Charlie Rose

Jackson Wallace  07/26/2008 04:24 PM Report

Jim Baker can bite me. He claims to be an impartial judge, but he intervened in Florida and got that yokel moron GW elected president. His place in history is clear as a total patsy.

aTypicalProgressive  07/14/2008 10:27 AM Report

This is a great interview involving two diplomatic and one journalistic heavyweight discussing a noble cause.<br>

However, the subject was way off the mark in my opinion. Congress was consulted on wars since 1973. In fact, about 69% of the House and 77% of the Senate debated then voted for the 2003 Iraq War. Congress was also consulted before the first Gulf War in 1991. The War Powers Act did not fail in regards to consultations with Congress.<br>

The real failure of the War Powers Act is what's missing in the statutes, i.e., minimum requirements addressing the reasons for war. Case in point, if the statutes included rigorous standards for accuracy of intelligence and information, the suspicions that Iraq was purchasing yellow cake from Niger, Iraq was purchasing aluminum tubes, Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were cooperating, Iraq met Al Qaeda in Czechoslovakia, and any "slam dunks" would have been more thoroughly investigated and confirmed or refuted BEFORE approving or declaring war. No WMDs were found so the Bush administration justified the war by fabricating or misinterpreting ancillary reasons with little validity, if any. The 2003 War in Iraq was not an immediate necessity. The war's urgency was hyped by the Bush administration. Time was on our side and time should have been taken to properly scrutinize the information used to justify the invasion.<br>

A revised War Powers Act would apply the brakes on wars with less urgency and require more concrete and provable information. A proper War Powers Act would have dismissed George Tenet's "slam dunks" and Dick Chenney's absurd claims. Furthermore, this Act would allow Wilson's assertions on the Niger purchase to be included in the debate and not dismissed or sabotaged by the likes of the Karl Roves and Richard Armitages in the administration.<br>

Another unfortunate omission in the War Powers Act involves minimum standards for the aftermath of war, mainly, exit strategies, establishment of peace, order and stability. A war shouldn't be just about ousting a tyrannical leader. Many wars in history demonstrated the importance of post war activities.<br>

I believe if the War Powers Act I envision would have a existed in 2002, the Bush administration would have been prevented from invading Iraq without substantial and confirmed intelligence.<br>

Justin  07/13/2008 06:37 PM Report

1. Why are these two guys writing statutes? They are not lawmakers. That seems odd to me. I understand they have experience in foreign policy, but shouldn't this be the job of congress?

2. The problem is not that the law isn't clear, or the Constitution. The problem is that executives have ignored the congress in the past and that congress doesn't have the political courage to actually stop or prevent a war.

3. It seems to me that this basically just gives the president the powers of a dictator. In other words, all the president has to do is "consult", what is the mechanism whereby congress can act to stop a war from beginning in this plan?

I think this is frightening.

Richard  07/11/2008 03:38 AM Report

This was a "non-discussion" discussion. There was no talk about why the proposal evidentally won't be put forward during the remainder of the present administration. There was an unwillingness to discuss how this proposal would have changed the process that President Bush went through before he invaded Iraq. And they tap-danced around how the proposal would affect a possible attack on Iran.

There was no mention of who the other members of the committee were and the specifics of whom the president must consult before waging war.

This interview was clearly not ready for prime time. Why did they bother?

Roy Fassel  07/10/2008 07:04 PM Report

Talking to someone like Iran without preconditions would have two entirely different outcomes if Baker did the talking or if Christopher did the talking. Warren Christopher was involved with Carter in the final meeting to try to rescue the hostages in Iran during the Carter Adminstration. The Cammander of the effort asked if they had one more instruction.....Warren Christopher stated....that they should to try to rescue the hostages without harming the "hostage takers". True story. Enough said.

sandy  07/10/2008 01:00 AM Report

The democratic Secretary was to partisan for my tastes ' It's going to take America a decade to redeem it's standing", ...... ah and in this decade a bet only democrats can do the job. America has better relations with Europe now then before the Iraq war, with Germany, France, Italy, England and Bush has always had great relations with Eastern Europe. America dealings with Russia, China, India and Japan are better under Bush then under Clinton. Democrats and their " the world hates us' maybe the world wouldn't find America such a easy target to vilify it democrats weren't shouting it first from roof tops. You don't see half of China critiquing and vilifying their country or it's leadership in or out of the country just because the West hates China's actions in Tibet, Burma and Sudan, you have never really seen any other citizens put down their country as have democrats in these last 8 years so why wouldn't the rest of the world follow suit especially because of America's superior power militarily and economically, it becomes a easy scape goat for the world's problem, even when the rest of the world doesn't do one tenth of what America does for the poor and the sick and to keep the peace.

sam  07/10/2008 12:12 AM Report

Obama supporters do or say anything ( like the man himself) to justify their candidates ridiculous comments , Sec Barker did not say in any way that the President should sit down with Iran's leaders and he especially did not say in the first year or with no preconditions , he actually laughed when Rose tried to suggest high level talks, "ah I mean Secretary of State, not the President", and talking with a enemy doesn't mean much if it's not in good faith or the EU would have brokered a deal with Iran since they've been 'talking' for 6 years with Iran on giving up their nukes for benefits and Iran has used those talks for time to arm even more.

Robert  07/09/2008 07:21 PM Report

I picked up on the no preconditions question too. Well done by Mr. Rose. I can sense he has been waiting for a chance to ask Baker that question. I heard Andrea Mitchell on Hardball today claim that Dick Lugar advocating that we should remove preconditions from talks with Iran in light of today's missile test. I can't verify that, but the escalating issue with Iran, this close to an election where foreign policy is a huge issue, is sure to show the deep divisions among republicans on foreign policy.

TABS  07/09/2008 04:33 PM Report

These two esteemed gentlemen didn't say anything about the specfics of their proposal. All they said was that the Constitution was muddy on the specfics and that they wanted Congress to have some consultation powers. That the War Powers Act of 1973 was a poor solution to the problem. WHATEVER!!!......Somehow one thinks that this is a contravention of the Bush years and the efforts of Mr Cheney to increase Presidential power. However it is late in the day for Bush but going forward no one wants a too Imperial of a Presidency.....Mr Baker does seem to relish the fact that he has a long, long memory of where every body has been buried in Washington DC for the past 45 years and not only that but the time, date and method of dispatch on everyone of them! Maybe that is why he always appears to have the look of the cat that has just eaten the canary.

MJ  07/09/2008 03:46 PM Report

Isn't it funny how both secretaries of state agree that we need to talk to our enemies with no preconditions? Isn't that what mccain and hillary were slamming obama about?

Hey obama? you watching this? Next time mccain bugs you about this, quote james baker instead of softening your stance and back-pedaling.

hmmmm  07/09/2008 02:12 PM Report

How interesting that these two gentlemen raise this right before a Democrat becomes President.

ralph deleurant  07/09/2008 10:59 AM Report

regarding your interview with Mr. Baker and Mr. Christopher:

I found it interesting and informative and thank you for presenting their viewpoints.

The close of the programme leaves something to be desired however. Not recognizing that the USA is nearing the end of its role as a superpower in the world is unrealistic and you received a typical political answer in this regard. Perhaps not surprisingly it is part of the denial stage of the transformation process. Hopefully you will give other individuals the opportunity to present a realistice viewpoint. Numerous people have writtin on this topic - personally I follow the investment pages and found that Mr. Peter Grandich presents some sobering viewpoints (quite apart from the investment aspect). In my humble opinion the USA will probably remain one of the dominant powers, although how that plays out is irrelevant at this point.

All the best,

Ralph Deleurant

pettibone  07/09/2008 01:33 AM Report

James Baker is a destroyer of the constitution.

I am one american that will not agree with him.

sock puppet  07/09/2008 01:26 AM Report

Endearing ending, but ingenuous to a fault. We aren't served by pie-in-the-sky accolades about our currency, our economy and our military. It's changing and head-in-the-sand rhetoric wont stop it.

David Chowes  07/09/2008 12:52 AM Report

A very important dialogue, moderated by Mr. Rose on an urgent topic which has not been resolved for many decades.

Let's hope that this leads to a positive resolution.

RE Mant  07/08/2008 11:52 PM Report

The War Powers Resolution is so clearly unconstitutional that to call the situation ambiguous is ridiculous. The President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, but he cannot take them to war without a declaration and funds. The Constitution says that Congress both declares and pays for wars. No one else. To think otherwise is to think that the founders would have agreed with James I or Charles I, and negates 400 yrs of Anglo-American constitutional development. This division of powers is similar to giving the President responsibility for foreign policy, but requiring Congress to approve all treaties. The intent should be clear to make the President the administrator, but Congress the law-maker, and not just a rubber stamp. The problem seems to be that Congress does not want to face its responsibilities as it does not in many other areas. Most of this involves rules of engagement, but if it is thought that there is no time in which to pass a declaration of war, consider that it likely would not in that case make any difference anyway. I think, btw, the gentlemen are not yet considering Europe a single entity.

Ferdinand Gajewski  07/08/2008 11:40 PM Report

The Constitution in not ambiguous. Congress declares war, the President is Commander-in-Chief. Isn't the problem rather that presidents seek to circumvent the Constitution?