I caught a little of a panel discussion on the Charlie Rose Show on the future of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. He had with him the scholars Stephen Biddle and Vali Nasr, as well as the famous New York Times' stenographer for the powerful, Michael Gordon. Vali Nasr made a couple of interesting points about Iraqi politics but the consensus of those intellects sitting around Mr. Rose's famous "oak table" seemed to be that "real progress" is being made in Iraq and American troops must stay there for years to come.
I was particularly taken aback when Michael Gordon asserted that the 140,000 U.S. soldiers garrisoned in Iraq constitute a "neutral" force in that country. The ever-ingratiating Mr. Rose let Gordon's statement stand without challenge even though it comes at a time when the Bush administration is doing everything in its power, including withholding $20 billion in frozen assets, to force the Nouri al-Maliki government to sign a modified "status of force" agreement that essentially strips Iraq of even the fig leaf of sovereignty. How can a "neutral force" seek 58 permanent military bases, legal immunity for all its personnel, and sweetheart deals for its oil corporations?
But what appalled me even more than Gordon's by now predictable "stay the course" tripe was that Rose allowed key problems regarding Americans' perceptions of the Iraq adventure to be omitted from the discussion altogether. I wish Rose would have forced the panel at least to engage the following four points on the Iraq War:
1). The panelists harbor the belief that it is now irrelevant that the Bush administration launched this war by lying and deceiving the American people. George W. Bush and company said the goal was to "disarm" the Saddam Hussein regime of its "weapons of mass destruction;" they said the war would be relatively costless and we'd be greeted as liberators. (Bush even flew in a jet fighter that landed on an aircraft carrier and declared victory.) After these lies were exposed Bush and Co. shifted the discussion to building "democracy" in the Middle East. And now we even hear them making the argument that a crucial objective of the occupation is to "defend" Iraq from the clutches of Iran (even though it was the overthrow of the Sunni government that strengthened Iran's hand in the first place). The panelists on this venerable PBS show seemed genuinely puzzled, given all the "progress," about why the American people would be dubious about the noble intentions of Bush's Iraq endeavor five years later.
2). Amidst the worst economic downturn in recent history and huge new challenges facing the American people relating to the environment and the health care crisis Charlie Rose's "wise" panelists agreed that the $700 billion our fellow citizens have already thrown at Iraq must be augmented with even more billions to ensure "success." What Rose and his panelists missed is at a time when federal, state, and municipal governments are telling Americans that we cannot afford adequate health care, or education, or even infrastructure the enormous expenditures in Iraq take on an added level of discomfort. Why would the American people agree to spend $2 trillion on Iraq over the next ten years while they face rising costs for everything at home? The assumption of the elite panelists is that the poor Plebeians just don't understand how important the experts' "grand strategy" is in the Middle East, which illustrates why foreign policy should be left to the likes of Michael Gordon.
3). Rose and his panelists also missed the common sense notion that if the war's supporters talk again and again about the great "success" in Iraq and the "diminution of violence" as encouraging signs of "progress" the American people have every right to ask the question: Why are our soldiers still there? If the "surge" and other Bush policies have worked so magnificently, and the U.S. is not interested in permanent bases or in Iraq's oil reserves, then why can't we bring our troops home? The "experts" only offered platitudes about how "fragile" the status quo is in Iraq requiring American troops to stay there for years and years. Stephen Biddle said the next president would have to bring home some troops because the current levels are "unsustainable," but we've heard that argument before.
4). Rose and his panelists must read the New York Times every morning and in today's paper there was a front page, above-the-fold article describing how the Iraq war contractor and former Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) bilked the U.S. Army for $1 billion in corrupt charges. Similar to so many other stories coming out of this administration the career officials who tried to stop this shocking profiteering on the part of Dick Cheney's old company were subordinated to political appointees who quickly squashed the investigation. Many "experts" who claim to be infinitely knowledgeable about the Iraq War go out of their way to ignore the shameless profiteering that has been part of this misguided adventure from the start. When foreign policy wonks advocate staying the course in Iraq they are really advocating continuing an inherently corrupt system of crony capitalism in the very dangerous form of a military occupation. All of the so-called intellectuals who support the Iraq occupation, from Christopher Hitchens and Kenneth Pollack, to Michael Gordon and Stephen Biddle, willfully avoid any mention of how this war has become a cash cow for connected companies and individuals while soldiers from the working class do all of the fighting and dying.
Next time, Charlie, please raise some of these issues when your topic of conversation is Iraq.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I have felt for a long time now that Ch arlie R ose is entirely too comfortable with the Ci A and the war mo nger branch of the government. he puts a sweet face on the blo od th irsty.
Great comments -- thanks steve iona! -- (Iona changed my life) -- I want to throw something at the TV most of the time when I see Charlie Rose -- he's excellent when interviewing people who really don't matter in the wider scheme of world affairs, fiction writers, actors, dancers -- he's great at that -- but when he sits there with Henry Kissinger and Michael Gordon and let's them go on without raising any points about how bogus their views are it is really disturbing -- people have died in Iraq because of this kind of languid "discussion" of the Middle East -- sometimes Charlie seems like he fell off a turnip truck, he asked whether US policy in the Middle East had anything to do with 9-11 -- is that really a question? And it's also sad because he is supposed to represent the latte-drinking, arugula-chomping, Volvo-driving intellectual "Liberal" elite -- and then you see on his show no guest really going to the crux of the issue on Iraq -- he doesn't want to offend the Right, he's safe, uncontroversial, and it has served him well -- perhaps my four questions can be pursued elsewhere.
I was a big fan of Charlie's years ago. He has totally put out the white flag and surrendered to the neocons regarding Iraq and Bush's failures in the Mideast, in general. He has given the illegalities of the Bush administration a pass. Like you say, Mr. Palermo, he and so many journalists are afraid of the far right. The far right has a long memory and comes after a person in a soulless, remorseless way. So many of our journalists are afraid of their smear machine, but do the country a disservice in the process. They underestimate their audience who will back them for telling the truth.
Charlie Rose has shown his real self of late. He's a republican. I only watch him when he's interviewing people in the arts. Otherwise Rose is one of the media's biggest elitist snobs.
I agree, I watched for years and was agasht at last nights show, he has lost me as a viewer.
Excellent, excellent article. It's about time someone calls this cheese whiz out. Please ! Charlie Rose doesn't even come close to asking hard,balanced questions. If he really wanted to "talk" about Iraq then you need to talk about Israel. If he really wanted to "talk" about Iran you need to talk about israel. It's the same old MSM sh*t. Unconditional, unquestioned, unending free passes for Israel.
Why doesn't Charlie mention:
The Iran issue is 100% Israeli, in fact, Iran is no danger to the US.
US warmongering towards Iran's nuclear program, legally allowed to enrich uranium as a NPT member, is outright, hypocritical, double standard BS the United States has been following in its foreign policy.
The US should force Israel to adhere to the standards that it and the US want to impose on Iran. They want Iranian nuclear transparency? Then Israel better be just as transparent.
Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty ,which Iran has done.
Israel refuses to allow IAEA inspections of their nuke facilities, which Iran has done.
Israel refuses to comply with any UN resolutions or Geneva Conventions, which the US protects it from.
Why on earth is Israel, a rogue nuclear state allowed to lay waste to every international law and convention without criticism and their "enemies" - read Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Hamas - anyone who opposes Israel's failed, belligerent, apartheid aggressive policies - are not entitled to raise a hand in their own defense without raising Washingtons hackles or MSM's
Sadly as the build up to the Iraq war began and it's on-going tragedy played out, Charlie Rose wasn't there for us. I thought with his intellect, sensitivity etc. he'd be able to see some of the arguments for not this war, and not at this time. But surprisingly he too often had supporters of this fiasco as his sources of discussion and I lost my respect for him. I've in fact stopped watching him now all together...and he had been a nightly must for me for years. I was and am open to other views but when people are going to die it is far more essential that there be real balance, loud balance, screaming balance. We needed to hear the other side far more often than he gave us, and he has to live with that.
Very true! I thought Rose would be one of the loudest critics of the war, not by being blindly partisan but by asking sharp, incisive questions that did not give war cheerleaders much wiggle room. Instead Rose has, as you say, had countless war proponents on and has not really held them accountable, except to say "many consider this war in Iraq our worst foreign plolicy blunder ever." Somewhere along the line, Rose left his keen intellect at home when we needed him most. I lost respect for him also and have not been a viewer for years.
Although I agree with Mr. Palermo's above assessment, I do want to say, to Charlie Rose's credit, he has had on his show Eric Alterman, Naomi Klein, Amy Goodman, Katrina van den Heuvel (her many times, as a matter of fact), Barbara Ehrenreich ( her a while ago), and even Noam Chomsky(!)
Well, if you look at the juxtaposition of that panel with his discussion with Ahmed Rashid (author of "Descent into Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia", who was on in the second half-hour) I'd say that your rants about Charlie being a Republican shill are off base. Rashid's thesis, in my simplistic understanding of it, was that Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia pose a much greater threat to the US and Europe, and the descent into chaos is fundamentally a result of Bush and company taking their eye off the ball with the Iraq war distraction.
I'd also say that the panelists were not being particularly partisan. While they did call for maintaining a troop presence, they also argued the need for diplomacy with all the players in the region, including Iran. This part of their thesis falls squarely in the democratic position. Their thesis seems to have been that the framework of the debate during this campaign has become stale. You certainly can argue that point, as it is just their opinion, however if I took anything out of last night it was that neither candidate has it quite right, and in fact, again looking at the juxtaposition, right might not be achievable. We cannot both maintain a large troop presence in Iraq to ensure the unstable government moves toward more stabillity simultaneously with attending to the rising (re) Talibanization of Afghanastan and now potentially Pakistan.
The rising Talibanization of the Afghanistan and Pakistan has to do with us taking our eyes "off the ball" and launching an unncessary war against Iraq and you are right, with the size of our forces we can not effectively fight both. I think with our troop presence we are doing more harm in Iraq than good. As we arrest and sometimes kill Iraqis, we create another generation of ill will. In Afghanistan, the Taliban is always on the shawdowy periphery and a threat to return to brutalize people. We should focus on Afghanistan and draw down from what was an illegal war in Iraq.
Charlie Rose has become just another paid Republican shill. I mean, really. where do you think the money the oil boys are sucking out of you pocket is going, anyway? It's being spent on buying people who have or had some apparent sway on the way people think. Rose has been a casualty for a few years now, and it's too bad. Another one bites the dust.
Charlie Rose is the premier bootlicker and sycophant to the rich and powerful. You'll never find Robert Fisk, Juan Cole, Laura Flanders, Robert Scheer, Barbara Ehrenreich, Katrina Van den Heuvel, John MacArthur, Lewis Lapham, Eric Alterman, Joe Conason, David Corn, Jeff Cohen, Amy Goodman, or Greg Pallast on the Charlie Rose show. Charlie Rose is the leading stenographer for the power elite.
If he does have someone on that opposes what the view de jour is he interrupts them constantly so they can never make a point. I've written the show many time and asked him to shut the f**k up and let his guests talk.
..."A Rose by any other name would smell so"...imperialist and corporatist.
He did have Niomi Klein on, but expressed a scoffing dismisive defense of all things friedman.
I used to enjoy the Charlie Rose show a good deal years ago. I find in the last several years he has been totally obsequious about the war and, in general, gives the Bush administration a free pass given their multiple illegalities. It is almost as if since the Bush administration claims no agenda other than enriching a few corporations, there is no standard to hold them accountable to.
Rose has often taken the stance that we will not know how the war is going until ten or twenty years down the line. I think his stance is a complete journalistic cop out. Bush and company lied repeatedly to get us in the war, why trust them now? They lied about the progress of the war? These "intellectuals" have always backed the war effort for some reason. As the author suggests, billions wasted in Iraq are ignored and auditors are fired for even mentioning it.
It must be that the whole journalistic community is afraid of the arrogance of the Bush administration. The Bush administration and its minions, like Fox news, try to crush any opponent or anyone who raises substantial question. Therefore, journalists roll over. The public is ill-served. Someday this whole administration will come crushing down under the weight of their illegalities. Then the journalistic community will wonder why it did so little to cover what was in front of their faces. Charlie is taking the high road with an administration that does not deserve it.
soft pr like the rose show is easing the suit-and-tie left into the reality that barack obama will not interfere with the us occupation of iraq.
You should watch Charlie Rose more. The "issues" you present have been discussed on other shows, and I have seen him go head-to-head with Bush apologists. Just your line "I caught a little of a panel discussion" says it all. Good job. Another great blog analysis.
Thank you, Dr. Palermo. Yet another outstanding report keeping us abreast of common sense, cogent wisdom, and current events. Stay the course. ~Steve, Iona
Charlie Rose turned into Tim Russert long ago. He mouths the conventional wisdom back to those that formed it in the first place. He does do some great shows on art and industry, but politically he could be replaced with headlines from politico, the washington times or drudge. There is no debate, just a circular oak table where everyone agrees with the person to the right.
I agree with you about the role of Russert, too. He long ago became a stenographer and little else for the Bush administration. They would come to him as a forum for their lies about the reasons for the war and he checked none of their lies out. Not one! Then the next time they come to him with more lies for the next war, he is no less trusting then the first time.
Yes, exactly he caves in and focuses on the "intentions" of the Bush administration, rather than the reality of the harm it has done.
Charlie Rose plays the same role on television that Michael Gordon plays in the press -- in the guise of sober and serious discussion, all he really does is give the pro-war lobby legitimacy.
Expecting him to suddenly realise, after years of inviting luminaries like Henry Kissinger to field softballs across the oak table in his dramatically dark studio, that he is supposed to present all sides of the arguments he purports to dissect, is way too optimistic.
Yes, at this point a school child could raise more pertinent questions about the war and its consequences than Rose does. He just sits there and goes along for the ride. I have lost a good deal of respect for what he does journalistically.
This Rose show is part of a now-familiar pattern in the mainstream media. So-called experts -- almost invariably members of the national security establishment or MSM -- are called in to debate, but no real debate occurs. Instead, the participants agree on certain key right-wing positions and repeat those positions several times while disagreeing, or pretending to disagree, on relatively minor issues. See how it works? The media outlet can claim it's being fair and balanced while it's actually beating the same right-wing drum. CNN has become expert at this, and uses its new GPS show for this purpose. MSNBC -- especially the silly Chris Mathews hour -- also is good at it, and of course Fox News does it best of all.
Indeed, most controversial issues are not really debated at all in the MSM. When was the last time you saw an articulate opponent of U.S. foreign policy on TV? Or an articulate socialist? Or for that matter an articulate atheist? (when Chris Hitchens doesn't have a new book out) Chances are it's been a very long time. But you can flip on the Tube at any time and hear "experts" bicker about whether U.S. forces should occupy the Mideast and South Asia for ten more years or a hundred more years, or whether God thinks it's OK if gays get married, whether our nukes should be upgraded now or later, or whether the Pentagon needs six new nuclear submaries or 100 new heavy bombers.
Yes, in these so-called discussions no one even raises obvious, but well-formed questions like Mr. Palermo did in his article. The questions and debating points just leap out at one. That is why these "discussions" are almost impossible to listen to.
David Brooks spoke frankly about the presidential and...
The insta-polls, which provide viewers with a somewhat skewed but important insight into how each...
You got to give credit to the American people, who managed to get through an...
In Debate II, John McCain twice laid out the criteria for how the American...
We've come to lower our expectations for real debates in the...
They say that Senator McCain's strong suit is the town hall debate. If this was, in fact, Senator McCain's strength, he might...
Joe Biden lashed out at Sarah Palin on Wednesday, calling her recent rhetoric...
Madonna went on VP candidate "Sarah fucking Paling" at her Madison Square Garden show Monday...
Jim VandeHei and John Harris of The Politico have gone and decreed last night's debate "The worst...
Fresh from the celebration of their 16th wedding anniversary on Friday, the Obamas shared...
Loading comments…
Posted June 18, 2008 | 02:52 AM (EST)