Charlie Rose

EETTANK  09/28/2010 03:42 PM Report

Charlie, I must tell you - this interview reminded me of interviews during Geoge W. regim in the US media. For every guest oppose to war in any given talk show they had to have two(2)guests who were for the war.

In this interview you didn't even have a single quest who would disagree with your other guests.

These people in your interview - all had supposedly a very solid data about Iran's economy - and they don't even live in Iran. However it was funny to witness that your guests did not even know that If Iran's economy is bad so is United states economy. Had they heard about banks going under in Us? Had they heard about %12 unemployment in california and about %10 in America? Had they heard about rampant foreclosures in America? Had they heard about corruption in Us businesses and government? - and so on.

Obviously they had not and it doesn't surprise me. What surprised me was that you did not remind them of the facts about US economy and other shortcomings as well. Is there a UN sanctions againt US? If sanctions are hurting Iran's economy - US economy is in shambles right now without any known sanctions.

Ricardo_Amaral  09/28/2010 03:44 AM Report

Charlie, I saw this program about Iran the other day, and it was a one way street – let's bash Iran.

Anyway, most of these news that I see on the American mainstream media about Iran, I take it with a grain of salt, since I know that the United States has been interfering on Iran's internal affairs for almost 60 years.

When I see these demonstrations in Iran against its government that they show on American TV, I know that most likely these demonstrations have been organized, financed, and staged with American help.

Americans love these staged events for the cameras.

The American Prospect

"Regime change since 1953"

Article published 11/01/03

A very happy group of men convened at the White House on Sept. 4, 1953, to hear a cloak-and-dagger story that would resonate through all of subsequent American history. Two weeks before, the Central Intelligence Agency had overthrown Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran. It was the first time the CIA had deposed a foreign leader, and on this day the agent who ran the operation, Kermit Roosevelt, was to explain how he did it.

You can read the entire article at:

Iran and American Interference

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63583&perpage=6&highlight=1953&pagenumber=1

By the way, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is a friend of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad,

and to show Brazil's support for Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad and Iran, they just announced in Brazil that the Brazilian national soccer team will play a friendly game against the Iran's national soccer team in October 2010.

And American companies that sponsors the Brazilian national soccer team, don't have the guts to withdraw their sponsorship of the Brazilian national soccer team.

.

charlizecourriers  09/27/2010 04:25 PM Report

Does Obama and his administration condemn the Han dictatorship? Of course not! This is all about Obama's support of the Zionist state-the people of Iran are now and always will be secondary to that domestic American reality. When the people of Iran are prepared to fight and die for freedom, they will have freedom.

Fiorangela  09/26/2010 10:39 AM Report

two observations.

1. Hillary "Obliterator" Clinton complains that the military is gaining power in Iran, displacing the mullahs, but isn't that exactly what the US and Israel CLAIM they want to see happen, for Iran's "theocracy" to be overturned and the state to be run in a fashion more like the US and Israel -- (that is, by an oligarchy composed of wealthy elites with deep tentacles in the military-industrial-information complex)?

Israel is run almost exclusively by military -- see Peri's book, "The Generals and the Cabinet Room,"

>>"In Generals in the Cabinet Room, Professor Peri forcefully and persuasively argues a premise that, while once Israel's military was the servant of its civilian political leadership, today it is the generals who are leading the foreign and defense policymaking. He traces recent military-political Israeli history with a special focus on the 1990s and beyond and warns of a future in which democracy itself could potentially fall victim to excessive militarization. The repercussions for Israeli- Palestinian relations, Israeli democracy, and militarily led democracies are potentially earthshaking. ">>

And the US is, of course, in thrall to the MIC, and 'defense' and intelligence operatchiks are numerous and ubiquitous in US federal government -- Washington's regional economy has not experienced the same level of economic downturn as many other parts of the country because DC thrives on militarization.

2. This passage, from Abbas Milani, inadvertantly revealed several astonishing realities about Iranian government:

>>"ABBAS MILANI, STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Well, I think there is tension between the president and the spiritual leader, and more importantly, I think, there is increasing pressure amongst the conservatives, particularly in the parliament.

I think one can say safely for the first time in Ahmadinejad’s five year there has been open talk of the possibility of impeaching him. Two very prominent members have in the last two weeks written either open letters to Ahmadinejad or have given interviews where they have said we can impeach you if you continue defying us, if you continue not implementing our orders to you, if you continue talking about the supremacy of the executive branch, as he has done, we might in fact impeach you.

And if they haven’t done so far it’s because the international situation has not allowed it. So the tensions within the conservatives and then the tensions within the top clergy and the regime and within Ahmadinejad’s camp and the IRGC, even, the Revolutionary Guard I think have never been as fierce as they are now. ">>

a. It reveals that Iran's government has checks and balances in place, that major power sources in Iran are exercising those levers of check-and-balance power, and that nobody is being "stoned" or, apparently, imprisoned for doing so: the parliament and factions are contesting with each other through open letters and statements and initiatives.

b. Ahmadinejad is accused of attempting to garner too much power in the Executive! Are Dick Cheney and David Addington consulting with Ahmadinejad, advising him on how to create a unitary executive in Iran?

This is truly amusing.

What is boils down to is this: H "Obliberator" Clinton and the US foreign policy establishment as well as a number of Iranian ex pats are pissed beyond containment that Iran is implementing, in its own fashion, a rough-and-tumble representative form of government, complete with corruption, power struggles, and intrigue, and the US, ISRAEL, and wannabees like Sadjapour ARE NOT PART OF IT, not calling the shots, not raking in the graft.

Moreover, the complaints of Clinton and her cohort give the lie to US intentions that what they want to see in Iran is democracy -- in view of the reality that nascent democracy is taking place in Iran, the US and Israel are even more afraid that their real goal of recreating a shah-like puppet regime in Iran is less and less likely.

ziaian  09/26/2010 12:43 AM Report

Thank you, Charlie, I always enjoy your program. I like much of what Milani, Sadjadpour, Haleh and Fassihi said, but at the same time, they all speak the same (Four «experts» but one voice, one same idea: «green movement» good, Ahmadinejad bad and a liar. The arguments are cheap and superficial. Their position is one sided and not at all balanced. I like very much what a previous commentator (REMant 09/24/2010 01:20 PM ) wrote and agree with her/him.

Also, the commentators are making a mockery of President Ahmadinejad and of the last presidential elections, presenting it as a fraud. The do not present any fact to sustain their statement. I have observed the elections in Iran since 1979, and I don't see the last one in any way worse than the previous elections or referendum in Iran. Talking about human rights and women rights in Iran to criticize president Ahmadinejad is almost like blaming him for any earthquake in Iran. The disrespect for Human and Women rights is written in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, and doesn't have anything to do with this or that President.

OBSERVER  09/24/2010 04:29 PM Report

Very Dear Charlie: If these people are considered Experts on Iran!! then the US Foreign Policy is in grave danger! They live in their owm illusion which has nothing to do with the present state of affairs in Iran. And, most of them, if not all!, are supporters of MULLAH KHATAMI, the past President, during his time, Students'Uprising was crushed,...etc.If they visited Iran this Summer, they could see none of the things they claim on your show has any substance or foundation. Sad that they get paid for their junks!

robdverity  09/24/2010 01:57 PM Report

Nice analysis RE. Spectacles indeed. We're governed by a bunch of petulant children.

It would be interesting to know how many remaining in the room were thinking "good-riddance" as they left.

REMant  09/24/2010 01:20 PM Report

In his UN speech, a transcript of which is here, http://tangibleinfo.blogspot.com/2010/09/ahmadinejads-un-speech-full-text.html, Ahmadinejad decries the loss of religious ethic in much the same terms as the Pope did last week, and Glenn Beck as well, and the materialism of capitalism. He then launched into the analysis of the Sept 11 attack that caused the American delegation to make another spectacle of themselves. However, all he alleged was that the American public and the rest of the world believed that segments within the US govt orchestrated them. The part about the American public may have been hyperbole, but in his part of the world the latter is widely believed. Presumably the delegation think it is propaganda. He did not say he agreed with them, but he did ask why the question could not have been handled by an independent investigation, and without the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which does not seem to me such an outrageous idea. After announcing a conference to be held in Iran on terrorism, he again condemned the Israeli occupation of Palestine, an opinion shared by a very great many ppl. He then addressed the question of the development of nuclear energy and total nuclear disarmament, another position a great many agree with, and condemned the burning of the Quran, which our own president did as well. Last, he criticized the veto power given members of the Security Council, its lack of democracy, as well as the imposition of sanctions on his country, and returned to the theme of ethical world governance. While it was not John Locke or Thomas Jefferson, the message was not so different. One may allege that this was all a cynical diversion from repression in Iran and a clandestine nuclear weapons program, but that has nothing to do with the content of the speech. Presumably he would support greater freedoms at home if the world were more ethical, and nuclear transparency if the world disarmed, positions it would be hard to argue with. Like Chavez, he was merely holding up a mirror to tyranny in the classical manner.

Some years ago, during the 200th commemoration of the Constitution I was shocked to discover that polling revealed only a handful of Americans would then subscribe to that document, or the Declaration of Independence, and I doubt the situation is different today. While it is certainly deplorable to find the kind of re-education, etc, in places like Vietnam and Cambodia, and presumably Iran today, it is not so different from the treatment the Loyalists received during the American Revolution, and for the same reason. Democracy is not simply a free trade in opinion and lifestyle, it is an absence of morality, and it always was - look at Athens.

BTW, I am sure the price of meat in many parts of the world - Tokyo, Paris and Rome - is twice what it is in Wash, DC, and we have a great deal of liquidity ourselves in bad loans.