfullerton  05/04/2010 02:48 PM Report

Why is this jew hating, West hating animal a puppet to the Supreme leader getting press time in NY> Would the Iranian give the same courtesy to Obama. He should be on the embargo list.

REMant  05/04/2010 02:41 PM Report

I believe we've been over all of this several times before. As I've said also several times before, the Iranians certainly don't care if we walk out, threaten to isolate them, or hold our breath until we turn blue. That's purely evangelical, infantile behavior and reflects more poorly on the West than on them, while rushing to reaffirm our "unshakable commitment" to Israel is purely partisan politics. The issue isn't whether Iran has nuclear warheads, but that we, ourselves, have 5,113 of them, and continue to expound about stuff like just war, and making the world safe for our peculiar notion of democracy, which seems to have more in common with the period of the Roman empire than with its republic. The gender differences involved make us a laughing stock to most of the 3d world, too.

ShalomFreedman  05/04/2010 01:49 PM Report

Charlie Rose is a disgrace. This is the fifth time he has interviewed a Holocaust- denier and a person who has called for the destruction of the state of Israel. This is the fifth time Charlie Rose has treated with respect a person who at this very moment is providing aid to forces aiming to kill American soldiers. This is the fifth time Charlie Rose has not raised the really hard questions with Iran about its ten years or more of deliberate deception of the IAEA. This is the fifth time Charlie Rose has acted as if this were the NCAA final and he were talking with Coach K, instead of an enemy of every decent human being on this earth.

Shame , shame , shame. No matter what the rating.

abrowdy  05/04/2010 01:29 PM Report

I listened to the entire interview. I felt the line of questioning and the respect giving Ahmadinejad by Charlie Rose unbelievable in light of the wealth of documented human rights violations attributed to him. It was as if Charlie was acting like a diplomatic envoy rather than a journalist trying to extract the truth for his audience. I could not help wondering if Charlie would have given Adolf Hitler the same cordial line of questioning prior to the start of his campaign which brought on the murder of 6,000,000 people (which Ahmadinejad denies). While we just arrested the man who is allegedly involved in the Times Square car bombing, we watch a TV interview in a NY studio by a well-respected journalist with a man who poses a much greater threat not only to the US but to the entire world. Something is definitely wrong with this picture.

Aravind  05/04/2010 01:05 PM Report

He seemed to talk a lot of sense this time around unlike the other interview I watched with Larry King where he beat around the bush. It is a fact that the IAEA, the UN and many international agencies are highly influenced by the US and there's no point in taking the name of these organizations as if they are impartial watchdogs. Though Ahmadinejad can't accept this openly, you can sense he's coming to this. Iran having a nuclear weapon is definitely a problem for the US and especially its sister state Israel. But I guess sooner or later it has to come to terms with a nuclear capable and powerful Iran. So if it starts now to extend its hand building a constructive relationship with such a great and historic country and its people, things will be better for this World in the long run. Ahmadinejad is one guy who I guess is good to work with on this cause.

robdverity  05/04/2010 12:30 PM Report

mutex - hear, hear! Wish I'd said that.