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/8630
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Ali Khan 10/01/2007 12:49 AM Report
Roger:
Bombing Pakistan has the same consequences regardless of what the pretext is, and bombing that country will increase militancy, it will not decrease it.
Mr Obama was trying to look tough, instead he sounded naive and disturbed relations with an ally. This fellow is not qualified to be President.
NotMohammad 09/20/2007 11:12 PM Report
This is 2 counter the Bla Bla Bleating coming from Mohammad's orifice.
Like it or not US has been using Military/Economic force against "Islamic WORLD"
(all done to emphasize there is one world)
Just like they have done with the rest of the world.
And Obamas position is stronger as he is technically an apostate and telling Pakistan to change its way. he is letting them know that hello we know 9-11 and Iraq were independent but that doesnt excuse you(pakistan) one of the only 3 countries to recognize taliban.
Its a good signal as it indicates to "THEM" that despite US internal difference on Iraq, Al-Qie behavior is not something any US administration will go for.
Greta 08/07/2007 04:30 AM Report
When the only tool you have is a hammer, you look at every problem as a nail.
If we forget how our problems in Afghanistan developed, we won't learn from our mistakes. Have we forgotten that many knowledgeable people told us that if we had given the Afghanis humanitarian assistance when the proxy war with the USSR was over, the Taliban might have never come to power.
Have we forgotten that during the proxy war in Afghanistan with the Soviet Union, we considered Osama Bin Laden our ally? Have these people forgotten that we might not be better at subduing Al Qaeda in the hinterlands than we are at bombing the Iraqis into Westernization? Are we sure that we would be better fighting in the mountainous region that the Pakistanis have trouble governing?
Our problems with the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden began because, in part, after arming Afghanistan's war lords heavily, regardless of how those particular war lords treated other Afghanis, in the proxy war with the USSR, we abandoned the country and did next to nothing to ease the desperate poverty of ordinary citizens suffering terribly from the proxy war we had financed. Osama Bin Laden did not. We did not remove landmines rebuild the country so that people had the tools and an infrastructure required for civilian life. We did not work with the war lords and tribal leaders to try help them return to something similar to the more moderate type of government that had governed the country earlier in the twentieth century.
The war lords terrorized the population and the Taliban were seen as a way to restore some order, in spite of their cruel ways. The Taliban benefited from the money Osama Bin Laden spent on some rebuilding projects. Needless to say, that wasn't all that Osama Bin Laden did in Afghanistan.
Who knows what would have happened if we had helped the Afghanistanis rebuild and restore a government similar to a more moderate government? The Afghanis might have never been desperate enough to allow the Taliban much say, and a moderate, prosperous government may have never have allowed Osama Bin Laden, to do anything but build roads.
Roger 08/06/2007 11:21 PM Report
Nice try Fawzia, but mischaracterizing statements does not make you insightful.
Many (including Fawzia and Mitt Romney) want to characterize Obama's statement as "an attack on an ally." Far from it. Obama made clear that Pakistan would be given the first opportunity to strike al Qaeda if "actionable" intelligence found bin Laden lurking in Pakistan. If Pakistan proved unwilling or unable to take that shot (which by definition makes it either "against us" or impotent), then the U.S. would strike. Not Pakistan, as Fawzia would characterize it, but bin Laden IN Pakistan. Two distinctly different things.
By the way, the White House later stated this was its position as well. (Sen. McCain and Rudy G. - the latter on Charlie Rose, in fact) later admitted this was their own positions as well.) The only problem most people seem to have with Obama's remark is that he said what everyone else feels. But it's this "straight talk" that avoids confusion later. (Had he been given straight talk, Saddam might have stayed out of Kuwait.)
This is the second time Obama said something "controversial" that the Republicans later admitted was their own position as well. (See Sen. John McCain and "wasted lives" remark.)
Fawzia 08/06/2007 05:38 PM Report
Mr. Craig was attempting to nuance Mr. Obama's speech ipso facto by inserting the need to shore up moderate forces in Pakistan. There was no such mention or statement by Obama himself. Sadly he did not raise the issue of supporting moderates,democracy or need for the rule of law in Pakistan. Also absent from his bombastic "bomb Pakistan" speech was any mention of the hundreds of Pakistanis who have been killed by jihadi/terrorist elements; especially minorities. Right there is where Mr. Obama might have lost the Pakistani public who was hoping that he might indeed be the breath of fresh air from America.
Mr. Craig was also doing his best to portray Vali Nasr's position as one of "Musharraf or the exremist". This is entirely wrong! For years Mr. Nasr's has been one of the few authoritative & sane voice who is repeatedly on record saying, "the choice in Pakistan is NOT between religious extremists vs. securalist, but between democracy vs. dictatorship" (including his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.)
After the Iraq debacle- how can any candidate, let alone a Democrat, propose a unilateral military attack aimed at a supposed ally this time? Are we going to get a whole new Axis of Evil from Mr. Obama? I also wish Charlie Rose had asked Mr. Craig what Mr. Obama's thoughts were about another supposed ally, Saudi Arabia (addressed soley by Mr. Nasr).
Lastly, I would agree with Steve Coll that Obama has certainly shifted the debate to where it should have been in the first place. However, what Obama proposes for Pakistan is reckless at best!
Jonathan 08/06/2007 02:52 PM Report
This was an interesting discussion. At least as one of the speakers pointed out the discussion on how to handle Pakistan and friends like that is now on the table. I would have liked to hear more about why the speakers think we have so much problem with getting Pakistan to do more. What are we missing here?
Faraz Hussain 08/06/2007 02:42 PM Report
The panel had some useful and insightful opinions on this complex subject. I would not place too much importance on Obama's comments . It sounded more like standard Rah Rah talk to drum support from lowest commom denominator listeners. He has probably already forgotten he said them..
Mohammad 08/06/2007 01:54 PM Report
It is amazing that the so called experts on foreign policy are ignorant of the dynamics of politics in the Islamic world. It is people like this who then become advisors to American presidents and continue to feed them bad advice. They continue to think that they can use American military to convince other nations to their world view. It is this expensive tragedy that is a continual drain on American credibility and resources. American credibility can only be built by accepting the truth and telling the truth and not by twisting the truth for the benefit of corporate interest. No dramatic changes have been made in the American Intelligence community, and it is still continuing to operate as before. Charlie Rose needs to understand this, his questions do not reflect this, therefore his show has become a place where the corporate interests continue to propogate government policy defined by corporate interests. How many of these so-called experts are expert in the different languages of the Islamic world? Charlie Rose should ask one simple question to all his experts on foreign policy as a reality check. How much money has the United States spent on it policy in the Islamic world and how much credibility has it gained? It is time for a reality check, and move away from virtual reality.
George 08/05/2007 06:05 PM Report
I did not understand the need for a panel to discuss Barack Obama's view on Pakistan when two of the panel members shared the same viewpoint. The panel's composition detracted from an equally weighted discussion on the topic.