Charlie Rose

robdverity  05/02/2011 05:00 PM Report

Now that we've satisfied the "vengeance is ours" part of exceptionalism (deism), can we declare victory (with Osama's death) and come home?

robdverity  05/01/2011 04:55 PM Report

As proof, there's Libya. Killing Ghadaffi's family members (outside the UN mandate?) is meeting criticism. Such cheek. We have God's law on side.

robdverity  05/01/2011 04:48 PM Report

ElBaradei will never be a real contender. Asking the US to be accountable for Iraq is tantamount to asking for Republican backed CIA operations and embargo of foreign aid. We, like our ally, like to slaughter with impunity.

ShalomFreedman  05/01/2011 08:23 AM Report

Charlie Rose did not accurately introduce ElBaradei. He was a total failure as head of the IAEA. He covered up the Iranian nuclear program, and enabled Iran to deceive the Americans and Europeans again and again. He was given a Nobel Prize for doing exactly what he failed to do. This interview may not be as bad as the shameful ones Charlie Rose connected with Ahmadinejad and dear peace- loving Assad family but it is close.

JohnGelles  05/01/2011 06:58 AM Report

Now, nearing the end of his story, the Baredi idea that is developed in his book, “The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times”, comes front and center. Here, Nobel Laureate Mohamed ElBaradei looks at the West, as well as the Arabs, to ask for accountability for all the tragedy we have witnessed in the wars in Iraq and in Palestine. Here we may entering fallacy territory.

The fallacy is not in praising due process of law. It is in asking the West to free the Middle East and at the same time keep their mitts of Muslim oil and off the Muslim wars with Christians and Jews. Here again it is not lawyering that we should condemn as much as the attitude that the Christian Crusades and Modern Israel define a struggle we may not enter --- nor may we escape.

I guess this may be a fallacy. Time will tell. ElBaredi has to be trusted, in my opinion. He is as much like us as we are ourselves.

He may never bring peace to the Middle East. But he will bring a desire for law and order not a wish to die and go heaven in search of virgins or to hell in search of death itself.

Peace may come to the Middle East in time. Now is the time for the Arab Spring.

Baredi wants Muslim and Western Christian Armies to keep Middle Eastern domestic genocide from happening where dictators are hanging on or likely to be replaced by religious fanatics. Such a unity of purpose may be a bridge too far.

JohnGelles  05/01/2011 06:03 AM Report

"No hijacking of the revolution in the direction of a Theocratic ictatorshio, No rush to election before hammering out a liberal Constitution, No protecting profound corruption by power-hungry political and economic elites under Military Officers or fanatical Religious Zealots", "No failure to address the legitimate hopes of the Young." All of this I heard him say directly or in similar words. So far there is no fallacy !!!

JohnGelles  05/01/2011 05:49 AM Report

"Equality, Democracy, possibly even Social Justice", another trinity voiced by Baredi.

It is a little hard to do this without the transcript. But Baredi sounds too good to be true -- and I remember from listening to his words in this discussion ,when they were first uttered, that towards the end, when he wanted a process to free or indict Hosni Mubarak, I was harboring certain doubts about the Baradei vision of outcomes in the Middle East that might portend success in achieving the content of his dreams expressed early on in his remarks.

JohnGelles  05/01/2011 05:39 AM Report

"Science, Technology, Humanity", a triumverate of goals and beliefs that Baradei declares to be fundamental -- as opposed to extreme desire for a return to ancient religious ways and means to acquire dominion over others and conformity for show without substantial progress against fear and want. That is the initial "Baradei Fallacy" BUT IT AIN'T NO FALLACY SO FAR -- its his own version of universal and American dreams. I will continue this in a moment after listening beyond his beginnings.

charlizecourriers  04/29/2011 02:57 PM Report

We experience the Baradei Fallacy with our own eyes and ears-Lawyers shall rule nations! Not elected representatives, not citizen soldiers, not freedom fighters, but small minded lawyers in charge of small, very limited and minor bureauacracies. And no one will hold them responsible-just laugh!

robdverity  04/28/2011 05:46 PM Report

Say hey Baradei! All the way Baradei!

Love him for his convictions. Too honest to succeed as pres. Republicans would threaten all aid to Egypt if ElBaradei were elected. Bush, Cheney et al (now Obama and co.) should all be indicted for history as well as pure humanitarian idealism. Our techno-arrogance and imperialism is winning disdain and contempt with each new bit of jingoism. Even our 2nd-banana role in Libya is not received universally, but as more unwelcomed western imperialism (aggrieved the more with the CS of all CS weapons, drones).

A thought for right-to-lifers: if Bush and Cheney were aborted (gasp, choke), 100,000's to 1,000,000's of people would have been saved. Tee hee. A classic case of be careful what you wish for?

mchawla  04/28/2011 05:38 PM Report

REMnant I have been reading your comments.I guess you're an Israeli-American.AM I right?

Hamilton  04/28/2011 02:58 PM Report

I would have to agree with Mr. ElBaradei comments that someone has to be held accountable for the crimes committed against Iraq. We can no longer stand for freedom and democracy yet institute or way of government for our own agenda. Countless number of lives where used and destroyed as a result of the actions taken by supposed competent individuals that American people voted into office. And as a result of this 10 yr war, we are no on the verge of bankrupt and ruin. Someone must be held accountable and placed before the International counsel. it is my belief this action will restore our nations creditability and reestablish the U.S as a world leader of democracy and all that it stands for.

REMant  04/28/2011 12:09 PM Report

ElBaradei's latest book, The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times, is out this week and he has been making the rounds.

He is trailing badly in the polls, well behind the leader Tantawi, who is head of the Supreme Council, altho far ahead of Suleiman. So his remarks about running would seem to be gratuitous. Tantawi is committed to maintaining peace with Israel, while surveys show 54% of Egyptians think that country should annul the treaty with Israel and only 36% oppose. 79% were found to hold an unfavorable view of the US and 64% low or no confidence in Obama. The country is evenly split on Islamic fundamentalism. Something of a paternalist, if not an autocrat, Tantawi is interested in maintaining domestic unity and tranquility, which the State Dept finds foot-dragging. Tho they appear to be on the wrong side of the issue, it is, nevertheless, greatly to be wished that the country's constitution be improved.

The US, however, childishly expects that it is possible to radically liberalize national institutions without encountering cultural, religious and tribal divisions. It is stupid, if characteristic of liberalism, tho the average liberal nowadays differs substantially from his classical 18-19th c counterpart, sentimentalizing cultural diffs and believing that market ideas obtain universally, much as Mandeville complained about three centuries ago. We have recognized for some time the continuing devolution of nation states, but I doubt seriously if that is in any way compatible with globalization, even if American-dominated.

Mr ElBaradie, like them, blurs the distinction between citizens and rebels. If Bush and Cheney should be indicted for deaths in Iraq, then so should Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama for deaths in Libya. Perhaps Charlie Rose for having supported both. Deaths are deaths. But if I hear him rightly, he is calling for Egyptian intervention in Libya.

BTW, I don't see any reason for the cheap attempt to paint the GOP as "birthers." This non-story took up two full pages inside the Wash Post today and featured prominently on the front page. If anyone is taking up time making political hay of this it is Messrs Ploufe and Obama. The president either was or wasn't born in the US, a requirement, at which Democrats have always chafed, placed in the Constitution for the very good reason of preventing the govt from being assumed by a foreign power, actually attempted after the revolution when some New Englanders advocated asking a member of the European nobility to takeover, and again by the French during the Napoleonic era. It is analogous to the ban on titles of nobility, something actually floated in support of the Continental Army. If you think all this is silly in this day and age, I suggest you take a closer look at the royal wedding hysteria. It is more likely Obama hadn't released this document before this simply because it shows clearly that he was the "love child" of an 18-yr-old and an African exchange student. And I think we can all agree that Trump is an idiot even when it comes to economics and business.