A conversation about an opposition movement to the potential war in Iraq

with Amy Goodman
in Current Affairs
on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 * * * * *

Sorry, this video isn’t available at the moment; please check back soon.

play

E-mail this video:

Distribute this video:

Share on:

Close
Description

Amy Goodman of Pacifica Radio explores the growing opposition movement to a possible war, both in the U.S. and abroad.

Video Share Options
Share
Buy Amazon DVD
Keywords:
Pacifica Radio
Amy Goodman
Democracy Now
war opposition
Iraq War

In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:

itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/2104

Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.

Close
  • Comments 16
    Post new comment
    1. joanhelm  10/24/2011 09:40 PM Report

      Amy is brillant and Charlie is blind. Tonight Amy comes back for another sit down and I can hardly wait to watch.

    2. Brobuck  08/03/2009 11:17 AM Report

      Remember this Mr. Rose? My question to you is, were you lying when you said that it didn't happen then, or are you at all disturbed that you are a party to it now?

    3. WhatThinkYouNow  08/01/2009 08:25 PM Report

      Now what do you say? You brokered the deal between Immelt and Murdock yourself that has muzzled MSNBC and FOX.

      http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=111140547499&h=pvurd&u=Nd5y8&ref=nf

    4. ceci  05/03/2008 12:37 PM Report

      Everyone should be required to watch or revisit Amy Goodman's interview -five years later. (May 3, 2008)especially Meghan O'Sullivan!

    5. Benjamin Lobato  04/08/2008 04:37 PM Report

      If anyone is interested in the Dan Rather quote Amy mentions, it can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/05_may/16/dan_rather.shtml .

      Charlie was wrong, and he was out of line to imply that Amy was attacking the integrity of his colleagues.

    6. Benjamin Lobato  04/08/2008 04:08 PM Report

      Charlie said:

      "Having said that, I promise you CBS news and ABC News and NBC News are not influenced by the corporations it may own those companies."

      Do you really believe that Charlie? When was the last time you watched the news on any of the major networks? The corporate need for profits has obviously had a huge effect on the quality of news on television. It has turned news shows more into entertainment than good honest journalism. If you don't think the corporate owners have anything to do with that, how do you explain the quality difference between the major networks and indepedent reporting? Just a coincidence?

      Just because some corporate executive has never tried to influence your reporting, doesn't mean that they don't have say on what ends up on television.

    7. Tarun Seam  12/22/2007 03:42 PM Report

      Amy Goodman, like Noam Chomsky, has the intellectual honesty, insightful knowledge, conviction and courage to speak her mind that only a very few Americans possess. Nearly all American journalists in corporate-owned mass media only have pretensions of being independent thinkers but are, in fact, more or less, oblivious to facts or apprehensive about 'crossing a line' in their reporting or commentary that might upset their business bosses, or sponsors, or sections of viewing audience that quickly label anyone they don't like as 'unpatriotic'. Charlie Rose needs to be asking himself how many times did Tom Brokaw, or Peter Jennings, or Dan Rather, or anyone with supposed 'integrity' reported how Iraqis facing death felt about invasion of their country, cared enough about innocent people dying in droves, questioned "slam dunk" intelligence on WMDs, challenged the ridiculous linkage Bush administration made between two sworn enemies - Saddam, the Stalinistic secularist, and Osama, the religious fanatic. How many have ever stood up and asked who created and funded these two monsters in the first place. No mass media reporter would dare report the attrocities of Saddam against his own people while he had the backing of Reagan Administration during Iraq-Iran war of 1980s. No mass media reporter would dare question the foolishness of recruiting Osama - a sworn jihadi on a mission to destroy 'the devil' (America) who had been in bed with the corrupt Saudi rulers - for fighting against the Soviets in the Afghan war. No mass media reporter was heard questioning why American administrations in utter defiance of fundamental American values supported oppressive mass murderers like Pinochet (Chile), Suharto (Indonesia), Chun (Korea) etc. In a way Charlie Rose's naivette (or attempt to play a devil's advocate) helped contrast and thus convey more sharply Amy Goodman's points. Has the mass media newsmen, editors and reporters learned any lessons from Iraq? You would hope so, but don't bet on it.

    8. Troubled Soul  09/26/2007 03:07 AM Report

      Oh Charlie! How sad it is to see you object to the notion that journalists might be pressured! I love so much of your work. But this interview breaks my heart.

      Amy offered a terribly insightful analysis. Such wisdom behind her assessments. Yet, it appeared that you were unfamiliar with the dark deeds in previous eras of American foreign policty and averse to the possibility that Bush and Co. might have had questionable motives.

      Surely you are aware that dishonesty and deception have often been used to justify war throughout history!

    9. William Parkhurst  09/19/2007 06:37 AM Report

      Amy Goodman offered a penetrating, knowledgeable, insightful commentary. We all know she was right, today, in September 2007. She was right, then, no question. Mr. Rose would have an interesting show to have her on again, but he might be overwhelmed with her factual knowledge.

    10. A. Bremyer  08/14/2007 11:13 PM Report

      I've watched Rose for years and I've listened to Goodman on Democracy Now! for years. Goodman's show is the best, most researched, honest, and integrity-driven -- as opposed to profit-driven -- (non-print) outlet I know of. The gratitude and respect I have for her and the work she and her team have done and continue to do is immeasurable. It would be lovely if Rose had her back on--not to say 'you were right,' etc., but rather, to give Goodman an additional opportunity to be heard by Rose's audience and further develop her own audience, the result of which would be the development of our citizens' awareness of major issues (far beyond 'just' this horrible disaster in Iraq) while fostering political involvement in these most grave times.

      How 'bout this for an hour-long roundtable dream-team? Goodman, Rather, and Moyers!

    11. thomas  07/07/2007 10:45 PM Report

      Goodman's analysis and passionate plea for peace was spot on the eve of war. To bad I didn't hear it at the time. Instead, like many Americans, I wanted revenge at the time on 'them', and Bush was serving it.

    12. tim tarbill  07/07/2007 06:35 PM Report

      Very disappointing to see Rose kow tow to big news. He loses a lot of credibility by doing so.

    13. tim tarbill  07/07/2007 06:35 PM Report

      Very disappointing to see Rose kow tow to big news. He loses a lot of credibility by doing so.

    14. Lee Smithey  06/12/2007 12:59 AM Report

      I would simply like to reiterate the comment above in hoping that Charlie will follow through on his invitation to invite Amy Goodman back for another interview. It may be uncomfortable to acknowledge that millions of people around the world anticipated and protested the disastrous results of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but Amy Goodman, as an articulate and informed voice of the movement, should be heard with at least the frequency of those more regular guests who supported the war or have slowly come to understand what Goodman grasped even before the war began. (Plus, she must have earned some credit for handling the very end of the interview with grace.)

    15. eli friedmann  05/03/2007 01:50 PM Report

      Goodman does indeed sound quite prescient here. rose sounds pretty much sold on the administration line, even considering that he is perhaps playing devil's advocate, which is part of any interviewer's job.

      also he seems so credulous of the authority and credibility of network news...he sounds pretty naive. i also wonder whether he watched the moyers piece about the selling of the iraq war and what he thinks about it both from the standpoint of his own involvement AND that of his network colleges. it was also kind of funny to hear him denying the dan rather quote...especially since rather has come out as a total media maverick in recent years...and the quote used on this show by goodman seems entirely believable in that light. entirely.

      side point: i have been surprisingly impressed with SOME of the hard nosed stories on 60 minutes....so it is not a total wasteland.

    16. Andrew Kerr  05/03/2007 12:03 PM Report

      I went back to watch this interview again in light of where we are four years later. This was one of the few times I remember being disappointed in a Charlie Rose interview. Mr. Rose had a clear bias in this discussion that prevented him from having the kind of open mind and open heart that he usually brings to a discussion. I hope Mr. Rose had an opportunity to watch Bill Moyers' recent program on selling the war and I hope he will consider bringing Ms. Goodman and others back to the table to revisit this incredibly important discussion. Our democracy is at stake.