Charlie Rose

Dave Hamilton  07/26/2008 02:31 PM Report

Thanks for your great new website...making Charlie's great repertoire of interviews available at the public's convenience is a wonderful thing.

Bill  07/25/2008 01:56 PM Report

A great interview with a great man. I voted for Senator Webb as I will for Obama. He was my first Democratic vote in my life of 66 years. Jim Webb is spot on in all areas discussed. Someone above wrote about the 'WHAT IFS" of Saddam's nuclear capability. What Mr. Webb points out is that National Security Policy drives the train and inclusive with that is good intelligence. Much of what the Congress and the public were fed as far as facts was contrived and embellished rumors from unreliable sources. This administration is nothing but a bunch of corporate raiders maximizing their own profits and interests. Contracting out military duties is one way of not having to budget for retirements, health care, etc. And abuse of existing military assets and National Guard/Reserve deployments were a way of maximizing the utility of military power without having a draft or buildup and without having to stop ongoing BRAC.

Neil MacCallister  07/24/2008 11:06 PM Report

I respect Mr. Webb's contributions, but not his statement that "9/11 came in a vacuum." That is not true, 9/11 did not just pop-up out of nowhere: There was the Beirut bombing, and Pan-Am 103, and USS Cole, the Leyte Gulf attacks and many others. Sen. Webb voted not to go to war, but others prevailed in their choice to take the fight to the lands of the attackers, and remove that fight as far as possible from our own soils. Mr. Webb lost that vote, but as he here speaks for the "one-man-one-vote" style of democracy, he should accept that outcome, and continue his job assignment. On war, and on his 'no free trade' arguments, his brand of isolationism is a dream we are foolish to believe in.

TABS  07/24/2008 04:21 AM Report

Saddam was a Stalin wana be, and as such was diametrically opposed to the religious zealotry of Osma and company. What Saddam did was thumb his nose at the USA and act as a loose cannon in the region. He also had the audacity to applaud 911 and move towards using the Euro as the currency of choice for the purchase of oil. The US does not take kindly to challenges to the dollars hegemony in the world. Can you imagine all those trillions being dumped by every country in the world that now keeps them in reserve for oil transactions. Why tomorrow Americans might just wake up to find that it takes a billion or two of them just to mail a letter.

Rich  07/23/2008 06:59 PM Report

Senator's Webb's grounds for opposing the War in Iraq are plausible - I myself opposed it at the time for exactly the same reasons, namely the likelihood of a protracted occupation. However, his argument (and mine at the time) show only one side of the story.

Immediately after 9/11 we were confronted with an extremely dangerous situation in the Middle East that 9/11 did not create but simply brought home to us up close and personal. This was the threat of Islamic fundamentalism that had been growing in strength and ferocity over the last thirty odd years. Nearly every state in the Middle East was and is threatened by this specter. We like to call these people terrorists, but they are more aptly termed revolutionaries. Their aim is to overthrow the moderate Arab states, then wage war on the West. A historical analogy to this situation can be found in 19th century Europe, when the survival of nearly every European government was threatened by revolution. Those revolutionaries fought for liberalism with a touch of nationalism. These revolutionaries fight for a considerably different cause. If we think that the overthrow of the moderate governments in the Middle East would leave the west unharmed, we are dead wrong, and 9/11 should have alerted us to this fact.

Now any revolutionary group is exponentially strengthened by a state sponsor. Indeed history shows that only those groups that are sponsored by a powerful group will succeed. The U.S. was founded by revolutionaries supported by France in their war against England. The NLF of South Vietnam were sponsored by North Vietnam which in turn was sponsored by the Soviet Union and China. Both of these groups succeeded. If Islamic fundamentalism is to succeed in the Middle East, it must find a state sponsor. In 2002, to America a nuclear Iraq seemed to be the perfect sponsor of Islamic fundamentalism. First, they had a history of supporting terrorism - both in rhetoric and in action. Second, they had a history of seeking nuclear weapons. They had come very close in 1981 only to have their reactors bombed by Israel. If Iraq were to make a nuclear weapon, they would become impregnable. No country could attack them for fear of nuclear holocaust. From this wall of safety they could threaten the region not through arms but through the sponsorship of revolution. And the threat of Iraq gaining nuclear weapons becomes unimaginable when we consider the reactions of its neighbors. Now they are forced to respond by making their own nuclear weapons. And what if one is to fall to a revolution? We may then see the day when a terrorist is armed with a nuclear weapon and Osama bin laden's vision of destroying the Western world has now become not a wild dream but a possibility. In other words, the prospect of Iraq getting a nuclear weapon was one that America had to resist at all costs. This need was not created by 9/11, indeed even without 9/11 the paths of Iraq and the U.S. were on a collision course. 9/11 simply brought home the urgency of the situation.

I do not agree with the execution of the war, however. In hindsight we should have listened to our allies - not France and Germany, but Saudi Arabia, whose interests in the region meshed with ours. For some time, Saudi intelligence had recommended a covert operation to simply depose Saddam Hussein, destroy his nuclear reactors, and replace him with one of his many enemies. This would have required a show of force on the part of the United States, but it would have achieved the objective of removing Saddam Hussein and destroying his weapon making facilities without being severely bogged down. In my opinion this approach, though not without its risks, seems to have been apt.

At the same time, I believe the move to remove Saddam Hussein was the correct, and it required great courage of the President to execute. The mistakes that were made and are being made in the execution would require a book to explain. However, we must not attack the initial choice simply because the result was bad. The alternative could have been worse. Yes, we have thousands of troops bogged down supporting a weak government. Yes, we have taken many casualties. But what if the alternative was a nuclear weapon in the hands of Saddam or eventually in the hands of a terrorist. Just because the result is unsavory does not mean the act was wrong. As a famous man once said, just because you have to go to the bathroom does not mean it was wrong to eat.

JY  07/23/2008 01:01 AM Report

Great interview. I've been waiting for this for a while. My only complaint is that I wish Charlie had spoken more with Senator Webb about his career as a fiction novelist, screenwriter, and journalist, how his writing career has informed his politics, and his methods and style as a writer. Also, a shame he won't be running for VP but he clearly wants to speak his mind which is better suited for the senate. I sincerely hope Charlie Rose invites Webb back to cover so many more topics. A great interview, and a fascinating personality.

Irish   07/22/2008 07:49 PM Report

Charlie - I enjoyed the show. But what is up with the 5 levels of security I have to go through to post. Is this an eye exam?

Terry  07/22/2008 04:51 PM Report

I feel much more confident with Senator Webb, so thoughtful and intelligent, in the Senate. While watching the conversation, it's hard to believe both McCain and Webb both fought in the Vietnam War. Their political philosophies have evolved so differently since then.

Webb began the discussion by pointing out the direction of the Democratic party up until the seventies: concern for the problems of the working man and a strong national defense. In this period with Obama and his supporters pressing for total "change" in government, it is important to try to remember the issues that have traditionally shaped and made the Democratic Party what it is. In this election which seems to be so much about doing something new and untested, it is important to remember what has been tried and failed. I find it very disconcerting when I read and hear that the Obama coterie of experts, either from hubris or inexperience, are finding it difficult to integrate and listen to the advice and expertise of, for example, the Clinton administration which was in power only a decade ago. By not respecting these opinions and their experience they are bound to repeat many of the same mistakes.

Thanks to Charlie for spending an entire hour with this very interesting senator. Once again the hour format, so unique to this show, has a valuable place on television. Nobody does "balanced" discussion better than PBS and Charlie. I am so glad 60 Minutes didn't poach him away from us. It must be really difficult work preparing for these shows and I am amazed how consistently Charlie comes through five times a week with the mirade of subjects he covers. Charlie is broadcast at midnight here in San Francisco and I hardly ever miss a show but sometimes because of the late hour I do on occassion fall asleep. Now that the shows are available on the website I can rewatch them at my leisure the very next day or anytime. Thanks so much for providing this service and archiving the programs so they are so easily accessible.

TABS  07/22/2008 03:19 PM Report

Mr Webb is a plain spoken, common sense type of guy. If he were the Democratic nominee his appeal would stretch right across party lines and be a virtual shoe in. Perhaps he is setting himself up for a 2012 run at the Presidency if Bama fails. One could tell that Mr Webb is not enamored with Bama as evidenced by how much he gushed over how wonderful Bama is (it sounded like he was reading from a script that the Democrats have handed out to its elected members to chant). Mr Webb is absolutely correct that as a VP he is subordinate to the Presidents policies, and if one does not agree with them there will be friction. So better to stay where one is. After all what one gets with Bama is Chicago style politics and politicos who will inhabit the WH if Bama wins (don't forget that Bama baggage folks when ya go an vote for him..now).

Jake  07/22/2008 03:15 PM Report

Senator Webb makes some fine points. What the financial and corporate structure has done is sell-out America to China, giving the Chinese Communists the ability to falsely boast that their one-party system of Communism is superior to American Democracy. They have but to point to their prosperity at our expense. Where is the prosecution for the fraud of the subprime "profits" and the recovery of those ill-gotten gains? As Senator Webb rightly asks - Why were there no conditions attached to the taxpayer bailouts so generously handed out to failing companies? Why are they provided for so readily without even negotiation of terms in the public's interest??

M O'Connor  07/22/2008 01:14 PM Report

One for the Rose "Hall of fame". An excellent interview with one of the nations most promising Senators.

judithod  07/22/2008 09:58 AM Report

How refreshing! Jim Webb is definitely an honorable, thinking representative of and for the people. What is most admirable is his decision to withdraw his name as a possible VP for Obama. Webb realizes that in spite of his extensive background, he's still a junior senator and has much to learn and do in that capacity. Wish another junior senator had as much sense!

John  07/22/2008 09:08 AM Report

When you look up the word "Patriot" in the dictionary, Jim Webb's picture should be there. As should Ron Paul's and Jim Bunning's among a few others. I hope these three form a workgroup to address the nation's ills. The problems the country faces are largely caused by usury bank and credit card fees that break the back of the public, relocation (with tax incentives!) of the productive economy offshore so that corporate executives can pocket the savings difference, again breaking the back of the public, and monetary policy whose inflation destroys the saving of the public, again breaking their backs. All the cards are now stacked against the general populace, while the bidding of corporate raiders who have sacked the entire country is done in Washington D.C. The biggest mistake is confuse "cause" and "effect", and if Senator Webb, Paul, Bunning, et. al. would address the Causes, the nation would be well-served.

sock puppet  07/22/2008 01:00 AM Report

Limiting the remuneration for the financial CEO's is merely the first step. As the heads of the institutions - like a captain of a ship - they should be seriously tried for egregious exploitation (even extortion), arrested and generally treated as a common criminal (ala a convenient store armed robbery - which they doubtless have caused out of desperation). The abject poverty (literally living under bridges) these financial CEO's have caused is unforgivable. And they are the very ones that should have known better. In fact the very thing they're paid for. They criminally diverted the whole system into their egregious child-like greed. Incarceration would be a large deterrant for the moral hazard bailouts create. Where's the FBI when we need them?

sock puppet  07/22/2008 12:36 AM Report

Generally have a hard time with Afghanistan. They have rendered - by the numbers - England and Russia to paper tigers and given our deneutered financial strength will do the same for us. We exacerbate our problems with the indiscriminate use of air power - as Webb has suggested for incursions into Pakistan. The so-called civillian collateral damage - which we inflict too readily - looses hearts and minds, which hardens the resolve of the tribal indigents into ultimately inflicting mortsl wounds on the intruders. Namely us. You heard it here first: some day we will leave Afghanistan ala Vietnam and Iraq. Despite our arrogance (or maybe because of it).

RE Mant  07/22/2008 12:03 AM Report

Virtually ANY Vietnam vet would have seen what Webb feared in the incipient Iraq invasion, but how many such were there among those planning it?

Webb needs to learn more about the Jacksonians, the Democratic Party and, it appears, Presbyterianism, IMHO.

BTW, if we had an economy with a fairly-based monetary system, real estate would be much more affordable and would no longer be considered essential to retirement.

Richard Arrot  07/19/2008 09:32 PM Report

Senator Webb,

I admire your record and your dedication to our country.

My question for you is with the build-up of the military on Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands, what can you do to ensure that fresh water resources and marine resources are protected?

Also, is there any way that you can help to ensure that the approximately 200 military sites that have been environmentally contaminated or junked are cleaned-up before the military makes the move to Guam?

Lastly, I was hoping that you would have considered being Vice President if Obama made the phone call because you bring balance, humility, national security and love of country to the American people.

The U.S. Senate is fortunate to have honest folks like yourself working for the country.

Hafa Adai.