Charlie Rose

ShalomFreedman  11/29/2011 04:00 AM Report

Jake Tapper is a no- bull credible correspondent. His appreciation of the sacrifice being made by those American soldiers in Afghanistan is the major note of this interview. The question of whether it is worthwhile, whether any credible pro-American regime will endure in Afghanistan is not however answered by him. Considering what usually happens in that part of the world it is unfortunately very likely, that it is not the relatively 'decent forces' which will take over but rather the most extreme and fanatical.

tabs  11/28/2011 05:04 PM Report

The "truth of the matter" serves you well Mr Tapper. Speaking truth to power is a couragous thing to do, but it does make you an unmovable force which gives you the power of credibility. At the end of the day that credibility is what you will be remembered for.

REMant  11/28/2011 01:26 PM Report

We spent several years withdrawing from Vietnam without altering the situation significantly despite all the money we spent. We might have been able to change that had we stayed and spent a lot more. But there was no point, and there isn't this time either. Ppl tried to absolve JFK, too, and blame it all on LBJ, or on Nixon, but that won't wash this time anymore than then.

The president is IMHO running against Romney, because he is trying to keep Democrats and Independents who voted for him on board.

I would be lying if I said I'm unsurprised by Gingrich's polling results. Tho I think it has nothing much to do with them, he, however, has always been more of a libertarian than a neocon, tho one, like Gordon Wood, who was on his famous reading list, tinged with (lower case) democratic views, which is to say he's more a Southerner than a Midwesterner. The Union-Leader actually would like him for that. And he has been willing to compromise with Democrats like Clinton, which puts him at odds with the anti-Wall St, anti-Fed gang.

But I have no quarrel with his immigrant status views nor his support for Medicare, which I do not set any sort of precedent and are simple pragmatism. Immigrants who have clearly shown that they deserve to be citizens, deserve to become citizens regardless of the consequences, and drugs are a part of healthcare like it or not. He is perhaps right for him to identify with Teddy Roosevelt, who was basically a classical Liberal, a German sort of Progressive, and an advocate for defense, tho I think foreign policy is Gingrich's Achille's heel and he will have difficulty differentiating his position from the neocons, a problem Ron Paul does not have.

I would certainly agree that he is something of an intellectual gadfly and not without his share of personal problems, something he shares tho with Bill Clinton, not hurting his popularity. He was raised a Lutheran, which IMHO he would have done well to remain, but became a Baptist and a Catholic by turns. And he has been married three times. No one can accuse him of lacking experience. Like Clinton, too, he thinks big, too big at times, and if he became president I suppose we would be reading about "renaissance weekends" again. But I think both of them tend to run off at the mouth and I doubt the American public is ready for another of their sort.