Charlie Rose

Dr_Ron  01/16/2009 05:20 PM Report

McConnell mentioned that he will be moving to the private sector, but didn't mention where? It's always encouraging to hear anyone escaping the darkside in this day and age. Particularly in the law enforcement industry , where bloated agencies like the SEC and CIA have made such disastrous (intentional or unintentional) blunders.

tartufe  01/16/2009 12:13 AM Report

Mr Harris - Dale as you sign off - I too have read The Black Swan. You end with: "Also, I think it interesting that the idea of reduced budgets for 'Intelligence' in the upcoming 4 years is anticipated. Is this a way to better see the unexpected possibilities?"

Is it "anticipated" by you or your conjecture (that's still tinged with a neoconservative bent)? Your subscription to the Black Swan perception subverts your quest for unexpected possibilities - as by definitiion no amount of intelligence could expose the truly unexpected. That's why they're black instead of the expected white.

Jumping from two comments, my guess at your underlying ideology: 1. Republican by birth (neocon by choice), 2. Bush supporter (closet or otherwise), 3. Iraq was justified, 4. Rendition and extraordinary interrogation is justified, needed, 5. Dick Cheney is a sterling person, 6. Mr Rumsfeld is equally a swell kinda guy, and lastly 7. the financial meltdown was really an example of the creative and risk taking opportunities that are needed to expand the true laissez faire, free market capitalism that the long term creative energies needed for the ultimate, long term success of our system.

Here's a fire-for-effect test: Henry Paulson (mostly) et al pulled the biggest heist in history and for equity and justice to prevail he and complicit others should end in trial, crime-appropriate fine and imprisonment. Alas, only in my dreams.

DaleHarris  01/15/2009 09:07 AM Report

Hi tartufe;

I am genuine.

As far as I am aware, I have only been called a cheat by my ex-wife, and she was off target in a search for self justification. (The tax man agreed with my returns in the examination process.) I realize that a real name is not the rule. My message is not clouded in any cleverness. I am interested in conversation that might be forward moving. I think of a book, "Black Swan" by Nassin Nicholas Talel. He makes the point that it isn't what we think we know that is important. He states,"What you don't know you don't know you don't know" is what is important. (It takes a little concentration for me to keep all of those in the proper reference.)

He also has expressed the Black Swan logic that just by still being here, we are the exception.

My point here is that we can all approach these table topics and discuss the conversation in bits and posturing, or we can look for the unexpected in them.

Sadham was certain that the Iranians etc. would be less bother. He didn't or incorrectly anticpated that he appeared a threat to his own life.

I had never heard it stated that he had specific reasons for the deception. Turns out to have been grounded in his narrow views. Perhaps if he had been looking for the unexpected, he would have survived?

Also, I think it interesting that the idea of reduced budgets for 'Intelligence' in the upcoming 4 years is anticipated. Is this a way to better see the unexpected possibilities?

Dale

jacksonyuan  01/14/2009 06:13 AM Report

I think UN should have more Intelligence info from u.s and other country and UN should have more power and even thought u.s is the most powerful country we should not spy on other country or tell other country what weapon they can or can not have. No one is telling country like u.s or russia or china on what kind of power they should have and question their intension. It should be the power of the UN.

cary51  01/13/2009 06:14 PM Report

Right on Gustav, I totally agree with your comments..

tartufe  01/13/2009 01:29 AM Report

Hey Mr Harris, I'm skeptical. Your invitation has a hint of left-handedness. Even disingenuous perhaps? A liberal might wonder if you are inclined to accept the WMD rationale re Iraq. Sadam's rationale is apparently significant for you?

Blogging here or elsewhere is ipso facto special interest commenting. Elstwise, what's the point? Facts sans opinion? Ugh!

Also, can a man that apparently uses his own name really be trusted?

DaleHarris  01/12/2009 01:36 AM Report

I am new tonight to this comment session. I had the interview on tape, so am late to the discussion.

Is this a liberal vs. conservative bashing session?

How many of you were previously, directly, from an informed very high level source, aware of Sadam's confessed reason for faking the possession of WMD? I thought it an interesting exit interview for Mc Connell. We will now have an informed floor from which to measure the 'change' in our intellegence gathering after the control 'changes.'

It would really be good to expand on the table discussion here.

If the contribution produced here is special interest comments, then maybe I will just blog elsewhere. I hoped to find my time here spent among others who would like to know more about what is discussed at the table.

This is a time for each person in any conversational venue to attempt to walk away at least thinking further about the dialog, not to be posturing and thinking in the prior to 'change' method of adversarial bickering we seem to have become habituated to do.

Both Charlie and Mc Connell related that now is the opportunity for President elect Obama to have the entire citizenship of the US begin to think cooperatively. We could each give up something of our self interests to the benefit of all.

I see this as an opportunity to really kick the discussion up a level from where I stepped in here.

Anyone else interested in a discussion instead of a territorial defense?

tartufe  01/12/2009 12:59 AM Report

Gustav - good point. However, us riff-raff are better served without such restraints. Conflating Charlies function and ours is counter productive to meaningful comments. Charlie is indeed under professional interviewer restraints. A reputation for strident gunslinging would soon find the table empty. He does need to push the envelope, however, or viewers could vacate the table as well.

Gustav  01/11/2009 10:05 AM Report

It bugs me that people don't understand that Charlie is working as a magnifier. He makes an awesome job of covering all kinds of subject and exposing us to so much new and interesting things. While you may find Rose's interviews less agressive towards the interviewee, you must understand that the only thing Charlie can do as an impartial journalist is to invite guests from the other side of the political spectrum, which I believe he often does.

I enjoyed this interview very much, even though it may not be my views displayed I now know more importantly what the current regime's view is.

ShalomFreedman  01/11/2009 03:39 AM Report

This was a wide- ranging informative interview. It gave a perception of U.S. Intelligence activity in a number of important areas.

But there was one question I was waiting for Charlie Rose to ask which he did not. The National Intelligence Estimate in December 2007 was strongly criticized by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The report gave the impression that Iran had halted its quest for nuclear weapons. It stopped in its tracks any real effort the Bush Administration was making to impose strong sanctions on Iran. It made impossible any military action, the only true way of stopping Iran. It probably even foiled Israel's plan to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon which McConnell himself says they may have as early as the end of 2009.

ChrisTaconic  01/11/2009 01:06 AM Report

This interview was a disgrace. Where's your teeth Rose? Go watch Nixon/Frost and try and remember why you got into this game because you're so close to the establishment now you don't even see it. All that you guys are concerned with these days is access, all of you afraid that if you actually do a hard interview you'll scare of the other big names. There was a time when they had to be scared to refuse to be interviewed, not anymore and certainly not this type of interview.

Shame.

mrkinpdx  01/10/2009 03:38 PM Report

Charles does it again. A wonderfully informative interview about past intelligence failures (Iraq), rendition, torture, warrentless wiretapping and the like..

Charlie again demonstrates the importance of his show as other media outlets so often only get only part of the story....

As the Charlie Rose show is a refuge from the mindless banter we see on cable news outlets and the blogosphere, i am surprised to see some of the comments below. It seems to me tartufe and his like would be better off watching msnbc or reading the dailey kos where you can get the news reported in a way that fits your idealology....like all of his interviews..Charlie gets well informed people to explain events beyond the headlines and misinformation so often found in most media outlets....

Thank goodness for this show...

parthenophilast  01/10/2009 05:01 AM Report

I like this guy: he appears to be one who will carefully weigh the evidence before making his decisions under pressure, judging from his past experience and from what he said on the show. It's too bad he has to be the president's b*tch. As Valerie Wilson argued, perhaps the DNI position is too interlinked with the Executive Branch. Do the proper checks and balances exist?

Claire727  01/10/2009 03:48 AM Report

So, all you liberals wanted change. Well baby, here it comes. Leon Panetta with absolutely NO experience will head the CIA. After Obama guts the intelligence budget and allows Al Queda to smuggle in a suitcase nuke, you'll have your change! Note to all libs: Please move to Manhattan so you can ALL be vaporized in the next attack!!

Thank you President Bush for keeping us safe for the past 7+ years-YOU deserve ALL the credit!!!!!!!

Come January 20th, all you liberal idiots will be on your own!!!

tartufe  01/10/2009 12:05 AM Report

hrc - got the bloody half. Profitable half is industrial complex.

hrc  01/09/2009 06:18 PM Report

Our country is being led by the military, for the military. Did I get that right?

tartufe  01/09/2009 06:12 PM Report

McConnell and Bush are like spiegel im spiegel (mirror on mirror). Merely reflect each others views. And they do it every morning? Holy feces! What a waste.

His endorsement of his overly cautiously defined non-torture was about all one could expect. Always careful to couch in terms of "US law." Cheney himself couldn't have done better. Might as well cite the laws of Lucifer.

One wonders if this conversation close on the heels of the PBS show on torture was to counteract its affects. The show asserted that 1. the loss of US stature, 2. the boomerang effect on our captured troops, and 3. doubts of it effectiveness when anyone will volubly confess to anything under torture.

Ah, but Charlie being the perfect foil disingenuously asked, "So you think lives were saved that otherwise would not have been?" Well McCarthy (whoops McConnell - not the ventriloquist's dummy - but on 2nd thought??) was quick to assure Charlie that indeed was the case.

Well a double blind test just might disprove his assertion.

The PBS expose was jarring. The values of just a few in the wrong places is everything, whether financial, military or just plain humanity - a la Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, McConnell.

Idle conjecture here. Betting strongly that McConnell is a zealous christian. To dehumanize yourself to his extent would require the rationale of an irrational concept - namely religion. Judeo-Christian specifically. He condones, winks, encourages beastly inhumane acts in the name of, and for the good of god. To retain his sanity? Too late he's mad as a hatter and hasn't a clue. But god knows and he's going to have his day, heh, heh. Inshalla! (to coin a phrase).

Obama is going to fall flat and mightily disappoint.

BUT HE CAN'T BE AS EVIL AS THE LEAST OF W's ADMINISTRATION!

robotpoop  01/09/2009 04:08 PM Report

Mostly a good interview, but Charlie you really should have made him elaborate on his statement that Hamas is "holding the Palestinians hostage". Like it or not, Hamas was democratically elected. Again, I don't want to imply I in any way support their cause, but ignoring such a basic and important fact is very telling to me of why US policy in the region has failed over and over and over again.

KMGuru  01/09/2009 03:26 PM Report

(As per Mr. McConnell) - If our intelligence organizations are the best in the world (at over $30 Billion per year, it better be) then why are we heading towards the Great Depression 2.0? With half a million a month lay-offs and massive home foreclosures, there seems to be no end in sight. As to his pride that we are a 14 Trillion-Dollar economy, does he understand that it is not Production but based on Consumption from our future and on basically credit from China?

Are our intelligence communities up to the task? Or they are the dinosaurs like the old USSR intelligence Services that could not see the disintegration of USSR? Our situation is such that while the house is burning, the homeowner is polishing his machine gun or playing James Bond!

REMant  01/09/2009 03:21 PM Report

This reminded me of my brush with ROTC classes - both pedestrian and wrong-headed - more likely to get us into trouble, than to keep us out of it. His idea of intelligence seems to be entirely of the military (N2, S2, G2, J2) variety. He has a surprisingly weak academic background for a former vice admiral in the positions he has held, and it shows, but this is, I think, common for ppl of his cohort, because of the lack of interest in the military as a result of Vietnam. In fact, he has an extremely narrow military background, as well, esp for a general officer. This seems to have been another of the Bush admin appointments of people not likely to rock the boat. I sincerely hope the new one is not a clone. Is it possible that Panetta was appointed to CIA precisely because Obama intends to abolish this position?