Charlie Rose

Jimmy  12/09/2007 02:47 AM Report

Hey Canada, (Dennis) Who asked you? And it's actually 'hanged' not hung! Who reads these comments? They're awful! Someone rants about how bad an interview this is, using depressingly bad grammar and forming unintelligent opinions. "Opps," says one person! Opps it is then. Jump on the band wagon everyone! It's popular to hate the Bush administration. You're right let's withdraw all troops. Oh, or the 'Stop the war against Iraq' stickers. Nice! I didn't realize it was 'against Irag.' I thought we were trying to help them. Oh well. Whatever. Screw their oil! We don't need it. Let's pay $7 a gallon like the rest of the world. Will this allow us to continue putting 'Endless war' stickers on our SUVs and complain about the price of oil. No! You'll be walking!! Why don't you put your sticker on a bicycle and ride it to Starbucks!!! Didn't think so.....Oh, you don't have a bicycle? Funny how us fat, lazy Americans can bitch about how greedy the Republicans are and then drive our large, gas-guzzling cars/trucks 1/4 mile to the store, leave it running because it is 'kinda cold' outside, put 10 frozen pizzas in 10 plastic bags made from oil, then go through the drive-thru line at Starbucks, order a $4 drink with two cups and a 'recyclable' holder, and drive 1/4 mile home, all while bitching about gas prices being $3 a gallon, having to take recycling all the way to the curb, how 'bad' the war is, and how Brittany shaved her head!! Unbelievable. Hey, at least we have the freedom to do so! Be thankful! Perhaps we should worry about our schools and spelling books.

PD  10/25/2007 08:40 PM Report

Oops! I meant to say what an old, ugly, SOUL LESS old hag!!!!

PD  10/25/2007 05:21 AM Report

I really hate to say this but, this woman(if you can call her that!) is a "souless "old" heifer!!!!

Yesterday(10/24/07) a protester(with "blood" on her hands) confronted her(Rice) about the war in Iraq and she just stood their looking "creepy," "evil," and "ugly" as usual!!!!This woman is a souless, coldblooded, evil, old hag!!!!

may God/Allah one day have mercy on her ????

brewer/patriot  08/28/2007 09:57 AM Report

Spin Doctor Rice makes it a point to visit our wounded in military hospitals. How disgusting is that? What a soulless mouthpiece!

Rachel Robinson  06/01/2007 03:59 PM Report

I heard all her words .. and didn't sense that she said very much ("where's the beef?").. this is par for the course. A shame we can't have honesty. Opps! We're talking about politics.

She did reiterate that, "We're laying the groundwork for a democratic middle east." How many sparks have already flown over that.

She trys to seem sincere but, the only genuine smile (there were many throughout) was as at the end when her genuine self said goodbye to Charlie Rose.

She put it out there that "The United Nations Security Agreement on Iraq" and "The Mailiki Government having invited us there" .. are the basis for the Unites States "mandate" in Iraq.

This made me want to look up the exact details of the U.N. Security Agreement on Iraq .. and see if the U.S. is living up to it's functions per the U.N. "mandate" .. if not the U.N. should press the U.S. to leave Iraq due to non-performance of duty.

That type of U.N. action would be the ACCOUNTABILITY that we all as U.S. citizens / and world citizens have a right too see in action .. regarding this critical world issue -Iraq in Extreme Unrest nearing Civil War .. and,, that of course the U.S. government .. would never abide by .. but, they should.

If this world community that we live in is ever going to get it's show on the road .. and learn how to handle these hot spots that will continue to arise along with international terrorism disrupting the peace we all long for and deserve and our children deserve .. we need to shore up our international institutions .. and bring diplomacy and reconcilliation to the fore.

Aren't we over war yet? .. do we have to learn this lesson over and over every single generation?

The problem all around regarding the long drawn out Iraq situation .. has been a LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY and NON-COMPLIANCE TO A REALISTIC PLAN OF ACTION AND DEPARTURE .. and the American People will not stand for those irresponsible conditions being present .. forever .. when so much of their hard earned money is being pored into the Iraq .. with little accountability or GENUINE PROGRESS REPORTS or DEPARTURE PLAN.

Dennis Rohel  05/22/2007 07:55 PM Report

Condelesa Rice lied to the WORLD about Iraq's bomb (NO BOMB), Iraq's involvement in 911 (NO INVOLVEMENT), and now she wants a missile system to kill whatever Iraqi people are left in the Middle East?

I am with a growing number of Canadians who believe she should be tried by the World Court for War Crimes against the Iraqi people and hung.

Dennis Rohel

a fan  05/20/2007 03:24 PM Report

"Iraq is struggling but in a democratic context" t

reality states otherwise these 2 are only 2 of many examples of chaos in Iraq

http://dua.kurdistan4all.com/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003714541_iraqboy20m.html

Roy Fassel  05/13/2007 07:10 PM Report

To Hobbie

Proof can only come in due time. I only wonder why this type of reporting is never published in America. I can tell you why. But it wouldnâ??t matter. We live in an age of delusional brainwashing. The truth and the facts no longer matter. One can argue about the wisdom or lack thereof of taking Hussein out. In 1998, the US Senate voted unanimously that the official US position was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and help install a democratic system in Iraq. Bush was the Governor of Texas. This is the same misrepresentation of past events as when the â??propagandaâ?? has suggested for the past 5 years that â??Bush abandoned Kyoto.â?? The Senate voted in 1997 by a 95-0 vote (unanimous!) that the Senate would not sign a treaty like Kyoto unless all countries were obligated. The US press never mentions this. My point, Hobbie, is not whether Bush or Condi Rice is good or bad. My point is quite simple. You and everyone else needs the facts to make a rational judgment. As for myself, I noticed that every intelligence agency in Europe â??knewâ?? that Hussein had WMD. I truly believe that they were correct. Forget the CIA and the Bush people. I believe Hussein did have WMD prior to and at the beginning of the War. There is a huge difference in whether â??he hadâ?? them or whether we â??foundâ?? them. History will judge and bring forth much more information. This ultimately has nothing to do with Bush, Blair, Rice or any of the current players. If anyone truly thinks Hussein did not have WMD, they are not rational.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------

German magazine Der Spiegel revealed in March 2004 that Swedish authorities and the CIA were investigating a very likely Syrian nuclear program secretly developed in Homs in the northern part of the country. That July, investigators looking into the Pakistani nuclear network of A.Q. Khan pointed out that Syria may have procured centrifuges capable of enriching uranium to produce a bomb.

This fact was confirmed in May 2006 in a declassified report to the U.S. Congress on the acquisition of technology relating to weapons of mass destruction. Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Syria also got help from Saddam Husseinâ??s regime.

Sunday Telegraph journalist Con Coughlin affirmed in a September 2004 article that 12 Iraqi nuclear scientists â?? who were transferred to Syria and given new identities before the war â?? were on their way to Iran to assist their counterparts there in building a nuclear weapon. â??The results of the research would then be shared with Syria,â?? Coughlin added.

But what really broke the camelâ??s back was a recent report from the well-informed Kuwaiti daily newspaper Al Seyassah. It quoted European intelligence sources as saying that â??Syria has an advanced nuclear programâ?? in a secret site located in the province of Al Hassaka, close to the Turkish and Iraqi borders. British sources quoted by the paper believe that â??it is President Assadâ??s brother, Colonel Maher Assad and his cousin Rami Makhlouf, who supervise the program.â??

*****************************************************************

""""""This nuclear weapons program is based on material that Saddam Husseinâ??s two sons shipped to Syria before â?? and during â?? the U.S. war against Iraq. """""""According to the Kuwaiti newspaper, this explains why international investigative teams found no proof of Husseinâ??s nuclear program.

**********************************************

Furthermore, British sources in Brussels affirm that â??Iranian nuclear experts contribute to the Syrian program along with 60 Iraqi experts who had taken refuge in Syria since 2003 and experts from the ex-Soviet republics.â?? British intelligence says this information is validated by their German counterparts, who were well established in the countries close to the ex- Communist block, including Syria.

a fan agian  05/13/2007 05:01 PM Report

please watch this video and next time ask Ms rice how she can sleep at night

"Anger in Iraqi parliament"

Anger erupts in the Iraqi parliament when the chamber's speaker laughs during a report on ongoing bloodshed. CNN's Hugh Riminton reports (May 10)

http://edition.cnn.com/video/

a fan  05/13/2007 04:57 PM Report

"Iraq is struggling but in a democratic context"

totally out of touch with reallity

Chuck  05/11/2007 02:08 AM Report

Hobbie, you can start here if you know how to read and seriously want to learn something. Most dem/libs can not be bothered, as it serves no purpose in their universe of self flagellation. Sorry, I'm not going to read it for you even if I could...

http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/deps/hc/hc898/898.pdf

Hobbie  05/10/2007 10:07 PM Report

First of all, I'm not a liberal Democrat Chuck, thanks for owning yourself.

and... you still provided no proof. Way to go, speculation for the win!

Gerald Weber  05/10/2007 07:46 PM Report

This show is one of my favorite shows on television. My mother got me to tune in initially and I have been hooked ever since. Too bad that so many people use the comment section here to vent their frustrations with the democratic process and other issues. I for one will keep watching this show despite what I have read here. Thank you Charlie for being on the air and don't let these comments deter you from providing one of the best if not the best show on television.

Judith  05/10/2007 07:10 PM Report

This woman is simply dreadful. Just watch her with the sound off (it is better for you, believe me) and see the combo of cold, dead eyes with the faux smile. I will never give her any of my attention again. The only person who could interview her was Gwen Ifill -who stared her down and actually made Rice flinch. Record day. Charlie, if you have her on to hawk her inevitable tome "I was effin right!" I will be very disappointed. The only way I will watch is if you have Robin Williams do his immitation of the people of Figi blowing her rasberries a la 12-24-2002.(Hilarious!) Where IS Robin, by the way.

Chuck  05/10/2007 11:46 AM Report

Hobbie, how's about you doing your own research. The problem with you dem/libs is you are too dang lazy to figure anything out for yourselves. You'd rather act like a bunch of rats following the Pied Piper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied_Piper

norman harrower  05/10/2007 10:24 AM Report

Having read all of the above comments from your irate viewers, it is clear that you showed Condi for what your viewers felt she is!

Hobbie  05/10/2007 05:10 AM Report

Chuck: Show me the proof of the Niger intelligence...........

Chuck  05/09/2007 10:51 PM Report

23 so called comments. 22 the standard B.S. 1 that expresses some actual facts. You figure it out. Which 22 folks from here on down could not find their ass in the dark with either hand?

Hobbie  05/09/2007 08:50 PM Report

Condi is such garbage. Please don't ever interview this woman again.

J.Rozier  05/09/2007 02:39 PM Report

I was appalled at how Secretary of State placed blame of the "de-Bathification" on the Iraqi government instead of Paul Bremer and the CPA. This decision was made by Bremer and the CPA because there was NO Iraqi government. Talk about throwing the current Iraqi government under the bus. With friends like Ms. Rice...........

Roy Fassel  05/09/2007 12:19 PM Report

People keep saying Bush lied (re Niger) ...people died. Here is a clear example of what is never discussed......why? The conversations always end before "truths" are presented...

The British government issued an intelligence review of its intelligence prior to the Iraq War in 2004. This British report says in part: �We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government�s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush�s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: �The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that it is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger�s exports, the intelligence was credible. (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, �Review Of Intelligence"

�The FINANCIAL TIMES has now learnt that """"three European intelligence services""""" were aware of possible illicit trade in uranium from Niger between 1999 and 2001. Human intelligence gathered in Italy and Africa more than three years before the Iraq war had shown Niger officials referring to possible illicit uranium deals with at least five countries, including Iraq . This intelligence provided clues about plans by Libya and Iran to develop their undeclared nuclear programmes. Niger officials were also discussing sales to North Korea and China of uranium ore or the "yellow cake" refined from it: the raw materials that can be progressively enriched to make nuclear bombs.�

The Financial Times then concludes with this:

�Because this story by the Financial Times vindicates President Bush, one can expect the U.S. mainstream media to ignore it with a vengeance.�

Lorraine K. White  05/09/2007 11:21 AM Report

Rice is the most condescending Administration

member you invite to an interview. That gentle

half-smile to your probes dismiss you as swiftly as brushing away an irritating gnat.

Painful always for me to sit back & attempt to

carry away some new insight, logic, sense to your interviews with her, I'm always dizzy,

empty, so hopeless at the conclusion.

Nicholas L. Pappas, Ph.D.  05/09/2007 09:06 AM Report

Sadly for our country Ms Rice has earned the nickname "Augmented Mushroom Cloud"

My opinion is that she is being used by Bush and apparently likes it. She ought to resign in protest before going down the tubes of public opinion any further. Or, is it too late?

Tom Fahey  05/09/2007 03:53 AM Report

Charlie, Please don't EVER have her on again. She didn't answer your questions. She spouted the same party line pap I've heard for six years ... How refreshing it was to see Robert Zoellick the following night actually thoughtfully respond to your questions. How might it have been different if he had been Secretary of State.

aldrich stevens  05/09/2007 03:11 AM Report

Condi is so idealistic, smart, sophisticated and sweet that I

have written

a short song in her honor, sung to the jingle

of a famous commercial...

"I have a Bush on my back, I have my head in a sack, and I want to

give you slackers some advice: Condo-lee-zza,

the extra long grained rice!.....I come from

Carolina, so pardon my drawl, I want to offer

a new kind of rice to you trolls, cook it in

a dozen ways, but don't cook it twice, for

quality and nourishment its Condoleezza rice,

So nice, so nice, so nice...'

Ben  05/09/2007 01:56 AM Report

I am very disappointed by how your interview was bad.

Don  05/09/2007 12:54 AM Report

Just thinking on the surface, but she's ugly. Does anybody else notice this? Maybe that's why nobody likes her. Or, she's ugly, people treated her mean, and then she turned bitter, developed a thick skin, and that's why she doesn't feel bad repeating herself until nothing she says means anything to anybody. Am I very wrong, or am I onto something?

Betsy Foster  05/09/2007 12:38 AM Report

I agree completely with Paul Wisner above. Addditionally, I felt you would never have been so condescending in your questioning, so agressive in your body language and verbal tone, had the Secretary of State been male. Very unbecoming behavior, Charlie; quite unlike your usual more neutral self; and thus nowhere nearly as informative. You were more interested in forcing her to cave in to your own point of view than finding out what factors influenced hers.

Paul Wisner  05/08/2007 10:18 PM Report

Charlie, Thought you were quite aggressive, emotional, and impatient in your interview of Secretary Rice. Many of you questions were rhetorical and self-indulgent. She was much more knowledgeable, rational, and poised. Your kissup questioning of Scott Shane on the Tenet bood is an interesting, negative contrast. As to Bush 41 and his exit strategy, yes he did have one in Desert Storm and it was wrong, we left too soon; resulting in the slaughter of Kurds and Shiites, many others, the development of WMD, and, of all things, an attempt on his life by Sadaam. Charlie, you really need to spend some time with people who don't all look at things the same way. Paul Wisner

Dylan Staniul  05/08/2007 09:34 PM Report

I agree with the earlier comment by Michael Lang, "I do not know why anyone interviews Condoleezza Rice." A tough and almost entirely fruitless gig indeed. There was at least a bit of reality in Rice's begrudging admission of America's 'tarnished' international image due to Iraq and false WMD intelligence. Alas, she eventually blamed it on British intelligence and added that the whole world including the UN believed in the WMDs. Only problem with that arguement is; the whole world didn't feel premptive war was a wise method of dealing with them.

Fuad M. Yahya  05/08/2007 09:16 PM Report

I wish you did not miss this one opportunity that Rice handed to you: When you asked her about the loss of respect for American leadership, she said that, on the contrary, whevener she walked into a room, "they say they NEED American leadership on this -- 'please, will you lead on this.' It doesn't sound to me like the world has lost confidence in American leadership." Actually, it does sound that way. People ask for and demand American leadership precisely because it is absent, because America does not lead progress anymore. America under George W. Bush only obstructs progress on vital issues, like the environment. That is why people wonder aloud, perhaps politely in the presence of the Sec of State, where American leadership has disappeared and demand to have America exercise its global responsibility as a super power. But she does not get the point of the very exchange she reports. You could have spelled it out for Her Royal Genius.

FM  05/08/2007 07:23 PM Report

Rice was at her best in never answering a question and constantly citing "in America's interests." What interests? Whose interests? The kids who are being killed and wounded? Is it oil? You never asked her to define those interests, which is too bad. Then there are her horrific lies about the reason we went to Iraq (she says we were invited by the Iraqi government) to bring freedom, liberty, etc. That's not what we were told at the beginning when Powell and everyone else from the Bush administration was citing all the dangers Saddam posed with WMD. The U.N. inspectors knew better (Kaye et al), contrary to what Rice now says. All the Bushies weasle out of this question everytime, and sadly, the media allow them to do it. She hoodwinked you just like the Bush administration has fooled the American people. The next thing, she will have you and all of us convinced that the mission was accomplished!

B. Tourville  05/08/2007 05:50 PM Report

I pretty much feel the same way as the others above.

Charlie, I have been watching you for a very long time. You are still the best around. But I feel that you have been giving this administration a free ride since 2000. I have seen you be tenacious, and pointed in your questioning of all others but not these people. I do not know why. Is it because they make you agree to ground rules, and you desparetly want them on your show. When will you get tough on them?

I will give you credit for trying with the question about when will it be obvious that we have to leave.

I suggest you watch "The Power of Nightmares". This administration governs by creating myths that have nothing to do with reality. Rice answered all your questions with a myth.

I was particularly upset, and offended, when she brought in 911. She was the point person for excusing the Bush administration of all fault. I remember she said, who could have imagined they would do that. Followed by she had info the attack would occur outside the U.S.. And it was not until the 911 commission, that she had to admit, the CIA document, the administration had on its desk before 911, revealed all the details except the time. She served you a softball when she brought in 911 and you let it slide by. All she could have said if you slammed it was their stock in trade that 'mistakes have been made but their is no sense pointing fingers and we have to stay together and look towards the future'.

MBA administration? How long would that line last in any corporate environment? Probably the best any interviewer can do is to get them to repeat that line so many times that people realise they are either inept, or deliberately creating myth.

She served you another softball when she said WE took on a responsibility when we invaded Iraq. What we? Her and the pet mouse in her pocket? Certainly not We, the people of the U.S. Our elected reps. did not vote to invade Iraq to establish a democracy. The vote was to prevent "the next muchroom cloud from being Chicago."

The U.S. is safer because we are fighting "them" there not here? She did not say that exactly, but she said "they" would be encouraged if we lose. They are already encouraged. But more importantly they have a training ground of a failed state, on steroids, which makes Afghanistan look like a Cub Scout Camp. Terrorists are learning under real fire, and real U.S. troops how to evade capture, and make bombs. And only the really successful ones survive. Is there any logical reason at all that even if we win in Iraq that those graduates of that war will not come here? Despite the myth of Cheney, and get tough U.S. scaring "them" into submission, is the fact that you can not scare a suicide bomber, unless you are willing to say, that you will take every last living relative of that bomber and line 'em up and shoot them, like Saddam was willing to do. Are we willing to do that? Is any democracy?

The truth is Iraq is a "failed state", and it will remain so, until Sunni and Shiites, decide to stop killing each other, and terrorists will get training, as long as the too few U.S. troops have to try to contain the civil war.

One more thing. What about this myth, that a democratic Iraq is in the best interests of the U.S.? What? How does that follow? Only emotionally because We the U.S. like our democracy and we imagine that theirs will be just like ours. What if theirs is like Iran's? Iranians vote. What if a democratic Iraq votes to develop a Nuke? What if they vote to not sell us oil?

It would seem that a stable Middle East, that sells us oil is in our interests. Democracy in Iraq is not going to make the Middle East more stable but less so, unless you buy the notion that democracy will spread like wildflowers in the Spring. What a myth! All the mullahs, and Princes of Middle East will just decide to go for occupational training to learn to sell widgets, run for office, and live in a U.S. style democracy, rather than live their current lavish life-style based on the uneven distribution of oil wealth. Even if you buy that myth, or that the people of Middle East will rise up and demand a U.S. style democracy just like the one in Iraq, it will produce a Middle East which is unstable for a very, very long time to come. The neocons know that, and it is what they wanted. Why they wanted an unstable Middle East, is an unanswered question, except for the above notion, and I just can not believe they are that mushy headed, even though Richard P. is now on a PR campaign to make himself look like just a deluded well intentioned, starry eyed idealist. I saw him on your show and was shocked the man thought in such broad generalities and emotional terms. Such thinking has no business walking the halls of Power.

Besides, I would venture to state, that true democracies that protect the rights of minorities are worse at fighting terrorists within.

But even if you buy all that, if the Bush administration truely believes it than why did you not ask, why they did not send 500 thousand or one million men to impose martial order and accomplish the task in short order? Of course the lady with the oil tanker named after her would have replied, with a smile, that they listen to their generals. To which you could have replied that they fire any generals that don't say what they want them to, and besides just who is the Commander in Chief? They do not send that number because than they would have to have a draft, and that means they would have to draft some kids from rich and influential families and then they would lose power. This "surge" is not a surge. It is a ripple.

911 happened because "the terrorists" wanted the keys to the Kingdom of Saud, and the Saudis thought it better to buy them off, and let them make a scape goat of the U.S, then to confront them head on, and "the terrorists" used the opportunity to strike the U.S. in order to garner more supporters. You don't fight a handful of guys with box cutters with an army and spend 350 billion dollars a year. You don't fight a thought that way. It is like trying to kill a fly with a shotgun.

911 had nothing to do with Iraq, and nothing that we do in Iraq will change the fundmentals.

All this money we spent is wasted, and it could have been spent on energy independance and by now we could have told the Middle East to go pound sand, and then let it go through its own turmoil and Reformation. At that point maybe the kingdoms would fall and the West be not adversely affected. But we are not at that point. We are wasting valuable resources. Worse the Bush Administration is putting the bill on the credit card.

Charlie, I just want to see someone call to account the sophmoric thinking of the Bush Administration, and wipe those smirks off their faces, (Why do they all smirk? Because they know they are briarpatching you in myth) before they just slide into the sunset, leaving the miasma of myth they have created. I would like it very much if that someone were you.

Watch the "Power of Nightmares", by the BBC, Charlie, it does a much better job of answering your question about the fight against "Islamo whatever" then Rice did. At least it outlines the history of the thought on each side, and how those thoughts are used to get Power.

John Pottsgrove  05/08/2007 04:02 PM Report

YOUR INTERVIEW WITH RICE SHOWED ME AGAIN THAT THIS IS THE MOST INCOMPTENT ADMINISTRATION IN MY LIFE TIME. DOES SHE KNOW SHE IS 'SECRETARY OF STATE"?

AFTER WATCHING THESE INTERVIEWS I THINK WE SHOULD GET OUT IRAQ AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE TO FUND AND LET THESE FOOLS RUN THIS WAR IS REALLY SCARY.

N.L. Mahgdavi  05/08/2007 03:04 PM Report

Charlie..I'm sure that your fan club understood that you are too much of a gentleman to have given your own thoughts to Condo, but as a Rose groupie I thought I saw an expression of "lady are your kidding?" on yur face.

I would think her professors of Russian history must be wondering what classes she missed. Anyone with History I would have studied the cultures of the Middle East along with her alleged study of Russia. As a real student of Middle Eastern culture, I tried to call the Middle East Institute right after 9/11 and was told that the administration doesn't contact them for fear they would learn something they didn't want to know.

Too bad you didn't use Frank Rich's Sunday op Ed "Is Condi Hiding the Smoking Gun".

At this point Bush,Condi and the rest of the possee are like stand-up comedians giving the same routine when ever they are on stage.They ain't fooling anyone.

D. Battle  05/08/2007 02:36 PM Report

I watch you all the time. I fee that you are desperately trying to find some good reason to go along with the Bush administration's decisions regarding the war -- you must be a republican. You are never as hard as you should be on this administration when they appear on your show.

You let Ms. Rice inject 911 into her conversation (which the administration always do to try to connect that event with the Iraq war). You never challenged her on the 911 statement knowing full well that 9ll was in no way related to the war in Iraq.

Sometimes Charlie we just have to accept the facts (no matter how much we want to believe otherwise) and acknowledge that the American people were lied to by this administration and that this war is unjust and our young people are dying everyday for nothing.

You are too good of an interviewer not to get to the truth if you want to. You just gave her a free ride!

Michael lang  05/08/2007 02:32 PM Report

I do not know why anyone interviews Condoleezza Rice. She chews up airtime giving her talking points and regardless of any question put to her she gives the same answers. She is on the air to give a speech and she gives the same speech over and over again independent of who is doing the interview or what question is asked. Its like someone hooked a talking doll to a computer with a random platitude generator hooked to the voice box, recycling through the same feedback loop.

I don't know what you do to get around this problem. It would be nice if you could hook her up to electrodes and when she did not answer your questions send a large jolt of electricity through her spine and when the spasms subside ask the same question again until she answers it. Or maybe you just do what I do to my engineers when they refuse to answer a question like " When is this product going to be ready for production?" and then I will ask "is English your first language " followed by "Whats your name?" Oh good! you answered that question now listen to carefully to this question and answer it and only it specifically and succinctly otherwise we will be all old before this design review ends.

Why don't you use a split screen where one side is a picture of her head and the other side is a written commentary in real time contradicting many of her controversial statements or do what Slate has brilliantly on done on political videos which is to translate the propaganda on the video in a way that exposes its real intent. When she says everybody thought Sadam Hussein had constituted his ability to create weapons of mass destruction in Iraq , you would show on the other screen written statenments from experts like Hans Blick and Michael Shuer and Scott Ritter who did not believe he had and were right. When she claims Al Qaeda is the main instigator of the violence in Iraq and implies the current escalation is primarily the result of the Ansara bombing show the statements on the other screen fom Arab experts which reveal that even without the bombing of the Mosque the violence would still be at its current level.

The Truth is revealed when the subject is studied in extreme detail. My problem with all tv interviewers is that they try to cover to many subjects in the time allotted and they end up asking innocuous questions and getting platitudes for answers. You have one hour ,stay on one specific subset of one topic and ask extremely detailed questions and be relentless until you get specific answers. design the interview like the mechanism of a fine clock. Ask questions like a chief engineer reviewing a design and not like a lawyer interrogating a witness or a journalist meeting a deadline.

TOM HYLAND  05/08/2007 01:40 PM Report

CHARLIE -- 1ST, keep up the great work you do!

Second, right now on Tuesday 5/8 @ 1:10 pm, I am watching Condoleesa Rice SIDE-STEP every direct question you give. She is really good at SNOW-JOBS!

THIRD - and most IMPORTANT -- several times she used the term "PROTECT AMERICAN INTERESTS" -- but NEVER, EVER does anyone including you, CHALLENGE THE DEFINITION OF THESE INTERESTS! IS IT SIMPLY THE BIG OIL COMPANIES INTERESTS?

Go back in history, and remember many decades ago, when several ARAB states TOOK OVER THE OIL WELLS AND KICKED THE AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES OUT! THEY WERE RAPING THE ARAB COUNTRIES OF THEIR NATURAL RESOURCE, PAYING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO SHEIKS, IMAMS, TRIBAL LEADERS, OR WHATEVER -- WHO GOT STINKING FILTHY RICH, AND THE MONEY NEVER EVER 'DRIBBLED DOWN' TO THE PEOPLE, THE MASSES!

AMOCO - EXXON - SHELL - STANDARD OIL -- THEY ALL CAPPED THEIR PRODUCTION OF WELLS HERE IN AMERICA, COLLECTED MORE MONEY FROM OUR TAX DOLLARS, AS 'OIL DEPLETION ALLOWANCES' AND IN ESSENCE, CREATED THIS DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL!

IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH, SKIPPING OVER ALL THE 'DEMOCRATIC IRAQ B-S' THAT --- BUSH, HIS DAD, THEIR 'BED BUDDIES' THE BEN LADINS, AND EVERY OTHER AVARICE-RIDDEN 'OIL MAN' IN THE WORLD SAW IRAQ AS A NEW 'GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY' TO JUMP IN THE 'OIL PITS' AND MAKE A NEW FORTUNE --- AT THE EXPENSE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

When this war began in 2003, I, like many millions of patriotic Americans, SWALLOWED THE BULL-SHIT REASONS -- yes, we were CONNED! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

CHARLIE, you are obviously a man of high intellect, reason, and a truly great journalist, BUT... have you taken the time to watch many of the excellent DOCUMENTARIES out there? "THE CORPORATION" - "A CRUDE AWAKENING" - "WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR?" - "WHY WE FIGHT" - AND MORE!

You want to see YOUR SHOW on TV FOREVER? PROMOTE THESE TRUTHS - HAVE THESE PRODUCERS ON YOUR SHOW - GIVE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WHAT MEDIA HAS BEEN SUPPRESSING FOR DECADES - THE TRUTH !!!

Thanks for reading (if you really ever do?) -- or will some FLUNKY suppress this message also?

Most sincerely, an avid fan, Tom Hyland -- Published poet, author, and writer... but who cares about 'one man's opinion?'

Charles Carper  05/08/2007 01:09 PM Report

Rose showed a vast difference in interviewing style, compared to sitting meekly with Bush while he served up stale excuses for the war.

jr  05/08/2007 11:28 AM Report

I missed this interview on TV, thanks so much for making it available online!

1loneranger  05/08/2007 11:24 AM Report

Rice = "The Queen of Spin". Did anyone else feel as though Rice was just barely able to refrain from screaming and throwing her arms up in frustration?

How long can the neo-cons keep shoveling this agenda of democracy at the end of a gun down our throats? Every time they're put under the spot light and try and justify their criminal activity they dig themselves even deeper and disclose just how much they don't know and never knew about Iraq.

Rice's elucidation of an endless occupation of the Middle East last night is not inline with the American public or our established foreign policy.

It seems the project for a new American century is going along just splendidly for the movement.

The question is, how in the hell can the Democrats get us out of this mess in '08 ( that ism if they win and if that is in their agenda, which I don't think it is)?

Great interview Charlie, although I think Rice did a great job of giving you the run around and probably one-uped you at every turn.

A better interview than last week's Bush Bash though.