Charlie Rose

gabriel  10/20/2007 04:15 PM Report

Why does he die his hair red?

That is true it seems strange.

Maybe he's been to Mecca.

Compelling man.

Gabriel  10/20/2007 04:07 PM Report

Iraq is an impossible political science question

It is sad that the minorities get picked on.

Petrarus is the last great general of the US Military

Arguably its greatest ever in sophistication of language and nuance.

But no general alone can spin a mountain of blood into a mountain of peace. Not with the political plans laid out.

Pash  10/03/2007 10:00 PM Report

I have been your viewer for many years, since I was an undergraduate student at a college in Idaho.You do really good job. Why PBS can't broadcast your show during prime time? So many Americans could learn many things from your show. To be honey FOX, CNN are the worst in the News. MSNBC is better than both of FOX and MSNBS. But you are the #1. I am not an AMerican, but you desrve the best of the world.

However, you tend to focus on mostly on big countries, sometime, it would be nice if you could provide some pictures of Nepal, where the political installbility has been taking for a long time. I donot if I missed any show or interviews on Nepali Issues.

Thank for your public services. Pashupati Neupane.

Max  09/28/2007 04:33 PM Report

Please arrage a talk about the recent crisis in Burma.

David Geller  09/16/2007 12:51 PM Report

This was by far the best interview I've seen of Patraeus during this recent "media tour." However, I felt it fell short on some points. It seemed like Charlie Rose was being kind. As on every other appearance, I have yet to see anyone explore the connection of Shia Iranians to Sunni extremists. In fact, Patraeus was pressed on this topic just a little by Mr. Rose and you can see Patraeus's breath quicken as he appears visibly troubled connecting these dots. Patraeus quickly chose to focus on the talking point, which is that we have evidence of Iranian involvement (laptop, document, etc.).

It's not that difficult to see the difference when Patraeus is engaging in straight talk and when he's going down the scripted company line. I wish Charlie Rose had pressed the Iranian issue further. It also would have been informative to have more questions answered about Saudi (Sunni/Wahabi) involvement and why We choose to focus mostly on the Iranian. However, for the most part, this is the most honest and forthcoming I've seen Patraeus - though that's not saying too much.

Ferdinand Gajewski  09/15/2007 03:51 AM Report

Petraeus dropped like a hot potato Charlie's question as to the wisdom of the invasion of Iraq. If the answer had been "yes," Petraeus would have said so, wouldn't he? His lame excuse for not answering only made him look oily. I don't trust him.

Jo  09/15/2007 12:28 AM Report

Thanks, Charlie and Producers for having such a high quality interview with one of the finest American patriots. I'm thoroughly enjoying hearing him have the opportunity to call a spade a spade on Iraq and our role there. There is no way any interviewer can make Gen. Petraeus look bad. He has too much dignity, like you Charlie. Thanks again!

Ferdinand Gajewski, PhD  09/14/2007 11:57 PM Report

I wonder if General Petraeus thinks it was in the United States' best interest to invade Iraq (on false pretenses) in the first place.

D. Rasmussen  09/14/2007 06:02 PM Report

My comment is contained in comments of Ed Krause Fri Apr 27 3AM

and G Armstrong Fri Apr 27 4AM .

Interesting information but the real dabate should be about the costs for everyone:

Human , Domestic , Economy. ( Intanagibles as well as money)

Thank you Charlie for your excellent shows

Muse Mekuria  08/24/2007 01:37 PM Report

You have a wonderful show, I find it extremely informative and interesting. Please keep it up!

P.S I'm sure there are lots of people who'd like to contribute to the show, why not put a donate link on the website?

Sugaree  06/14/2007 07:12 PM Report

This man represents the height of mental illness!!!

Warda  06/13/2007 11:39 PM Report

Will they ever make a movie about the plane wich strike the pentagon?

marguerite stauf  05/31/2007 10:59 AM Report

Thank you so much for a last glimpse of Molly Ivans. We are going to have to rely on Calvin Trillan to help us face this hellish place we find ourselves these days. Except for Maureen Dowd all the humor seems to be fading away.We do have a local fellow, Charles Anderson'once executive editor of our daily the Star-News. We call him " our Russell Baker,"sadly he is retired and only writes occasionly for our op ed.

Thanks again for the evening with three treasures.

X  05/18/2007 10:25 AM Report

First, I would like to say that I wish anybody who leaves a comment would STOP COMPLIMENTING THE VIDEO, or leaving comments as though Charlie is going to read them. He is very busy, what with talking to people all stinking the time.

Second, he is entitled to say, by my estimate, as much as he freaking wants to say. It's his show. It's not called "The Charlie Rose Interview Hour." But, "A Conversation with Some Schmuck."

Joanna  05/01/2007 12:05 AM Report

Thanks for the excellent interview of General Petraeus! First class! So good to hear another side--rational and true.

Adam Khan  04/29/2007 09:33 PM Report

A superficial comment perhaps but I'm very surprised that this grown man -- a military man, a senior man with a hugely important task -- dyes his hair reddish. I find this mildly unsettling.

Thank you for the new site.

Jack MacLaren  04/28/2007 10:07 AM Report

The interview was softball at its worst. Charlie is capable of asking demanding and challenging questions without ever being rude or nasty and he has done that in the past, but it seems not with the likes of a Bush or a Petraeus.

Robert Philbin  04/27/2007 09:12 PM Report

This interview is too softball to be useful.

To be imersed in the minutia of military detail is to drift far from the point: The Bush enterprise in Iraq is a total failure. However, a century from now, all will be well in Iraq.

Thank you.

Jim McDowell  04/27/2007 11:45 AM Report

Thanks for another great interview. Thanks to the general but thanks to Charlie for asking the questions we hadn't even thought of yet.

C. Stephen White  04/27/2007 11:08 AM Report

I urge anyone who has viewed this conversation to also watch the "three-star general's" conversation with Charlie which is dated 3/1/2004. There were some fascinating points of comparison and contrast - well worth the addition 1/2 hour viewing commitment.

dave  04/27/2007 11:08 AM Report

You need the latest Flash version to watch the videos. Everything on the site is completely free. I don't really care about comment formatting though.. This site is about the videos!

C. Stephen White  04/27/2007 10:38 AM Report

GENERAL FUNCTIONAL COMMENTS: This web-site is (almost) fabulous. It is an example for all serious "journals of record" to emmulate in so far as it provides efficient, exhaustive and free access to all archived material. Cudos to the guy who beat the bean-counters on the free issue [there is some chatter about the free access ending or being limited - - others respond that this is a technical Flash version issue. If it ain't free . . . it will not work! - - - For the RESPONSE portion of this web site to meet basic threshold efectiveness (i.e. necessary conditions for its being chosen as a site at which people are willing to spend their time - - together with the existing free unencumbered response), it is necessary to improve this "resonse" function. You need, at least: standard word-processing formatting functions to allow for paragraphing and headings; Bold, Italic and multiple underling features;, and spell-check. Your programmes are dense and rich. So to could be the responses. The current sub-par formatting options retard effort toward that end.

Angus  04/27/2007 08:41 AM Report

Guys Joe Smit is right. You need the latest version of flash. I live in Australia and I've had no problems watching any video on charlerose.com totally free. If I can watch it without paying a cent then I can see no reason why someone else can't do the same.

Stephen Roberts  04/27/2007 08:20 AM Report

I understand the desire for additional revenues but sorry to see the last few interviews for free. My guess is that your revenues for paid shows wwould actually be higher if you draw the traffic to the site with free views. People will get used to going there and then be willing to pay for past interviews (e.g. see something in the science series and want to go back to previous segments). Also since you are on public TV, there is an underlying assumption that you are interested in truth and service and not just about money or noteriety. But its obviously your choice how you decide to postion the show on the web.

G. Armstrong  04/27/2007 04:27 AM Report

Tonight on CR, you asked Petreus about troop levels. He failed to answer your question and with good reason. Bush calls the shots. Petreus has the responsibility to support the President. Some Petreus predecessors told Congress that the manning approved by the civilian Bush Administration was inadequate to securely occupy the country. They were demoted. So, on your show, Petreus reiterated Administration positions.

He said the Iraqis must support the security effort in Iraq and find a political settlement. That echoes Bush, but nothing could be more premature and unlikely in such an insecure country. The Iraqi government canâ??t even protect itself from its people and canâ??t agree on any of the key issues â?? distribution of oil revenues, keeping or eliminating the militia, Constitutional changes, and sharing of power. To permit a political solution and reconstruction, there must be a semblance of security.

Bush cannot send more troops because that would require a draft and would prove that he had committed another monstrous blunder, impossible for Bush to face since he has lost popular support and there is growing sentiment for impeachment. So, as a soldier protecting his Commander-in-Chief, Petreus indicated that with Iraqi forces, contractors, coalition forces, and our army/marines, he has enough troops. But the truth came out in your interview. Petreus left open the possibility that the occupation will fail. That answers your question. He has too few troops. If he had enough, he would have confidence that we will win.

Petreus really has only the U.S. troops to secure Iraq.

Iraqis security forces are willing to train and so get paid, but unwilling to enforce security. Often, their terrorist countrymen kill them and their families when they try to create security. The only time they do it willingly is when they attack people of opposing sects, thus escalating the conflict. To save their lives and families, many clandestinely support the insurrection with weapons and other equipment, and with information. So, they cannot be legitimately included in a military complement to create security for the Iraqi population.

Contractors in Iraq are largely involved in infrastructure maintenance and supply functions. They have suffered more casualties per capita than the troops, so much of their time is spent in protecting themselves. Very few relieve troops of guard duty, patrol, or do the work of foot soldiers. Even if some were supporting Iraqi security, they are so few and preoccupied with time consuming jobs, that they make no significant contribution to security. So, contractors cannot be counted as part of the military complement.

The Coalition forces other than the U.S. always were few. Spain, Italy, the Latin American troops, and virtually every other coalition country have removed most or all of its troops. Even the British are moving troops out to Afghanistan. So, the manpower contribution of other nations is insignficant.

In sum, our troops carry nearly the entire security load. The fact that violence is pervasive and growing ever more deadly in all parts of Iraq further proves that there are not enough of them â?? or that Iraq cannot be successfully occupied, an absurdity.

Apparently, Petreus' manual for successful occupation sets a ratio of 25 troops per thousand population. With somewhat effective support from S. Vietnamese, an American force with a higher ratio per capita failed in Vietnam. Petreusâ?? ratio was a guess at best and under pressure not to embarrass the President, he could not properly state the high troop levels needed in an occupied country plagued by civil war.

The 100,000 security forces Petreus claimed to have in Baghdad are really less than half that number. As recently as 6 months ago there were 7 battalions or a total of less than 25,000 troops there. Recently, some troops were â??musical chairedâ?? into Baghdad from other areas; but they cannot number more than 15,000. And, the Surge will add 23,000 to the total in Iraq but Anbar and other provinces will get more than half of them. So, there are currently less than 40,000 troops in Baghdad and after the Surge, there will still be less than 50,000 â?? less than 60 percent of the manning prescribed by the Occupation Manual (for an occupation free of intractable sectarian Civil War).

And, the total population of Iraq is 22 million. So, the 150,000 troops in Iraq after the surge will be less than one-third the numbers that the Occupation Manual prescribes.

Furthermore, no part of Iraq is secure. Moving troops from other areas to an undermanned Baghdad to reduce violence there, increases the violence elsewhere.

We must not risk our country with 19 more months of mis-leadership. Bushâ??s foreign relations record is deplorable. His failures offend most of the rest of the world and manufacture ever more terrorists, nowhere more rapidly than in an Iraq that had been free of terrorists before he occupied it. More than a billion Moslems worldwide view the death and destruction of Moslems in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq as Bushâ??s fault. They are gold mines for terrist recruitment and support.

We must stop the growing violence from creating a regional or world crisis. We have a good chance to regain world leadership and reduce terrorism if we replace Bush before it is too late. Congress must force Bush/Cheney/Rice out of office (by impeachment of necessary) and select a new leader with the blend of diplomatic, military, and executive non-partisan skills that can correct Bushâ??s serious errors. That leaderâ??s first act must be to unite our badly divided country and government behind a sound plan for Iraq. We must either leave Iraq now to save the additional deaths in combat and civil war that the Bush too-little-too late Surge and musical chair gambits are producing, or we must commit enough military resources to save the God-forsaken Iraqis, Israelis, and the U.S. as it should be.

Ed Krause  04/27/2007 03:06 AM Report

Petreaus seems to be a highly intelligent good man; he is also a 'good soldier' taking orders from a deluded and incompetent commander-in-chief. In stating the tremendous burden our troops and taxpayers must carry into the unforeseeable future (a permanent surge?), I wonder if, in his heart-of-hearts, he wants congress to pull the plug on this debacle, so he and his soldiers can go home and our nation can cut its losses.

Thanks Charlie for asking the difficult questions. It has been good to see your Friedmanesque optimism about this war from 3-4 years ago, vanish.

Hollis Baker  04/27/2007 02:01 AM Report

I missed most your interview with Pres Bush on Tues and was so pleased to find you had a new website and was able to watch the entire hour. Found your interview with Gen Patraeus tonight very interesting and was hoping I could watch it again on your website in the morning.

I too, like Theresa, regret you have changed the format, taking away free viewing of recent shows. My intention tonight was to direct a few friends, who are not regular viewers of your show, to your website to watch both these videos... maybe not. It's very disappointing. I can assure you, none of us will be "buying" the videos. Hollis Baker

Theresa Chenlouie  04/27/2007 12:43 AM Report

I regret that you changed the format and took away the recent shows for free viewing. I often revisited to get the points I missed due to my ESL background. Now, I suppose I will just have to miss the point.

Thomas W Morris  04/26/2007 11:57 PM Report

General Petreaus is trying to to convince us that we are fighting the greater forces of Al Qaeda in Iraq. He says they have thousands of tons of weapons they gathered up in Iraq, and thousands of soilders that infiltrated in. The whole Bush team is out to convince us that we are there fighting Al Qaeda.

The thing is there was no Al Qaeda there when we invaded. We allowed the anarchy and the loss of weapons stores. We provided the worldwide motivation for people to join Al Qaeda and other Jahid groups. We are the reason for this huge Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Bush supposedly invaded to eliminate Sadamn, and rid the world of his WMDs. They did overthrow Sadamn easily, and now he is gone. Eliminating virtual WMDs was extremely easy. Then Bush changed his goal to install a democracy. We did. They had their vote. But the losers turn to violence instead of accepting the winners. The winners use the resources they gain to violently destroy the losers.

Leaving isn't quiting. Leaving is looking past the patriotic militarist thinking and getting out of where we should never have been.

What the administration really doesn't want to lose is it's initial goal of privatizing Iraqi oil and getting American corperations to control it.

Joe Smit  04/26/2007 12:14 AM Report

Stuart, you may not have the most recent version of flash downloaded on your computer. It appears they have put almost all of Rose's shows on this site to watch for free. Try downloading Flash 9 -- http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/ -- and see if you have more luck.

Stuart Howland  04/25/2007 11:51 PM Report

Hello

Thank you for letting me watch Charlie Rose all this time. Watching on the computer has become part of my daily routine. I am saddened that this will no longer be the case. I guess I will just have to stay up late when I able, so I can watch the show.

Stuart Howland