Charlie Rose

Enceef  04/11/2008 07:13 PM Report

As long as there is no clear definition of success the US will be in Iraq for a long time. When the benchmark for success, if and when defined, is raised unrealistically high, it will never be achieved. In other words, the US will not be leaving Iraq anytime soon. Iraq is a mess and will be a mess whether the US stays or leaves. The surge is a temporary success and is not sustainable because it is a band-aid measure. It treats the proverbial symptom and not the cause. The US under Bush and his supporters broke it and very much like Humpty Dumpty, who accidentally was pushed, simply cannot put it back together again. Saddam was a bad boy whose actions were condoned by the US decided to pull the carpet off his feet. No Middle East country will trust the US. If they do, it will be at their peril because the US is not a "partner" worthy of trust. It's self interest and the interests of Israel override all other consideration, when push comes to shove. Everyone with a pulse knows that and will resist the US with the same level of commitment as the US is committed to dominating the Middle East.

Reality Check  04/11/2008 05:52 PM Report

The primary political question is very simple: what are the long term implications for America and the world once it sinks in that we won this war?

PA listener  04/11/2008 04:20 PM Report

I was a bit surprised at the lack of balance. Senator Jack Reed was outnumbered by the cheerleading of General Keane, who was then joined in by Senator Sessions, who seemed to change some of his impressions from the testimony, to a thumbs up at what Jack Keane opined.

Senator Reed clearly indicated the fragile nature of the situation, and referenced the testimony, while Keane ignored that, and magnified the trivial. And then Sessions jumped in to second that opinion.

It was indicated that General Keane was an early supporter of the war, but his connections to continuing the war were not indicated.

philip a murray  04/09/2008 11:37 PM Report

Charlie: Could you please explain to me what your republican guest meant by "when we have a successful outcome in Iraq." Is there a historical point of reference he can cite to show how America had invaded a country, dethrone its' dictator, destroy it infrastructure, disband its' governmental system, replaced it with a democracy and then been able to say these are the successful outcomes? How do they decide when they have reached a successful outcome?

Concerned Canadian  04/09/2008 07:45 PM Report

The U.S should not have gone into Vietnam.

They did and they lost.

They should not have attacked an innocent sovereign country - Iraq.

They did and they will lose.

They will exit and in their path they will leave Iraq and the middle east in more turmoil than their premeditated attack five years ago.

They will not recover their reputation in the world for decades to come.

Stephen Schwartz  04/09/2008 01:06 PM Report

Thank you, Mr. Rose. For my part I appreciate receiving information from people, yourself included, who can speak so knowledgeably as to what is going on in Iraq in order to hopefully figure out what best we might do going forward. The only question I was left asking myself is: â??Why does it sound as though there are only 2 possible options? To either stay in Iraq to keep fighting and losing or damaging more of our own most precious resource--young, vital lives--or pick up and leave the country behind to suffer some fate that sounds no better than any state of affairs previously experienced?â?? Is there no other possible choice? Whatâ??s wrong with stopping the fighting and removing our troops just as soon as is humanly possible, but continuing to work with their heads of state--even if it proceeds through a series of one temporary plan to another to another again and again--until the best possible peaceful, working compromise-solution is achieved? Is militaristic the only force left for us to employ? At the end of the day, canâ??t diplomatic or economic strategies be made to be even more compelling? Iâ??d gladly see this country apply a fraction of what it is spending in combat (and I do believe far less than the war budget would be more than sufficient) in intelligent and savvy ways so as to effect a victory that is as fair and equitable as is possible for all concerned. Of one thing I am certain: War is not the lasting answer. And that is information I can vouch for from my own knowledge. I am a Vietnam veteran (Infantry), for which, you must believe me, I derive no personal satisfaction or pride whatsoever.

fg  04/09/2008 11:58 AM Report

Whatever "positive" may--may--happen in Iraq henceforth, the United States will have lost much more than it gained. And yes, there was

no faithful opposition on this panel. What's the point of a one-sided presentation?

Chucky is cheesy  04/09/2008 11:17 AM Report

Charlie, most of these posters have found you out. From Bill's cited Friendsters cite: Keane, who is a commentator for ABC News, is a member of the board of directors of General Dynamics, among the top 10 largest military contractors, with reported revenues in 2005 of $21 billion. The company�s 2005 annual report, appearing on its website, notes:

ââ?¬Å?The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan fueled continued strong demand for several of our largest programs, including the Stryker wheeled infantry vehicle, the M1 Abrams tank and the Marine Corpsââ?¬â?¢ Light Armored Vehicle (LAV). The high operational tempo of the U.S. military also generated increased requirements for the companyââ?¬â?¢s ammunition and high-performance armaments.ââ?¬Â?

Mr. Keane is also adviser to the chairman and chief executive officer of URS Corp., whose military contracts are a significant portion of its $4 billion in sales in 2005. URS provides engineering and equipment repair services in Iraq. A contract for ââ?¬Å?military construction, infrastructure rehabilitation and reconstruction projects in Iraq,ââ?¬Â? says the URS website, will bring in $1.2 billion over a five-year period. Mr. Keane is also on the board of AlliedBarton Security, which provides security guards and other services for government and industry and is a significant employer of ex-military people. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Does indeed look as if you have fallen in with the venal whores and war profiteers. But it's ok, we're in the toilet despite your advocacy one way or another. Our time is over. Egregious greed will out.

Bill  04/09/2008 03:59 AM Report

Charlie Rose: If you wonder why Keane is no longer a television commentator, it's probably because of the appearance of a conflict of interest with his vast defense business interests. Doesn't your show live up to this elemental journalistic standards? You ignored this which is highly misleading and you also didn't disclose his prior policy work.

I found the following link on the internet, for example. I have read other complaints about Keane about this same issue.

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showConnection.php?id1=2753&id2=5083

No disclosure!  04/09/2008 03:38 AM Report

Rose didn't even disclose Keane's authorship of the Surge strategy paper! Incredible... How could Rose not inform his viewers of Keane's obvious personal vested interest and his consequential inability to speak objectively!? It was his surge strategy paper! Could have also disclosed his business interests in security and defense firms while he was at it, but that's a more personal decision left to Rose or Keane. Two sketchy moves, but one is unforgivable.

Too Obvious  04/09/2008 03:29 AM Report

Charlie's GUEST SELECTION betrays his position yet again. Rose is a neoconservative mildly under cover. He can't help it, his roots. Liberals who claimed Charlie as their own have come to learn this the hard way. Another 2 on 1 with the National Review's favorite Jack Keane. How moderates and liberals were ever fooled by Chalie is beyond me. He likes arts and sciences and he's on PBS, he must be moderate, right? Wrong. Guest selection is the key to understanding this show.

Ricardo Amaral  04/09/2008 03:27 AM Report

Charlie since the summer of last year I have tuned the Iraq War off, I stopped watching the news about Iraq on television and I also stopped reading about it. I just catch a little here and there and I am aware that the war still going on. I wrote various articles about the Iraq War before the US attacked that country, and blogged about it on a regular basis until last summer, then I realized that I was saturated about that subject and I tuned it off. Today I asked a group of friends that I meet on a regular basis at Borders if they had seen anything on TV regarding General Petreaus speech in Washington, and most of them were not even aware that General Petreaus was given a speech about Iraq. These were people that we used to discuss the Iraq War in the past, but it seems to me that everybody is saturated of that war. Then I asked them if anyone was following what has been happening in Iraq and everyone told me that they were not paying attention anymore to that war. Then I asked if anyone knew anybody who was serving in Iraq and the answer was no. Not a single person on this group knows someone who had been in Iraq since the war started in 2003. Basically this war it does not exist for any of us. By tuning off this war has ended for all of us, and as far we are concerned the Iraq war is something that the talking heads talk about on television and nothing more. By the way, I had not talked about the Iraq war with anybody for at least 6 months. Probably a large part of the US population also has tuned this war completely off.

Sturgis Woodberry  04/09/2008 03:25 AM Report

Do yourself a favor Charlie and try reading a newspaper or two. Do you even know enough about Iraq to ask an informed question? Three of the worst, most uninformed and politically tainted guests ever on such an important issue. What a disappointment this show has become.

Don S  04/09/2008 03:22 AM Report

Charlie:

Great guests on the Iraq situation, especially the general. He speaks truth.

I thought the show was an awesome demonstration of the military recommending something and the politicians arguing about what to do based upon the military recommendation.

A great country.

I only hope the politicians get it right.

One question, why did you end with an undiscussed item which I am sure the guests would have loved to comment upon. I did not think that was fair.

Don S

Marc  04/09/2008 03:04 AM Report

Charlie Rose: Unequal and unfair "analysis" AGAIN.

Once a big fan...This show is getting worse by the day. This time, having the ability to chose dozens of balanced opinions, Charlie chooses an AEI/Neo tanker....Keane, who with Frederick W. Kagan released a policy paper, entitled "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq" through the American Enterprise Institute that called for bringing security by putting around 30,000 additional American troops there for a period of at least 18 months. In part convinced by this paper, President George W. Bush ordered on January 10, 2007 the deployment of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, most of which would be deployed to Baghdad.

Now, we could have imagined his opinion before her arrived, Charlie, couldn't you?

Ricardo Amaral  04/09/2008 02:56 AM Report

Reply to Todd. I disagree with you and with Charlie Rose regarding Barack Obama, and Hillary for that matter. I believe that both of these candidates are damaged goods and if either one becomes the nominee the Democratic Party is going to lose the election in November 2008. I would suggest that you people read the following thread regarding the coming presidential election. After they read this thread you will understand why it is imperative that the Democratic Party draft Al Gore at the convention as its nominee for the general election. Here is the thread: Al Gore - Democratic Party candidate in 2008.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74835

skeptic  04/09/2008 12:35 AM Report

Sessions (and Lieberman)is (are) a patronizing blow-hard(s). No matter how we leave Iraq is no better nor worse than when we went in. So, ipso facto, leaving is a no-brainer. While staying is brainless. Solving Iraq's problems seemed to be an obsession with these guys. WHY? They had problems when we arrived. It's not worth one more life or dollar to tutor them on how to get along with one another.

discerning dissonance  04/09/2008 12:13 AM Report

Hey Todd, your classification system is as sorely impaired as your politics. This blog is about Patraeus and Blocker. Hillary is in Bosnia or somewhere being pathological dodging (fantasia) bullets. Try again in a more cognitive dissonant appropriate heading, like PATHELOGICALLY PATHETIC CANDIDATES DELUSSIONAL ENOUGH TO THINK THEY'RE PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL!

Todd  04/08/2008 11:39 PM Report

Hi Charlie,

I would just like to request that you either just proclaim your voting for Obama or stop with the over and over fawning of him. For many shows now you have looked down at your table and praised the man. Tonight saying he will be the nominee. I am so freaking sick of people like you. People who IGNORE the 50%+++ of us who support Hillary Clinton. I abhor the misuse of power Leahy, Kerry, Kennedy, Dodd, yourself - use to trump or influence this Democracy. It's appalling. No wonder people are cynical of their government. The Democrats are no better than the Republicans - and they have shown that in no uncertain terms. Time for a third party has come. And they should NEVER blame Hillary Clinton for this - it is THEY who have brought this nomination to this divided place. They have their candidate and it doesn't matter what half the People think. They choose to manipulate and trump the Will Of The People. That's when WE get up and leave. Not BECAUSE of Hillary - we support her of our OWN FREE WILL. It's the Democratic leadership who are looking like Rovians and Republicans and are playing back room Tom Delay tricks to get what they want. They seem to forget this is an ELECTION - not a give away. This is a Democracy - not their country to run. Power has gone to the Democratic leaderships head - and it's pretty darn obvious and ugly to the People. They have themselves to blame in November when we do not show up to vote for their incompetent candidate who disenfranchised TWO states of Americian voters. We will NOT forget. We know it is NOT Hillary who is to blame. Stuff that one. And you should stuff the idea that she should come to your show. You don't deserver her. You've shown who your candidate is in the past weeks - so just stop asking. She should never come to speak with you. I will not longer be watching. Something's gone to YOUR head, too.

dismayed  04/08/2008 05:42 PM Report

This is in anticipation of the neocon party line that will be espoused from these 'experts.' The tribal factions have been prevalent since the concept of history was conceived. Petraeus, these neocons and John McCain are not going to change that. Each minute delayed makes the complications of leaving all the more precarious. The recent upsurge in factional (internecine Shi'ite squabbling) reinforces this. But I'm betting these mindless party-liners will claim that things are improving. Just keep sending your sons and daughters, we'll print the money for their progeny to repay (should there happen to be any). Fools rush in, and in our case just continue ad nauseum. We had such possibilities once. Forever squandered! By greed and arrogance.