Richard Holbrooke was pretty testy last night on C.Rose.(Iraq)

Holbrooke was on again last night and he seemed tired, testy and barely holding his tongue with Charlie Rose as they discussed Iraq.

Rose kept trying to put a spin on the war, trying to soften the edges about the Administration's actions. But Holbrooke would have none of it. He icily corrected Rose's rendition of the UN/US game before the war...he said the US just decided to ahead after Rose tried to say that the US had gotten UN approval (Holbrooke explained the resolutions).

He repeated several times, like a parent getting impatient with a child, that the issue is the situation on the ground and if in 12 months the "feel" is the same as it is now, then things will be really dire. He commented, "What possessed the people in the Administration to NOT follow a formula that had worked twice before, in E. Timor and in the Balkans...where the UN handles the governance." He said that it was the governance issue that is the key and for the US to go in there and take over was a huge mistake.

He accused the Bushies of weakening the UN, which was a huge mistake.

He talked about the split in the Admin. He thinks Powell "gets it" but he doesn't know about anybody else. He said that no matter who goes in there....Norwegians, Pakistanis,...that will only scratch the surface of solving the security problems in Iraq.

Holbrooke, former Amb. to the UN and Assistant Sec. of State (I think) was really testier than I had ever seen him. There was a lot more said, but that's the gist of it. What struck was the tone...Holbrooke seemed like he was really working hard to control his anger.

would be a fantastic Secretary of State for any of the candidates. He's a brilliant negotiator and could certainly go a long way in repairing the damage the Bush Admin. has done with our allies.

Talked about the professional military leaders rebelling against current policies. That's today's headline article in the WPost.

There was visible tension throughout the half-hour.

beyond that I think Holbrook is wrong as well.


The UN has never been anything but a tool for the elites.

Did Iraq pose a threat to the U.S.? NO

So the invasion was wrong. Period UN or NOT

that he was for the original UN resolution and felt if Milosevic could be held accountable, so could Hussein.

However, he was very clear in saying that the Admin. did not want to really form an international consensus for pressuring Hussein....and that it just went ahead on its own because it wanted to. I don't think Holbrooke was espousing the view that actual conflict should have been the UN's goal....I think he was trying to say that the Admin. circumvented the UN by refusing to consider following the UN model that had been used previously if some action was decided on by the UN.
He used the word "model"....he believes it could have been used rather than unilateral action by the US...if the situation had to come to intervention in the end, after UN consensus.

He left no doubt that he felt that the UN was important and that he was very angry at what the US had done to undermine it.

Thank you so much for summarizing it so well, Gloria!

:toast:

Does Charlie Rose make transcripts available online?

Holbrooke is one of those guys who's been in the middle of things his whole life. He does things, and is not a talking head, pundit, general gasbag, or hack appointee.

He's been the person responsible for negotiating in more situations than I can remember, and for many administrations. He's never been an ideologue, but just tried to get the job done.

After all of the real work he's done, I can well understand his frustration and anger at these idiots destroying it.

And, for what?

where he admonished aWol to try to understand the UN issues by talking with his dad, Bush I, who Holbrooke called "one of the most distinguished" of his predecessors as UN ambassador. Had the same, almost weary tone, like about to run out of patience with children playing with fire. Holbrooke is very good at what he does, and I am usually in agreement.