Charlie Rose

TodSpence  03/03/2013 09:32 PM Report

Pull your damn sleeve back up. Jesus.

Janosh  11/20/2012 05:02 PM Report

Charlie seemed uncomfortable. I wonder if he knew the score.

Janosh  11/20/2012 04:59 PM Report

My first impression was that she conducted herself physically much the way an articulate young man might. Not to say she doesn't seem female, but it does occur to me that the General might feel more secure with her than with, say, the mother of his children.

psc0104  11/12/2012 08:18 PM Report

Every word written by her book should be deemed unreliable. It amazes me how people like her have no conscience. I was married to a man just like her, cheater, liar and yet professed to love honor and obey, not only me, but his country. In my opinion, both Broadwell and Petraeus are to blame for this affair, they knew exactly what they were getting themselves into. They have no honor if they repeatedly lied to their spouses, family, co-workers and met on CIA time. I agree with the previous comment…….about it being great while it was their nasty little secret. But let me tell you, it will all catch up to them, as it has in this case. All those lies and sneaking around will catch up…..and you know who ends up getting hurt, the innocent…..the otherwise faithful spouses, and most importantly the children. I’m guessing, Mr. Petraeus is probably a repeat offender in the world of adultery and Ms. Broadwell is what I would consider an opportunist, and I mean that NOT IN A NICE WAY!!

psc0104  11/12/2012 08:17 PM Report

Every word written by her book should be deemed unreliable. It amazes me how people like her have no conscience. I was married to a man just like her, cheater, liar and yet professed to love honor and obey, not only me, but his country. In my opinion, both Broadwell and Petraeus are to blame for this affair, they knew exactly what they were getting themselves into. They have no honor if they repeatedly lied to their spouses, family, co-workers and met on CIA. I agree with the previous comment…….about it being great while it was their nasty little secret. But let me tell you, it will all catch up to them, as it has in this case. All those lies and sneaking around will catch up…..and you know who ends up getting hurt, the innocent…..the otherwise faithful spouses, and most importantly the children. I’m guessing, Mr. Petraeus is probably a repeat offender in the world of adultery and Ms. Broadwell is what I would consider an opportunist, and I mean that NOT IN A NICE WAY!!

andy_hutto  11/12/2012 02:38 PM Report

I want my money back for the book I purchased. It was definitely not objective now that we now of the details of the affair.

Integrity  11/11/2012 05:12 PM Report

As a fellow professional young woman, I must choose clothing wisely when making presentational appearances. Nothing wrong with her choice of dress, however it's odd that she deliberately allowed one sleeve to slip down. A woman can 'feel' when a sleeve has fallen and it therefore seems manipulative on her part.

Almost like a Gil Evgren painting, where the pin up models seem 'oblivious' that the wind has blown up their dress and that they are showing their panties.

If you want to the public to take you serious, don't be seductively manipulative. It shows poor character, Paula.

MisterMittster  11/10/2012 04:06 PM Report

...America Loses, when a competent professional is replaced by an inferior substitute, which will be the case HERE. Hopefully, this will not result in the future loss of more American lives unneccessarily. Which will be the case HERE, and their blood will be on this woman's hands.

This really pisses me off.

MisterMittster  11/10/2012 03:55 PM Report

...Though, I do now question her real intensions; "All In".?., I mean, Really.?. How lewd and blatant.

I suspect she's a very bad, naughty girl.

MisterMittster  11/10/2012 03:50 PM Report

@jbarr,

"a mistake", are you kidding?

Take a good look at her; HOW would you or anybody else Expect him to resist her?!

Like the great and wise 'chawlydollylama' commented 9 months earlier, "This woman-Lady is a WOW!".

jbarr  11/10/2012 02:03 PM Report

The General made a mistake. She may have had questionable motives, but you can see she is very much a fan of the man. It is a shame his career ended over it, and her military career is over too, I suspect.

familyman  11/10/2012 12:04 PM Report

I believe she will have more success writing about "Ten Things You Can Do Under A Desk" If I were her husband I would be doing a paternity test on my children. She is no different than any other adulteress thats banging her boss, she just likes to do it under a desk. She threw away her husband, a man who is dedicated to saving lives, for cheating military man who specializes in taking lives. Every picture of her posted with her husband or children clearly shows she is not committed to them, look at her eyes, she is thinking of the general. Her book is skewed because of her personal envolvement with the general, she can't be believed because cheaters are liers, she has been lying to her husband, her children, her family, her friends and her church, so how can you look at this book as being reliable? For years she planned and plotted against her family in order to meet the general, it was great while it was their nasty little secret. Now that it has been exposed we all see them for what they are, two cheaters that can't keep a promise to their spouse's. Their words don't mean much if you can't believe they will honor them. Just my opinion.

nico  11/10/2012 02:56 AM Report

Money quote:

"Petraeus loves the CIA and never wants to leave." She said this twice. I hope she feels like crap.

And her off the shoulder look was completely inappropriate. Jeff looks like he knows she's having an affair. He can barely make eye contact with her.

And she gives hardly any credit to Loeb.... obviously thinks she's hot stuff, but I think she's been knocked down a peg or two.

Whole thing is really sad all the way around... her family, his family, his career... probably her career too. Wonder what effect this will have on her KC PhD prospects.

Fran6359  11/09/2012 11:07 PM Report

"Charlie, I wanted to use Petraeus as case study".

Classic opening line now watching this the second time around. I seem to grasp so many more themes that she was trying to get at, that I somehow must have missed the first go round.

wink

ANONYMOUS_PLEASE  11/09/2012 09:43 PM Report

Poor Mrs. Petraeus having to deal with this crap.

If she watched this interview, she probably wondered how this woman knew so much about her husband....learnt from simple book interviews.

chawlydollylama  02/21/2012 06:47 PM Report

... there's something about that dress or the way she's wearing it, that is original and subtle.

chawlydollylama  02/21/2012 06:43 PM Report

This woman-Lady is a WOW!!!

and I mean that with the utmost respect.

Gelles  02/20/2012 03:02 AM Report

Paula Broadwell suggests David Petraeus will not now seek the the presidency, despite his potential greatness, because to be elected to that office requires, among other things, far more luck than brains and far more ambition for the office than talent -- to win our wars against evil, scarcity, poverty, pollution, ignorance, legacy errors, and war itself, etc.

Moreover, I can imagine David Petraeus, (and others who know they are a cut above the few now in the running -- one of whom will be the winner in November,) knows his present job and position in our hierarchy are, like a bird in hand, worth worth far more than a dozen birds in the bushes outside the window. Why want what in fact is bestowed on people by blind fate for unknowable reasons.

Petraeus may, in deed, become president in the future. But, for now, to pull a "Huntsman", and challenge the Obama who made you head of the CIA, would not be cricket or very wise. This nation's people, super rich types included, is not clamoring for a Petraeus. It wants a less experienced person who: will not repeal the income tax (to be replaced by effective private savings); will not repeal the legalistic gobbledy gook that ought to be replaced by language that anyone can see is fair to ordinary people as well as pointed, readable and effective; who will develop an academy comparable to West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy, to train youth and promote our skills in diplomacy, nation and systems building, and political and economic science and all the arts necessary to win the peace that follows war; and, who will oppose casino and crony systems that have corrupted our society, etc., etc.

All of the above being true, the desire to switch from Obama to Petraeus is a waste of time. Obama has the job. A Republican to replace him is a 50-50 possibility. That Republican may well be an "austerity" type, not a Keynesian scholar. If he is an austerity Austrian School moron, as is almost likely, America will be in for a real test of democracy in extremis.

When the Einstein letter to Roosevelt brought on the nuclear arms race, that may have been delayed a long time, the President had to believe a chain reaction was possible that would turn matter into energy for bombs (and maybe for other less violent uses).

Today we need presidential belief in a chain reaction that will allow robots to build robot-making machines such that 300 million people will be as capable of defeating scarcity as well or better that China, India or other nation many times the size of the USA. Unless we find such a president, we may be eclipsed by other nations before this century is over. We do not want future races to be arms races only.

Our present race to the bottom, in which our richest corporations elected to sabotage America instead of changing the way we finance economic power, is one of our greatest enemies.

But we do not want it to evolve into an arms race for the biggest force on earth's land and water surfaces intent on death and destruction of nation states. Rather, we want a race to end scarcity, poverty and hate.

If we can't win that race to lead this planet to heaven on earth results, based on democracy and technology, we may see totalitarian regimes pursue evil ends as they have in the past.

When Charlie Rose interviews Niall Ferguson, a prophet who does not appreciate Keynesian solutions, I cringe at their conversation. Obama is closer to them than to me. Would Petraeus be closer to me? I'm not sure. So I may be yearning for Abraham Lincoln to return to office with Ken Galbraith at his side. This is not likely to happen.

Gelles  02/18/2012 03:15 PM Report

You may think labor union dues are not the issue. Well, look at justice and public education. Charge for them like union dues and nobody would want the product. Make unions free to all workers and they will resume their function of creating a secure middle class that could bargain with capital on level ground.

We have put capital in control and provided no self-control helps for capitalists. They are invited to buy the lawmakers and eat themselves to death.

The same with lawyers. They have taken our language and made it serve lawyers not their clients and would be clients if we reformed all law with equity-like brevity and understanding. Let's give every English teacher and college graduate a law license. That ought to break the back of a system that writes the law for its own income. If that does not work, give those licenses to everyone with a drivers license. Keep on trying everything until our law is as popular and easily understood as necessary to raise the minimum income to a comfortable income. There is no excuse for results that so inhibit production and consumption of necessities that poverty can exist in this time and place.

Gelles  02/18/2012 02:49 PM Report

When we are young we think elected presidents are far better than absolute hereditary monarchs, ruthless political dictators, or benign opportunists who ascend to power in the wake of unexpected failure of business as usual but are constrained by a culture to respect some if not all norms.

At the end of life, after having experienced the persistence of imperfection, we re-read the PREAMBLE:

..... We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We admit a "more perfect Union" needs labor union help to stop collecting direct member dues and to pay its bills the way our justice system does -- that is from government revenues (such as taxes or as more indirect systems like government-in-business selling money, advertising, lottery tickets, or licenses, etc. -- of these means, taxation is the worst and the indirect others are the best).

We admit our Justice is a failure. It is "law", mot justice. It is rigid not intelligent. It is corrupt not clean. It is dogmatic not seeking change based on results.

We admit we have a good score in tranquility, compared to most other nations. But that tranquility is based more on the safety net than on a "fair" reward for work that keeps us modestly higher than where the safety net catches those down on their luck.

We admit Hitler and Stalin educated us to look well to our defenses.

We admit our general welfare goals are the most neglected. A dozen democracies in Europe (and smaller populations elsewhere) have better minimum and median incomes than we do. Even among the nuclear armed democracies, our minimum and median standard of living is not exemplary.

We admit our idea of LIBERTY is warped. Wage slavery is a better way to describe our libertarian results. Liberty would mean all children were rich at birth: out resources, technology, and ideals make this not just possible but mandatory.

So the PREAMBLE beckons us to deliver the goods and cut the CR_P. --

.....We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Which leads us to the VISION of Petraeus. We know he is capable of anything he undertakes. Tell me his vision. I would to see him drafted to serve the people at the highest post he will accept.

Gelles  02/18/2012 07:29 AM Report

Paula Broadwell hinted logically that the path to the presidency today involves primary elections that exclude excellence in American leadership until we have radical reform of current elective processes. She is probably right. Pending that reform, her husband was right: draft the General; sell more books; do anything to stop the drift to oligarchy, autocracy, theocracy and rot at the top of the system. We would do well to hold on to the Preamble and reform the text intended to achieve it.

Gelles  02/18/2012 06:29 AM Report

This very attractive lady, dressed to command the eyes of the audience, has written a study of a personality and a career that illuminate issues of warfare and politics far above the pay grade of her audience and this Charlie Rose audience.

The issues behind global intelligence, global economics, global power balance, global destiny, do involve the "attitude" ans "chance" elements Paula mentioned (with respect to "command" and career ambitions, and they involve rules of thumb from history we can call the "box". Thinking "outside the box" is an ideal that General Petraeus pursued with enormous success. It is also what many of us today believe is required to turn the current economic disturbance into a historical era of change for the better. It also beckons General Petraeus to become President of the United States.

Our current Commander in Chief has killed pirates and terrorists, and he has won elections. Is he smarter than General Petraeus? Not likely. Is there a box we are in outside of which we ought to be thinking? What attitude will serve America and Earth best in the immediate future?

None of the names, such as Presidents Obama and Putin, Generals Petraeus and Jim Jones, Mayor Bloomberg and President Nicolas Sarkozy, etc., are people who know what is desirable or how to achieve it far better than rival candidates. Yet voters and big names, themselves, will decide on the who will lead humanity out of the past (and its wars, poverty, pollution and ignorance,) into an age where artificial intelligence comes to the aid of its founders.

As I have said before, the NSA, CIA, and USA, need the Economic Security Agency to manage money to develop global promise and national purposes to prevent civil and global wars able to do all in.

To live in interesting times is a privilege. To read "ALL IN" may be an opportunity. Thank you Charlie and John Stewart for interviewing this brainy beauty. Her husband's idea to sell more books is not altogether wrong. Stewart remarks that his wind is not up to interviewing Petraeus on the run. This lady is a world class runner. She did that. I could not -- even sitting down. But I wish I could before voting for the General. My guess is that he is superior to the array of political candidates currently addressing our problems in a nation desperately in need of reform.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  02/18/2012 03:57 AM Report

She used the word "Professor" a couple of times as if this was a better word than "General".

I hope the Professor can uphold the Constitution at the CIA. It can be an incredibly difficult task juggling truth and honor and deception.

I hope the Professor can help find a more efficient way to nation build that isn't military centric--especially with the Arab Spring.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  02/18/2012 03:50 AM Report

When Paula looked over at Jeff, smiled and said "What?" that is when the flow of the interview hit a dam.

Eric Kandel is a good co-host but you Charlie and Jeff need to rehearse before you thrust this on us.

Not enough time you say . . . is this "perfectionist" Charlie?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  02/18/2012 03:44 AM Report

Interesting attire for the subject matter and caused me pause. Then at the end of the interview I hear the name of the author followed by that BIG preposition "With".

The "With" seems like someone who might have replaced your new apprentice Charlie (by the way he graduated from UNC).

VERNON LOEB is the Deputy Managing Editor at The Philadelphia Inquirer. Previously he covered the U.S. intelligence community and national security issues on the national staff of The Washington Post. During that time, he wrote extensively about the Central Intelligence Agency, numerous issues effecting the broader intelligence community and a series of breaking news events involving U.S. intelligence: the bombing of the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, the CIA's role in the Wye peace accord, the Kindred Spirit investigation at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the mistaken bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.

Prior to joining The Washington Post, Loeb was a reporter on the metropolitan staff after working as a reporter, bureau chief and foreign correspondent for 16 years at The Philadelphia Inquirer. Mr. Loeb covered four Philadelphia mayors and was the newspaper's City Hall bureau chief from 1985-1989 and 1992-1994. Between the stints at City Hall, Mr. Loeb was The Inquirer's Southeast Asia correspondent from 1989-1992. Based in Manila, he covered events such as the Tiannenmen Square massacre in China and the normalization of U.S. relations with Vietnam. Mr. Loeb also worked on a team of reporters covering the Persian Gulf War and Iraq's missile attacks on Tel Aviv and wrote extensively from the West Bank.

Mr. Loeb graduated with a degree in journalism from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

http://www.thecapitol.net/Faculty/facultybiog.html

tabs  02/17/2012 06:08 PM Report

Ms Broadwell's take on former General Petraeus was that of an observer looking on from afar. She offered one NOTHING of the internal dynamics and thus motivations of the man. In other words he still remains a mystery even after listening to his biographer? She might of well have said, "I observed General Petraeus driving his car on Fairfax and approaching 18Th Street he stopped at the light and when the light turned green he turned left." Based upon this depth of biography Sun Tzu would have cautioned Ms Broadwell, "Do not come up against General Petraeus as an opposite commander, you will lose 100% of the time."

Former General Petraeus serving as Army Chief of Staff or Commander of NATO forces? One thinks that pushing paper around in an administrative job would be the last thing former General Petraeus would want to do. Without knowing any particular details about the man except for his being a "maverick" and author of the "surge," one has concluded that former General Petraeus was able to translate amoprphic/asymetrical warfare into a hierarchial bureaucratic how to instruction manual. One that any Shavetail Lieutant fresh from the Point could read and understand. One also might consider that former General Petraeus has the patience and perserverence of Job, in having the equanamity to deal with the hierarchial structure that a milittary organization entails. Here one speculates that former General Petraeus applied the same principles of amorphic/asymetrical warfare to the US military hierarchy in the advancment of his career. In other words he broke the hierarchial structure of the US military down into amorphic pieces. It would be interesting to know what Sun Tzu had to say about ones take on General Petraeus?

REMant  02/17/2012 11:38 AM Report

Well, I didn't agree with much of this. Great American commanders have always emerged in the midst of her wars, and rarely would have made it anywhere near the top without them. But this sword cuts both ways. The question in my mind is whether Petraeus was the best, or only the best we could have expected, and whether because of the lingering effects of the Vietnam War, and now these, the public is still sufficiently alienated to avoid service. Elimination of the draft and increasing reliance on reserves do not seem to have helped, and I don't think the motive of money and career adequate to make up for the kind of forthright patriotism that brings out the best.

Whether republics or monarchies field better forces has been debated for centuries now. But peacetime armies attract martinets and crusaders, malingerers and shysters, like police forces, and the employment of mercenaries, no matter how adept, is impolitic not only on personnel grounds, but contemptible on democratic ones. However, this appears to be the price we have had to pay for these adventures and despite his evident leadership qualities, I have to consider Petraeus in this category. Like many in the higher ranks today he is part politician, involved with the hawkish Council on Foreign Relations, that has no doubt played a large part in his advancement, and, if has thus emerged in these wars, it's because they are ones in part of his own making. The idea that he is thus a maverick seems Whig history at best, but she appears in good company.

A West Pointer, who married the boss's daughter, he seemed headed for a career as an something not unlike Colin Powell (whose doctrines he has largely turned upside down), having been sent unusually early to Leavenworth, where he graduated at the top of his class, and then immediately to Princeton. He was not promoted to LTC and given a battalion command, the usual follow-on to attendance at the Command and Staff College, until he already had his PhD. His dissertation that the Vietnam War was carried on in the wrong way certainly seems to have put him in good stead with those who wanted to carry on in the tradition of The Quiet American, and its further development, when he later assumed command at Leavenworth, I imagine was no accident, or seized opportunity. He served as aide to large number of generals, always a sign of favor, and was quickly moved from battalion commander to major general (where he first encountered enemy fire) no doubt in part to make up for having lost so much time in school, despite skipping the usual year at a war college prior to regimental-level command.

The proof of his thesis, however, will be found in Afghanistan, not in Iraq, even if it can be said to have worked there, and a recent article in Armed Forces Journal by a more genuine maverick paints a not very rosy picture of things there.* It looks as tho he has already decided on quite different tactics. I would say, however, by way of his being considered a maverick, that not only was being Army chief-of-staff not perhaps his inclination, but also he was not prepared for it. Being forced then to take off the uniform for the CIA was no great impediment, as he rarely had it on. In all, I think there's room for another book on this subject.

*http://armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8904030 and http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/army-colonel-challenges-pentagons-afghanistan-claims.htm l?_r=3