Charlie Rose

writersblock25  12/21/2011 11:14 PM Report

Thank you for posting this, Charlie Rose, LLC.

writersblock25  12/21/2011 11:13 PM Report

Thank you for posting this, Charlie Rose, LLC.

writersblock25  12/21/2011 11:13 PM Report

Thank you for posting this, Charlie Rose, LLC.

writersblock25  12/21/2011 11:13 PM Report

Thank you for posting this, Charlie Rose, LLC.

writersblock25  12/21/2011 11:13 PM Report

Thank you for posting this, Charlie Rose, LLC.

Striver  05/18/2011 03:01 PM Report

There are myths and then there are realities. In between there are perceptions. Pakistan's institutions are just not that adept at managing perceptions. Americans can give Pakistani institutions a lesson or two in this art.

I am somewhat disappointed at the comments on this page about Pakistan. Though the arguments have been put forth intelligently and logically. But if the arguments are build on false premise then it follows that the arguments are wrong. Americans perception managers win hands-down.

Time for you guys to watch Pakistani channels to learn about Pakistan and its people. Differentiate between myth and reality about

idic5  05/05/2011 10:03 AM Report

very good q and a, at least better than most i've seen. the ambassador gave a good face to pakistan, despite damning evidence to the contrary. but i don't think cr got to the heart of the problem, which is that pakistan has a significant population that supports islamis radicalism. to wit - the operations chief KSM was found in pak. OBL was found in the equivalent of our west point; omar is probably here, too; in short, wha is it about pak. that provides so much environmental support for such radical figures?

also, he could have invoked what bush said on 9-11 when offering the rationale of going in to a state if that state would host the stateless al-queda. under this rationale, there is more intrusion into pakistan that might happen. what are the consequences of such a tact?

finally, c did not note the following inconsistency in the ambassador's statement:

1) he said pakistan is more worried about its neighbor to the east (india) , and this is why pakistan did not adequately pursue OBL inc.

2) he said that pakistan is as interested as the US in pursuing OBL inc because, like the US, it has had numerous terrorist episodes in pakistan

IndianDalit  05/05/2011 05:27 AM Report

"threat from our eastern neighbor"...what a duplicitous deluded individual.

All the wars fought between India and Pakistan have been instigated by Pakistan, not to mention the several ISI backed terrorist operations on Indian soil.

Furthermore, several of the terrorists (eg: Dawood Ibrahim) have found a safe haven in that country, and are able to plan their ops from there with the tacit support of the Pakistanis.

mak_8777  05/05/2011 01:22 AM Report

The Ambassador slithered his way by deflecting the questions time and time again. Charlie, to confirm why OBL was missing in action for so long, follow the money trail. He was a huge cash cow for the top brass in the military and the ISI; the cash cow is now dead. Pakistanis had two reasons to conveniently not know OBL's whereabouts: money and ideology. Follow them both and you will have the answer, Charlie. The answer is right under our noses and Pakistanis are trying, once again, to dazzle us with horse manure. It is truly a failed state having lost half the country (East Pakistan); multiple confrontations with their fictitious enemies, Indians; and now this.

missedtheobviousquestion  05/04/2011 11:40 PM Report

Mr. Ambassador, of all the more than 300 countries in the world, why did OBL choose Pakistan as a place of refuge for the past several years?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  05/04/2011 06:24 PM Report

Pakistan is a very scary place Mr. Ambassador and you confirmed it.

Why do you need nuclear weapons when you are still so tribal and seem to lack the necessary calm and security that is required to control them?

This case in point is very hard for you to defend. The obvious answer is that corruption and pay-offs kept bin Laden in his long respite, and for a country with the bomb, your government's image should scare the world.

REMant  05/04/2011 11:32 AM Report

I don't think the question is necessarily protection of Bin Laden, as perhaps "containing" him, and there's always the possibility that up to that time the US was aware of it. We have, however, by this action, created a martyr. I would not forget that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was found in Rawalpindi, and that hiding in a large city is likely easier than in the countryside. There's little point in making a big fuss over it now, and like Afghanistan, Iraq and most other countries, including our own, there are political divisions that must be understood and dealt with diplomatically. Remote as it may seem, however, there is still a chance no one is telling the truth about this, as seems to have been the case with how he was killed, and that this is all only an elaborate cover-up of a prearranged endgame.

mutex  05/04/2011 11:11 AM Report

This interview was one of the most disgraceful moments in the history of television journalism. Charlie Rose acted like someone chastising a servant. The ambassador bowed and scraped and did everything but kiss Mr. Rose's feet in his desire to keep the comforts of his ambassadorship and to keep the billions in bribe money flowing. The ambassador stated that Osama bin Laden's arguments and beliefs were wrong but pointedly never mentions exactly what these arguments and beliefs were...let alone how they were "wrong". Mr. Rose seems far more interested in waving the flag than providing factual information about who Mr. bin Laden was as a person and what his actual agenda was. He apparently believes, like the rest of the mainstream media, that we ALL know bin Laden is evil and therefore there is no need to make the case for his cold blooded murder. We don't need more cheerleaders for US foreign policy Mr. Rose. We need more jouirnalists with the courage to present the truth so that individuals can make their own judgements about who the true 'evil doers' are in this war of terror. I find the unbridled enthusiasm of the cockroaches coming out of the woodwork trying to demean the name of Osama bin Laden sickening and their derisive lies say much more about their own lack of integrity than revealing anything truthful or substantive about bin Laden. They say that the victors get to write history but the US is getting a little ahead of itself because to date it hasn't won anything. Iraq, despite what the government and media would have you believe is anything but a 'success'. Afghanistan is a failure in progress. Libya is draining resources from this dying empire which, with each passing day, is coming increasingly close to insolvency. The United States has sold its supposed principles for oil and 'stability' and will end up paying dearly for its illusion of power and prosperity. The country has sunk into an abyss of arrogance, greed and corruption and with interviews like this one Charlie Rose has put on display for anyone willing to see that he is part of the problem rather than being part of the solution. I will never view the show again without remembering this evidence of his lack of objectivity and plain decency. It was a sad spectacle.