text:
Journal Sentinel TV and film critic Duane Dudek looks at life on the small and big screen, and some of the cool stuff on both.
'CBS Morning Show' transcript of '60 Minutes' Benghazi apology
In a dramatic and unusual move by a network news division, CBS announced that "60 Minutes" will recant its Oct. 27 report on the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last year, which was based on information on a security officer's account of events.
It was recently revealed that the account upon which reporter Lara Logan's story was based was was different from the story he told the FBI.
Logan told "CBS Morning Show" anchors Nora O'Donnell and Jeff Glor that "60 Minutes" will apologize for the report Sunday.
Below is a transcript of Logan's appearance on the "CBS morning show".
O'DONNELL: "60 Minutes" has learned of new information that undercuts its October 27th account of an ex-security officer who called himself Morgan Jones. His real name is Dylan Davies, and he recounted to Lara Logan, in great detail, what he claimed were his actions on the night of the attack on the Benghazi compound. Lara joins us this morning. Lara, good morning. What can you tell us?
LOGAN: The most important thing to every person at "60 Minutes" is the truth, and today the truth is that we made a mistake. That's very disappointing for any journalist. It's very disappointing for me. Nobody likes to admit that they made a mistake, but if you do, you have to stand up and take responsibility and you have to say that you were wrong.
And in this case, we were wrong. We made a mistake. And how did this happen? Well, Dylan Davies worked for the State Department in Libya, was the manager of the local guard force at the Benghazi Special Mission compound.
He described for us his actions the night of the attack, saying he had entered the compound and had a confrontation with one of the attackers, and that he had seen the body of Ambassador Chris Stevens in a local hospital.
And after our report aired, questions were raised about whether his account was real, after an incident report surfaced that told a different story about what he'd done that night. He denied that report and said that he told the FBI the same story he told us. But what we now know is that he told the FBI a different story from what he told us.
That's when we realized that we no longer had confidence in our source, and that we were wrong to put him on air, and we apologize to our viewers.
O'DONNELL: Why were you convinced that Dylan Davies was a credible source? That the account that he provided was accurate? How did you vet him?
LOGAN: We verified and confirmed that he was who he said he was. That he was working for the State Department at the time, that he was in Benghazi at the special mission compound the night of the attack. He gave us access to communications he'd had with U.S. government officials. We used U.S. government reports and congressional testimony to verify many of the details of his story, and everything checked out.
He also showed us photographs that he had taken at the special mission compound the following morning. We take the vetting of sources and stories very seriously at "60 Minutes" and we took it seriously in this case. But we were misled and we were wrong, and that's the important thing. That's what we have to say here. We have to set the record straight and take responsibility.
O'DONNELL: Last Thursday the Washington Post ran a report that questioned the central parts of what Davies had told you. They cited this incident report right after the attack that he gave to Blue Mountain, the security company he worked for. He told them that he never made it to the compound, that he was at his villa there. Did you know about that report, that incident report?
LOGAN: No, we did not know about that incident report before we did our story. When the Washington Post story came out, he denied it, he said that he never wrote it, had nothing to do with it, and that he told the FBI the same story that he told us. But as we now know, that was not that case.
O'DONNELL: But why would you stand by this report after Dylan Davies admitted lying to his own employer?
LOGAN: Because he was very upfront about that from the beginning. That was always part of his story. And, the context of it when he tells his story is that his boss is someone he cared about enormously. He cared about his American counterparts in the mission that night, and when his boss told him not to go, he couldn't stay back. That was always part of the record for us. And that part didn't come as any surprise.
GLOR: "60" acknowledged it was a mistake not to acknowledge the book was being published by Simon & Shuster, which is a CBS company. There are also these reports Davies was asking for money. Did he ever ask you for money?
LOGAN: He did not. He never asked us for money. It never came up.
O'DONNELL: So, how do you address this moving forward? Are you going to do something on Sunday on "60 Minutes?"
LOGAN: We will apologize to our viewers, and we will correct the record on our broadcast.
O'DONNELL: And have you been in touch with him since?
LOGAN: We have not. After we learned of the latest news about the FBI report, we tried to contact him, but we have not heard back from him.
DONNELL: You've had no contact with him since then?
LOGAN: No
Tags: Logan : Benghazi : 60 Minutes : CBS
Permalink | Email This Blog
- You can log in to this system either through Facebook or using your JSOnline public profile. JSOnline public profile. Please note that your public profile login will be different than your JS Everywhere login.
- You can personalize your public profile with a photo. You can also use that profile to sign up for email newsletters and alerts.
- While we strive for a lively and vigorous debate of the issues, we do not tolerate name calling, foul language or other inappropriate behavior. Please see our discussion guidelines and terms of use for more information.
- While we do our best to moderate comments, we do not screen comments before they are posted. If you see a comment that violates our guidelines, please use the "Report Abuse" link to notify us of the issue.
- We reserve the right to close commenting on specific stories.
60 minutes has been the home of liberal hacks for forty years--What's new, they're classic LIARS !
The longer the right keeps pushing this made up scandal, the more ridiculous they look.Hide replies
The longer the administration stonewalls the issue the mre looks like a scandal. Is this an all out effort to keep Hillary from looking bad? Come Clean folks.
MADE UP scandal???? You really need to open your mind. What's next out of you... the Twin Towers were a mirage, the moon landing never happened or Doyle never raided the Transportation Funds?
KRS, 4 Dead Americans in the Embassy attack is a made up scandal? I have seen you post some ludicrous things, but this takes the cake. Liberalism, is a mental disorder, and your posts prove that. Every village has its own idiot. I guess we know who is representing Shorewood.
Yep. You are right. It was really all about a YouTube video.
Another day, another GOP conspiracy theory dreamed up in the sick mind of some loon. Yet, even with this, they will not give it up. They'll continue with the lie for ever and ever.Hide replies
You are totally right walker fail. Even though people died and Hilary and Obama lied and blamed it on a YouTube video it is still a mass conspiracy made up by the GOP. I like your thinking!
So there you have it folks. This was all made up by the GOP and evil Tea Party. Obama and Hillary never blamed anything on a YouTube video and nobody was ever murdered in Benghazi.
"We take the vetting of sources and stories very seriously at '60 Minutes'"
The same 60 Minutes who had to fire Dan Rather over a bogus hit piece on George W Bush they didn't vet.
Yeah, you really take things seriously over there.Hide replies
Ha, now you're blaming CBS? That's rich!
CBS is not responsible for the 60 Minutes program?
BENNNNN-GHAAAAAA-ZIIIIIIIIIIIII !Hide replies
Still making fun of dead Americans, I see. Mighty bully of you.
America kills innocent peopel throughout world on a daily basis. CIA operatives in the middle of a revolution may not be so innocent.
There is another term for "stupid republicans".
Stupid deference of Obama's unreported drone war on civilians.
Really, this is no surprise to Us Tea Partiers!
Most of today's news sources come with a unbelievable -- nay, ridiculous -- bias. These "news sources" make fantastic claims and publish tainted stories with such political slant that it would be laughable, were it not peddled as "real news" or "unbiased news".
Stick with the real new sources: Fox News, Americans for Pro$perity, The O'Reilly Factor, and Club for Growth! You can trust that these news sources have been thoroughly vetted for journalistic and political biases.
Join The Tea Party! One should use Reason, Seasoned Judgment, and Facts when making decisions! =)Hide replies
Thanks for once again confirming your utter lunacy. Americans for "Prosperity" and Club for Growth are notorious right-wing PAC's, not legitimate news organizations
MSNBC and MJS are two excellent sources for unbiased news. That is where I go for news.
You really should add the 700 Club, Breitbart and the Drudge Report to the list of Tea Party credible news sources.
Your spiritual leader Pat Robertson has insights the GOP Tea Party live by:
Pat Robertson is alive? And you thought that was worth your time--lol!
CBS Anchor: 'We Are Getting Big Stories Wrong, Over and Over Again'
"Our house is on fire."
Daniel Halper May 11, 2013 12:09 PM
CBS anchor Scott Pelley said at a speech at Quinnipiac University that journalists "are getting big stories wrong, over and over again."
"Our house is on fire," said Pelley. The video of Pelley's speech is courtesy of nowthisnews.com.
"These have been a bad few months for journalism," he added. "We're getting the big stories wrong, over and over again."
The CBS newsreader was quick to take at least partial blame. "Let me take the first arrow: During our coverage of Newtown, I sat on my set and I reported that Nancy Lanza was a teacher at the school. And that her son had attacked her classroom. It's a hell of a story, but it was dead wrong. Now, I was the managing editor, I made the decision to go ahead with that and I did, and that's what I said, and I was absolutely wrong. So let me just take the first arrow here."
And Pelley said the republic relies on the quality of the news business. "Democracies succeed or fail based on their journalism," said Pelley. "America is strong because its journalism is strong. That's how democracies work. They're only as good as the quality of the information that the public possesses. And that is where we come in."Hide replies
CBS and Pelley have no credibility. They are Obama apologists like most of the mainstream media. Don't forget how they sat on Pelley's Sept. 12, 2012 interview with Obama in which he refused to call Benghazi a terrorist attack so as not to show that Obama purposely lied about it during the Romney debate and that Candy Crowley backed up the lie.
Another GOP lie, just like the IRS "scandal", busted...Hide replies
Is that what you are being paid to spin now, Minsky? That the whole thing never happened?
Obama never blamed it on a protest.
Hillary did not leave them to die.
Obama was never told it was a terrorist attack.
The attacks never happened.
These are not the droids we're looking for.
What are you talking about? Did you bother to even scan the article?
What difference does it make? (Hillary Clinton)
Saddest part is that obama's plan to take sides with the muslim brotherhood appears to have disintegrated like most everything he touches.
Inept, corrupt, whatever. Americans died. For nothing.
And the administration's reply?
What difference does it make?
Maybe Orwell was really writing about Democrats in "1984".Hide replies
Orwell was a Socialist. So it really isn't that surprising that Liberals in government use his writings as a "How to" guide.
All Better...Not necessarily democrats, but certainly people that feel government control and dependency is the cure for all ills.


text:
Hi to all,
I am interested to know which editor/IDE do you recommend for ruby development.
I did a google for "ruby ide" and found a good list from rubygarden .
It covers extensions for editors and a short list of IDEs. Any one here have experience with the following IDE:
Ruby eclipse
Some old threads that covers this topic were:
This thread
this thread

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Info: Borzou Daragahi discusses his travels in Iraq and how he managed to survive both mentally & physically.
Uncorrected transcript provided by Morningside Partners.C-SPAN uses its best efforts to provide accurate transcripts of its programs, but it can not be held liable for mistakes such as omitted words, punctuation, spelling, mistakes that change meaning, etc.
BORZOU DARAGAHI, FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": That was in September of 2002.
I was with my wife, and we had been – we were in Iran. And at that time, about the only way to get into northern Iraq – which is where we wanted to go – was through Iran, because Turkey had closed the border and Syria was making it really hard.
And so, we wanted to go to this autonomous, Kurdish part of the country. There were rumors of war coming. There was talk of a confrontation. And some of the journalists were trying to get there, and we managed to get in there.
That was the first time.
LAMB: What were you doing in Iran?
DARAGAHI: Well, I'm of Iranian descent, but I was there as a freelance journalist working for Western media, mostly for American news and print and radio outlets at that time.
LAMB: So, does it help to be of Iranian descent?
DARAGAHI: Where?
LAMB: In Iran?
DARAGAHI: You know, in Iran it helps to some extent, but it's also a disadvantage, as well.
The way that it helps is that they can't kick you out like they can kick out other journalists, like they can kick out a British journalist, and so.
LAMB: Why not? Why can't they?
DARAGAHI: Because I hold an Iranian passport.
The disadvantage is that they – the government doesn't really trust at all – I mean, the government doesn't trust anybody. It's a very paranoid government.
But it especially does not trust us dual nationals. There's a suspicion that all dual nationals, especially those with U.S. passports, are potentially infiltrators or spies.
LAMB: What about your wife? Is she Iranian also?
DARAGAHI: My wife is half Iranian. Her father is Iranian and moved to France when he was very young. So, yes, she falls in that same category. But, you know, French, it's a little easier.
LAMB: Where did you meet her?
DARAGAHI: We met at a press conference in Iran, in Teheran.
LAMB: How much time have you spent in Iran as a journalist?
DARAGAHI: Well, I've been there on and off since – shortly after September 11th.
LAMB: Why did you go there then?
DARAGAHI: Well, I had always wanted to work abroad in some capacity. And at the time I was working for MONEY Magazine here in the U.S.
And I was saving up money, and then when September 11th happened, it suddenly struck me that I didn't need as much money as I thought to be a freelance correspondent abroad, that I could do it – that there would be demand for reports out of the Middle East.
LAMB: How much does it cost to live as a freelance journalist, just hanging around Iraq and Iran, and places like that, a day?
DARAGAHI: Well, it depends. In Iraq right now it would cost a lot to live in that country and work in that country as a journalist, just because you need security.
You probably need two drivers. You probably need to live in a rather expensive – you couldn't just rent a flat. You'd probably need to live in a rather expensive compound.
But in a relatively safe place, at least in terms of terrorism, like Iran or Egypt, for example – or even, to some extent, Lebanon, where a lot of freelance journalists wind up – it's pretty inexpensive.
LAMB: What would you say? Fifty dollars a day? A hundred dollars a day?
DARAGAHI: I mean, it depends on how long you're going to be there. But, yes, $50 a day – maybe even less, if you got a flat in a middling part of Cairo, for example, and economized on food, and so on, didn't go out to dinner all the time. You could do it pretty inexpensively.
LAMB: Where are you based now?
DARAGAHI: Right now I'm kind of not based anywhere. I'm kind of just traveling around. But I will be based in Lebanon for the "Los Angeles Times," in Beirut.
LAMB: And how did you get your job at the "Los Angeles Times"?
DARAGAHI: Basically, it was March-April 2005.
And as it happens with a lot of news organizations in Iraq, they periodically have to get their people out of there, because, you know, two years there and it really takes a toll on your family and your personal life and your spiritual life, even.
And so, they were having one of their periodic turnovers. They were looking for people to hire.
I had just been – I had just been nominated for a Pulitzer, and so, I guess I caught their attention, and then they hired me.
LAMB: What were you nominated for?
DARAGAHI: For my work in Iraq.
LAMB: And who were you working for at the time that you were nominated?
DARAGAHI: I was a freelancer. But my main client at that point is a great little newspaper called the "Newark Star Ledger," which was giving me expenses, and they were my primary outlet.
LAMB: Did you get the Pulitzer?
DARAGAHI: No, I didn't get it.
LAMB: But you were nominated.
DARAGAHI: Yes.
LAMB: How many were nominated in your category?
DARAGAHI: Three. Three finalists.
LAMB: You were born where?
DARAGAHI: I was born in Teheran.
LAMB: What year?
DARAGAHI: Sixty-nine.
LAMB: What were your parents doing there?
DARAGAHI: Well, my dad is a doctor and my mom was a nurse.
LAMB: When did you move to the United States?
DARAGAHI: It was '73-'74.
LAMB: Do you remember anything about Iran in those early days of your life?
DARAGAHI: Barely. Barely anything. And, you know, there's a lot of photographs, because my dad did a lot of photography. So, you never know what you remember and what is a picture.
But we went back once in '76, just my mom. And I remember that trip pretty vividly. I was like seven at that time.
LAMB: And where did you – where did your parents move to?
DARAGAHI: We moved to the U.S., to Chicago and new York.
LAMB: Why Chicago and New York? Are they separated, your parents? Are they together?
DARAGAHI: No, no. We moved to Chicago and New York, like back and forth a few times.
LAMB: What did you think of this country as you were growing up? And what was the reaction of your parents to this country, versus Iran? And why did they move here?
DARAGAHI: Well, the reasons why they moved here were numerous. I think to some extent – I think there was – in my family there was a bit of disillusionment with the excesses of the shah at that time. So, I think that was definitely part of the reason.
And growing up in the U.S., I mean, for them – I think, for my family, they – I mean, they took different views on it. They took different views on the U.S. I think sometimes they saw it as a place of great opportunity, and other times they were kind of baffled by the cultural differences, and so on.
LAMB: What do they think of you running around in that area?
DARAGAHI: Coming back, you mean?
LAMB: No. What do they think of you over in Iraq and Iran, your possibility of being injured?
DARAGAHI: Well, I think they were quite nervous about it. I think they were at first, at least, a little confused about coming back to Iran, when I came back to Iran shortly after September 11th.
But, I mean, it was very quick that things got off the ground for me in terms of work and finances, and so on. So, I think they were a little bit more assured.
They were a little concerned about me being in a war zone. I kept assuring them that I was playing safe. I kept, you know – I would basically tell them, don't believe what's on the TV. The view that you have of the situation in Iraq on the TV is kind of exaggerated. And, you know, you just see the car bomb and you don't see that things are OK.
And I would just sort of try to placate their worry …
LAMB: Were you telling them the truth?
DARAGAHI: I think that I told them what I thought they needed to hear, to a large extent.
LAMB: But you did that also with your wife, and your wife did that with you.
DARAGAHI: Absolutely. Yes, yes.
LAMB: Because you lived apart for some time, when she was in Iran and you were in Iraq.
LAMB: Explain that.
DARAGAHI: Well, it's a harsh reality, I guess, of human nature that you don't want confrontation. You don't want people to be upset or people to be angry at you. And so, sometimes you get in a situation where you kind of ascertain what that person wants to hear and you tell them what they want to hear.
In the case of my going to Iraq, it wasn't for any other purpose other than to just make it through the day. I mean, it became a sort of day-to-day survival mechanism.
And, you know, I mean, there was no plotting. You know, there was no planning of, OK, I'm going to deceive my wife, I'm going to deceive my family. It was just, you know, you're in this crush of news and trying to get the story out.
And then, soon after coming to the "L.A. Times," in addition to that, I had all these bureaucratic duties, because I became bureau chief. I had all these managerial duties – finances and safety issues and logistics, and so on.
And so, the pressure, the amount of work was so intense that you end up perhaps sacrificing some facts when you're recounting your day to your family or your spouse, and even your editors.
LAMB: Where did you go to school?
DARAGAHI: As an undergraduate I went to the New School in New York City, and for graduate school I went to Columbia University's School of Journalism.
LAMB: Why did you want to be a journalist?
DARAGAHI: Well, I think I was always a decent writer. It was almost by default. You know, I was never at my high school paper. I was never at my college paper.
After college I kind of got into the New York City publishing world, because that's the only kind of work there is in New York, at least back then. That's the main kind of work there is.
And I kind of decided that, hey, I'm a pretty good writer and this seems like a good thing for me to do. And Columbia has a one-year program, so I thought that was very attractive that I didn't have to go to school to get a master's degree for more than one year.
LAMB: When did you graduate from Columbia?
DARAGAHI: Ninety-four.
LAMB: Ninety-four. And did you freelance from that moment forward until working for the "L.A. Times"?
DARAGAHI: No, I worked for a small newspaper chain in Massachusetts at first. And then I worked for some business publications, and then worked for MONEY Magazine in New York, and also for MONEY's Web site.
And so, I had a pretty eclectic career.
LAMB: What languages do you speak?
DARAGAHI: I speak Farsi, which is the language of Iran. I also speak German and Spanish.
LAMB: Go back to the first time you ever went to Iraq with your wife. When was it?
DARAGAHI: September 2002.
LAMB: Where did you go in?
DARAGAHI: We went across – it was really kind of an extraordinary trip. I should write about that. I wrote about it in a little letter once, like a letter to friends, and so on, that got published on the Internet.
But it was really hard, because at that time they had closed all the borders. But we managed to convince – and I guess I can say this, you know, convince with money – someone in the Revolutionary Guards to give us access – the Iranian Revolutionary Guards – to give us access to the border.
It was, you know, legitimate to some extent, and so that's how we crossed the border, and we got in. We got in at what's called the Hadjomran. It's sort of an unofficial border crossing.
And we went in and, you know, it was like a bunch of these Kurdish peshmerga warriors who are – I guess that you would call them the Kurds' private militia. They came running up to us, and we were kind of scared. And they were like, well, who are you? And we're like, we're journalists.
And they're like – they started smiling and they said, "Welcome. Welcome here. Welcome to free Iraq. Welcome to free Kurdistan."
And they sort of swept us into their little entourage there, and they took us and got us checked in and gave us very nice treatment.
They were very happy that some foreign journalists had come into their enclave. They were very friendly towards the media at that time.
LAMB: Now, does your – was your wife born in the United States?
DARAGAHI: She was born in Paris.
LAMB: She was born in Paris. And where did she grow up in the United States – or not?
DARAGAHI: She didn't grow up here. She grew up in France.
LAMB: So, what's her language?
DARAGAHI: She speaks French, English and Farsi.
LAMB: Is she dark-complected?
DARAGAHI: Yes, she's of Mediterranean complexion and …
LAMB: And the reason I ask that is, can you be mistaken for somebody that's from over there as you're traveling around?
DARAGAHI: Yes. Oh, sure. But to the Kurds, especially – absolutely, I can be mistaken. And that's one of the advantages that I have. It's very rarely a disadvantage, in that I can blend in.
But it was obvious that we were – you know, I mean, what I typically do is, exiting Iran, I exit with my Iranian passport. But when I get to the other side, I show my American passport.
And so, it was obvious who we were. And so, they were treating us like foreign visitors, which we were.
LAMB: How long did you stay north in the Kurdish area?
DARAGAHI: You know, I stayed there on and off from September until, oh, late April. September until late April, until well past the war. I mean, I came in and out, but until like a few weeks after the war, the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime.
LAMB: We always hear about the payoff, the money payoff. What kind of money do, like the Revolutionary Guards, or people that you have to pay off in any of these places, expect?
DARAGAHI: What kind of money? You mean the amounts?
LAMB: Yes, how much? Yes.
DARAGAHI: It depends. I mean, sometimes – and in this case there was a cover for the money. It wasn't totally – you know, it was a kind of a funny travel agency that their job was to shuttle people into Iraqi Kurdistan via Iran.
And so, it was that – you know, if I was ever brought into a court it'd be like I wasn't paying a bribe; I was paying a ticket fee.
But in this case, it was $150 a person.
LAMB: Did you ever have to spend more than that at any point to get through a checkpoint, or anything like that?
DARAGAHI: I'm not going to answer that, just because it would be kind of an admission of something that I probably shouldn't admit publicly.
LAMB: Why shouldn't you?
DARAGAHI: Because there's a Corrupt Foreign Practices Act that the U.S. has. And so, if it were true, I wouldn't be able to answer that question …
LAMB: Let me ask it maybe a different way.
Do the people of Iraq, in the government, expect payoffs?
DARAGAHI: I wouldn't say the people of Iraq in the government. I would say that there's certain times when, in order to get information, just as it is here, you might have to treat someone to, for example, to lunch or some kind of more formal arrangement, such as putting them on a retainer, in order to get access.
LAMB: When you traveled from the north of Iraq down to the south, how did you do it?
DARAGAHI: Well, typically I would – I mean, later on when I would come to Baghdad, I would come through the Turkish border sometimes, the Habur gate crossing. I've crossed the land border, like Iraq's land borders – almost all of them except like Syria and Saudi.
But I would come through the Habur gate crossing, go to Mosul. And in the beginning, after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, Mosul wasn't that bad in the first year or so under General David Petraeus. It was a pretty stable place, actually.
And so, I'd got to Mosul and, you know, I'd go to – I would even go to like the University Avenue, I remember, and go to an Internet cafe there near the university and check my e-mails and send some e-mails telling people I was in Iraq.
And then I would get a taxi and then, you know, gun (ph) it down, sometimes past Tikrit and Samarra, and other times from Sulimaniyah, which is in northern Iraq to Irbil – I'm sorry, from Irbil to Sulimaniyah and then on to Baghdad.
LAMB: You talk about things like the stench that we can't smell through television that comes out of the Tigris River that runs through Iraq. Explain that.
DARAGAHI: Well, I think that, you know, Iraq's sewage infrastructure is pretty much very dilapidated, so there's a lot of raw sewage in the Tigris …
LAMB: Is there a smell in the air everywhere?
DARAGAHI: Not everywhere. But by the river there's a – especially in the summer, the smell just is sometimes overwhelming, you know, the smell of raw sewage.
LAMB: Has there been any attempt at correcting that?
DARAGAHI: Oh, absolutely. I think there's been many attempts at repairing Iraq's basic infrastructure, and it has not worked very well.
I think there was an article in our competitor's paper, the "New York Times," about that issue this week, about the lack of progress and, indeed, deterioration of some of the infrastructure projects.
LAMB: When you hear – and we hear it all the time on this network – people say that the press does not cover the good things going on in Iraq, what's your reaction?
DARAGAHI: Well, I would just say, show me those goods.
For example, is infant mortality going down? Is the number of attacks on U.S. and coalition forces going down?
Are the number of Iraqis who are fleeing the country declining? Is there an increase in employment? So, let's see the facts.
Is there a decrease in the number of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians being killed day to day? If there is, we've reported it. I mean, if there has been – and we put it prominently on page one.
I remember when the recent Baghdad security plan first went into effect, and there was a dramatic decline in the number of sectarian death squad executions, that was on the front page of the "Los Angeles Times."
I remember when there was a – reports originally of Sunni Arab tribesmen in western Iraq fighting against al Qaeda, my colleague, Ned Parker, put that on page one.
So, I think that the people who say that criticism should at least read our product first.
LAMB: What are your personal feelings about the war?
DARAGAHI: I think at this point, it just – it seems like it's become a disaster. I mean, I don't think anyone could dispute that. It's just going very, very, very, very badly.
I think that in the beginning, I was conflicted as to whether I was – because I had the Kurdish perspective up there, you know. And you don't fully adopt the perspective of the people that you're covering. You can't do that as a journalist. But you're at least sympathetic to it.
And from the Kurdish point of view, they were very much in favor of the war. They very much viewed it as a liberation. And that was rather infectious.
And so, I can't say that I was like completely against the invasion. I took a neutral, wait-and-see attitude.
As time wore on, though, as the bodies mounted, it just seems more and more like a really bad mistake. And it seems like a very ill-thought-out adventure. I mean, doesn't it at this point?
Sort of what it's turned into in the eyes of many people in the Middle East is a war of imperial conquest gone bad, done poorly. At least the Romans granted their captives citizenship and brought them into the fold and brought stability to the lands that they conquered.
And I think, in the Arab world – and this is a really disastrous thing, they basically view this is as, you know, the Americans came in and they destroyed an Arab country. And I don't think they'll ever forgive us for that.
LAMB: How do the Iranians view what's going on there? People that you talk to when you're in Iran.
DARAGAHI: Well, it depends. Generally – and it's shifted, too.
I think at first, when the Americans came in there and overthrew Saddam Hussein's regime, I think there was a strong element in the country that was very much in favor of what was happening in Iraq.
But as the violence mounted, and as the bloodshed continued to rise, the Iranian government managed to use this as a propaganda tool to convince the Iranian people that the last thing you want is America coming here and meddling in our affairs.
And I think they've done that effectively. I think a lot of people are really frightened about what happened in Iraq.
LAMB: When you speak Farsi in Iran, is it without accent?
DARAGAHI: I think it goes up and down. When I spend a lot of time in Iran, my accent starts to go away, my American accent. But generally, I do have a slight American accent when I speak Farsi.
LAMB: When you're in Iran, what's the sense of how many Iranians are here in the United States that moved out and moved over here? Is there a lot of connection between the two countries?
DARAGAHI: Oh, absolutely. I think that that's one of the ways in which the world has changed in recent years, is that there's – because of satellite television and the proliferation of the satellite channels – in many countries the diaspora and the population itself in the domestic population feel a lot more of a connection to each other.
They call into the same talk shows.
LAMB: Where?
DARAGAHI: Sometimes they're based in Los Angeles. Many of them are based in Los Angeles, these satellite channels. A few are in London. And there's also a growing number in the Persian Gulf, the United Arab Emirates, Dubai.
LAMB: They call into our talk show …
DARAGAHI: Here.
LAMB: … all the time.
DARAGAHI: From Iran.
LAMB: All over Iran.
How do they do that? I mean, what's the – and how do they not get punished in some way – or maybe that's not the right word – by the government, who says they don't want them to listen to these satellite channels?
DARAGAHI: You know, Iran is such an interesting place. And it's so complicated.
And, you know, maybe the guy who's listening in on that phone call is just having a bad day and he doesn't really care. And so, you talk to people.
Let me tell you a story. I was in a part of Iran. I was talking to a government official. This was a few years ago.
And we started the interview and he was like – he's like, OK, are we rolling? And I said, yes. And I was taping the interview. And he said, OK, in the name of God, the almighty, the all powerful.
And he started this kind of speech. It was just kind of this rhetoric, this typical rhetoric that you hear from the Iranian officials, talking about how great the economy of this certain part of the country was and how wonderful everything there was.
And then when the tape ended, when the interview ended, he said, OK, are we off? And I said, yes.
And he said, you know, I wish they would go. I wish they would go. I wish the government would just go.
But I said, you're a government official. You're a ranking government official.
He said, yes, I know. I know I am, but it would be so wonderful if they would just leave.
And I thought that was very interesting. So, you can imagine what some intelligence official would act like, if someone that high would have that kind of cynicism about the country.
LAMB: What's the origin of Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel statements all the time? What's the purpose?
DARAGAHI: Well, I think that there's a number of purposes. One is to rally support among the Arab – in the Arab world and the Islamic world, to sort of make himself this pan-Arab and pan-Islamist figure to sort of mobilize the world in his ideological cause.
And also, I think it's basically, domestically, is to sabotage the attempts by more moderate figures to establish a more productive rapport with the West, so he makes these toxic statements.
And I think there's one other factor that I think is really important and is not noted enough. I think he's just not that smart. I think he's just kind of, you know, kind of a loose cannon, not very politically experienced, rarely was out of the country of Iran his whole life. He's just not that savvy of a figure. And that's something that we shouldn't rule out.
LAMB: Who is savvy in the government?
DARAGAHI: I think that there are some people, such as, for example, the president of the national security council there, Ali Larijani, who plays a more interesting game.
You can never rule out Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, the head of the expediency council and former president of the country. He's managed – he's a survivor. He's managed to survive all these years as a key player in that country.
LAMB: What's the difference between living in Iran, living in Iraq and living in Chicago?
DARAGAHI: Well, for me, living in Iran is a rather gilded life, you know, compared to ordinary people who live there. We go to diplomatic parties. We go to embassy – our friends are embassy people and other journalists. And we live in nice apartments.
I think the key difference in terms of living – between living in Iran and living everywhere else in the world – maybe Saudi is similar to this – is that everything goes on behind closed doors, that the private sphere, the private – your private world is your palace. And in the public world, you have to put on a mask, you have to pretend all the time.
So, the difference between who you are and what you can do outside of the four corners of your house is immense.
LAMB: Iraq.
DARAGAHI: Iraq right now, for foreigners living there, for Western journalists living there, it is a really – it's like, you know, "Road Warrior," the movie "Road Warrior" with Mel Gibson.
It's a real nightmare state to some extent, where there's basically little in the way of rule of law. Your personal security is constantly threatened.
There's constant tragedies, a constant flow of tragedies that you hear about that touch you, in terms of things happening to Iraqis you know and even things happening to Westerners that you know.
So, it's unlike anything that is out there in the world. And then …
LAMB: So, you and your wife – and also, before I do that, and the difference, what's it like in Chicago compared to all of this? I'm talking about everyday living – cost of food, the apartments and what they look like, the transportation.
DARAGAHI: Well, transportation in Iraq for us is driving around in an armored Mercedes with a bunch of guys holding weapons as our security guards.
LAMB: In the car with you.
DARAGAHI: In the car with us. Or …
LAMB: One car in front of you or behind you? You have two cars?
DARAGAHI: I can't – I can't say that.
LAMB: And why not?
DARAGAHI: Because of our people in Baghdad still who follow security protocols, and I'm not supposed to talk that specifically about security details.
LAMB: And what about in Iran? Are you being watched there?
DARAGAHI: I think we're being monitored. You know, Teheran is a city of 12 million people. And like I was explaining about this sort of, the apathy and the cynicism of the officials. You know, we get away with a lot in Iran, and people in general do a lot in Iran.
Every year, like they are doing now, they have these periodic crackdowns. If you go on the Internet and look at what's happening in Iran these days, they're cracking down on women who are wearing formfitting outfits and loose-fitting headscarves. But this seems to happen every year and then just goes back to normal after the crackdown is finished.
LAMB: Are there people in Iraq who are going to school – middle school, high school, college – and the same with the Iran, do they go all the way through four years of college, like we do in the United States?
DARAGAHI: In terms of the educational systems, in Iraq I think there are still people – I know that there are still people – who are trying to pursue a normal life, who have no choice.
It was interesting. I interviewed one family recently who, basically, they were staying in Iraq only because like one of their daughters was going to medical school, and she was going to a very good medical school and …
LAMB: In Iraq?
DARAGAHI: In Iraq, yes. And so, they didn't want to lose that opportunity. So, despite that, they stayed in Iraq, because of their daughter's education.
And then a couple of months later I phoned them, and they were gone. They had gone to Jordan. They'd had it.
Something had happened and it had spooked them.
LAMB: Other than the Kurdish areas of Iraq, are there places in Iraq where they live an absolutely normal life?
DARAGAHI: I think that outside of Baghdad in certain southern cities of Iraq, for example, Najaf and Nasiriyah, and so on, you've had very little violence in those areas, except for occasional bombings.
For example, the other day in Karbala, the southern Shiite city, there was a car bombing that killed like 30 people.
So, there's – where there isn't the daily fighting between the Sunni and Shiite gunmen or the Sunni and the American forces, there is some measure of normalcy.
LAMB: What's a gallon of gas cost in Iraq and in Iran?
DARAGAHI: It's extremely cheap. Like in Iraq, gas costs like – I'm not sure exactly. I think it was like 10 cents a liter, something like that.
I'm not sure of the precise figure, but it's something ridiculous like that. Ten cents a liter is like 35, 40 cents a gallon.
LAMB: Why are there hours and hours waiting to get gas?
DARAGAHI: Because they don't have enough refined petroleum products. They actually are importing those petroleum products, because they don't have the capacity to create them themselves.
LAMB: Are we not suggesting they build a refinery there, or not getting behind that idea?
DARAGAHI: I think that there have been attempts at repairing Iraq's refineries. They've been – the refineries have been struck by – and I don't want to misspeak. I don't know exact details of that particular aspect of the reconstruction effort.
But I think building refineries is a very, very complex project. You have to build pipelines to those refineries, and so on.
And so, Iraq also needs to export some of its oil. And so, it's not just a matter of just building a refinery. It's a matter of revamping the whole petroleum infrastructure, so that you can efficiently produce the petroleum products.
LAMB: Are there movies? I know these are simple questions.
DARAGAHI: Sure, go ahead.
LAMB: But just to get some sense of the place. Are there movie houses in Iraq?
DARAGAHI: There were. There used to be some nice movie houses, but they've, A, fallen into disrepair and no one would dare go into a movie theater anymore.
LAMB: Are there good restaurants?
DARAGAHI: There were. There were many good restaurants. We used to go to restaurants all the time.
But I think that no one would dare anymore, at this point, go to a good restaurant. I think that some people, you know, at night, in the evening, in the afternoon will go to a sandwich shop, or something. I know that they do.
But it's – you know, we get takeout sometimes from some of the good Lebanese places. But that's also in the safest neighborhood in Baghdad.
LAMB: What about in Iran? Do they have movie houses?
DARAGAHI: Oh, yes.
LAMB: Do they have good restaurants?
DARAGAHI: They have fantastic restaurants, yes.
LAMB: Do they have department stores like we do in the United States?
DARAGAHI: As a matter of fact, there is a proliferation of these big, huge, category-killer type retail establishments that they're setting up. And there is even talk of a Carrefour, which is like the French equivalent of Wal-Mart, setting up a shop in Teheran. I don't know what became of that.
LAMB: What's a gallon of gas cost in Iran?
DARAGAHI: Again, really, really cheap. I can give you a specific number on that. It's like about eight cents a liter, so about 33 cents or 34 cents a gallon.
And that's a huge issue in Iran right now, because a lot of people are talking about reducing the subsidized – this is subsidized, these petroleum products.
Again, Iran, although it's this great oil producer, it is importing refined products, because it doesn't have the capacity to produce enough refined petroleum products for itself. It's a very heavy car culture that they have there.
LAMB: In your experience in Iraq, did you ever come close to getting shot at?
DARAGAHI: Shot at.
LAMB: Or were you on patrol and you went past an IED?
DARAGAHI: Oh, yes, sure. I mean, one time we were – I mean, not even on patrol. We were just on the road and we missed an IED hitting a U.S. convoy by seconds. We were just …
LAMB: How nervous were you about losing your life?
DARAGAHI: It's really interesting how different people react to danger and that kind of incident.
And how I found that I reacted to it was to just get very calm. I seem to get very calm when I'm in that situation and take every step very slowly and try to figure out what's happening, and then to basically try to safely investigate what's happening, because that's my job.
LAMB: Your wife, Delphine, and you lived in Iraq together for how long?
DARAGAHI: Well, it's hard to say "lived," because she was more of a visitor usually. She would come for a few weeks' stretch at a time and rarely as much as I was there, but she would come pretty regularly to Iraq. But as things got dangerous, she had less of a stomach for it.
I remember once, she and a friend of ours went to a supermarket, a very popular supermarket that has like Western stuff. And all of a sudden, outside of the supermarket there was like a terrifying shootout, like a gun fight.
And so, everyone in this supermarket kind of ran into the basement of the supermarket to hide, to make sure that they wouldn't get hit by any stray bullets as this gunfire continued, and then emerged. And I think that was just enough for her. She's not – she didn't have the stomach for that.
LAMB: Will she be in Lebanon with you?
DARAGAHI: Oh, yes. Yes.
LAMB: Do you have children?
DARAGAHI: Not yet, no.
LAMB: And how long have you been married?
DARAGAHI: We've been married – it'll be three years in July.
LAMB: In Iraq, what do the Iraqis think of Americans that are there, and also, their image of the United States back here?
DARAGAHI: Well, I think that's a complicated question.
I think that they – most generally, Iraqis are rather hostile and feel humiliated. And that's the key thing that maybe some of our policymakers don't understand. The presence of the U.S. soldiers is very humiliating to the Iraqis.
Even those who, in their minds know that it's necessary to have the soldiers there, at least some kind of force there preventing an all-out civil war from getting even worse.
So, I that that's one aspect of it.
I think that they don't – as they've learned more about American culture through the soldiers and the Americans that are there, they don't – I don't think they appreciate American culture.
I think that they – what I've heard is, for example, "We don't like the way they treat their young. We don't like the way they treat their old. They're disrespectful."
They're – you know, Iraq is a rather rural, courtly, almost a feudal society in its values, not in its structure. And they are very old world – you know, family, tribe. And they don't really understand or appreciate the more modern, rootless existence that we have here in the West.
LAMB: What was your experience with the United States military?
DARAGAHI: My experience?
LAMB: Yes.
DARAGAHI: I had a great experience with the U.S. military, I mean many great experiences with the U.S. military. I found them generally very, very professional, very dedicated, very smart. I found that the U.S. Army was – I was fascinated by the U.S. Army.
This was my first intense encounter with the Army and how diverse it was, how reflective of the American population in terms of demographics, in terms of ethnic groups, in terms of the various different class backgrounds there were in the military.
LAMB: Did you go out on patrol?
DARAGAHI: Yes, absolutely.
LAMB: How often?
DARAGAHI: You know, towards the end less and less, just because I was able to do street reporting, because I blend in. I was able to the kind of street reporting without going on patrol with the soldiers.
So, I would usually defer to, for example, a visiting correspondent for a metro who had never been to Baghdad. And there would be like an embed coming up, or we needed to send someone somewhere.
And I would be like, well, you've been stuck in a hotel for three weeks and you haven't been able to get outside. Why don't you go on this embed?
But yes, I would say once a month I would go do something with the military.
LAMB: Four-and-a-half years in Iraq.
LAMB: Do you want to go back?
DARAGAHI: Yes, kind of. And kind of no. I imagine I will go back. Most "L.A. Times" foreign correspondents do do stints in Iraq, small stints, two or three weeks.
Generally, we don't get to not go, even if we don't want to go.
LAMB: You wrote in one of your stories recently that, "But readjusting to ordinary life is hard. I miss the action."
And then you say, "I was thrilled as the Black Hawk lifted up, swinging over the Green Zone across the homes of the brawny, good-humored, British, South African and American security contractors. We skirted past the mosque of the wily Shiite cleric who venomously ripped into his enemies during Friday prayers, but politely offered visitors tea and sweets."
Go back to that, "I miss the action."
DARAGAHI: Yes, I mean, it's such an intense place, Iraq. It really – being there as a reporter is just such a dramatic experience. You have – every single day huge things are happening.
And when you go out onto the streets, it's such a production. It's like being in an action movie, you know, guys putting the clips into their AK-47s and people loading their weapons, and then you get into the car and you out into the checkpoint.
And there's the sort of sound of the walkie-talkies crackling as you're going through traffic. And there's the sirens of the police vehicles screaming and mysterious armed men wearing ski masks pushing through traffic. And there's constant like rattle of gunfire every single day of your life in that country.
And you get kind of – I mean, maybe people think I'm crazy – but you get kind of hooked on it. You get kind of into that sort of existence.
And then you come out and it's – you know, you're shopping for pears at the supermarket and it just doesn't really compare.
LAMB: What were the ski masks being worn for?
DARAGAHI: I think because many of the Iraqi security forces and many of the Iraqi security organizations that provide security for VIPs wear ski masks, because they don't want to be identified as collaborators by the insurgents.
So, that's one of the funny things about Iraq. It's the only place in the world where the good guys wear the ski masks.
LAMB: Go back to – you say you were charmed by Baghdad.
DARAGAHI: In the beginning, sure.
LAMB: When was the beginning again?
DARAGAHI: Like the first year or year-and-a-half after the U.S.-led invasion.
LAMB: Why were you charmed?
DARAGAHI: Because there was just a lot of interesting stuff happening.
It was really – you did have this – you know, I went to – in '89-'90, I was a junior in college and I was in Berlin when the Berlin Wall came down. And you had this sort of opening of the East and this outpouring of artistic expression and political organizations and civil society groups.
And that's what you had, really, in Iraq for the first year-and-a-half or so. You'd have new kinds of – you know, this really oppressed society, these people who had been under so much pressure and under lock and chain all of a sudden freed.
And there were all sorts of new political ideas, new art. There was theater, even. There was a real opening up of the society.
LAMB: Which article did you write while you were in Baghdad that got the most reaction?
DARAGAHI: While I was – I mean, I think this one got a lot of attention.
LAMB: Or while you were in Iraq, not just Baghdad.
DARAGAHI: I think definitely it was this article I got the most …
LAMB: You mean that I have in my hands here.
DARAGAHI: Yes, the one – yes, the one that you …
LAMB: From April 10, 2007.
LAMB: And why?
DARAGAHI: Well, I think that it's – I'm not sure exactly why. I think people were – the message, the e-mails that I got – and they were universally positive from people – was thank you for sharing this story. It just gave a unique understanding of what Iraq is like and what this adventure has been like, being in Iraq, for us, the journalists, but also for the country.
And I tried to weave that into it. I mean, I meant it – and whenever I try writing something like this, I mean it as something more than the sum of its parts.
LAMB: We'll connect to either the "Los Angeles Times" Web site or we'll have this article on c-span.org under Q&A for those who want to read it. It's not long. How many words would you say this is?
DARAGAHI: Three thousand five hundred.
LAMB: Back to Iraq.
How much – I mean, I assume – I shouldn't assume anything.
Where did you live in Baghdad?
DARAGAHI: In Iraq, in Baghdad? We live in a guarded, high-security hotel compound with other news organizations.
LAMB: Did you ever have power cut off?
DARAGAHI: Power gets cut off every few hours.
LAMB: Why hasn't our effort – meaning the United States' effort over there – been able to deal with the power problem?
DARAGAHI: I think there's a number of reasons for that. One is sabotage, continued insurgent sabotage. The other is security issues driving up the costs of any kind of repairs.
I think there's also a real – like the infrastructure has been so badly dilapidated under the previous government, Saddam Hussein's government, that it's extremely hard to fix it right now. But even under Saddam Hussein there were power outages, but they just were concentrated outside of the capital.
And so, I think that the country never really recovered from the first Gulf War, in terms of its electricity infrastructure.
LAMB: We hear stories all the time about corruption and the lost money.
DARAGAHI: That's another issue, as well.
LAMB: Did you do any stories on that?
DARAGAHI: On corruption?
DARAGAHI: I didn't, but as a bureau – yes, I did do some stories on corruption. But as a bureau …
LAMB: But is there anything …
DARAGAHI: … we did a lot.
LAMB: Is there anything inherently corrupt about the Iraqi people?
DARAGAHI: I don't know if it's inherently corrupt. But I think that in a society that is as worn-out and abused and impoverished as Iraq is, there's bound to be corruption, especially when people are so underpaid in the civil service, and so on.
LAMB: What do they make in the civil service?
DARAGAHI: A hundred and fifty dollars a month.
LAMB: Can they live on that?
DARAGAHI: I think it is very, very hard to live on that. It's extremely difficult for them to live on $150 a month.
LAMB: How much is a loaf of bread?
DARAGAHI: I think bread is pretty cheap. But, you know, food is not a problem in Iraq right now, generally. And I'll tell you why. Because the rations – they have rations there.
And so, you still have the Oil for Food Program. You have this sort of program where each family would get a food basket every month. And they still continue to get that.
So the problem isn't starvation. It's other things in life, I think – you know, rent, getting out of the country, getting trips to other places. But housing remains a big problem, as well.
LAMB: Do you fly in and out of the Baghdad airport?
DARAGAHI: Yes, I do.
LAMB: On a commercial airliner?
DARAGAHI: Yes, flying usually on – almost always on Royal Jordanian. Occasionally, I've taken Iraqi Airways, as well.
LAMB: In your opinion, is it safe?
DARAGAHI: Whew! God knows!
LAMB: I mean, have there been any of those planes attacked leaving?
DARAGAHI: Well, I think there was a time when very regularly people would take pot-shots at the planes, firing rockets at them. But I'm fairly certain that that has subsided, that they are not doing it anymore.
LAMB: What is your sense of the surge and its possible outcome?
DARAGAHI: I seriously doubt it'll work. I think it'll …
LAMB: Why?
DARAGAHI: Because there is not – even according to General Petraeus' own guidebook for fighting counterinsurgencies, they're not using soldiers, they're not using enough troops to accomplish their goals.
But also, more fundamentally, I don't think that they can do this militarily. I don't think the fundamental problems in Iraq right now are military problems.
And I think they recognize that, as well, that they need to resolve the political disagreements between the various factions in the government.
The theory was that you create some safety in Baghdad, create a space for people to resolve those differences. I don't think it's going to happen.
LAMB: Are you going to write a book off of your experiences there?
DARAGAHI: I'm supposed to be writing a book, but not about my experiences in Iraq, at this point. I'm doing another book about the sort of cool, sub-cultural aspects of the Middle East.
DARAGAHI: Why …
LAMB: Why the book? Why cool, sub-cultural aspects?
DARAGAHI: Because I wanted to write a book that would be kind of interesting to people other than journalists and Iraq war fans.
LAMB: So, what kind of things will you write about?
DARAGAHI: Soap operas, video clips, hair salons – things like that – satellite television channels. The whole sort of – I mean, the premise of the book is that globalization, much more than Islam, is the reigning power in the Middle East.
LAMB: If you are in Iraq, you're supposed to be able to see Al Hurrah, and other places. Have you ever watched it, the American-produced channel?
DARAGAHI: I should caution that I don't understand Arabic, but I have seen Al Hurrah. It's on fairly regularly in our newsroom.
LAMB: Do you have any idea whether people in Iraq watch it?
DARAGAHI: I think they watch it when they have important interviews. When there's a certain person that's like very important that's going to speak, they'll tune in to it. But generally, it's not one of the popular ones in Iraq.
The most popular stations are Arabiyah, which is the Dubai satellite channel, Al Sharqiya, which is an Iraqi satellite channel, and Al Jazeera, which is, of course, the famous Qatari-based satellite channel.
LAMB: And what kind of impact did they have on the citizens of Iraq?
DARAGAHI: Which? Those channels?
LAMB: Yes, those channels.
DARAGAHI: Well, as far as the satellite channels, I think it exposes them to the broader Arab world, because these are mostly pan-Arab stations, Arabiyah and Jazeera are.
I should also say that there's one other thing that people – or I've noticed in Iraq. There's also, in addition to those stations, there's a proliferation of channels, like Al Furat, Baghdad TV, that are very sectarian. And a lot of people are watching those, too.
And so, you have Al Furat, which is the Shiite channel run by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq, which is Abdul Aziz Hakim's political party, which is one of the main Shiite groups.
And the Shiites will watch that. And this channel will really present the plight of the Shiites in a very sympathetic light, make them out to be the victims and the sufferers, and so on.
And then you have Baghdad TV, which is the channel of the Iraqi Islamic Party, which is a Sunni group. And it does the opposite.
So, what you have increasingly in Iraq is people tuning in to the television station of their sect.
LAMB: What do you think will happen on the long-term basis in Iraq?
DARAGAHI: I think that – you know, I should caution, you know, like I'm not a pundit. And I see a lot of people commenting from these think tanks, and so on, and they just have no clue about what's happening in Iraq. And I don't want to fall into that category.
And I'm going to be really cautious and ask viewers, like, feel free to ignore what I'm saying when I'm prognosticating.
But I think the train has left the station with regard to conflict between the Shiites and the Sunnis. I think that that has to play itself out, at this point.
Both the Sunnis and the Shiites, hardliners, the militants are convinced that they'll win, and that's always a kind of recipe for a long war, when neither side has enough information to know when to stop.
So, they're going to keep fighting until they tire each other out, or until one side decides there's no more chance of fighting and they accept some kind of settlement.
LAMB: What happens if the U.S. military pulls out?
DARAGAHI: I think it'll probably get worse, the sort of civil strife between Sunnis and Shiites. It'll definitely accelerate.
Which is not to say that we shouldn't pull out anyway, you know. But we should be prepared for the consequences if we do.
LAMB: What did the military people that you talked to tell you about their own morale, their own attitude about pulling out?
DARAGAHI: I think a lot of the soldiers are – you know, there is a time when the soldiers – the morale was a lot worse, I think, because no one knew what to expect.
For example, guys in the 3rd Infantry Division, they came in expecting to win a war and they ended up doing a peacekeeping mission. And they were very, very bitter about that. And I think that affected morale throughout the 3rd Infantry Division.
The guys of the 1st Cavalry Division came in expecting a peacekeeping mission, and they wound up fighting a vicious insurgency in Baghdad and Najaf, if you remember, in 2004. And I think that really hurt morale.
But I think at this point, soldiers when they come in, the Marines when they come in, they pretty much know what they're expecting. And I think that that has helped with morale. I think they are mentally prepared when they arrive.
And it does – it's really hard to speak for all the troops and say, here's what they think. But I think most opinion polls show that the military has also turned against the war.
LAMB: In your own case, you were nominated for a Pulitzer. What year?
DARAGAHI: In 2005. And then this year – I'll mention it – our whole bureau was a Pulitzer finalist. We didn't win this year, either.
LAMB: But you were freelance.
DARAGAHI: As a freelancer, yes.
LAMB: And what year – when were you actually hired full-time?
LAMB: What's your sense of what got you either nominated for the Pulitzer or hired full-time? What about your work – and I mean, this case, of advising young folks that think they want to get into this world.
DARAGAHI: Get into …
LAMB: The world of journalism …
DARAGAHI: Journalism?
LAMB: … and international reporting.
DARAGAHI: I think it's really important to refine in journalism, to – you know, I mean, to not forget the fundamentals, which is like good writing. And I think all too often right now in our schools, writing is kind of passed over as an art.
And I see that with a lot of young people who are getting into the business. They're really tenacious. They're really motivated. They're really ambitious.
But they're not that great of writers. They're just not – you know, they don't really have a flare for it. And I'm not sure why that is.
I think people should read much more than they do, in general. Read books, read the classics, read the greats of literature, and continue reading.
Become absorbed in whatever environment that you're in. For example, if you're in – one of the things that when I was in Iraq, I tried to be out and mingle among the people as much as I could and just sort of get a tactile understanding of the country.
LAMB: Did you dress like the people?
DARAGAHI: Sometimes you had to. I mean, yes. When I was out, especially when things got very dangerous – and it wasn't just me; all of us – we had a whole sort of Baghdad fashion school, where we would talk about ways to dress that looked local, so that we would blend in and not be identified as foreigners.
LAMB: Anybody ever figure that you were a foreigner when you were trying to cover it up?
DARAGAHI: Oh, yes. It happened all the time, and it was really the most dangerous thing.
I remember one time, I was at a – and I recount this in the story, but there were a number of incidents like this.
But I was at a double truck bombing scene at a market. And we were just collecting interviews with people, getting ready to head back to the hotel when we were stopped by the police who wanted to know who we were and what we were doing, and so on. And they were – you know, started taking away our equipment and looking for IDs, and so on.
I basically explained to them, look. I'm an American journalist. We're just here doing some reporting, and then we're going to be on our way.
And then they said, "Oh, OK."
And then I hear one guy yelling to the other guy, "Sahaf Ameriki, (ph)" American journalist.
And there was a big crowd everywhere. And I can tell you, that was a long walk back to the car, with everyone. It felt like all eyes were on my back.
LAMB: Borzou Daragahi, we're out of time. Thank you very much.
And you're on your way to Lebanon and served as the Baghdad bureau chief for the "Los Angeles Times" for the last couple years.
DARAGAHI: Thank you so much.
LAMB: Thanks for joining us.
DARAGAHI: It's been a pleasure.


text:
Definition of food in English:
foodLine breaks: food
Pronunciation: /fuːd /
noun[mass noun]
Any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink or that plants absorb in order to maintain life and growth: tins of cat food [count noun]: baby foods
More example sentences
- Parents are working more and cooking less, relying on high-calorie, high-fat fast foods to feed their families.
- A range of Mexican fast food is available.
- And they know how to prepare wholesome, delicious food themselves.
nourishment, sustenance, nutriment, subsistence, fare, bread, daily bread; cooking, baking, cuisine; foodstuffs, edibles, refreshments, meals, provisions, rations, stores, supplies; solids; Scottishvivers
North American informal chuck
rare comestibles, provender, aliment, commissariat, viaticumfodder, feed, forage, herbage, pasturage, silage
rare comestibles, provender
late Old English fōda, of Germanic origin; related to fodder.
food for thought
- Something that warrants serious consideration: his study certainly provides food for thoughtMore example sentences
mental stimulation, mental nourishment, something to think about, something to be seriously considered
- Although she had been quickly brought back, the incident would nonetheless provide some food for thought.
- And this recent Reason magazine editorial provides ample food for thought about Raed.
- And it provides plenty of food for thought for those writers who are wondering what it is that holds readers to the page.
Definition of food in:
- The US English dictionary
- The English Synonyms
- The US English Synonyms
Get more from Oxford Dictionaries
Subscribe to remove adverts and access premium resources
Word of the day envenom
Pronunciation: ɪnˈvɛnəm
put poison on or into; make poisonous


text:
This recipe was delicious! I did use less chicken stock for a thicker sauce and used green onions instead of chives. Dinner party worthy!
Sauteed Chicken Breasts with Creamy Chive Sauce
From EatingWell: December 2005/January 2006, The EatingWell Healthy in a Hurry Cookbook (2006)
Here's a sauce so delicious, it's missing only one thing: a little crunchy bread to dip in it. Make It a Meal: Serve with steamed asparagus or cauliflower, mashed potatoes or orzo pasta, and a glass of Vinho Verde.
102 Reviews for Sauteed Chicken Breasts with Creamy Chive Sauce
I cut back just a bit on the chicken broth and wine so that the sauce would be a bit thicker. I made no other changes. I'm still adjusting to heart healthy meals which my husband now requires and I'm not pleased with many of them. This one was pretty good however. The chicken was tender and tasty.
I absolutely loved this, but ended up adding double sour cream to make it less soupy. I think I'd scale back to 8-10 oz. of chicken broth, rather than the full 14oz. Otherwise, easy and fantastic -- my friends and I almost drank the sauce!
I made this for dinner tonight. This chicken is SO GOOD, and I literally had to stop myself from licking the plate!!! I love that it is made with mostly ingredients that I keep around the house, so there wasn't much to buy. It took around 30 minutes to prepare, and I served it with orzo (to soak up the sauce) and creamed corn. Can't wait to eat the leftovers tomorrow!
This recipe is delicious! It tastes wonderful and it is hard to believe that it is healthy. I have prepared this meal often over the last six months. If I don't have chives handy, I substitute green onions. Yum!
Connect With Us
EatingWell Magazine
Poll of the week
Today's Favorites
- 5 "bad" foods you should be eating (331 comments)
- The #1 food you should eat (and probably don't) (211 comments)
- How to pickle anything (no canning necessary) (128 comments)
- 3 reasons you should snack on popcorn (124 comments)
- 3 reasons you should reach for canola oil when you're cooking (102 comments)
- What's Fresh: Is corn healthy or not? (99 comments)
- The best breakfast foods for weight loss (78 comments)
- How to make a healthy smoothie: best smoothie ingredients & 10 to ditch (76 comments)
- Is Coconut Oil Healthier Than Butter? (76 comments)
- Trying to save money? 15 foods you don't need to buy organic (72 comments)


text: No one is a bigger fan of your favorite sport or college team than you. Show your loyalty and your team spirit with personal sports checks by Current. Our college sports checks can be printed with your favorite college logo, while our personal sports checks feature the sports you are most passionate about. Paying bills certainly isn't America's favorite pastime, but with sports checks from Current - you at least have the chance to support your favorite college team! Our sports checks are standard, secure and accepted by all financial institutions. Support your team today with personal sports checks by Current. And remember our personal checks can always be complemented with our wide selection of check accessories such as check book covers and address labels.


text:
500 words on Joba ChamberlainBy
Even when the Yankees sweep an easy playoff series, controversy somehow manages to find the team. After all, baseball fans and reporters who face five and a half days without baseball have to find something to talk about during the downtime. The topic of the week, as it often is, will be Joba Chamberlain.
During the ALDS, only 18 of the Yanks' 25 active players saw game action, and only seven pitchers — three starters, Mariano Rivera, David Robertson, Kerry Wood and Boone Logan — reached the mound. Absent among those was Joba Chamberlain, the once and, hopefully, future pitching stud. Of course, since Joba is Joba, that he didn't pitch in the ALDS has elicited analysis of the moves and predictions of a Joba-less future for the Yankees.
The why of it is simple: Joba Chamberlain wasn't in the Yanks' plans for the ALDS, and the situation for him to pitch never arrived. In Game 1, Joe Girardi used his close-game staff. After CC Sabathia left in the 7th, Boone Logan came in for the lefties and David Robertson for the righties. For the 8th with a two-run lead, Girardi gave the ball to set-up man Kerry Wood, and Mariano got the ninth. In Game 2, Andy Pettitte went 7, and Wood and Mo closed out a three-run game. Joe Girardi's strategy was not a mystery.
For Game 3, the circumstances changed. After Phil Hughes' utterly dominant seven-inning outing, the Yanks had a 6-0 lead with six outs left. For the first time in the series, Girardi could have moved down the depth charts. He could have gone to Joba, but in the past, Girardi's M.O. for playoff-clinchers has been a no-nonsense one. Mariano Rivera is always on the mound, and the top relievers get the ball before him. It's not a surprise then that Girardi never went with Joba.
The Yankees and Joba had a difficult relationship in 2010. After he struggled as a starter at the end of 2009, Chamberlain spent the year in the bullpen, and he ended the season a 4.40 ERA but 77 strike outs in 71.2 innings. He cut his walk rates and his home run rates but seemed to meltdown at the wrong time. Still, over his final 30 appearances, Joba sported a 2.15 ERA and a 6:1 K:BB rate. He was a very good reliever down the stretch, but he hasn't moved up on the depth charts.
Once the Yanks' 2010 campaign is over, the team will have to address Joba's future. As Ken Davidoff highlighted yesterday, Joba is arbitration-eligible this year and is due for a raise. As the Yanks showed with Melky Cabrera, they're willing to trade players who are making more than the team feels they are worth, and Davidoff believes the Yanks will listen to offers on Joba and may be willing to include him in a trade.
But for now, there's plenty of baseball left, and Joba will have his time to sink or swim. That he didn't pitch in the ALDS simply means that the team's other hurlers did their jobs and nothing more.
122 Comments»
Hopefully, the Yankees realize how utterly important it is to have depth at starting pitching and DON'T trade him unless they can get a similar arm in another trade.
Trading Joba is a tough proposition. He's no Melky Cabrera. You don't trade him for a bag of balls, but I'm not exactly sure what he could realistically net in a trade.
Rumor has it, the Blue Jays wanted him in a deal for Halladay. Should have made that trade.
and/or should have traded him for Dan Haren.
Oh, Joba was one of four players in a package the Blue Jays wanted for Haladay.
You make is sound like the were hawking Haliday for Chamberlain, and Cashman slammed the phone down.
I think the Yankees realize how important it is to have depth at starting pitcher, however, they also realize how volatile young pitchers are and how phenoms can totally disappear due to injury, which may have happened to Chamberlain. Furthermore, I don't think that they view him as starting pitching depth, otherwise he wouldn't have been a reliever, or at the very least he would have been used differently. As far as "starting pitching depth" he's probably below Nova as of now, and soon he might even be behind Warren, Phelps, and Stonebruner. The way that he was used, it's a tough transition back to the rotation. He pitched 70 innings this year, you honestly think he'd be ready to go back into a starter's role if someone gets injured? If they want him to be a starter, that likely means a lot of time in Scranton and he probably won't be ready to start until 2012 or late 2011 at the earliest…since he's arb eligible that's a lot of change to drop on a project. He really hasn't shown that he's ready to go back to the rotation next year either, nor do you want to count on Joba Chamberlain being the 5th starter given AJ Burnett's issues both in past health and current shittiness and Pettitte's old age.
On the other hand, I don't think he'll be traded. They passed up dealing him for Haren, which I'm still fuming over, and it's unlikely they get a better offer than that. I'll admit, I'm quite the pessimist when it comes to Chamberlain. I simply don't think he'll succeed as a major league starter the way we all thought he would in 2008. However, the Yankees really haven't given him the best chance to succeed. The early call up in 2007, the move BACK to the bullpen in 2008 and not allowing him to go back to Scranton and start after acquiring Wood were all moves that I questioned. I would have sent his ass to Scranton the minute they traded for Wood, and transitioned him back to the rotation…but what's done is done.
I don't know what the Yankees plans are, but I think you're jumping to conclusions. Your scenario is a possibility, but I actually sort of doubt it. The Yankees are not dumb. They know Joba still has a good chance at being an above average ML starter. They aren't holding onto him hoping he'll be the best 5th reliever in baseball…
"The way that he was used, it's a tough transition back to the rotation. He pitched 70 innings this year, you honestly think he'd be ready to go back into a starter's role if someone gets injured?"
Phil Hughes was a reliever last season (threw about 100 innings between AAA and NY) and managed to be one of the better starters in baseball this season. So, yes, I absolutely think Joba **CAN** be ready to start next season. If he's not ready, he's got no one to blame but himself.
"They passed up dealing him for Haren, which I'm still fuming over, and it's unlikely they get a better offer than that."
Ask yourself, did the Yankees not trade a middle reliever for Dan Haren? Not even their set-up man… They really didn't trade the long-term 5th guy out of their bullpen for a quality starter with problems Javy and AJ were having? If the Yankees actually passed on this opportunity, chances are it was financially motivated and/or they have bigger plans for Joba going forward.
"Phil Hughes was a reliever last season (threw about 100 innings between AAA and NY) and managed to be one of the better starters in baseball this season. So, yes, I absolutely think Joba **CAN** be ready to start next season."
He's not nearly as good as Phil Hughes, I don't care how hyped up he once was.
But the hype was real though. Everything changed once he got injured and the rules last yr didn't help him. How do you give him long rest, short rest, long rest, and then 3 inning relief starts and expect the kid to pitch well. Pitchers rely on routines and in August/September Joba didn't have a set routine
"He's not nearly as good as Phil Hughes, I don't care how hyped up he once was."
Do you care about results?
I'm not saying Joba is going to be exactly as good as Phil Hughes–though I think every indication is that he still can be as good or better–but that he can be a successful ML starter. Hughes had a strong season, but he wasn't any better than Joba was up until the last 2 months of 09 (as The Big City of Dreams says).
Thank you for the shout out Ted
I don't want him to get traded either but to me it seems like he's being phased out. Truth be told what role does he serve on the team. Wood is the 8th inning guy, Robertson has the 7th, there are no spots in the rotation, etc. He's at middle reliever which are a dime a dozen
Wood is unlikely to be back next season anyway, but I doubt Joba's a middle reliever long-term. He's got the stuff to either be a starter or a closer. If Pettitte retires and/or they don't sign Cliff Lee there absolutely is an opening in the Yankees rotation. I would still call Joba by far the best internal candidate if either's the case.
"Wood is unlikely to be back next season anyway, but I doubt Joba's a middle reliever long-term. He's got the stuff to either be a starter or a closer."
I have not seen closer-type stuff from him in about 2 years. There was not a single time this season when he came into a ballgame and I thought, "man, this guy can close!"
I don't know what happened to his arm, but he is not the same pitcher as the guy who was once blowing people away.
You are hyping him up based on what you saw when he first arrived.
First of all, let's say you are right… has no pitcher in his mid-20s ever bounced back or improved?
You don't have to be Mariano Rivera to be a closer. He absolutely has closer stuff and stats that suggest he can be a closer. Plenty of inferior pitchers have been given the chance to close. He was a successful starter for most of last season. He's still only coming off his 24 year old season. Let's have some patience.
"I have not seen closer-type stuff from him in about 2 years."
I guess you didn't watch any game he started in June or July of last season when he absolutely dominated?
Also, Chris, part of my point is that if the Yankees saw Joba as a middle reliever… they would have been more likely to have traded him by now. If they saw him as a middle reliever and some other team wanted him to start… chances are that team would be willing to offer more than the value the Yankees place on him.
"You are hyping him up based on what you saw when he first arrived."
I am not hyping him in any way. I am trying to be as objective as possible and look at the stats. His 2010 stats aren't far from his 2008 stats. He was very successful in Aug/Sep of this season, so I don't know how many Yankee games you actually watch if you claim he hasn't been good in 2 years…
Very well said Ted but can you imagine the pressure he will be under to close. I'm still under the belief that's one role he would do if he had to but doesn't exactly want to do it. I still feel he wants to start but it doesn't seem like he will get the chance. Is Andy at the point where he wants to walk away?
thankful Joba hasn't been pitching in this series.
hopefully, Joba reflected and took this away from watching Phil Hughes' performance yesterday: what could've been
Maybe we could package Joba, Gardner and a prospect to get someone real good.
You mean someone real good like Gardner?
Matt Kemp?
I agree get rid of Gardner (at his peak value) and Joba for good starter and sign Crawford.
Why not just sign Lee and keep Gardner?
Because Gardner is teh suck.
I mean, I love Gardner too but I doubt he's this good again. I wouldn't be opposed to dealing him at his peak value, provided the return is something really good (not that Gardner isn't, I'm just not opposed to dealing good for good)
Gardner is good and price controlled. Also, his improvement this season has come in patience. His improvement is almost entirely due to walking more. His BA was only 7 points above last season's, his SLG% was the exact same. He mostly just walked more. I have made absolutely no attempt to study the issue, but plate discipline doesn't seem as variable season-to-season as something like BABIP or even a power surge. I wouldn't be opposed the Yankees moving him in the right deal, I just think he might be this "good" (106 OPS+) for the long-term, at least until he loses a step. Off the top of my head I can't think of a better player the Yankees can trade him for than Cliff Lee. (If Lee spurns the Yanks, things change a bit and signing a Crawford/Werth/whoever to trade Gardner for a starter might become more attractive.)
"I mean, I love Gardner too but I doubt he's this good again."
Right…….I'm sure next year he WON'T get on base over 37% of the time, will run the bases with a piano on his back, and will stop robbing opposing players of doubles. He was totally lucky this year with his speed.
"I agree get rid of Gardner (at his peak value) and Joba for good starter and sign Crawford."
Let me get this straight……..you want to replace Brett Gardner, a guy who doesn't even make half a million bucks a year, with a guy who will be looking for 14-15 mill per season, and who's only advantage over Gardner is home runs, which the Yankees hit over 200 of them anyway?
That sounds like an outrageously poor business decision.
And assuming a guy who hasn't even entered his prime yet to be at "peak Value" is purely guesswork on your part. I mean, I think Gardner has a ton to improve on offensively, and he STILL had a OBP of .385!! It's not as if he hit out of his mind this year and there's nowhere to go but down.
It is my personal belief that the word is out on Gardner that if you just throw him strikes he can't hurt you. He is of little use against good pitching which is why he disappears in the post season. To me he is a just a faster but poorer hitting version of Nick Johnson. I would more disposed to holding a sensible stance with Jeter and using the savings on Crawford.
Joba was sad he didn't pitch.
HAHAH! I loved how Jeter violated the "no champagne on Kim Jones" clause.
Then there's this phallic masterpiece:
Joba and Montero for Zack Greinke?
no grenkie is 2 inconsistent I don't think be able 2 get back to his 08 numbers or pitch in the al east plus i wish they kept montero
Even in 2010 his WAR was still 5.2… CC's was 5.1. Greinke's FIP of 3.34 was 20th in the league. (In '09 obviously it was #1.) I'm not saying definitely trade for the guy, but he's one of the best pitchers in baseball.
hell no
I don't know why everyone is clear in saying no. A reliever and a great bat without a clear-cut position for a top tier pitcher signed to a decent contract? If it wasn't for Grienke's issues, I would do that in a heartbeat.
Greinke has mental health issues and said he doesn't want pressure and doesn't want to be in ny.
He needs to be on lithium to function correctly, keep him in KC…let him finish his career as the franchises second greatest player.
Are you a Red Sox fan?
Not funny.
I think Greinke will be traded. His salary is scheduled to go from $7.25 mil this year to $13.5 mil next; which would make him the highest paid Royal EVER!
Being that if he's traded it'll be to dump salary the Yanks would be able to get him for something FAR less than Jesus Montero.
Something like Nova, Eduardo Nunez and Slade Heathcott will be about the value the Royals will be able to bring back for him.
I would only trade Montero if I were getting a true ace, who's thirty or under, and at least two years away from free agency.
The ONLY position player I'd trade him for is Hanley Ramirez.
That's right, I wouldn't trade Montero for Albert Pujols. The upgrade that Pujols gives you over other available 1B/DH bats (Dunn, Konerko Etc) doesn't warrant loosing Jesus.
I disagree about his value. Greinke is still WAY underpaid at $13.5 mil (even in this poor season his WAR puts his value at $21 mill… last season it was $42.5 mill). The Royals could justify keeping him, and other teams will not find a pitcher as good as Greinke on either the FA or trade market for anything near $13.5 mil. Who is the #2 pitcher on the FA market after Lee? What other guy entering his 27 year old season and one year removed from a Cy Young season will be on the trade market? I doubt the Royals can't get something more than fringe prospects and a A guy with promise for one of the better pitchers in baseball making way less than AJ Burnett.
"I would only trade Montero if I were getting a true ace, who's thirty or under, and at least two years away from free agency."
How many guys fit that description better than Greinke? 5.2 WAR this season and 9.4 WAR last season? CC has been at 5.1 and 6.3 those same seasons… Greinke would likely become the Yankees' ace immediately if he could deal with playing in NYC.
Are you talking about only plausible trade candidates? Because you're crazy if you would hang up on ANY non-Hanley deal. You're seriously telling me if the Rays wanted to give you Longoria for Montero you'd say no? Or if the Rockies wanted to toss Tulo your way? Montero's a great prospect and I'm eagerly awaiting his arrival but he's not untouchable. Admittedly there aren't a lot of pitchers that meet your criteria that are available because…well…teams just don't trade guys like that. It's like you're asking for someone to offer up Felix or Lester or someone. Those players don't get traded, they get locked up.
sure, Joba could have pitched last night, but if you win, you get FIVE days off. there was no reason to "save" any bullets.
in the regular season, you use someone other than Wood/Mo to close out the game, b/c you are playing the next day. it's a trade-off, you take a (very slightly) diminished chance at winning the game so you don't burn out your bullpen. there was no danger of that happening this week, so you might as well step on their throats.
i realize i am not arguing with the point of the piece, just stating why there really shouldn't be any "controversy": the series was over before it started. 27 innings, 23.1 innings by the starters and Mo. it was basically the most ideal scenario you could hope for.
But Melky Cabrera was a player who was replaced by far better position players, and he had pretty much no role on this Yankee team other than mediocre bench player with mediocre speed and mediocre defense.
Is everyone in next year's Yankee bullpen going to be far better than Chamberlain? No, of course not. Thus, the Yankees will keep Joba and his paltry ~$1.5M salary, unless they can extract real value out of him.
There were plenty of relievers who were far better than Chamberlain. I'm still pissed him and Noesi weren't shipped for Danny Haren.
That's…not my point (and there was never any Joba+Noesi deal on the table. Why do people make up trade rumors to try and make some kind of point?). If Joba is not worse than 7 other relievers on the Yankees, then it makes no sense to trade him just to trade him.
If you can get value out of him, fine (although it violates the 'selling low' law), but unless he's making in excess of $4M next year (which won't happen), he is not worth less than his salary.
If Joba isn't worse than seven other relievers, but they're offering something better then there is a point of trading him.
This is gobsmackingly stupid. How do you know this was an available trade for the Yankees to make?
If your answer is "I think Jayson Stark said it was a possibility"–he clearly has zero reliable Yankees sources.
Because they took Joe Saunders, one semi-decent prospect, and two crappy prospects for Dan Haren. I'm sure Ivan Nova, Dan Haren, Hector Noesi, and Brandon Laird instead of what they got. Plus it was rumored before hand that they wanted Ivan Nova in any deal. I'm sure Nova, Chamberlain, Noesi, and Laird is better than a left handed Andy Sonnanstine.
It goes beyond even "was it available?" to "why didn't they do it?" Cashman is not an idiot. Maybe his reason turns out to be a bad one in the long-run, but I'm quite sure he had one. As far as I know Cashman has maintained that Joba is a starter long-term.
As "far as I know Cashman has maintained that Joba is a starter long-term."
But is that just lip service to motivate Joba.
I don't know the answer…
At first I thought they were grooming him to replace Mo… but that was just speculation on my part.
He was successful for enough of the 2009 season as a starter that I don't see why he wouldn't get another chance to start… either on the Yankees or whenever he gets to another organization. Unless he becomes–and is paid like–a closer either on the Yankees or another org. Maybe he fails in one or both roles and ends up in middle relief long-term, but I doubt that's where the Yankees *want* him to be/envision him. It certainly not where he wants to be–both from a baseball and financial perspective–and I'm sure when he has the chance he'll do what he can to start or maybe close if that doesn't work out. He's got to start doing whatever he can this offseason by working hard like Hughes did last offseason.
Yes he needs to put in work this off season and attack the game the same way he did before he got injured. I look at his videos from 2007 and think he needs to get back to that weight. Hopefully everything falls into place after that
The problem with Joba is that when he gets in a little trouble, he has a tendency to just collapse completely. My anecdotal impression is that this has happened disproportionately frequently with two outs. I suspect this is why Girardi is loath to use him in meaningful spots, and I wouldn't be surprised if his only appearances in the post-season turn out to be junk innings with the Yankees way down in a game.
If I were the GM I would dump Joba in a trade. He has not come close to his velocity from early in his career. Not sure what the problem is but I'm tired of seeing it. He's a loser as a starter and out of the pen as well. Don't want to see him in pinstripes next year. Package him and the ultimate waste product, A.J., in some trade for anything. No matter what happens with the rest of the post season, the Yankees need some intelligent cleaning up of the roster.
Not sure what they will do with the Jeter problem. I would not want to have to solve that one. A potential lose lose situation. They will be crazy to give Jeter another big contract. That is very likely exactly what they will do.
Fail in all three counts…
1) While Joba didn't perform as well as Hughes did last year and that Logan, Drob & Wood are exceeding expectations does not take away from Joba. He seems to be the 6th inning guy this postseason, which is a really good problem to have. I would expect him to be the fifth starter next year and have the pen of Logan, Albie, Drob & Mo.
2) AJ has stunk up the joint this year but no team will assume more than maybe 5-10M$ of his contract. I expect a rebound next season and recall quite a few big arms that had a year (or two) that were throw aways.
3) Jete batted over .350 this September and has been real solid so far in October. His fielding is at a all-time high of .989 while commiting just 6 errors this year which is comparable to Cano's 3 when you factor in the longer throw. His .270 BA was sad but he has played 15+ years and was due for a bad one. He is declining but name 5 better SS?…name one who is available and an upgrade? he deserves a 3-4 year 50-60M$ package.
which is why i haven't been cheering for him, the past 2 months.
The other thing I will add is that I really hope the Yankees will keep Kerry Wood!!! He could be a big asset for several more years. I am amazed at how effortlessly he throws 96-97 mph. I would pay whatever it takes to keep him in pinstripes.
I'm not trying to pick on you but Wood has like a 10-11M$ option and will likely get 8-10 as the closer. No team does that…in fact, the yankees will have 3-5 decent setup guys for half that amount going into 2011.
He wouldn't want to be the second fiddle and it was a fluke we got him like we did. Gordon was tired of the 8th role and finally got the closer role in Philly.
This postseason he is prooving his talent and it is a win-win for both parties involved. He will cash in elsewhere next season and the Yankees know that setup men come and go and they can just grab the next over-loked talent come July if needed.
are Sizemore/Kemp/Rasmus available?
I love the idea if Grandy wasn't already in the fold. Damn, I would love to see Rasmus in pinstripes.
For the right price, I'd replace Gardner with Rasmus in a heartbeat.
Looks like Joba's gonna have the same role a D-Rob had during last years postseason – you'll see him in extra inning situations if they present themselves. You may also see him to eat an inning in a losing mop-up roll. As for his future beyond this season, who knows?
From 8th inning to mop-up guy what a transition
If Cliff Lee is somehow not obtained, I could see a blockbuster of a trade that included Montero, Joba, and another very tough piece to part with, for a Cain/Josh Johnson/Greinke type player.
marlins for sure dont want arb eligible joba cuz they are cheap!
They could do what they did with Melky and ship some cash in the deal to pay for some of his arb raise. Joba is at least cheaper than Josh Johnson. They could trade Joba in a year if he has success as a starter.
You migh be right though.
Joba has real value for a second tier team, trade him one up for a piece
such as a AA shortstop that may make the grade. The Yankees loaded up on minor league catchers pending Jorge's departure, why not do the same for Jeter? By real value I mean starting, or closing.
i dont think you can get a stud SS prospect for joba b/c his value is low and he's going to be arb eligible. maybe another nunez type of player but will that be worth it?
I think you might be right. Joba has real value for a team, but he doesn't really have a lot of tradeable value for the Yanks.
As the season went on it looked to me that Joba showed more command of his fastball. Not sure if the stats back that up.
Hughes, last year, showed he had FB command. Since successful pitchers, the truism runs, build on their fastball, he was moved to starter.
If my eyes didn't deceive me, and if we get Lee, but not Pettitte, I'd think he'll get a chance to start next year. Otherwise, it's the pen for another year, and, hate to say it, maybe a trade.
But I don't think they've given up on Joba and would want a lot back.
It looks like they have given up on him. The battle in ST wasn't really a battle, he was moved out of the 8th inning, and now he's a middle reliever.
Trade him while he still has value; his upside is decreasing each year. Has been "iffy" since the midges in Cleveland in 2007 ALDS. Very spotty since then, forget his numbers, he wasn't consistent in big spots this year or last.
As for Cabrera/Joba comparison, Melky contributed more lasy year than Joba.
As for Lee, should the Rangers advance and beat the Yankees, blame Cashman for trying to get Lee from the Mariners "on the cheap" and having him "snatched" away by Texas for a first baseman who did not impress in Seattle. Cashman better sign Lee this winter.e
If he has command of his fastball, his upside is very high from here. Even at his worst, compare his results at his age, historically, with others who became top pitchers, he actually did pretty well as a starter. His down ending to '09 surely reflected pitching more than he ever had before in a season.
And he couldn't consistently locate his fastball. Just like Hughes the starter couldn't in the first part of '09. Now, I think, he can.
jesus alou is coming back?
The Yankees will always need quality pitching. We are now paying $24m/yr for AJ and Javy. Would it really shock you if Joba put up better numbers as a strater next year… for under $1m? Would you be shocked if Joba yurned into a solid #4… which is worth $6-$8m these days?
The problem with Joba is that he was SO GOOD in '07, that he is a 'huge disappointment' in comparison to many fans.
Player A) (25) 4.18 8.4 1.48
Player B) (24) 4.68 7.3 1.34
Which guy would you rather have?
Player A) is Joba
Player B) is Phil
You LOVE Phil but are happy to trade Joba?
We are so quick to give up on guys this year. Brett Gardner struggled a bit, and people were calling for him to be traded or cut. Phil Hughes struggled a bit, and people were calling for him to be traded or cut. Cano had that down year and all we heard for weeks were how we should trade him for Kemp.
Players don't become great over night. Joba hasn't been as good as he was in 2007, but how could he be? I don't think it's really possible for that to happen. There's only one Mariano Rivera, guys. Were we all crazy enough to think we could possible replace Mo with Joba?
The reality is that Joba has had his struggles, but has still been pretty good for a middle reliever. Take out his bad May and July, and Joba posted a 3.06 ERA over almost fifty innings of work. That's pretty damn good for a reliever. Let's all take a breath and give Joba a break.
You're over by 15 words. Sorry I had to, I'm very bored.
actually 17, but who's counting
I'm not sold on the idea of trading Joba, or at least not for now. His value right now is as a reliever, no team will claim to want Joba as a starter, so the return for him would likely be low. I'm a firm believer in him, and I would love nothing more of having a rotation of CC/Pettitte or Lee/Hughes/AJ/Joba, and I believe he would find some success as a starter, but even if he doesn't, a year of being a league average starter would raise his value significantly.
The Eagle offensive line is like a sieve. Kolb is lucky he doesn't get a concussion on every play.
Are you saying the Eagles should trade for Joba and put him on the O-line?
As the article stated above Joba pitched to a 2.15 ERA over his last 30 appearances.That´s excellent.
What position do the Yanks so desparately need to fill to justify trading Joba?
Greinke had 5 seasons under his belt before his 2009 season.None of them memorable.