It's amazing how Charlie can listen unflinchingly to the biggest liars and prevaricators of our age and yet when Chomsky is trying to drop some pretty obvious knowledge about American imperialism he does nothing but challenge him with talking points from establishment blowhards. Mr. Rose's interviews are nothing more than a pandering mouthpiece for the oligarchy.
Charlie Rose treats Chomsky like all those red-faced pundits we love to hate on Fox News treat the mindless liberals they have on to pretend their shows are balanced. It's clear he doesn't want Chomsky's point to reach the listener: that US wars of aggression are not "mistakes" and that motives for US foreign policy are, by and large, profit-driven.
This is very different from how Charlie Rose treated the future candidate and empty suit Obama a while back. If you don't have anything to say, he'll give you all day to say it. If you've got something real to say, expect him to try to shut you down. Puts him in the same catagory as Buckley and Jim Bohannon.
This is sure different than how respectfully Charlie Rose treated future candidate and empty suit Obama when he was on. If you don't have anything to say, Charlie will let you take the whole show to say it.
Charlie Rose is such a tool. I think this is from the only interview he did with Chomsky, despite Chomsky being the most requested guest on his show, and the most important living intellectual. So much for Charlie being the thinking man's talk-show host. He couldn't stand having his cushy "America's great" worldview ripped to shreds by someone so much smarter and better informed than he was.
@ast453000 "Rose is such a tool. I think this is from the only interview he did with Chomsky"
Keenly observed. Online there is indeed record of only 1 other (equally, if not more, adversarial) appearance and in Rose's absence. Perhaps to grant Rose the plausible deniability of 1. not being seen with Chomsky. 2.having him on yet signaling that Chomsky is not worth his time of day.
Compare to 51 appearances by Rose's buddy and war criminal Henry "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" Kissinger.
Contrast Charlie -sycophant to the status quo- Rose's tone here to the one he deploys while fellating his show biz friends, captains of industry (e.g. Jack Welch) and other establishment dignitaries* (e.g. Henry "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" Kissinger)
Dr. Chomsky recently told Iranian TV that at the time the US attacked Afganistan, they had no evidence that al Qaeda was guilty. See my video "Chomsky on Faith-based Wars and 9/11"
Look at how many views this clip gets. (Admittedly it's audio - and Chomsky is no great orator - or Rose for that matter). Nobody wants to know. Well said 'phooey' - mainstream liberals and conservatives have equally delusional opinions about the moral credibility of their leaders. The root of the problem can be traced to nationhood itself. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there. But the vast majority of citizens never even consider the evil and deceit underpinning their nation's ascendancy.
The book Hegemony or Survival by Chomsky, is superb. I highly recommend it to anyone concerned about the problems caused by the United Sates and their possible solutions. Every page has numerous instances of American terror and oppression, with notes of every source so the reader can check everything that is asserted. East Timor is mentioned in the book as well as this interview.
Isnt it funny that liberal Charlie Rose reacts the same way the conservative Buckley did in 1968, when Chomsky tore his "benevolent imperialism" thesis to shreds... Like Rose, Buckley, was stunned, offended at Chomsky's implication that Washington power players consistently act like the Mafia on the international stage. Just goes to show you that mainstream liberals and conservatives have equally delusional opinions about the moral credibility of their leaders.
@phooey108 Thank goodness you're above the current, O' Master. So much more informed about the secrets of the world than Bill & Charlie ... it must eat you apart knowing what you know.
I didnt say anything about Buckley or Rose's knowledge of world affairs. I made an assessment of their belief in the White House's moral virtue. Whatever else you've attributed to me is your own distortion and fabrication.
@phooey108 I think both these people, especially Bill who knew a few presidents personally, were well aware that theres no given "white house moral virtue(or vice)" that it depends on the president, the issues at hand,give special interest groups and other temporal factors. They understand their complexity and if they disagree with Prof. Chomsky it doesn't make them simpletons which is what you're implying.and "whatever else you've attributed to me" is from sarcasm,you're a master of cupcakes.
@phooey108 That's because Bill was a racist and white supremacist like the vast majority of so-called conservatives, right wingers, Republicans and Libertarian.
That's consistent with conservativism in the truest sense-which doesn't exist in this country-which is about a belief and support of basic institutions of which slavery was one.
Conservatives support the status quo and slavery was at one time the status quo.
Segregation was the same thing. The logic is consistent.
@phooey108 That is so true. Keith Olbermann and other liberal political commentators basically spout the same rhetorical blanks as the neo-cons when talking about terrorists. "Terrorists don't have a problem with our foreign policy, they hate our freedom and the freedom of America!" - yah... right.. nothing to do with a million dead people in the middle and the eroding of human rights when it suits them.
@canada2D Rose is famously a Conservative.
sringer007 5 days ago
lol it's funny to hear the interviewer. He clearly doesn't know the facts and yet still tries to argue.
peoman2 1 month ago
Oh yeah the Iraq war was awesome! I mean look at Iraq now in 2012 it's freaking paradise I wanna go for holidays there.
peoman2 1 month ago
My opinion of Charlie just dropped precipitously.
MultiMudskipper 2 months ago 2
It's amazing how Charlie can listen unflinchingly to the biggest liars and prevaricators of our age and yet when Chomsky is trying to drop some pretty obvious knowledge about American imperialism he does nothing but challenge him with talking points from establishment blowhards. Mr. Rose's interviews are nothing more than a pandering mouthpiece for the oligarchy.
fleebenworth 2 months ago 4
Am I the only one who finds the phrase "your own sense of international law" fucking hilarious? What a concept!
Philfa 6 months ago 3
@Philfa Nope.Count me in.
bozolazic 5 months ago
Charlie Rose treats Chomsky like all those red-faced pundits we love to hate on Fox News treat the mindless liberals they have on to pretend their shows are balanced. It's clear he doesn't want Chomsky's point to reach the listener: that US wars of aggression are not "mistakes" and that motives for US foreign policy are, by and large, profit-driven.
nocturnezero 7 months ago 2
This is very different from how Charlie Rose treated the future candidate and empty suit Obama a while back. If you don't have anything to say, he'll give you all day to say it. If you've got something real to say, expect him to try to shut you down. Puts him in the same catagory as Buckley and Jim Bohannon.
mattlove1 7 months ago 5
This is sure different than how respectfully Charlie Rose treated future candidate and empty suit Obama when he was on. If you don't have anything to say, Charlie will let you take the whole show to say it.
mattlove1 7 months ago
Thanks for making the effort of finding and uploading the articles.
toseeornot2see 9 months ago
Charlie Rose is such a tool. I think this is from the only interview he did with Chomsky, despite Chomsky being the most requested guest on his show, and the most important living intellectual. So much for Charlie being the thinking man's talk-show host. He couldn't stand having his cushy "America's great" worldview ripped to shreds by someone so much smarter and better informed than he was.
ast453000 9 months ago
@ast453000 "Rose is such a tool. I think this is from the only interview he did with Chomsky"
Keenly observed. Online there is indeed record of only 1 other (equally, if not more, adversarial) appearance and in Rose's absence. Perhaps to grant Rose the plausible deniability of 1. not being seen with Chomsky. 2.having him on yet signaling that Chomsky is not worth his time of day.
Compare to 51 appearances by Rose's buddy and war criminal Henry "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" Kissinger.
fctchk 5 months ago 2
@fctchk
I dont like Charlie Rose at all. Do not like his pandering to the establishment.
phooey108 5 months ago
CAN CHARLIE ROSE JUST SHUT UP WHEN HE HAS NO CLUE WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT...JESUS
cafeclash 10 months ago 4
Contrast Charlie -sycophant to the status quo- Rose's tone here to the one he deploys while fellating his show biz friends, captains of industry (e.g. Jack Welch) and other establishment dignitaries* (e.g. Henry "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" Kissinger)
*term used ironically.
fctchk 1 year ago
Hahahahah, "I met no Iraqi who said the war was a mistake" ! ! Hilarious.
8D
CaptainBluebear08 1 year ago
The majority of Iraqi's thought the invasion was to "to rob Iraq's oil", only 1% thought the US invaded for democracy.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Chomsky recently told Iranian TV that at the time the US attacked Afganistan, they had no evidence that al Qaeda was guilty. See my video "Chomsky on Faith-based Wars and 9/11"
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
Charlie is a patsy for the military industrial complex
TheMisterKewl 1 year ago 2
Look at how many views this clip gets. (Admittedly it's audio - and Chomsky is no great orator - or Rose for that matter). Nobody wants to know. Well said 'phooey' - mainstream liberals and conservatives have equally delusional opinions about the moral credibility of their leaders. The root of the problem can be traced to nationhood itself. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there. But the vast majority of citizens never even consider the evil and deceit underpinning their nation's ascendancy.
iankclark 1 year ago
Mr. Rose, you sir are an idiot
mogem 1 year ago 5
What a poorly conducted interview by Rose....very unprofessional of him.
RLove99 1 year ago 5
The book Hegemony or Survival by Chomsky, is superb. I highly recommend it to anyone concerned about the problems caused by the United Sates and their possible solutions. Every page has numerous instances of American terror and oppression, with notes of every source so the reader can check everything that is asserted. East Timor is mentioned in the book as well as this interview.
beradification 1 year ago 2
Jesus Christ, stfu and let Chomsky answer a question without interruption.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago 6
If Charlie Rose would just shut up and listen he might learn something and appeal to more intelligent people. Who cares what he's sure of.
canada2D 1 year ago 23
@canada2D
Isnt it funny that liberal Charlie Rose reacts the same way the conservative Buckley did in 1968, when Chomsky tore his "benevolent imperialism" thesis to shreds... Like Rose, Buckley, was stunned, offended at Chomsky's implication that Washington power players consistently act like the Mafia on the international stage. Just goes to show you that mainstream liberals and conservatives have equally delusional opinions about the moral credibility of their leaders.
phooey108 1 year ago 39
@phooey108 Thank goodness you're above the current, O' Master. So much more informed about the secrets of the world than Bill & Charlie ... it must eat you apart knowing what you know.
xtrmsprts 1 year ago
@xtrmsprts
I didnt say anything about Buckley or Rose's knowledge of world affairs. I made an assessment of their belief in the White House's moral virtue. Whatever else you've attributed to me is your own distortion and fabrication.
phooey108 1 year ago 4
@phooey108 I think both these people, especially Bill who knew a few presidents personally, were well aware that theres no given "white house moral virtue(or vice)" that it depends on the president, the issues at hand,give special interest groups and other temporal factors. They understand their complexity and if they disagree with Prof. Chomsky it doesn't make them simpletons which is what you're implying.and "whatever else you've attributed to me" is from sarcasm,you're a master of cupcakes.
xtrmsprts 1 year ago
@xtrmsprts shame that good ole "Bill" saw virtue in the destruction of Vietnam but not in desegregation.
phooey108 1 year ago 2
@phooey108 That's because Bill was a racist and white supremacist like the vast majority of so-called conservatives, right wingers, Republicans and Libertarian.
That's consistent with conservativism in the truest sense-which doesn't exist in this country-which is about a belief and support of basic institutions of which slavery was one.
Conservatives support the status quo and slavery was at one time the status quo.
Segregation was the same thing. The logic is consistent.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@phooey108 That is so true. Keith Olbermann and other liberal political commentators basically spout the same rhetorical blanks as the neo-cons when talking about terrorists. "Terrorists don't have a problem with our foreign policy, they hate our freedom and the freedom of America!" - yah... right.. nothing to do with a million dead people in the middle and the eroding of human rights when it suits them.
EllyMcCormack 1 year ago 2
@phooey108
Thanks for that.
Enlightening.
3soccerstars 11 months ago
@phooey108 well said, and yeah it's crazy how similar Buckley and Rose were towards Noam.
duftyboxing 4 months ago in playlist kingdom of survival
Thanks for the citation. Chomsky is erudite and illuminating as usual.
MyMelancholyDodo 1 year ago 7