Karl Rove’s Astounding Interview with Charlie Rose

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
November 23, 2007 - 00:37 ET

On Wednesday evening, former White House adviser and current Newsweek columnist Karl Rove sat down with PBS's Charlie Rose for one of the most astounding interviews I've seen in a while.

From the Iraq war, to the Valerie Plame scandal and media bias, there was something for everyone in this 51-minute segment.

In particular, near the end, Rove stated that the White House wished the October 2002 war resolution vote in Congress would have been delayed until after the elections.

That's not part of the conventional wisdom from today's press, is it?

Some of the highlights were (video available here):

  • I want to write a book that I hope will be compelling and interesting and will give people a sense of several things. First, of how we got there and what we did once we got there, of how the place works. I`d like to have people -- I`d like it to be durable, so I want people to understand what really happened and why it happened the way that it happened, and to do so in a way that they find interesting to read and interesting to talk about.
  • Look, when the most skeptical parts of the media, "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post" and the evening networks acknowledge the progress in Iraq, then there`s progress in Iraq...What it says is that the reality on the ground in Iraq has become even impossible for serious critics like "The New York Times" to ignore.
  • If -- if 10 years from now, Iraq is a functioning democracy, not a New England townhall meeting, but looks democratic with democratically elected...A relatively stable democracy...In which -- a federalist society in which Shia, Sunni, Kurd, Christian can all live, and it can defend itself against external enemies and is an ally in the global war on terror, history is going to make a judgment about this president...It will be the same treatment that we had for example, of Harry S. Truman when South Korea emerged as a major economic power that is an ally of the United States of America and an important bulwark in the front -- the front of freedom in the Far East...It`s going to require the same kind of commitment from the United States, however, which was we not only stabilized it -- South Korea -- but then in an appropriate way, we remained in the region, both in Japan and Korea.
  • You can make an argument that the surge should not have been implemented in January, but the surge should have been implemented at an earlier state. It should have been implemented -- the Samarra mosque sent the violence in a dramatically different direction, and we should have begun to send additional troops there not in January, but in November, or August, or September or October. And I understand that argument and I have sympathy for that argument.
  • I also know how much discussion there was about it. I also know how much opposition there was. I mean, remember, we have Democrats in Congress today who can`t acknowledge the success that`s on the front page of "The New York Times" or in the editorial column of "The Washington Post." We have -- we just had a debate in which we had virtually every single member of the Democratic pack running for president stand up and call the war lost. I mean, I was astonished at the debate in Las Vegas.
  • I do have a theory, though, about the Internet. And I think the Internet grants people a pseudo anonymity that allows them to say things that they would never say to somebody in person, would never put in a letter. But feel comfortable saying as accepted political discourse on the Internet. And after a while, you know, it becomes ingrained as -- you know, as accepted practice.
  • If you can`t find any proof or evidence, Rove did it...By the absence of proof. He`s so good, that by the absence of it, he did it...I read about things that I supposedly do or am capable of doing that make me laugh.
  • [O]ne of the untold stories about the war is why did the United States Congress, the United States Senate, vote on the war resolution in the fall of 2002...This administration was opposed to it...Because we didn`t think it belonged within the confines of the election. There was an election coming up within a matter of weeks. We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of it. It seemed to make things move too fast. There were things that needed to be done to bring along allies and potential allies abroad, and yet...There was a vote, and I`m -- I`m...But it happened. We don`t determine when the Congress votes on things. The Congress does...It would have been better for the country had we been able to resolve that issue after the election -- maybe before the new Congress came in -- whatever. But instead -- and the story will be told later -- we didn`t.

Honestly amazing stuff.

Do yourself a favor and take 51 minutes out of your long weekend to watch the whole thing.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Charlie

November 23, 2007 - 01:16 ET by KC Mulville

I saw this on PBS, and I want to applaud Charlie Rose. He clearly didn't agree with Karl Rove, but he allowed Karl to speak. (Since Rose and Rove are easily conflated, I'll use first names.) It was fair journalism, the kind we actually want to see. And, as Noel points out, Charlie got a much more interesting interview. 

  • For instance, when talking about the surge, Charlie wanted to say that success has more to do with the rejection of al-Qaeda than any strategy by us. Charlie made his point, but he gave Karl time to promote the Petraeus strategy.

Nobody would walk away from that interview thinking that Charlie was a stalwart neocon, but he gave Karl a fair chance to speak. That was refreshing.

Noel...

November 23, 2007 - 02:29 ET by MrShy

Great blog post, and thanks for bringing that interview to our attention... and for the link to the Google video, which I just watched!

Here is one exchange that I really think is the highlight, and something Rove unequivocally states regarding the MSM:

KARL ROVE: Look, when the most skeptical parts of the media.... The NY Times and The Washington Post and the evening networks.... acknowledge the progress in Iraq, then there's progress in Iraq.

CHARLIE ROSE: Okay, progress in Iraq... but doesn't that also say that the press all along has been doing the best job they could to report the facts on the ground as they saw them...

KARL ROVE: No.... No... No.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why doesn't it? Why doesn't that inexorably lead to that reality?

KARL ROVE: What it says is, is that the reality on the ground in Iraq has become even impossible for... for serious critics like the NY Times to ignore.

 

"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)

Noel...

November 23, 2007 - 02:51 ET by Jer

I hope your Thanksgiving was a good one (yours too, KC).  I did not see the interview and have not watched the video yet, but I will, particularly in light of yours and KC's comments.

I was disappointed at the time, and have continued to be, over the administration's decision to reject the request by the Democratic leadership to delay the vote on the authorizing resolution until after the 2002 mid-term elections.  The reason was obvious:  to back the Democrats in a corner and force their hand, so that a "No" vote could be used against them in the forthcoming campaign.  From the standpoint of pure political strategy, the decision made perfect sense.  But for a significant issue of foreign policy with potentially ominous implications--a pre-emtive war no less--it would have been desirable, and a demonstration of true statesmanship, if politics could have been lain aside, and a "real" debate permitted attendant to a vote after the results of the Congressional races.

After all, the Democrats had almost uniformly rallied behind Bush in the aftermath of 9/11.  Their reward was to be ensnared in a classic political trap.

That said, in the highly charged partisan climate of the past couple of decades, I will be the first to concede the probablility, that if the situation were reversed, the Democrats would have behaved likewise.

Jer  

So Jer, are you saying?

November 23, 2007 - 10:56 ET by timothe

That it was the Democratic leadership, not the Bush administration, who attempted to hold up the war resolution vote until after the elections in 2002?  I'm going to have to research this further.

OK, I've looked into this further and determined that you are right, Jer.  Here is the link from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64509-2002Sep10?language=printer 

It bothers me that Rove said what he said. 

However, I want to add this quote and comment on it.

"It is, of course, impossible to say whether more Democrats would have opposed the war resolution — which passed the Senate 77 to 23 on Oct. 11, just hours after the House approved it 296 to 133 — if the vote had occurred after the 2002 election."

So the Bush administration forced the vote before the 2002 election.  But why exactly were they able to get the results they wanted?  You could say it was politics that caused the vote in October 2002, but if the Democrats really believed the evidence was weak, why didn't they stand their ground collectively?  Isn't it just as political for the Dems to vote against their beliefs to get elected as it is for the administration to call the vote when they did?

Jer and Timothe

November 23, 2007 - 12:47 ET by Noel Sheppard

Jer and Timothe,

To begin with, I must say that this was the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that the White House was opposed to a war resolution vote prior to Election Day 2002, and that it was the Dems that pushed for it.

In all fairness, I wasn't focusing nearly the attention towards media bias at the time, and would have to do a lot of research to confirm Rove's position.

That said, I find the WaPo piece Timothe linked to fascinating for a variety of reasons, and don't believe this disqualifies Rove's assertions. Before we get there, isn't it interesting that here's a 9/11/02 front-page Post article expressing great skepticism concerning the White House's position on the war?

I thought all these media outlets were beating the drums backing the neocons. Isn't that what the left and the media have been saying for several years now? Doesn't this article somewhat discredit this position? Think I could find many front-page articles like it at the Post, NYT, USA Today, and other mainstream dailies?

That said, as this piece was written more than a month prior to the actual Congressional votes, I'm not sure it discredits Rove's view. After all, as the article noted, this was before Bush's speech to the UN. So, the push towards war just beginning. I'd be interested in seeing news reports subsequent to that speech.

Please understand that I am not trying to defend Rove's position. I, too, had not heard that. I've felt probably similar to you that the Administration pushed this forward thinking that Democrats up for re-election or having presidential aspirations would vote for their political futures rather than with their hearts.

Of course, on the flipside, is it possible that such folks wanted the vote before the elections so that they could present themselves as hawks to a nation looking for 9/11 revenge? Is it possible, or do you totally discredit this?

Is it also possible that the press at the time created the appearance that the urgency was coming from the White House as a function of their own biases, and that this is indeed why such has become conventional wisdom? Think about it. ns

Noel,  when I [admittedly]

November 23, 2007 - 13:14 ET by Jer

Noel,  when I [admittedly] skimmed your post late last night, my impression was that Rove was expressing a mea culpa of sorts for the timing of the Congressional resolution vote.

My recollection is that the administration's position was that Congressional authorization was unnecessary, whereas the Democrats were of the opposite view and pressed for one.  Consequently, the Republican Congressional leadership, presumably in concert with Bush [and Rove], said, in essence, "fine, we'll go the resolution route, but we're going to go forward with it now--not after the elections."

If the scenario was otherwise, I'll be surprised, but it wouldn't be the first time.

Jer

 

 

Two comments

November 23, 2007 - 15:40 ET by KC Mulville

  1. First, Rove promises that there is an untold story here. OK, before I speculate on what was going on, I’d like to hear the untold story told.

  2. Second, I’m not entirely sure that it makes any difference. We didn’t discover that the evidence was wrong until after the invasion. Before the invasion, everyone agreed to the evidence; the only question was how to respond to it. We now look back and know that the evidence was wrong, but no one thought that at the time. Further discussion wouldn’t have changed minds about the evidence. That’s why I don’t think it makes much difference when the debate took place. The result would likely have been the same.

Of course, I might be wrong about that. I’m open to persuasion on this one. I’d like to hear more before coming to a conviction.

KC...Let me summarize

November 23, 2007 - 18:51 ET by Jer

KC...Let me summarize (briefly, and at the risk of oversimplification) my thinking at the time, which I am sure reflected that of many anti-Iraq War Democrats:

--I was very supportive of Bush and the war on terror.  I fully supported agressive military action in Afghanistan, the ouster of the Taliban, the pacification of that country, and an unrelenting pursuit, capture and/or liquidation of bin Laden and Al Quaeda.  Frankly, I would have liked nothing better than for the CIA, Army Rangers, Special Forces, Seals, or regular military to come back with bin Laden's head in a bag.

--I felt that the invasion of Iraq might prove to be an unnecessary distraction and hindrance to the larger objectives of the WOT.  That a pre-emptive, essentially unilateral action might have the unintended consequences of producing more terrorists than we eliminated, while eroding the confidence and support of our allies. 

--That a military victory over Saddam [admittedly a monstrous, murdering thug] would be relatively easy, but creating a democracy in a state without democratic traditions, and inhabited by antagonistic religious factions would be extrememly difficult if not impossible.

--That unless Saddam were on the verge of developing deliverable nuclear weapons within the very near future, the arugments against the war outweighed those in its favor

--That Saddam could be kept in his box through comprehensive inspections and the threat of overwhelming military force in case of noncompliance 

--Many of my fears were borne out.  However, I recognize the recent positive deveopments and applaud them.  Iraq may turn out to be a resounding success, and if so Bush's perseverence should be praised by historians.  That will be fine with me.  I want what is best for my country, whether it is achieved by Democrats or Republicans. 

Jer 

At the time

November 24, 2007 - 18:15 ET by KC Mulville

Jer, that sounds reasonable to me.

I remember that I was all for getting Saddam. What sticks in my memory was Bill Clinton's interview on Larry King. He told King that as soon as he heard about the Twin Towers, he knew it was bin Laden. Clinton wanted us to praise his insight, I guess.

  • But what occurred to me was: you knew about this guy and didn't stop him? It floored me that a president knew Osama was plotting to attack us, but did nothing.
  • So when they started building the case against Saddam, I was all for it. I thought that we couldn't afford to sit and wait for another 9/11. Saddam had already done enough to justify regime change, so it seemed obvious to me that we needed to take him out.

I still think it was the right strategy. But the military was convinced that Baghdad was going to require a long siege. The reason they didn't finish off Saddam (after the first Gulf War) was that they thought that the Iraqis would defend Baghdad to the death. Remember the predictions of 5,000 dead in the first wave? Now we look back, of course, and wonder how anyone could predict such resistance from Saddam's army. Those guys fled at the first sign of trouble. Ironically, though, it left the US military prepared for a siege that didn't happen, buy unprepared for what did happen.

Just goes to prove the military slogan that the best plans are useless after the first shot.

  • Side point: You know what I think the turning point in the war was? The alleged looting of the Iraqi National Museum. Just when we wanted (and needed) the local Iraqis to help us, the appearance of chaos and anarchy blew our best chance for trust. Of course, the story turned out to be mostly false, but the damage was done.

MSM silenced much useful material during leadup to Iraq War

November 23, 2007 - 14:53 ET by Gary Hall

MSM silenced much useful material during leadup to Iraq War, and after it began.. 

A very interesting discussion indeed Noel, et. all. Your view that indeed this MSM  "[was not] beating the drums backing the neocons," is as sane as it comes. It's worth adding to this discussion a few other substantial points that this MSM also kept out of the overall national debate:

- The Clinton administration not only felt during their term that in matters such as Kosovo and Iraq, the President did not need either congressional nor UN resolutions in order conduct such military action, Clinton, himself and others of his administration were out basicly supporting Bush in 2002 and 2003, as well -- well, here's the general view:

  • In a January, 1999, letter to Representative Tom Campbell, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger stated:

"This administration, like previous administrations, takes the view that the president has broad authority, as commander-in-chief and under his authority to conduct foreign relations, to authorize the use of force in the national interest."

  • Clinton hopes Saddam will 'come to his senses'Sunday, February 9, 2003 LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton said he hopes President Bush gets the support of the United Nations before undertaking any military action against Iraq, but he said international law doesn't require that he do so. ..

     

Also never carried by the media were the strong words of Bill Clinton off and on, most notably with Larry King, in July of 2003, where Clinton defended President Bush on the infamous "16 words in the SOTU address," on the then current need to do all we can to bring democracy to the people of Iraq, and for all of us to work together to do what is best for Iraq.

The MSM has a keen interest in the views of Bill Clinton when he criticized Bush; never when he offers up support for the cause.

It was a great interview.

November 23, 2007 - 18:05 ET by Keith

It was a great interview. Great look inside the mind of a political genius. Great look at Charlie Rose too. Is there a left wing talking point that he didn't lead with? I do have to say that Rove's reluctance to call Rose on some of his junk got on my nerves though. I don't know which numbnutz introduced the idea of "not effectively fighting back when attacked" as it relates to politics but he should be drawn and quartered. When Rose was hammering Rove about the "LEAKING OF A CIA AGENT NAME, blah blah blah" why didn't Rose say,  "Hey we couldn't have leaked her friggin' name, her names been published since the Clinton Administration. That's right Charlie, you sit there "with that little grin on your face doing the bidding of your left wing masters" when all the while this fraud and her husband were listed in WHO'S WHO. Then Rove would , with appropriate flourish of course, whip out a three feet tall screen shot of this gem.....Perhaps he could even point to the "SUPER SECRET DOUBLE DECODER RING SPY NAME". Valerie Elise Plame. Listed under wife of idiot ambassador Joe Wilson....Just a thought. 

Here's a shot of Who's Who from Wizbang: 

"Copyright (c) 2002 by Reed Elsevier, Inc." 

EXIT QUESTION: "How can you leak something that's been PUBLISHED".........