My stars and stripes! We’ve got a veritable lovefest going on with the gentleman. It’s great to know that the very positive Negroponte is after all capable of engaging in a positive way in a relationship that is healthy and positive!

Unlike my relationship with TypeKey, which has apparently booted any memory of my existence out of its memory banks. Tsk.

did you wonder at all about the accusations of him killing prisoners?

Thanks for posting the extra questions, Chris. It adds something to a story to have someone you know asking the questions.

I only had 20 mins scheduled with him, which I was able to stretch to 25. It was frustrating, to say the least. The lack of followup was definitely a limitation — since I had a lot of ground to cover — and asking about unconfirmed rumors would have been an indulgence. But I did have fantasies of ending the interview with, “Oh, and by the way, did you really smoke those six guys?” Alas. The questions they chose to run are much better questions, by the way, and I hope to get a link to them soon.

Allawi on the Americans:

Frankly, the relationship with the United States is very friendly, very positive. We appreciate what the United States has done to Iraq, starting from liberation, post-liberation. Now, the United States is helping in the reconstruction of Iraq…

…

A reply that is, simultaneously, mundanely political (mustn’t bite the hand that feeds after all) and extraordinarily fanciful for both practical and philosophical reasons.

The practical reasons are the various failures of the reconstruction effort - which seems to mostly be a pork barrel project for favored firms (mostly American). Yes, I know, many fine people are trying their best to help. This is good but has no relationship to the motivations and manipulations of Halliburton et al which have a larger negative impact.

The philosophical is Allawi’s refusal to (publicly) identify even a small area of disagreement or disappointment. You can imagine a loving wife who’s absolutely mad about her spouse having something to complain about - such is the nature of life; no one’s perfect.

But Mr. Allawi searches his thoughts and can only reply that the angels have blessed him with these flawless Americans who do no wrong - ever.

Ironically, he reveals, by his over praise, how desperate his situation is.

And regarding the independent judiciary he sees…

Imagine that a massive complex housing Chinese troops and bureaucratic personnel – a “green zone” if you will – was somewhere near the heart of Washington, DC. Imagine further that Chinese troops were performing bombing campaigns, sieges and raids (justifiable or not) across the US. Could any decision made by the Supreme Court, or any court of the Chinese sponsored “interim” US government under such circumstances be accurately called independent?

Yet somehow, with Iraq in precisely this situation (only replace “Chinese” with American) we’re supposed to believe that rulings against al Sadr were impartially reached and rulings against al Chalabi were in no way motivated by his quite public falling out with powerful elements in Washington (as opposed to a sudden interest in his long known and varied crimes).

Woo hoo! Walking the halls with the Iraqi Big Dog….did you get a good shot of you and him pacing the hall like Dan Rather did with Saddam?

Nice going, brother!

Yeah!

A stunning insight into the true depth of Allawi’s “democratic” inclinations:

Battle for Iraq’s future

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=551871

Donald Macintyre in Najaf

16 August 2004

{Quote}

Democracy was a long way from Najaf yesterday. As fighting resumed in the Shia holy city, Iyad Allawi’s government moved to impose an authoritarian media clampdown before any full-scale assault on the holy sites which insurgents have made their base. …

{End Quote}

[Impartial witnesses are quite a “nuisance” in any planned massacre!] }8-(

Nice score, the interview with Allawi. Can’t wait to read the rest of it when it’s available - thanks for posting the extra questions for us. Thanks for NOT asking him if he really smoked those 6 guys and thus ruining any chance of another session with him. Good job, Chris.

to Gail,

perfect attitude, don’t piss him off because he might get upset? This is way most media handle Bush,et al Dictators.

How about asking him about his alleged CIA activities, including car bombings during the former regime. But then again pissing Alawi off might not get you out of Iraq, RIGHT?

Well, one the one hand, congrats on getting access to Allawi, but there’s nothing I see particularly newsworthy in this here. You asked him the questions he wanted you to, and answered them to his choosing. It sort of reminds me of what Robert Mc Namara says in “The Fog of War,” where he says, in effect, rather answer the questions you are asked, simply give answers to the questions you want asked.

I’m wondering if you spend much time reading “Informed Comment,” “1001 Nights,” “Telling it Like It is,” “Healing Iraq,” or any of a number of other blogs which offer up some pretty substantive background and insight. As you work for Time, I think you would be doing a greater service to Americans in understanding what’s going on by tapping into this, which is not to say direct sources aren’t the better choice, but to say that they should temper your understanding of those direct sources and their agendas.

To some extent, understanding the Iraqi situation, beyong the obvious risks of being there, is much like figuring the real story of what happened in “Rashamon.”

Presently, it seems like the real story is happening outside of Bagdad, and I wonder if the conference is just another set of smoke and mirrors, particularly when 19 of 81 positions for the transitional council are already guaranteed to exiles sans Chalabi. I am even moreso convinced by Allawi’s demand that reporters leave Najaf, which clearly has ominous overtones.

As much as I believe Iraqis want peace, I also feel they are truly suspicious of Allawi and for good reason. In this respect, rather than an interview from Allawi, I want to hear and know about these folks. If any of them were at this conference, I’d be working the room to pick their brains.

What’s his favorite movie? Big Mac or Whopper?

Great opportunity to mouth off some ludicrous talking points to a dictaphone journo. Recall when Bush was interviewed by that Irish lady? She spent the first half very carefully calling him on the bullshit and then just gave up after he got all indignant and tried to reassert some authority by asking to “finish” sentences he never started (ah, Bushism grammar).

This stuff is the equivalent of a verbose blow job.

gmJtt: I wonder if CA has ever read the Bremer’s edicts specifically order 92 which empowers and authorizes a 7-member electoral commission (an unelected body) to disqualify any party or any candidate they disapprove of. I wonder he’s read order 39 which is basically a free trade agreement without the negotiations (i.e, liberating iraq from the Iraqis).

Yes, I’ve read them. They weren’t exactly germane to the news of the moment — Najaf and al-Sadr — though. I had 20 minutes. And the guy doesn’t speak so quickly. I was able to stretch it to 25 minutes. There’s only so many questions one can get in. Am I supposed to eat up 2-3 minutes with a question like, “So, were you a CIA agent back in the 1970s?” What do you think he’s going to say? “Yes, and let me tell you all about my activities…”? I mean, c’mon guys. Be a little more realistic.

I’m as unimpressed with American-style journalism as the next person but I really think folks should give Chris something of a break here.

He’s not the problem. The problem is the fact that to gain much coveted access you must be seen as safe (no rudely uncomfortable questions). You must ask questions with almost no hope of follow-up or the presentation of historical context. You must be a time manager (since you’re allotted so little of it with the great). And you must report rather blandly on the proceedings so there’s a hope you’ll have a chance to do it all again.

This means that it’s up to each of us, as readers, to fill in the blanks and provide the necessary context for an interviewee’s words. It also means that the interview format – as presently configured – is essentially useless as a source for comprehensive info (even on a narrow topic).

Allawi’s statements are absurd and if you accept them without critical analysis you’ll be lost. However, it’s not realistic for any of us to expect Chris to point this out – explicitly or implicitly – because he needs to retain his employment and reputation for “impartiality” You can’t do that if you defy the unwritten rules of soft engagement.

It’s easier for non-American journalists, not employed by American firms, to write critically of American actions (or the actions of American sponsored governments and quasi-governments) because the stakes for them of doing so are not high.

I wonder how Robert Fisk would conduct the interview,

mu issue with Chris is that he is risking HIS OWN neck in pursuit of experience/opportunity/journalism, basically you are freelance? So one hand I understand the not wanting to ask questions that may alienate you/cause future problems, however the opportunity presented itself to go against mainstream questions that would give you a certain individuality. But instead this interview might as well be from Parade magazine. I’m happy you give us, your reader the ability to comment, I don’t think anyone here is trying to beat you up needlessly. my own opinion, but if you are going to risk your neck then bring some meat.

I don’t think the question of Allawi working with the CIA is some conspiracy nut theory, easily cast aside, but a precursor into the kind of people America likes to put into “up and coming deomcracies” How many ex-CIA guys are we/have we had to against later? Noriega, Osama, Saddam, etc. THE REASON AMERICA IS FIGHTING IN IRAQ DUE TO THE SO_CALLED WMD, IS BECAUSE OF JOURNALISTS LIKE JUDITH MILLER AND THE NYT FAILING TO ASK,FOLLOW UP AND QUESTION THE INFORMATION FED TO THEM!

Your point is well-taken, D. Monroe, and far more clearly expressed than my previous attempt.

Chris, thanks for making the other questions available to us so quickly. It helped to flesh out the interview for me somewhat. It seems obvious to me that the wishes of some of my fellow posters for a more confrontational approach are understandable, and equally obvious that creating a hostile atmosphere during your interview would (a) not gain you much, and (b) likely prevent you from getting another one in which Allawi might be more forthcoming. I know nothing about journalism, but my mother once suggested to me that one is able to catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and I suspect that holds true for interviews as well. When the subject is put at his ease, more infomation might come out than would if he were instantly put on the defensive. At any rate, good job and thanks for getting us this information so fast.

I’m disappointed. It may be a slippery slope but what good is it if you turn into Katy Curic.

Chris: Why should you not be more “realistic”? Most posters understand how the softball ? game is played. (Tune in to the White House Press Corp’s greased-up love fest with Scotty if in doubt.) See, it is this BRAND of journalism that is under verbal fire; the going-through-the-motions type of role playing. What is mildly irritating, and this is where it gets personal if you like, is that you set yourself up as a blogger type journo with an independent streak (and a flair for pyramid schemes), now turned blow-job serviceman for the establishment figures. In short, a media whore. Your views on Sadr posted below are frankly disturbed. When did it become your job to rationalize murder and declare people disposable based on shallow ideological pretexts? The answer: as a TIME man. That’s what they do, mostly, and deem it most “realistic,” even inevitable, within their own wired bubble of manufactured consent. You are now, it seems, a full-time defender of this faith, who even gets assy with those who put a needle to the inflated opinions composed by some rather sizeable measure of hot besserwisser air, that is to say “journalism.” Psychoanalytically speaking, one could say you inherently sympathize with Allawi and his murky game due to your own situation of always speaking in tongues and according to scripts (yes, I read the rest of the interview). If silence speaks between the lines, as some suggest, we should all shut up.

See, the redeeming factor in all this is to offer a mea culpa through acts and actions. Fisk, I am told by Fisk, always works alone. But this is all deaf ears stuff. The ultimate purpose here is plainly to develop a career in the media brothel and that is only done by rolling over on command. In this sense, you are a good journalist.

Actually, I think there is interesting information in the questions posted here. In his answer about “what’s improved/deteriorated”, Allawi seemed quite embarassed. Rather than discuss the situation, he is almost apologising about how little he has done. When people say “i’ve done a lot, considering the short period”, I think it is a sign they think “I haven’t done much”. Why would they mention the short period of time, otherwise?

The only meningful move he seemed to have done was to replace a Chalabi-owned army by an Iraqi army (hopefully not Allawi-owned). The results on the security issue are likely none (yet), since he does not mention them (I expect he would mention them if there were any).

For the rest, he’s been setting up meetings, shaking hands and “visiting the region”.

About journalists being too nice with politics: this is an unavoidable issue, since politics choose who can interview them and who cannot. Only gentle reporters can get a chance to get an interview. The only way you can get interesting answers from politics is to have them believe you are nice, and then catch them by surprise live on TV, after 15 minutes of dumb nice questions.

If anyone cares, the anonymous post above was mine

(the Name: field is erased after clicking on “preview” (actually it’s erased after clicking on anything))

Sorry Chris — I find what is posted here and the Time piece merely depressing.

Time gives half the byline to Allawi and that seems appropriate. He is writing the story — you seem reduced to taking dictation of this spin points.

Unless “journalists” claim the right to contextualize and to challenge, more and more people are simply not going to attend to anything journalists produce — and rightly so.

I sympathize with both Chris and his acerbic critics. This very interesting exchange has reinforced the notion that little of value can be expected of American journalists whose jobs require them to maintain access to power.

Ultimately the real culprit is us, the sheeplike American people.

You could have phrased the question in this way:

Does Allwari support public accusations of murder based on rumour?…For example, the cleric Moqtada Sadr, who has been accused of murdering someone while he wasn’t even present…i.e., the murder Sadr is accused of committing occured in a mosque during a spontaneous altercation…a rival cleric was killed shortly after the occupation of Iraq by Americans began.

So, while Sadr is accused of that murder constantly by the neoconservative western press [including such papers as the NYT, WaPo, etc.], at the same time, other murders witnessed by several independent witnesses are not investigated in Iraq or reported on by the media. Does Allwari support this approach to justice?

two thoughts, if you have time to respond it would be welcome.

1. were you aware of the threat made to journalists in Najaf that they can/would be arrested/killed if they stayed, when you interviewed Allawi? Can you comment on the effects of that policy?

2. personally in my view I think you should continue and concentrate on the man/woman on the street interviews, that is something no one really does. we read short quips and quotes from people but get to the heart of the matter, flesh out these people for us, some people do have the attention span and compassion. In that note I am reminded of a story about a young Marlon Brando in Paris being interviewed at a cafe, he was asked by the reporter to comment on a race relations regarding the tensions and racism in the world, he scanned the crowd and calling out to a young black woman in French he asked her to answer the question. If you could bring ordinary Iraqi people with you during interview with Allawi to ask him the questions that need answers from Iraqis it would have been more relevent, important, unprecedented and meaningful, then maybe we could hear the important questions.

I agree completely, that it is of utmost importance to talk to/listen to the people in the streets, at work, the people who have no voice. Again, that quote from Edward R. Morrow comes to mind —“It is the duty of a newspaperman to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable.” Many of us have a fierce need to know what is happening on a daily basis in the streets, neighborhoods and what is in the guts of the diverse Iraqi citizenry. There are a multitude of media simply amplifying the printed memos and spoken scripts stated by the powers that are. Please fill a void. Perhaps that is asking too much of a profession where individual journalists’ very existence is at stake when they are true to their mission.

A very good job you are doing here, brother.

Iam a retired afp bureai chief ans still longing for the fields.

Suggest you to read in www.nouvelobs.com their last cover story on murdered and kidnapped reporters. As well as “a reporter’s life in Irak” in “Le courrier international, weekly, Paris. A nice and attractive writtien by “Rolling Stone (NYV) Janet Reiman, reprinted in “Le couriier internationa” in french in their last 2 - 8 sept 04 issue. www.courrierinternational.com.

Cordialement