Charlie Rose

robdverity  10/14/2010 03:40 PM Report

Good points john649. The MI oligarches doubtless lobby the DoD daily and hard.

nnavani  10/13/2010 03:32 PM Report

Charlie Rose is really starting to bother me with how often he asks a question and then interrupts his guest before s/he can get 2 words in.

john649  10/12/2010 07:01 PM Report

the reason the Generals are not giving any options to Obama is because the CIA/DOD have a Black Govt operation that's been going on for years and by keeping a war going, will ensure a constant windfall of funds for their covert agenda.

In 1947, the National Security Act created the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Organization (CIA) and consolidated the US military into one entity, the Department of Defense (DoD). One of the issues that remained unresolved from the creation and operation of the CIA was the extent to which its budget and intelligence activities would remain a secret. According to Article 1, sec. 9, of the US Constitution, “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.” This constitutional requirement conflicted with the need for secrecy concerning Congressional appropriations for the CIA. The solution was for Congress to pass legislation approving the secrecy over the funding mechanisms used for the CIA and its intelligence related activities.

Despite its legal authority to transfer funds from other federal agencies regardless of what their Congressional appropriations were for, the conventional wisdom was that the major source of appropriations for the CIA came through the DoD. This is apparently what President Truman had in mind when he approved that the "operating funds for the organization [CIA] would be obtained from the Departments of State, War, and Navy instead of directly from Congress.

http://www1.american.edu/salla/Articles/BB-CIA.htm#Birth

doodah  10/11/2010 09:46 PM Report

Mr. Neil, I know not what you may be specifically referring to (a General McChrystal report?).

But to address what I understand of your comment; number one, this is NOT a war; it is a 'police action'. Military fought 'Police actions' does not result in winners, only varying degrees of injured survivors (at least that's been the case since the last REAL war, WWII)(the first Desert Storm could have been categorized as such, but since it is still integralated to the current situations; but it was a 'police action' fought like a real war). And as far as, 'threatening' to use nukes as a strategy.?. No. I'm not saying that at all. No 'threats' should take place at all. We should just do it.

NeilMacCallister  10/11/2010 02:05 PM Report

Actually doodah, ..I prefer President Obama's starting point that war does not result in winners, only varying degrees of injured survivors.

The threat to use nukes only represents "That empty hole where strategy ought to reside".

What I don't understand, is why Mr. Woodward, Charlie Rose, and all these other journalists, academics, retired Generals, and political aides have chosen to get us into this war over the best strategy to be used by our troops on the ground?

Wasn't Gen. McChrystal, the professional being paid to discern that information, clear enough in his report?

doodah  10/11/2010 07:37 AM Report

Prediction - After the 'police-action' process has run it's course. And there is a draw-down, pull-back of efforts in the region. And regardless of what happens, the supported govt maintains or the bandits regain control. For whatever reason, another major terrorists attack on USA soil.?. What then?. All out conventional war?. All out nuclear retaliation?.

Or does USA embrace Taliban philosophies?.

Like I'm sure, many muslims would prefer it. Or even fundamentalist Christians. But is the average citizen ready for it?. .. and what is, an "average citizen"? Will America's 'diversity' be it's downfall?.

My vote will be to nuke the varmints. I'm not proud of it, but I refuse to let them win.

robdverity  10/09/2010 03:14 PM Report

"Wrong" is obviously relative and in the eye of the beholder. The kill ratio says it more than enuff for a civil world - which granted we are not. As more advanced??? I would hope we were capable of concluding that w/o guidance from MI oligarches or Sebastion. We kill in Af-Pak. We do not somehow retract all previously fired bullets with an abject apology. When we leave we will take with us a lot of the reasons for conflict - even their own.

NeilMacCallister  10/09/2010 12:28 AM Report

Rob? ..It is not a "retaliation" that I foresee, for America has done no wrong in Afghanistan. A much more knowledgeable person, Sebastion Junger, has reported that American presence has markedly REDUCED the number of daily killings in Afghanistan.

But is that the only reason we are there? ..or do we also need to really remain aware of those nuclear warheads in Pakistan? ..and soon in Iran?

I was tearing down a rotting fence today with a guy who said he knows soldiers who claim they were assigned the task of carrying around heavy bags of bundled $100 bills for Iraqi politicians. I know you hate that, ..I do too.

By his reporting, General McChrystal hated that particular "war-plan" as well, ..and refused to advance such deals with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I argued with that fellow that we should be able to keep the reduced daily killings in Afghanistan, and promote a nuclear safer world, ..without those disgusting payments to either criminal warlords, or to the American "safety contractors" which you rail against!

I do believe we are saving lives in Afghanistan and the world, both in the present and the future. Is anyone charging us too much for this publicly desired outcome??? That is for President Obama to decide, for he has the facts (..Yes, more facts than even Bob Woodward!!)

I thing our President is responding admirably to that challenge.

***

By the way, ..the fellow I argued with today also believes the "nuclear threat" from Iran is a myth.

I argued that the risk of being wrong was too great.

Has Charlie recorded his opinion about this? ..Have you?

mackmeen  10/08/2010 11:59 PM Report

It's time to end this endless 9/11 payback. None of the U.S. victims of that massacre would be proud of all the death and destruction committed in their names. Mostly it seems Bob W.'s agenda is to get people to wake up to the shocking pettiness and delusions underneath these massively important decisions. Regardless of what general or advisor said what to the Pres. or when, we're swimming in an ego-soup of militarism and somebody's gotta have the real guts to pull the plug without fear. We need to re-route that war money so we can pay better veterans' benefits and bankroll economic recovery programs--unemployment and the deficit are killing us way more than al-Qaeda.

robdverity  10/08/2010 03:08 PM Report

". . . for a decade at least" says it all. Is that it? So if we stay ANOTHER 10 YEARS, we will assure ourselves of (ONLY) 10 years of terror free years?

I submit the longer we stay the more enmity and hatred we will engender and more fully assure the retaliation you foresee. Stopping the bullet prob. should come from the side that supposedly has reason on its side. They know not much else since Genghis Khan, the British, Russians now us.

We've killed over 20,000 of THEM; they over 2,000 of us plus 3,000 on 9/11. A ratio of 4:1. Couldn't we pick up our marbles, declare victory, and come home?

Their atavistic tribalism will prevail long after our departure tomorrow or 3,650 tomorrows. The smartest of the two would "stop their own bullets" in hopes of stopping ALL bullets. The Vietnamization of "Destroying the village to save it" is as vacuous now as it was then.

Lastly our hubris has cast our future into an endless concern re terrorism regardless of our choices. Largely stemming from our ME policies.

NeilMacCallister  10/08/2010 04:54 AM Report

JimNicholas, I agree with you. When asked for "the quickest way back to the hotel", I would disprove of a taxi driver who offered me 3 options! (.."but your job is to know!!!")

The gentlemen Patreaus, McCrystal, and Mullen gave their advice to the President, ..the President chose, while also concerned for the diplomatic issues.

We will know that we've "won", if we find we have prevented, for a decade at least, the terrorists' dreams of killing a million people with one nuclear bomb that has been "liberated" from Pakistan, or "delivered" by Iran or North Korea!

Mr. Rose, and maybe Mr.Woodward want "options",..but the real truth is that you either stop the bullet, or you don't.

President Obama is doing fine in this regard.

JimNicholas  10/07/2010 11:28 PM Report

I am puzzled that Charlie Rose seemed to think that a general would necessarily have more than one option, that the general was holding back if he presented only one. Would a surgeon be holding back if he or she said there was only one option--surgery-- to deal with appendicitis?

salgadoce  10/07/2010 08:35 PM Report

I love watching two cranky old men vigorously argue with and agitate each other.

NeilMacCallister  10/07/2010 04:56 PM Report

Wow! ..almost every single line of this transcript shows that President Obama was entirely aware of ALL our military "options"!

He knew Gen. McChrystal and Adm. Mullen wanted 40,000 troops, ..and that VP Biden and NS-Advisor Jones preferred 20,000 troops, ..and then he himself even considered only 10,000 troops!

Then the President made his decision, took responsibility for that decision, and now it stands!

Why don't we allow the "option" that he fully knows what he is doing?

robdverity  10/07/2010 04:33 PM Report

The take-away from Woodward's efforts is that the (so-called) Commander-in-Chief is so in name only. The MI oligarches dictate the actual drum-beat. Would you really want the shareholders of Boeing, say, or GE, or Northrup-Grumman, et al to miss a dividend payment or an upward trend in the value of their portfolios?

LovelyVelocity  10/07/2010 12:07 PM Report

I've been watching the show regularly since the spring of 2003 and I have never seen Charlie Rose so surly and irritated. I turned on the interview midway, so I missed what led up to that. By the end of the interview, I got that Woodward was asserting the the military misled Obama on Afghanistan. Separate from this interview, this is shocking, why isn't this getting more attention?

mabraham  10/07/2010 05:35 AM Report

Rarely does one see Charlie push back on a guest, in this case perfectly justifiably.

For all his fame and access Woodward tends to insinuate crazy things in his interviews (such as his recent claim that Hilary was considered as VP for 2012) without being checked by the interviewer.

Good for Charlie for forcing Woodward to argue his allegations.

onlychild  10/06/2010 10:46 PM Report

I have seen Charlie on several occassions ask his guest concerning President Obama, "what is it, that makes the people under him act this way". Please Charlie, not to beat a dead horse, just ask and get to the grit about it being about the President's race. Most white men in high postions do not respect black men in power. As Mr. Woodward kept expressing, the president is cerebal (hope I spelled that correctly).

ctaustin  10/06/2010 07:16 PM Report

a must watch interview. woodward talks about the disconnect and lack of trust between the military and the civilian leadership. also talks about how the military brass are all conscious of the dereliction of duty when the joint chiefs failed to be assertive with the civilian leadership during vietnam. the mission is to clear, hold, build, and transfer but the problem is we can't transfer. strategy comes from the top down based upon the data that comes from the bottom up. who wants to be the messenger of bad news - bob woodward. the problem is that the military is trained to win wars, not make strategic withdraws. the responsibility lies with the president and he's waiting for the military to tell him what to do. the writing is on the wall. it's time for the president to act. al Qaeda is out of Afghanistan...sitting in Pakistan. the noble winning, anti-war president is going to have his presidency defined by the war if he doesn't make some tough decisions.

DavLev  10/06/2010 07:04 PM Report

Charlie Rose was not especially annoyed last night with this interview. His interview style varies..he will talk to people he is comfortable with, different than, lets say the leader of Iran. He was in fact, just being Charle..aka Sec. of State. As far asa the content...Bob is brilliant, a terrific interviewer in his own right, and very probing and smooth. He does have contact..probably more honest than those around the Presidetn (s). Anyone working for civil service knows information is skewed to please superiors. Ask me. The President knew what he as getting into during his campaign. This was the good war, vs the bad war (Iraq0 he didnt approve of. Afghanistan was where the murderers of 911 were based, received material support, hidden. Bin Ladin operated from there. The Taliban were given a chance to correct their policies..towards the people, and Al Qaeda.

The didn't and so became participants.

The Taliban remain, the terrorists have left (but could return). They are now more linked than ever. But, Pakistan is playing it close to the vest..receiving billions from US, but not having their heart in the fight (against fellow Muslims). Their priority is India, with its 100 nukes.

The Pakistani people are after all, Muslims..fighting Muslims. The Pashtun are in both countries..and supply an endless source of manjpower to fight, the fickle US.

This is a war of attrition, similar to Palestine. 400m Muslims vs 5.5m Jews..do the numbers. Growth rates dissimilar. Do the math. 10,000 US dead, and we will withdraw...no matter facts on the ground. Obama should have

not made a judgement prior to his election..and kept it open. His V.P. says one thing, generals another. Biden thought should be divided into ethnic groups..He was both right and wrong. Now, the damage is done.

Whether 40,000 or 20,000 troops..12 tours is too much, way too much. Obama is smart, and will have to make some sort of decision this December and into next year about our lvement. Either way, we lose in the long run..we cannot

Muslim insurgents on their own soil. This is not Japan/Germany, which did threaten our very existence. While

horrific, Al Aqeda/Taliban are not that menacing. They do not have 38 SS divisions..or 20m troops, tanks, bombers

or artillery.

One lone terrorist thug in Manhattan, will not bring down the borough.

This is a very good interview, one of the best.

Charlie was probing and specific..asking direct questions

and not intimidated.

I would like to see him interview similarly others who are more controversial and obdurate.

Bobs book is a must read for all of us...just as others have written on the Iraqi war, both pro and con.

robdverity  10/06/2010 07:01 PM Report

O should be replaced if he doesn't get us out of that quagmire. Or at least try. It wont be easy. We like war too much to make it easy for him.

charlizecourriers  10/06/2010 04:38 PM Report

Obama "trapped himself" in a amateurish and audaciously stupid analysis of the two wars, Iraq and Afganistan, during the frenetic campaign. I expect Obama to lose the good war and it will be entirely his fault! Will he have the intellectual honesty to "lose" before the election of 2012, so that the people of America can replace him?

robdverity  10/06/2010 04:29 PM Report

Only Charlie has a forum to publicly second-guess the administration. He and Woodward both appeared to give "collateral damage" (euphemism for civilian deaths) short shrift, which imho is a colossal mistake, as evidenced in part by the interrupting of the fuel tanker traffic - in protest of same.

For every death prob. a min. of five relatives, friends and survivors are imbued with a deep-seated hatred awaiting future opportunities to strike a retaliatory blow (in NYC?). The CIA drone missile strikes are counter-productive long term. How many no. ones and two al Qaedas have we already killed? And to what end? Our techno-arrogance will come home to roost.

Lastly, even Obama is powerless to desist in Af-Pak. The MI oligarches would have him for lunch - at a minimum impeached. Perhaps his withdrawal date is a way to end-run this. But the first quarterly report without war-for-profit results will get Obama maneuvered into a more compliant (complicit) position.

DAJ1954  10/06/2010 02:51 PM Report

Facinating and somewhat contentious interview that reveals a lot about President Obama's decision-making process and the enormous challenges he's faced since the beginning of his first term. It was as if Mr. Rose was emotionally expressing the same frustrations I felt as Bob Woodward explained the push-and-pull sruggle between the "powers that be" that ultimately increased our involvement in Afghanistan -- and the child-like politics of it all that saddens me deeply as I reflect on so many lives lost. And like Vietnam... over what?

REMant  10/06/2010 02:23 PM Report

I think this was mostly a matter of politics. He had always said the war was in Afghanistan not in Iraq, so he felt committed to do something there unlike Iraq, and he knew he'd be attacked by the Republicans and even many in his own party if he did not, but, on the other hand, a good part of them, including Biden and Emmanuel (somewhat to my surprise), were opposed to it. And he knew he couldn't, esp at this time, spend a trillion dollars on it, nor find the public support for a much greater involvement.

McMaster argued the military in Vietnam were complicit in the admin's incrementalism, and I think they have done something similar here as well, because 40,000 was itself far too few to do what they wanted to do. 400,000 wouldn't have been. And that still leaves the question of exactly what they would have expected them to do besides sit there. In Vietnam the brass were more concerned about their resumes than the job they were supposed to be doing. That seemed unavoidable in a situation with as much turnover, and where the build-up almost coincided with the draw-down. 1968 was the high point of that war, and also the point at which the country decided to begin leaving. Operations after that point were designed mainly to give time for "Vietnamization." That, of course, didn't work there, yet we seem to be following exactly the same course now after seeing some success in Iraq. Woodward's paper suggested today the Afghan Taliban may go the way of Iraq's Sunnis. But that still leaves al Qaeda and the Pakistanis, or what will happen after we depart, and the circumstance surely wasn't brought about by protecting the population. The AP, on the other hand, writes: "Fearing that his Western allies may in the end abandon him, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has started to prepare his nation for a withdrawal of international forces by shoring up relations with neighboring Pakistan and reaching out to insurgents interested in reconciliation." This, of course, is exactly the best we could hope for. One has the impression that all along the argument has been between the nation-builders and the peace-makers, if I can call them that.

Many other presidents have said they hated war, but I think only Eisenhower meant it. Lincoln, Wilson and FDR are certainly suspect, and so is Truman. LBJ, obviously. Bush the elder, possibly - he respected the Powell doctrine - his son, however, I think not at all. Obama is no Eisenhower. Nor certainly Mullen. What is a Navy or AF guy doing in charge of an operation of this sort? That might have made sense in the South Pacific, altho MacArthur didn't think so, but this is not the South Pacific. I have the overall impression that the faithful might have done better by Biden. It's one thing to say stupid things, but it's another to do them.

Now, if Obama would clarify his position on the fiscal situation... The stock mkt is going up these days on the expectation of more central bank inflation, which the other half takes that as a sign of substantive growth. It can't be both, and we should know it can't be.

NeilMacCallister  10/06/2010 01:19 PM Report

Mr. Rose seemed very annoyed that Mr. Woodward would not agree with him and declare that "Admirals and Generals have lied, and purposefully deceived our President about the best way to conduct this war. They have dastardly chosen to withhold this information from our caring, concerned, and hard-working President!"

Mr. Rose campaigned so hard for candidate Obama, ..and wants his choice to be seen as wise and correct.

So he here demands the firing of yet more of those Admirals and Generals, ..and obviously would like to see President Obama follow Kim Jong-il's leadership style, and now declare Vice-President Joe Biden a 4-star General, and let him take over this war theater's responsibilities.

rpkelly55  10/06/2010 10:57 AM Report

Was it just me, or did Charlie seem really ANNOYED at Woodward last night?