Charlie Rose

Roy Fassel  05/19/2008 08:55 AM Report

To Spoite:Any major issue will have a whole host of people on both sides of the issue. You speak of "conventional thinking." The policies of this Iraq War were quite controversial and I never considered that there was anything conventional about any opinions. I am not a defender of Bush, but I find the American press presentation of some of his actions bazaar and quite dishonest. On the Kyoto matter, it is more than conventional thinking that Bush "walked away" from the Kyoto Accords. The Senate in 1997 had a resolution that had a 95-zero vote that it would not agree to the Kyoto Accords thinking Al Gore was negoiating. 95-0! Clinton "signed" the Accords but had enough sense not to send it to Congress for ratification, which was required. Bush comes to DC a few years later. There was no way that he or Gore could have gotten the Senate votes to ratify the Treaty. If a poll had been taken, the American people would not have approved of America cutting emmissions, while China and India did not have any restrictions. The American people are not as dumb as Al Gore. However, Bush is "blamed" for America not being part of the Kyoto Accords. All Greenstock was doing is selling books which has a great appeal to the "Bush haters." During the 911 Select Senate Committee hearings, Richard Clarke was a witness. Governor Thompson asked him whether his testimony to the committee was the truth or what he had written in his book to bash Bush. There were quite different. He said "its all politics." Truth does not matter. I have always considered Greenstock a "typical" phony UN type diplomat. The upper-crust Oxford British accent compared to the Eastenders of London always appeals to the gullible Americans. I close with the real issue. Those who opposed taking Hussein AND HIS SONS out, must then also state that Hussein AND HIS SONS to remain in power in Iraq for the next 50 or so years was the "favored alternative". There was no other alternative. The end.

Spoite  05/18/2008 11:56 PM Report

To Roy Fassel: I certainly didn't want to defend Greenstock, who I loathe. He's the typical diplomat type and an opportunist, and a good one it seems by the way he has survived all political crises. He always seems to land on his feet. He actually reminds me of Talleyrand who was in the corridors of power under the king before the French revolution, after, under Napoleon, and, again, under two more kings after the restoration of monarchy. What I defend, on the other hand, is the notion that not everybody agreed with the conventional wisdom. You quote documents and officials correctly, but that doesn't mean everybody agreed with those. You also had other voices, especially abroad, who saw matters differently. You mention that the French secret services went along with the official US assessment, but, at the same time, you had many French politicians sitting on various intelligence committees contradicting these positions openly all over the media. They saw the same "evidence" and differed in their conclusions and made it known in the media, without clashing openly with their own intelligence services. Understandably, a political crisis (Bush vs Chirac) can't compromise international intelligence cooperation. We know that during the crisis of roughly 2002-2005, the French and US intelligence kept working together regarding Afghanistan, Haiti and other places in Africa. Therefore, they tend not to contradict each other too much (they also tend to exhibit group-think, hence, the so-called consensus) and too openly.

Roy Fassel  05/17/2008 11:35 PM Report

Spoite: I donâ??t want to waste your time, but this (below) certainly is a different view than expressed by Greenstock on his book selling tour.

Here was an interview/speech by Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powellâ??sâ?? chief of staff and himself no fan of George Bush. Lawrence Wilkerson, in his speech said the following:

"I canâ??t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I canâ??t. Iâ??ve wrestled with it. [But\ when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASPâ??Ammunition Supply Pointâ??with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and theyâ??re there, you have to conclude that itâ??s a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet\ was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenetâ??s deputy\ was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powellâ??s UN speech\ was accurate. The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments?"

"The consensus of the intelligence community,â?? as Wilkerson puts it, "was overwhelming" in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981."

The American press has gone in the tank to undermine Bush, which is understandable. But to be this dishonest is shameful. One must conclude that Greenstock is spinning a tall tale. The "tale" he left Charlie's audience to believe is simply not true. Too bad.

Roy Fassel  05/17/2008 08:30 PM Report

Spoite: Here is the exact quote from the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee: Quote There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.Unquote -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

Leading newspapers in Europe in 2004 quoted and confirmed from multiple intelligence agencies in Europe that WMD and nuclear scientists and programs were moved to Syria from Iraq prior to the war. Kuwait has asserted this this is why the WMD and nuclear materials were never "found". Only time will tell if all of these people were so far off the mark then or if people are off the mark now. I do not believe we have heard the last of this chapter. Hussein kicked out the UN inspectors in 1998 and the US Senate had a nonbinding resolution to promote regime change and bring democracy to Iraq. Clinton agreed. There were no UN inspectors in Iraq for roughly 5 years. I repeat that if Greenstock was so sure of his opinions prior to the war, he should have resigned his post under the Blair adminstration. To NOW write a book to make these charges shows the type of man he is. He is quite self-rightous when he says he could not have made a difference in Blair's decision. These kind of books sells. That is what is required by the publishers these days. Too bad.

Spoite  05/17/2008 02:58 PM Report

To Roy Fassel: you are confusing WMD and nuclear weapons. Greenstock asserted that Western gvts knew in 2002 that Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons. Besides, in spite of the much-repeated notion that all the intelligence services in Europe were also convinced that Saddam had significant WMD capability, I clearly remember many officials saying the contrary. In the US, everybody conveniently swallowed what the UN chief inspector/spy Richard Butler wrote and said, while ignoring the likes of Scott Ritter. Anyone who remembered the almost complete disarmament of Iraq throughout the 90's (well documented in books, reports, and press articles), and the boast from Bush Father that the US had destroyed 95% of Iraq's weaponry during the Gulf War could have guessed with a high degree of certainty that Saddam had NOTHING or almost nothing in 2002. Collective amnesia is our worst enemy.

TABS  05/16/2008 08:50 PM Report

For Obama this is a test to see if he has the balance in his personality to see his way clear of this dilemma, that the Republicans have dropped in his lap with GW's Knesset speech. Obama is in a position of damed if he does and damed if he doesn't. So what does he do about being accused of being an "appeaser" of Nazis? There is an answer.

TABS  05/16/2008 08:26 PM Report

HMMMM..The question is whether Hillary picks up the Republican lead and starts to accuse Obama of being the equivalant of an "appeaser" of Nazis. This will answer the question whether Hillary really wants to win the nomination or is a loyal party operative?

Roy Fassel   05/16/2008 07:32 PM Report

Tabs

The Republicans are not very smart. It is that the Democrats seem to be as dumb as can be. They call Bush evil. The Senate in 1998 voted 95 to zero against the Kyoto Accords. Clinton did not even send it to the Senate for ratification. All the leading Democrats in 1998 and again in 2003 verified and affirmed that Hussein had WMD and nuclear operations before the war vote. Now they are blaming running for the hills. Bush did not get more votes FOR in 2000 and 2004. The Democrats got more votes AGAINST. It will happen again in 2008. The Republicans are no better, but to suggest CHANGE is the answer to the problems is laughable and sad. Israel would not be a country in a few years with that thinking. Then the march would be on to Europe and elsewhere by Islam fundamentalists. History repeats and human nature never changes.

TABS  05/16/2008 06:54 PM Report

Today the Democrats dig the hole a little deeper with every word of rebuttal they say about GW's comments before the Knesset. The media has picked up the story and is turning it into a media frenzy. All at the expense of the Democrats trying to justify their position. However all it makes the Democrats seem like are Nazi "Appeasers" in the end. The Republicans have launched the first of their Trojan Horses that are designed to let the Demcocrats self destruct. This is worthy of a Carl Rove award, and they say GW isn't very smart?

?  05/16/2008 06:03 PM Report

.

end-days-closer  05/16/2008 01:40 AM Report

Shrub in his inimical apocolyptic style despoiled further sane approaches to peaceful approaches to Iran and doubtless pandered against Hamass for the benefit of the Israelis. His pathology for death (starting with Texas executions, now Iraq and obliquely (in my view) trying to harden Israel's already intractable stance by less-than-helpful 'jingo' assertions. His sickness would rather leave hardened situations throughout the ME. His alleged peace-efforts are the exact opposite. Armegeddon is also that much closer. W's sadism doth much. His end of term desparation theatrics could well be catastrophic. He's pathological and clueless.

Roy Fassel   05/15/2008 10:13 PM Report

Sir Jeremy Greenstock is trying to sell a book. He has a right to reinvent the truth. I was reminded of the famous Mark Twain line about â?¦.get your facts first and then you can distort them as you please.

Greenstock says that Britain and therefore America knew since 1998 that Hussein had no WMD and nuclear weapons. In 1998, the US Senate had a nonbinding resolution, signed by President Clinton that it was Americaâ??a policy to replace Hussein and establish a democratic government. You can look it up. At that time, countless Democrats stated unequivocally that it was certain that Hussein did have WMD and in Clintonâ??s won wordsâ?¦.he will use them one day. After the US Senate voted 73 to 27 to approve of the war in Iraq in 2003, the major Democratic leaders, including Senator Rockefeller, the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee stated that there was no doubt that Hussein had developed WMD. No doubt. You can look it up.

Contrary to Greenstockâ??s reinvention, every intelligence service in Europe as well as America thought he had WMD. As Clintonâ??s appointed CIA director saidâ?¦itâ??s a slam dung.

If Greenstock was so dead sure of all of his opinions, why did he not have the decency to resign his post before the war?

Book selling has become a profitable and nasty business of reinventing facts. Too bad.

richard ellerbrake  05/15/2008 07:38 PM Report

I do not know how to contact Sir Jeremy, though I have tried on the internet...but I want to applaud his comments and him. Perhaps you can pass this on.

Bob Ribelin  05/15/2008 06:20 PM Report

Dear Mr. Rose,

I just saw your program with Sir Jeremy Greenstock. His appearance is always a "10" along with the late William Buckley. You are the ONLY person on t-v I schedule my time to watch, so I make the next comments reluctantly and with humility.

Perhaps you are not aware but when you and a guest are speaking at the same time, neither of you can be understood. Whatever comments you or your guest are making are completely lost. All of your guests, especially Sir Jeremy, are unique contributors to the world and should be heard without interruption. It would be wonderful to have him on for the hour and let him talk about anything he wanted.

Listening to Sir Jeremy speaking perfect English is an ability to which I can only aspire. The only other person to make me realize how far I have to go in my native language is the late William Buckley. You would be doing a service to America by frequently having them on in re-runs just so we can hear what "real" English is supposed to sound like

Thank you for this opportunity to tell you how much I enjoy your show. I'm sure you'll give my suggestions all the consideration they deserve.

Warm regards,

Bob Ribelin

Bob Ribelin  05/15/2008 06:20 PM Report

Dear Mr. Rose,

I just saw your program with Sir Jeremy Greenstock. His appearance is always a "10" along with the late William Buckley. You are the ONLY person on t-v I schedule my time to watch, so I make the next comments reluctantly and with humility.

Perhaps you are not aware but when you and a guest are speaking at the same time, neither of you can be understood. Whatever comments you or your guest are making are completely lost. All of your guests, especially Sir Jeremy, are unique contributors to the world and should be heard without interruption. It would be wonderful to have him on for the hour and let him talk about anything he wanted.

Listening to Sir Jeremy speaking perfect English is an ability to which I can only aspire. The only other person to make me realize how far I have to go in my native language is the late William Buckley. You would be doing a service to America by frequently having them on in re-runs just so we can hear what "real" English is supposed to sound like

Thank you for this opportunity to tell you how much I enjoy your show. I'm sure you'll give my suggestions all the consideration they deserve.

Warm regards,

Bob Ribelin

amehne@hotmail.com  05/15/2008 05:04 PM Report

Having seen the footage for Sir Jeremy Greenstock and taped footage for a talk with Sir Michael Rose. I have learned a lot. Both of these men have different views of getting out of Iraq. In the end to stay or bring the troops home, there will be power fight for power of this country as soon as we leave operations to the Iraq people. Support the troops not the war!

I really enjoy to here Charlie Rose's show. I always come away having learned. Thank you!

TABS  05/15/2008 04:13 PM Report

Also the Democratic Party's front runner gains little traction politically against his Republican rival John McCain by going after GW Bush's statements to Israels Knesset. GW is so heartily reviled by the Democrats already what is one more insult? By going after GW Bush there might be unintended consequences in that it might actually rally the Republican base against the Democratic Party's front runner. It is a win win for the Republicans to use GW Bush as the heavy.

TABS  05/15/2008 04:04 PM Report

Today President GW Bush fired the first salvo in the struggle between the Republicans and Democrats for the White House in November. By invoking the Nazis in a speech before the Knesset in Israel, GW hammered a wedge between the Jewish vote in America and the Democratic Party's front runner by painting the Democratic front runner as a Nazi appeaser. The wining strategy for the Republicans is going to be divide and conquer. Split off the different demographic groups in the Demcoratic Party by painting its front runner as a Liberal Extremist.

web deuce  05/15/2008 02:04 PM Report

Sir Gere was kissing our US arse through this entire lie. Now he needs to sell nonsense essays.

Great Britain is a large GUAM to us, that's all. Rest of Europe understands this.

The British should be proud of their homosexuality and the whole population should come of the closet. They are gay and constipated. No shame in it. Embrace it and donâ??t fight it.

TABS  05/15/2008 10:53 AM Report

The United States recent foreign policy approach to Iran has been flawed strategically. The demand that the Iranians cease and desist from treating with terrorist organization as a precondition to negotiations was destined to failure. A better approach would have been to enter into negotiations with the Iranians and making it in their best interest to turn away from those organizations by offering them incentives every step of the way to turn away to do so. Someone from Nevada might call it the old carrot and the stick ploy.

Gerald E. Rice  05/15/2008 10:19 AM Report

The audacity of this man to point fingers at others, Colin Powell in particular, when he himself was in a position to standup, whether officially or privately, and say "We don't have imperical evidence. I think we should stop!" He wasn't even forthright with his boss let alone his Prime Minister. He claims he was just a civil servant, not an "advisor". What the ....? He had the knowledge. He had the understanding. Who's to tell the PM? You or I? Obviously some have courage in 20/20 hindsight and when a book is being "hacked". But to blame others for not doing what oneself should have done is just reprehensible. I had always enjoyed and respected "Mr." Greenstock, a little disappointed now.

ww  05/15/2008 07:45 AM Report

That's right Charlie, the Brits and and the US _knew_ Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons or capability _before_ the invasion, and yes, despite your surprise this had been discussed before.

Its a recurring point that you and others do their best not to acknowledge. You are told time and again and at each instance you are shocked as if its news to you. Pathetic. Disgusting, really.

TABS  05/15/2008 06:56 AM Report

The threat that Terrorism poses is not in the event itself but the reaction of the financial markets to that event. A major event in an American city could cause a run on the bank causing a crisis of liquidity which would then melt down the system. That is what nearly every nation in the world recognized after 911. That is why Al Qaeda poses such a threat to the status Que. That is also why the USA has to respond swiftly and surely militarily to reassure the world that the status Que is still viable.

disengenuous  05/15/2008 12:39 AM Report

Disengaging from Irag in xx years or immediately, will present the same problems. Delayed merely exacerbates the extant probems. Worrying about stability is fatuous. They didn't have it before and their culture has never lent itself to such. Tribalism has prevailed for centuries and will continue. It's in their DNA.

Bob   05/15/2008 12:22 AM Report

charlies sheep to understand the relationship between "petrodollars-american natl. debt and the Fed" this explains the real reason for this Iraq experiment.

Bob  05/15/2008 12:19 AM Report

it sure is easy for Charlie to bully a mild mannered Brit.

Chris Baker  05/14/2008 11:38 PM Report

The interview with Sir Jeremy Greenstock is very worthwhile. He said the British knew Saddam Hussein didn't have a nuclear program, and he said they knew that since 1998. He said in 25 years the world might have a different opinion about the invasion of Iraq, but for now many Iraqi's say they preferred Saddam Hussein which remains a devastating critique of the US strategic planning for the invasion. He said the US absolutely cannot withdraw now, in spite of virtually all Democrats in Congress voting for withdrawal last summer.

charlies sheep  05/14/2008 08:04 PM Report

ANNOUNCED ON CNN--TODAY--KURDISH--OILFIELD ENGINEERS--UNCOVERED--HIDDEN-- THREE OILFIELDS THAT TOGETHER REPRESENT 2 BILLION BARRELS OF OIL--THE IRAQ WAR AND THE REAL WAR QUESTION ARE CIRCULAR--IN WHY WE ARE THERE---; TO DEFEND THE 7 SISTERS--RIGHTS TO SELL THIS OIL---MARKETS WILLING TO PAY--200.00 BARREL--SO CHARLIE PICKED OUT YOUR MOPED YET ? SO WHY HAVENT YOUR SET UP THE NEXT SHOW TO DISSECT THE 7 SISTERS--PLOT-- FOR THE WORLD IN NEXT 20 YRS ?

Jane Lecomte  05/14/2008 01:59 PM Report

Thank you Charlie for bringing Sir Jeremy back to the table...What a fine man he is as well as a true diplomat and statesman. Thank you for his understanding of the issues. He makes it possible for those of us who cannot know the whole picture to understand more about how, where and why..JL