Charlie Rose

Fred Caruso  03/20/2008 03:35 PM Report

At the end of the show when indicating "responsible" countries for what went wrong in Iraq. Besides USA, just Moslem countries in the region were named. The elephant in the living room, of course, is Israel.

In Iraq it is no coincidence that we started the same disregard for innocent civilians (collateral damage, shoot first at checkpoints, torture, etc.) and disregard for basic human rights, like habeus corpus - that Israelis practice both in Israel and the occupied territories.

Aaron Malcolm  10/14/2007 12:07 PM Report

The producers of the Charlie Rose show keep inviting the likes of Fouad Ajami in order to exemplify how supporters of the Bush administration have absolutely no credibility whatsoever on any level when it comes to U.S policies in the Middle East, and to show how he and other "pundits" like him have been wrong about Iraq four years ago, just like they are totally oblivious to the fact that more problems have arisen in that region ever since the war began. But of course, they blame others for Bush's utter failures - what else is new ?

infoguy  10/03/2007 07:27 PM Report

Joanna sweetums - your ilk act as if Hitler

won WWII. You New Age Nazis have blown it Big

Time and your Moment is OVER. Get a grip, try

to emulate your alleged Saviour and leave

the world to the adults for whom name-calling

and innuendo is reserved for children with low

self-esteem.

Mike  09/26/2007 06:32 PM Report

Joanna-

Thank you for an illustrative example. In your comment to me you made a negative value judgement about my son without the benefit of any evidence regarding my son's attitudes or achievements. I suspect people who can support the delusional fantasies of someone like Fouad Ajama are in the habit of basing their judgements on equally sound evidence.

Concerned  09/19/2007 11:07 AM Report

I love George Packer. The only one with a little bit of truth about what's going on with average people in Iraq. All this other stuff is just the elites strategizing, carving up the country amongst themselves, and its sad that we mostly hear from them. Ajami ? He seems to spend time mostly in the Green Zone and amidst the powerbrokers. Look for him to give you the reality of where the elites are coming from, not the truth about what's really going on in Iraq for the average person. Shameful, just shameful what has been going on there, how millions have been sacrificed for this power game. I believe in justice, however, even if its just my whimsical spiritual belief, and I do think that those responsible, ultimately will be going down themselves.

Ramsess  09/18/2007 07:14 PM Report

Ajami is a Shia, from lebanon. However he is one of those who supported both Wars on Iraq. I can not belive twhat this Guy saying. I can not believe that he works at university.

Rene  09/18/2007 08:57 AM Report

Il faut ecouter l'interview de Charlie Rose avec Fouad Ajami datant du 10 mars 2003 pour mesurer combien M. Ajami est intellectuellement malhonnete, ment sur la certitude de la presence des armes de destruction massive et bien d'autres choses, fausse sciemment les propos et les raisons des opposants à l'invasion de l'Iraq, meprise les points de vue, meme amicaux, de ceux qui ne s'accordent pas au sien.

M. Ajami est un impérialiste americain. Il croit à la responsabilite imperiale civilisatrice des Etats-Unis sur le reste du monde, avec les memes arguments que ceux qui croyaient à l'Empire Britannique, à l'Empire Espagnol et à l'Empire Français, c'est à dire un melange de certitude de representer la civilisation à l'encontre de la barbarie, d'interets economiques, de raisons securitaires et de desir de puissance proctectrice et controlante. Cela s'appele le colonialisme, mot tabou que Americains refusent évidemment d'entendre a leur propos, certains parce qu'ils refusent que leur pays s'y engage et d'autres parce qu'ils refusent de reconnaitre aux yeux du monde et de leur compatriotes et d'eux-memes que ce qu'ils soutiennent est bel et bien un neo-colonialisme.

La seule honnetete de Fouad Ajami, alors qu'il a renonce a la distanciation intellectuelle qui devrait etre celle de sa profession et qu'il insulte carrement ceux qui ne pensent pas comme lui en leur pretant de fausses motivations, est qu'il affirme haut et fort qu'il est impérialiste.

Pierre (Canada)  09/17/2007 08:43 PM Report

Can we trust Ajami of saying anything objective?

He can have his own agenda, good for him, but I am looking for experts who can have some honest reflexion and present some objective facts.

As an intellectual, he should know that he is doing a disservice to his country and to himself by using his prestige to support a propaganda instead of taking a critical position worthy of an academic. Each one his role. He is not a soldier and serving his country should mean something else for him than fooling people with pseudo analysis in which he discards facts and twist arguments which do not fit his option. Its a shame for someone who pretends to be an expert. He should leave that rhetoric to politicians.

Sorry but I cannot buy his doubtfull expertise any more. He may be very competent, I do not know, but he as not been honest previously and therefore has lost credibility to my eyes.

Mike  09/16/2007 01:26 AM Report

phew! I thought i was going to come on here and be the sole voice arguing that Charlie should keep Fouad Ajami off this show. The man has been spinning the same neo-conservative tales since the beginning and has been WRONG every single time. I can't stand hearing the same people come on and give the same tired arguments that failed miserabley for the last couple of years.

And you know what, you DONT NEED a balanced argument if the other side is just going to lie and mislead. It's hard enough to find quality programming anywhere on television, and i can't stand it when PBS and Charlie let this stuff get on the air.

I can only imagine what George Packer is thinking, as he has to sit and listen to lies and manipulation fall out of Ajami's mouth in waves.

Kemet  09/15/2007 07:01 PM Report

Charli,

Do not invite Ajami Please

Kate  09/15/2007 11:59 AM Report

Wow, is it really 2007? I could've sworn Ajami was humming the '04 talking points? Charlie, please stop inviting the "greeted as liberators" and "a few dead-enders" neo's - it's such old hat. I really am interested in hearing a justification for us to continue our presence in Iraq, but please invite panelists who have a SENSIBLE justification.

ed  09/15/2007 08:04 AM Report

please inform ajami you dont need too speak arbictoo die for these people

Joanna  09/15/2007 12:47 AM Report

Ted Barnholdt, Hear,Hear! I want to underscore your whole paragraph stated Friday Sep. 14th! Perhaps if Charlie and co. had more comments from people who want fair and balanced from PUBLIC supported programs/channels, we would see and hear more intelligent people with a different view from "liberal" ranting.

Joanna  09/15/2007 12:40 AM Report

Mike, Johns Hopkins has always been and still is a very fine university. Perhaps it will remain so...if your son does not attend there...

Joanna  09/15/2007 12:37 AM Report

Dr. Fouad Ajami was marvelous and most confident in the answers he gave. In comparison, the other guests showed with facial expressions and body language and surly remarks that they are Bush-haters, therefore, nothing is good that we're doing in Iraq! Please invit Dr. Ajami back soon. A most intelligent, honest, articulate man of the Middle East.

Lynnea  09/14/2007 11:43 PM Report

Journalism has as much duty in protecting democracy as the military. Our nation's journalists do us a disservice when panelists like Fouad Ajami are given a chance to bloviate. Tools like Ajami are there for one reason--work toward a permanent "Republican" control of our government.

Talking about improvments our military presence might one day bring in Iraq is like talking about how neat it would be if cats could drive. IT'S DOESN'T SEEM LIKELY.

It is time for our nation to learn the grim facts about what the future is likely to bring.

Charlie, stop doin' us wrong with this gesture of balanced viewpoints. Stick to the facts. There is not anywhere near enough reason for hope to justify our presence in the nightmare we have purchased in Iraq, and Ajami knows it.

Cut and Run Jack  09/14/2007 09:56 PM Report

Hyperbolic and delusional Ajami - indeed, especially so in contrast to the compassionate realism of George Packer. Most insidious in Ajami's ravings is the desire to maintain military bases in Iraq indefinitely to make sure the US can strike Iran whenever it needs to. These zealots are lusting for the next war already.

Mike  09/14/2007 09:24 PM Report

My son wishes to study foreign relations in college, and he has considered attending Johns Hopkins Univ. At this juncture I would have to advise against it. With the school's most visible foreign policy "expert" exhibiting delusional behavior, the school's reputation must certainly be declining.

Amy  09/14/2007 06:39 PM Report

Charming as he is, Fouad Ajami was hyperbolic on the subject of Iraq, spinning fabulous tales of success, which on the face of everything that's going on Iraq, sound fantastic.

What seems more likely, is that the US will be in Iraq for years, without a lot of success, but stuck like a piece of gum on the top side of a theater seat. Just as removing the gum in an unthinking way, will destroy the fabric of the seat, it's likely that a percipitous withdrawal of our forces would damage to the fragile fabric of Iraqi society, such as it is.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

William Butler Yeats

David Chowes  09/14/2007 05:07 PM Report

I'm not the first to say this: Bush is leaving Iraq for the next (most probably), Democratic

president. Then, the Republicans can blame the Democrats for the sorry end of the mess of Bush's creation and mistruths. And then the Republicans can take power again in 2012.

Bush is intransigent; but during his last about

16 months in office, probably well over 1,000

Americans and far more Iraqi citizens will die.

He feeds the General and the Ambassador what to say and then quotes them.

When elected, I gave him a chance. But, then the lies, Katrina and his imperialistic goals and, of course, Katrina, Gonzales...

Bush is far worse than I imagined: he is a true psychopath.

Robert Staller  09/14/2007 03:44 PM Report

Fouad Ajami provided the most substantive arguments for our involvement in Iraq and for continuing what can very well be a successful outcome which could stabilize (as he described it) the whole Middle East.

Chris  09/14/2007 02:59 PM Report

Fouad Ajami must have struck a nerve - again! My schedule did not allow me to view my local affiliate last evening. I hope it will soon be posted online.

Jack Bailey  09/14/2007 02:42 PM Report

Fouad Ajami says that those wanting to withdraw from Iraq have "no guts." So he says the Democrats have no guts with the implication that Bush has guts for staying the course. How outrageous! The only guts Bush has are those he is spilling of our troops in this senseless, open ended engagement in Iraq.

scott   09/14/2007 02:31 PM Report

Amy said it all. Fouad 'Uncle Tom' Ajami is

the Republicant's version of Malcom X's

"house negro". These goofy wrong-wingers!

Those who can't do,teach; those who can't

teach become political commentators on Fox,

feeding on the bloated carcass of the

American Dream...

Amy  09/14/2007 04:45 AM Report

There were times during program, when I was unsure whether the phrase, "political reconciliation" was meant to apply to the warring parties in Iraq, or Washington DC. It's beyond discouraging that the worst foreign policy disaster in history, is being treated in black and white fashion by both from the President and the Democrats.

Neither, "victory" nor an "end to the war" are plausible outcomes to this fiasco, yet each side stubbornly holds on to their positions, seemingly regardless of the truth on the ground.

As a Democrat, I'm especially concerned that my party leaders are painting themselves into a corner, led on by some of the more vocal elements of the left.

At the same time, the Republicans, also have a base that's intractable and unrealistic, but there seems to be, at least some flexibility, if for no other reason than sheer panic.

John McCain has renamed his bus "No Surrender" and the headline on the Huffington Post, immediately after Bush's speech reads, "War Without End". Neither slogan seems helpful or responsible.

amilius  09/14/2007 03:03 AM Report

Fouad Ajami! Are you kidding? This disingenuous Chalabi supporter has recommended nothing that serves this nation, its reputation, nor the millions of innocent Iraqis who suffer as a consequence of policies he has supported since 2001.

Art_Teac  09/14/2007 01:10 AM Report

OMG,

Doesn't the president acknowledge the 9/11 Commission's report stating Al Qaida wasn't significantly present in Iraq before the time of our invasion? If not, the only plausible reason to "stay the course" (I.E. by Ambassador Colin Powell's words "If we break it, we bought it" explaination).

When does it end?

Ted Barnholdt  09/14/2007 12:04 AM Report

I was disappointed that among your panelists, only the non-American was supportive of our President's Address on the Iraq War. Where is the fair balance on this issue? I heard the same thing on NPR this evening. Do we really have to turn to FOX for hearing the other side?