I QUESTION THAT (Part 2)

TELLER: My mentor at Central High School, David G. Rosenbaum, to whom the ‘Macbeth” production is dedicated, changed the course of my life.
CZIKOWSKY: You are an excellent entertainer. My wife for years was convinced she saw you drown on a stunt on the Letterman Show and insisted you have died. May I please ask your reassurances that you are still with us?
TELLER: (glub) Sure.

CHIWETEL EJIOFOR, actor, April 1, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What was your martial arts expertise before the film (“Redbelt”), or did you learn about martial arts for the film?
EJIOFOR: I had no martial arts expertise before the film. I had done a little boxing as a teenager so I came to this brand new, which was exciting and challenging.
CZIKOWSKY: How did you become an actor? Did you study acting? What would you recommend to others interest in becoming actors in how they should prepare themselves before entering the field?
EJIOFOR: I became an actor by doing school plays and youth theater, and then National Youth Theatre of Great Britain. And then I did study at the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts.
For me that was a good way to enter the field, to work in the theater. Depending on what your interest in theater is, I always recommend working on plays. It’s a great way to be introduced to the field, and also a great way to be seen by agents and representation. I’m also a great advocate for studying at a drama school or a college. Those are tried and tested ways, as well as a good basis to approach the work.

DEBORAH SCRANTON, documentary film director, April 2, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How did you get into documentary film directing? Are you related to the Scrantons of Pennsylvania (for whom the city Scranton was named)?
SCRANTON: I’ve been obsessed by what I would call ‘warrior stories’-those that involve a journey, facing and overcoming obstacles, and a coming home or reaching of a deeper understanding. I got my start doing profiles and covering major sporting events like the Olympics, Tour de France, World Cup, ski racing, then transitioned into making films. “Bad Voodoo’s War” is my third, “The War Tapes” was my second, and “Stories from Silence, Witness to War” was my first.
And yes, I am related, although my Scrantons and both my Revolutionary War ancestors fought for the state of New Hampshire.

JOHN LEGEND, Grammy winning musician, April 4, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Artists, singers, and entertainers may lead social protests as much as politicians and activists. Enlightening others to situations is a powerful tool, and the images of non-violent resistance to oppressive legal authority brought people to realize the abuse of that authority, and then they demand changes. What role do you see that song may have towards educating the public?
LEGEND: I think it’s hard to really write a song that will education someone because songs are meant to be…you don’t want to be too didactic in a song because it doesn’t make for good music. And I think the role of songs can be to inspire people but there needs to be education and prose to back that up.

LAURIE DAVID, film producer, April 25, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What future films are you planning? Your work on “An Inconvenient Truth” was excellent and brought the message to many who otherwise might not have found about the facts of global warming. Are you continuing to use this film medium to spread the word?
DAVID: Right now, I am editing a film about the Stop Global Warming College Tour Sheryl Crow and I went on last year. I am also working on a short film about plastic bags (100 billion are thrown away worldwide each year). You are right, film is a powerful medium.

ISSAC HANSON, recording artist, April 30, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: OK, if you (Hanson) were teenagers a decade ago, let me do the math, I presume you no longer are teenagers. Many people in their 20s are embarrassed by their youth, yet what you all did both helped define you and presented music that millions loved. When you look back at your youth, do you laugh, are you proud, or is there anything about it that you regret?
HANSON: I think we’re lucky that we have always stayed true to who we were from the very beginning, and because of that we all feel very proud of the last ten years in the music business and of all the songs that we have written and all of the shows that we have performed. I hope we’re not embarrassed when we look back at our twenties. :-D

SCOTT THOMPSON, comedian, May 2, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: When did you decide you wanted to go into acting and performing comedy? Were you a class clown in school?
THOMPSON: Yes, I was but I never dreamed that I could make a living at it until I spent a year overseas in the Philippines and had some time by myself away from my large family to think about my future.
CZIKOWSKY: The Internet, which we all know contains only the truth, hints that you had some difficulty at York College. Would you please provide us with the explanation as to what happened that may have led the administrators to suggest you seek another direction in your life (a direction we fans, incidentally, are glad you chose)?
THOMPSON: I was told that I should seek employment in another field and was kicked out of my performing program going into my final year so I finished in English. My parting words to my teachers after I locked the door and refused to leave was “I’ll be the most famous non-graduate you ever held back.” Of course now I shudder at my anger but I guess that’s what being a kid is all about or least some of it. Listen to your heart, that’s my advice.
CZIKOWSKY: “The Larry Sanders Show” was one of the funniest and greatest shows ever. Did you enjoy the experience, and how much similar or different is Garry Shandling to Larry Sanders?
THOMPSON: It was the second greatest experience of my professional life and the main difference between the two is that Garry is kind.

JOE QUESADA, Marvel Comics Editor in Chief, May 6, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Marvel has so many great characters. What other characters do you think would be best suited to be adapted for film?
QUESADA: I think we have way too many if you ask me, but heck, I’m partial.
I do believe that the characters that were announced yesterday have tremendous potential. That said, to me, the holy grail is Cap. I just love the characters, so it’s a personal fave.

LISA DE MORAES, Washington Post Staff Writer, June 13, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: In reading about the fire at Universal Studios, I note it is stated the set for “Back to the Future” burned. It is my recollection that this set was being used to film “Ghost Whisperer”. I presume the set can be rebuilt in time for more episodes. Yet, I thought maybe you could check out and let us know if that show was hurt by the fire or not. (I guess ghosts don’t warn about upcoming fires.)
DE MORAES: Seriously, I am wondering why James Van Praagh—the world-renowned (just ask him) psychic medium and Co-Executive Producer of “Ghost Whisperer” didn’t see it coming. Also, why were workers replacing an asphalt roof at 3 am? So very many questions on this one. I’m guessing they’ll find a way to work around the set damage to keep working. Maybe more close-ups of Jennifer “Love to Her Friends” Hewitt’s incredible shoes, to distract us from the fact that sets in new episodes look suspiciously like the interior of the CBS commissary and the Craig Ferguson studio…

ALEX GIBNEY, documentary filmmaker, June 18, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Before you approached your documentary of Hunter S. Thompson (“Gonzo”), what were your prior opinions of him, his writings, and his life?
GIBNEY: I like Hunter’s writing. I remember reading it in college and being impressed and transported by it. It was so fresh and so new and so funny. I lost track of Hunter in his later years but I took not when he committed suicide and that haunted and intrigued me, so it seemed an interesting subject to take on.

MICHAEL PAUL CHAN, actor, July 18, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What were some of the valuable lessons you learned at the Conservatory Theater School? Do you think you could have acted successfully without such training?
CHAN: I remember my acting teacher would tell us, that a lot of what we were trying to learn would not sink in for another 15 years! A scary thought, but quite true. I still grab onto the same principles I learned years ago when I approach my work. I’ve been doing this quite sometime and I am quite sure it would not have been this way had I not studied my craft properly. I wasn’t particularly good looking, I didn’t know martial arts, I am a person of color, etc., etc.
CZIKOWSKY: Have you made plans for when this season’s filming stops? Might you do a movie or theater?
CHAN: If something finds me that I find interesting, sure. The one thing a steady job provides is the power to say “no” to something that’s really not interesting. Not all actors get to have choices in their careers. More often than not, choices are made based on mortgage payments, rent, college tuitions, food, etc.
CZIKOWSKY: Do you have any favorites in who should win for Best Actress in a TV drama?
CHAN: Duh!?!?!?

DEBRA WINGER, actress, July 22, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: When it comes times 40 years from now to write your updated autobiography, what are some of the things you’d like it to be about?
WINGER: Very dubious endeavor—planning 40 years into the future! Since I don’t think of “Undiscovered” as an autobiography, I reserve the right to tell all the stories if anyone is still around that cares about those people!
As far as another book, I see it as a constant process, but who knows how long it will take when you start it.
CZIKOWSKY: How did you go into acting? Was it a childhood dream being fulfilled? Were your family and peers supportive or did they resist your becoming an actor? Did you study acting and, if so, did it help?
WINGER: I became an actor because I couldn’t not/
I trained with various teachers.
It is too reckless to do if you have a choice.
It is not for the faint hearted, lazy, or easily overwhelmed.
CZIKOWSKY: What is undiscovered about your life? If you were writing about it, have you discovered it? Or are there things even you have yet to explain about yourself?
WINGER: I would hope there is much that is undiscovered. I would say that what I have written about are both the uncovering and the discovery.
I feel somewhat superstitious that publishing is like a retro rocket that fires you into the next atmosphere…
CZIKOWSKY: Who were some of the people you most enjoyed working with, and what about them made them special?
WINGER: I loved Attenborough and Hopkins—quite the gentlemen. Loved Bertolucci, Storraro quite the Italians. Loved Reford and Travolta—quite the movie stars.
Loved, recently, Rosemary DeWitt and Bill Irwin. Loved Glen Gordon Caron—he makes me laugh.
CZIKOWSKY: What was your childhood like? Were your parents strict, lenient, and how did this upbringing, in your observation, affect who you are today?
WINGER: I think my parents were typical for their age and positions. My father was not an educated man but he was hard working. They both let me know I was loved and would always have a place to land. Whatever else they did or did not do, I was saved by that knowledge. I often called my mother from far away locales so that I could hear a familiar voice.
This was not a generation known for their touchy-feely approach to life!
CZIKOWSKY: I presume you are a method actor, or you at least agree with their belief of staying in character even when not before the cameras. Do you think the actors who claim they can switch their characters on and off are really able to do so, or do you believe they would gain from tricking the mind by remaining in character even when you are not acting?
WINGER: No, I have worked with all kinds of actors, and you cannot always tell—if the craft is strong and the role is right, they will succeed even if they are napping up until “action”. But I think eventually it shows, so that for an actor to have longevity, he or she must have flexibility, not just good reading habits.
Also, it’s good to be well hydrated.

GREG GILLIS, Girl Talk musician, July 29, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: If an artist specifically states that the artist never wants his or her music mixed by another, would you respect the wishes of that artist?
GILLIS: I’m not specifically trying to piss people off, so I would be open to requests like that. But if their work happened to fit perfectly into what I was doing, I’d probably still be open to using it if I thought it fell under Fair Use. It’s a new era of communications between bands/musicians. And consumers. I think some people don’t see that yet. Maybe if they saw how their work was used in a particular transformative way, they’d be open to it. Good question!

JENNIE GARTH, actress, August 8, 20008
CZIKOWSKY: How difficult is it to go out in public? Are fans mostly respectful, or do you find yourself having to avoid them at times?
GARTH: Most people don’t even recognize me! =)
I live a very normal life and am treated with a lot of respect from the fans.

TOMMY CHONG, comedian, August 21, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How would you describe your relationship with Cheech Marin?
CHONG: Oh, we’re so close. We’re like Siamese twins. We’ll always be friends no matter what. We’ve gone through hell and high water, and even through our darkest moments, there will always be a love that will never die.
CZIKOWSKY: What do you tell kids about pot?
CHONG: I tell my kids that if you’re going to use drugs, replace them. That’s just a joke.
I tell my kids I don’t care what they do, just don’t tell me. They’re going to do what they to do anyway. If they ask me if they should smoke, I’ll say no, but if they do anyway, that’s ok. I don’t think you should make moral judgments about that, I think people need to learn from mistakes, and just to be as responsible as they can. That’s what I tell people.
CZIKOWSKY: Hey, it’s me, Dave. How could you never answer when I come by? I’ve been waiting for you for decades now. Welcome back.
CHONG: Ha, Dave’s not here. We’re figuring out our t-shirt design, and that’s one of the things that was suggested by everybody.

ANDREW KLAVAN, author, September 2, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I am very interested in screenwriting and wonder how you got into it.
KLAVAN: I was dragged into screenwriting against my will. I sold a novel, “The Scarred Man”, to the movies and a producer read it and said to me, “I’ll pay you to write any movie you want.” I didn’t realize I had been struck by lightning, so I said, “Nah, I just wanna write books.” Shocked, she advised me, “Is there anything you’d write?” And I said, “Yeah, I’d adapt Simon Brett’s novel “A Shock to the System.” So she optioned it, I wrote it, and they filmed it—and I thought, hey, this is easy!
CZIKOWSKY: Movies are a global enterprise. Many films have about half their profits from outside the United States. Is it thus reasonable for the movie industry to consider the global market?
KLAVAN: Sure it is. And by the way, I don’t want them to stop making liberal movies! I simply want them to make all kinds of viable movies. It seems to me only the left that wants to censor the opposition, bring back the Fairness Doctrine, shut down Fox News, etc. What I want is a free market of ideas. I do, however, believe that, while filmmakers are within their rights to make anti-war films. It is morally wrong to do so when American soldiers are at war and in harm’s way.

CARRIE FISHER, actress, September 12, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Who first came up with the idea for your one person show, and how did it develop into what it is today?
FISHER: Well, I’ve been doing a lot of speeches, giving awards to George Lucas or getting awards for being mentally ill. So two portions of the show evolved from that—the Star Wars portion and the Mentally Ill portion, which represents a fair chunk of what’s there/
Then I went to my friend Josh Ravetch, who is a playwright and asked him to come on and assist me. He directed the first run when we were in LA. So really Josh and I worked on it initially.

ANN HORNADAY, Washington Post Movie Critic, September 11, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Will you please tell us some tidbits as to what Rick Gervaise had to say?
HORNADAY: Okay, may I just say: Hilarious. And incredibly well-grounded. He’s someone for whom fame and obscene wealth truly seem to be distractions from what he really cares about, which is creating something of quality and worth in the world. I like that in a comic superstar.
As for tidbits…I did ask him why he broke the actor’s cardinal rule about working with kids and animals (he has a classic scene in “Ghost Town” with a Great Dane) and he went out of his way to bend toward my recorded and say, “The dog was late. LATE!”
Very funny man and genuinely smart and kind, too. We need more like him.

CHELSEA HANDLER, E! Talk Show Host, September 16, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What was your upbringing like and how did it shape you as a writer?
HANDLER: My parents were the opposition of strict, they were ridiculously unaware. After enjoying such books by David Sedaris and other essay writers, I thought, why not write my own.
CZIKOWSKY: So at what age did your parents let you start drinking vodka?
HANDLER: They never really “let” me start drinking, but I became a big fan of vodka in my early twenties. Other libations look up my late teens.
CZIKOWSKY: If I ever have a panel discussing the future of the 21st century, it would have you and Sarah Silverman on it. Have you ever met Sarah Silverman and what do you think of her?
HANDLER: Yes, we have met a couple of times. She’s very nice and hilarious.

MARK-PAUL GOSSELAAR, actor, October 15, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How did you get into acting? How did you find the business and what might you recommend to people interested in going into acting?
GOSSELAAR: I got into acting at a very young age---sort of an after school activity, much like someone doing extracurricular sports. I didn’t approach it as a business until I was approximately 19 years old. My opinion, if you want to be an actor, is you have to always maintain your passion for what you want to do.

LISA DE MORAES, Washington Post Staff Writer, October 31, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I like how one of the Brooke Shield ads about people wanting German engineering was broadcast during the “Family Guy” episode where they were satirizing Nazi Germany.
DE MORAES: Perfect.

ALEC BALDWIN, actor, December 15, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: You have written about improving your life with your daughter. Please do not answer anything too personal, yet I am wondering what your daughter’s reactions were to your writing about her and did the process, as I hope, help bring the two of your together?
BALDWIN: It would violate a court order to discuss details of my case, but I would assume that my daughter has not had an easy time of it, everything being so public. Things between my daughter and I are fine.
CZIKOWSKY: Have you met many actual NBC pages? What do you think of the NBC pages you’ve met?
BALDWIN: Yes, I’ve met several NBC pages, and like anybody who is working in an entry-level job at a company, they’re as polite as can be. I’m not sure I can verify this, but Jeff Zucker, the head of NBC, his wife Karen, started as a page, then worked for SNL. I can’t confirm it, but I suspect she worked in the page program/
CZIKOWSKY: I’ll be going by 30 Rock in a few minutes. Does Jack Donaghy need me to bring anything up to him? Coffee? Bagel? Anything?
BALDWIN: Donaghy probably has plans for this evening so the only thing he would probably need is a fresh shirt and a bucket of ice.
CZIKOWSKY” I like how when a real Donaghy became infamous, it was worked into the script. You seem to have very creative writers. Who does most of the writing for the show, how much is Tina Fey involved in the writing, and what is the background of any other writers?
BALDWIN: All of the writers are veteran television writers, of which Tiona is the head writer, she’s the creator, and the other head writer is Robert Carlock. All of them have strong backgrounds in TV comedy writing on shows like “Friends” and “Will and Grace”—Kay Cannon, Matt Hubbard, Jack Burdett, John Riggi, Ron Weiner.
CZIKOWSKY: I once asked a biographer of Condleezza Rice what she thought of your character’s hinted romantic relationships with her, and the biographer replied that she thinks Secretary Rice is not aware of your show or the reference but that she would not have a problem with a TV show creating such a fictitious relationship. I am wondering whether you have since heard if Secretary Rice is aware of her affair with Jack Donaghy?
BALDWIN: I treat my communications with Secretary Rice the same way Donaghy treats his communications with Secretary Rice. They are confidential. But thanks for asking.
CZIKOWSKY: Who is more attractive: Jennifer Aniston or Sarah Palin?
BALDWIN: Jennifer Aniston. How could it be otherwise?
CZIKOWSKY: You were quoted as stating that kissing Jennifer Aniston was “painful”. Is that quote correct and, if so, what did you mean by it? What was it like otherwise working with her? If kissing her is painful, please let me know as I will gladly serve as a body double so you may be kept away from such pain.
BALDWIN: THAT WAS A JOKE! Kissing Jennifer Aniston was everything you might imagine it would be.

ENVIRONMENT

JOHN KEAHEY, author, November 19, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: What are educated guesses, if no action is taken, on how soon Venice will be underwater? How soon might places like Manhattan be underwater?
KEAHEY: That’s a big problem. I don’t believe Venice will be underwater permanently for a few centuries. Humans will intervene if they can get past politics and cost debate. It’s just a matter of when. The city does get dry through periods and it is a long way from being inundated consistently. There are project proposed to prevent that, but debate as to whether those are adequate.
There are approximately a hundred urban coastal areas throughout the world in danger from rising sea levels. The Adriatic, islands in the Indian Ocean. Some need to be surrounded by barriers. If the sea level roles by one foot around Florida, most of south Florida would be under water. Lower Manhattan. Boston Harbor…
Global warming appears to be a reality and as this occurs, people need to take steps to prevent it. There’s no easy solution and nothing that will happen on a certain date we can all plan for.

EUGENE LINDEN, environmental journalist, February 21, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: If confuses me when so-called experts issue conflicting information on issues like global warming. Some experts predict it is happening, others claim the evidence is lacking. What I do notice is there seems to be political or organizational connections behind some of these experts. Who funds your research? What can you say about the connections of those who argue against you?
LINDEN: Nobody funds my research—my interest grew out of a general concern with global environmental issues. As for the dissenters: there are of course those who come to different conclusions about the immediacy of the threat, though the media has tended to disproportionately quote naysayers with funding ties to industry groups. The consensus on the threat, however, is overwhelming. Last year, Science published an essay by Naomi Oreskes who looked back at a decade or so of peer-reviewed literature on climate change. Of the 700 papers examined, not one took issue with the consensus that humans are changing climate. That’s kind of stunning. Bu the way, the same week that paper appeared, John Stossel interviewed Michael Crichton on ABC’s 20/20. Here was his lead-in: “(Crichton) concluded (that global warming) is just another media-hyped foolish scare. And many scientists agree with him.” Says it all, I think.

JOHN PASSACANTANDO, Greenpeace USA Executive Director, February 24, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Please explain the scientific evidence of global warming to laypeople like me. I read that most scientists agree that global warming is happening and all they disagree on is how quickly it will happen. Then I see on television a feature on how global warming is a myth but then I get suspicious as the experts seem to have ties to industry. What do independent experts state, and what is the general consensus on the global warming problem?
PASSACANTANDO: We know more about the threat from global warming than any other major threat that has ever faced humanity. Thousands of scientists from industry, government agencies, and universities have compiled the best research and continue to do it annually. The threat is here and it is huge. The super-storms of Katrina and Rita are exactly what the scientists tell us to expect more of. It’s climate chaos which means drought as well as floods. It means rising sea levels and the spread of infectious diseases. Exactly how much and when, scientists can only speculate. But the only “scientists” I have ever heard deny global warming have been in the pay of the energy industry, much like the old “doctors” of the tobacco industry.

TIM FLANNERY, South Australian Museum Director, March 14, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: We are seeing visible results from global warming of snow and ice in locations around the Earth and we are already witnessing major ecological shifts in fish and animals in the Artic region. Aren’t these shifts rapid: meaning in terms of reduced snow collection and fish migration: haven’t these changes happened much more rapidly than it took for previous shifts of each such magnitude to occur?
FLANNERY: These shifts are indeed frighteningly rapid. In many instances they are occurring far more swiftly than predicted in computer projections. I’m really worried about the magnitude and the speed of the shift at the poles. They should be a warning to us we need to act sooner rather than later on climate change.

MARILYN WEINER, PBS Producer, April 19, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Have you observed if there are any wildlife changes from global climate changes? If so, what have you noticed?
WEINER: There are definitely changes to wildlife because of climate changes. The example that we gave in the (“Journey to Planet Earth”) show last night of the polar bears searching for sea ice is one such example. Sea ice is necessary for the polar bears for hunting. While we were up in the Arctic we noticed that there were birds such as robins migrating to places where they had never appeared before. This is only two examples of changes that are starting to occur more and more frequently.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, April 20, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: You saw first hand the tendency of many key Republicans to follow through on their basic philosophy of deregulating business, even when it comes to the environment. Will you support Republicans who continue to favor the interest of deregulation over protecting the environment?
WHITMAN: I think the thing we have to be careful about is to always assume that deregulation immediately and inevitably makes an adverse environmental impact. I believe we need strong regulations and enforcement, but there are ways to positively engage the private sector that get us even greater environmental benefits, and where we can do that we should.

JULIET EILPERIN, Washington Post Staff Writer, December 11, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What is China’s role in the (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and what goes the Chinese government state about global warming and whether they are willing to make environmental adjustments that might slow their economic growth?
EILPERIN: The Chinese government has been very involved in the talks. One of the main arguments its delegates have been making is they are willing to pursue significant emissions cuts if the U.S. eases technology transfer to their nations.

MARC KAUFMAN, Washington Post Staff Writer, January 14, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How similar or different on what is being observed in Antarctica being observed at the North Polar region?
KAUFMAN: As I understand it, the sea ice of the Arctic is melting quickly in some areas, while until recently that was true only for the Antarctic peninsula. But a major different is also that the sea ice in the Arctic typically does melt in the summer—with 5.8 million square miles winter sea ice that exist during winter shrinking on average to 2.7 sq. miles in summer—while that has not been the case typically in Antarctica. Also, most of the Arctic ice covers an ocean, wile much of the Antarctic ice is on land in the form of glaciers, snow, and ice sheets. Finally, most of the ice in the world is in the Antarctic.

NANCY H. TAYLOR, columnist, April 23, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Have we focused too much on the automobile in our planning decisions, and how may we change planning to get people to walk, use mass transit, and other modes that pollute less and are healthier?
TAYLOR: Smart Growth and Neighborhood Development ideas are addressing this. There are only a few areas around America that really have walkable communities, but the EC has used this idea for a long time. Parts of London are eliminating cars during busy business hours.
As developers plan subdivisions, they should be required to provide bike paths, walkable paths, and ways that the residents can access public transportation as well as schools with ease. Perhaps as the price of fuel increases, people will begin to think about leaving their cars behind and look for housing that does not require a long commute in an SUV!

SOPHIE ULIANO, author, April 23, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What cleaning products should be avoided and which cleaning products are both effective and safer to use?
ULIANO: This is one of my favorite topics as its astonishing to realize that often our indoor air quality is seven to ten times worse than our outdoor air quality.
You want to look for cleaning products that are bleach/phosphate-free and are biodegradable; also don’t go for anything that says “anti-bacterial”.
I love to make my own sprays. It’s so very easy and saves a lot of money. I make an all purposed cleaning spray (water, white vinegar, hydrogen peroxide, and essential oils), which is fantastic because it kills germs better than any cleaner I could buy and it totally safe, smells great, and costs next to nothing (recipe in my book “Gorgeously Green”).
As far as store-bought brands go, I like Mrs. Meyers (smells great), Method, Seventh Generation, and Shaklee.

FRED KNAPP, Environmental Defense Fund President, April 25, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I read exciting theories about fusion energy, converting trash into vehicle fuel, and all kinds of long term solutions that would appear to solve the bulk of our energy and environmental problems. How far along are we on developing many of these alternative sources, and perhaps more important, how far away are we from mass use of such alternatives? What are the obstacles in their research, development, and production for the mass market?
KNAPP: There are an abundance of alternatives, but now there isn’t a level playing field, because anyone can throw global warming pollution in the sky without a cap. Once we limit the amount of pollution, and ratchet it down over time, everything changes.
With a strong cap-and-trade system put in place (the Senate will vote on the climate security act the week of June 2—which is strong, though we are seeking some changes in make it even better) alternatives will come to market much sooner. One reason for this is there will be a cascade of money, now largely sitting on the sidelines, that invests and speeds development, once the law sets up a green market that makes clean much more profitable.
CZIKOWSKY: Do you see any major distortions in the free market system regarding the developing of alternative energy sources?
KNAPP: Let’s take, for example, piping smokestack gasses through pipers to recycle the CO2 into the air without cost or limit. It’s the biggest subsidy we give fossil fuels. Once that changes, then ideas like green fuels become much more profitable. If they can make it work for the practical cost they can happen—but only once you cap carbon by law.

ANTHONY FAIOLA, Washington Post Global Economics Reporter, April 28, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I find one of the most important statistics that few understand is that, of all the people who have existed over the past 2.000 years, half of them are alive today. Isn’t it really a daunting task to provide food and sustenance for this historically large population?
FAIOLA: Yes, but if food production levels had kept increasing (they no longer are) and new competition hadn’t emerged from biofuels, you might be able to make the argument that the world may have been able to cope, or at least cope better.

FASHION

SUZANNE D’AMATO, Sunday Source Deputy Editor, July 24, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Toe rings. In or out?
D’AMATO: This question made me laugh so hard I almost spit out my coffee! Um, were toe rings ever that actually “in”?

VALERIE STEELE, Museum at Fashion Institute of Technology Director, December 4, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: I know nothing about fashion but made an effort over the years to visit every museum in New York City. I want the public to know that you have done an excellent job with your museum. The displays were interesting and the descriptions were not "over my head," so that I was able to understand, learn and appreciate what it was I was looking at. I left feeling as if I had a much better understanding of something I had previously given little thought toward. I thank you and your staff, and for a question, do you consciously realize that your museum is both a learning experience as well as a display for those who wish to just look at clothes?
STEELE: Thank you for your message. I am especially pleased that you like our captions, because we consciously try to advance knowledge about fashion, rather than just displaying pretty dresses. Of course, we also want people to think "Wow. That's amazing," so we try to make each show beautiful AND intelligent.

FLAG BURNING

GENE WEINGARTEN, Washington Post Staff Writer, July 26, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: If we cheer when Chinese dissidents stand up to their government, and if we cheer when Cuban dissidents stand up to their government, how can we then be hypocrites and then make it a Constitutional amendment to state that someone can’t disagree with their own government in America? I’m not saying I like burning the flag, indeed, I oppose it but we have to lead by example. This is (was?) a country that allows the freedom of expression, and that freedom must be protected, whether it be someone who wishes to burn a flag or a comedian who wishes to tell an off-color joke.
WEINGARTER: I pretend to be pretty self-assured on most issues, but most of it is columnist swagger.
On this issue, I am without even teeny nagging doubts. And you know what? I am guessing that most pols who favor an anti-flag burning amendment KNOW what hypocrites and demagogues and pandering schmucks they are being. They see it a s a political game, to force the other side to take a position they can cynically exploit. I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person, understanding the Constitution, can seriously think that AMENDING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION TO PROHIBIT A VICTIMLESS CRIME THAT DOES NOT EXIST is a good idea. It’s just inconceivable.
I am equally concerned about the correctness of gay marriage. I would bet my house that gay marriage will be legal, national, in fifty years, because it is simply Correct and Fair, and we as a society tend to proceed, fitfully, in that direction.
CZIKOWSKY: Instead of worrying about burning the flag, which is something that does not happen all that often, I wonder why politicians don’t act against the real desecration of the flag: the use of the American flag in political advertising? There is where a law is really needed.
WEINGARTER: NO THAT IS NOT NEEDED EITHER.
You seem to be missing the point.
Congress. Shall. Make. No. Law. Abridging. Freedom. Of. Speech.

FOOD

ROBERT WIEDMAIER, executive chef, May 8, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I walk into Marcel’s. What is the one dish you would like me to try, and why?
WIEDMAIER: The one dish would be my boudin blanc. It’s one of the signature dishes at Marcel’s and it’s gotten a lot of great raves by food critics in town. I’ve been doing it for years now and sometimes I want to take it off the menu, but I can’t. It’s fabulous, though. It stands out as one of our signature dishes.

KAZ OKOCHI, chef, May 15, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I walk into Kaz Sushi Bistro. What is the one dish you would like me to try, and why?
OKOCHI: There are so many original dishes here that it is hard to recommend a particular dish. I am sure you will find something interesting from our original menu. We are always happy to make recommendations when you are here based on your preferences.

CESARE LANFRANCONI, chef, May 23, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I walk into Ristorante Tosca. What is the one dish you would like me to try, and why?
LANFRANCONI: I think you should try one of my tasting menus, because they are the synthesis of my personal style of cooking.
There are different formats where you can find contemporary cuisine as well as traditional Italian, with different course options and pricing. We also offer wine flights to go along with each course.

JEFF TUNKS, chef, May 29, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I walk into DC Coast. What is the one dish you would like me to try, and why?
TUNKS: That depends on the season, but my philosophy is using the freshest ingredients available. On a day like today it would include soft shell crabs, morel mushrooms, fava beans, ramps, English peas. This is one of my favorite times of the year.

GENE WEINGARTER, Washington Post Staff Writer, October 28, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Great actual name: Fu King Chinese Restaurant. It closed a few years ago. It served as the basis for Apu on the Seinfeld show because the real life Kramer tried to explain to Mr. King the difficulties of using his name on his restaurant. Of course, NBC and copyright laws wouldn’t allow the episode to use the name “Fu King”. Yet, whenever you wanted some Fu King Chinese, people in New York used to know where to go.
WEINGARTER: I didn’t know this, but I like it.

JOEL ACHENBACH, Washington Post Staff Writer, February 13, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: There’s just one point your article (on Coyote Ugly) missed. So, how’s the food?
ACHENBACH: I’m sure it’s just scrumptious. But my impression is that the place doesn’t want you to consume anything that would damper the effect of the alcohol.

DAVID GEORGE GORDON, author, April 16, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: If I were to boil cicadas and must them together to make a sandwich, about how many cicadas would I need for a normal, average sized sandwich?
GORDON: Hey, let’s have lunch together! My guess: about a dozen cicadas.

JOSE ANDRES, executive chef, May 13, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I walk into Café Atlantico, Jaleo, and Zaytinya. What is the dish you would most like to try in each establishment, and why would you like me to try that?
ANDRES: Zaytinya…Avgotaraho…Unique fish roe.
Jaleo…Olives stuffed with anchovies.
Café Atlantico…Foie Gras doup.
Minibar…The whole experience.

FABIO TRABOCCHI, Maestro Restaurant Chef de Cuisine, May 20, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I walk into Maestro. What is the one dish you would most wish me to try, and why?
TRABOCCHI: If you need specific answers then I would recommend the Sea Urchins, the Carpaccio, Lobster Ravioli, Goat, Turbot, Koe Short Ribs…my God I am so in love with my menu that I could go on and on.
CZIKOWSKY: I have never had sea urchins. How often do you offer this dish? Are they prepared just one way, or do I have a choice in how to order them?
TRABOCCHI: We offer them on the same day they get shipped alive to us. I usually come up with the preparation of one single dish based on sea urchins but if you like sea urchins we can make an entire tasting menu.

ROBERTO DONNA, Galileo Restaurant Co-Owner, May 27, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I walk into Galileo. What is the one dish you wish for me to order, and why?
DONNA: Right now on the menu of Galileo my preferred dish is Ravioli filled with buffalo ricotta, ham, and mozzarella in meat ragu cooked in milk or roasted rack of lamb served with morel mushroom and potato tart with black olive sauce. The menu changes daily so if you’re not coming in for a few weeks call first to let us know you want these dishes and we will make sure to have the ingredients on hand for you. Please note morels are only available for a few more weeks,

RIS LACOSTE, 1789 Restaurant Chef, June 1, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: I walk into the 1789 Restaurant. Which one dish would ou most wish for me to try, and why?
LACOSTE: The scallop margarita.

KATIE HAGAN-WHELCHEL AUTUMN MADDOX and SARAH LAWSON, “Cooking Under Fire” PBS show finalists, July 11, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: I walk into your restaurant. All I want is a grilled cheese. What would each of you offer me that unique and good, or would any of you refuse to serve me?
HAGAN-WELCHEL: I would totally hook you up and add some fresh bread and amp; killer cheese and maybe some truffle oil!
MADDOX: Hey, first I would find some beautiful heirloom tomatoes, sliced thinly, lightly seasoned, and tossed with evoo and some salt and pepper. My choice of cheese would be some St. Andre Triple Crème on some lightly toasted Brioche!
LAWSON: Of course I would serve you. I’d just give you the grilled cheese, but offer you a variety of cheeses…truffle cheese? Provolone? Or god quality Sharp Cheddar?

STEVEN A. SHAW, author, September 13, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: When someone writes a restaurant review, how does one compensate for the reality that the chef, service, and perhaps even the menu may be different by the time I, the reader, tries a restaurant? I have found a wide range of service and quality at the same restaurant on different nights. How can we truly judge restaurants?
SHAW: If you’re looking for certainty in dining, your best bet is McDonald’s. Restaurants are by their nature organic and they evolve (or devolve) in exactly the ways you’re saying. It’s a part of the process. So there’s no way to guarantee that, as they say in the world of mutual funds, past performance will predict future gains.
Critics, however, can try to be a little smarter about this than they generally are. Listing a bunch of dishes and saying this one is good, this one is bad, not only makes for boring reading but is also unhelpful to the person who visits the restaurant after a menu change. Rather, the critic should be focusing on the restaurant’s style, its general strengths and weaknesses, so that a reader can make an intelligent menu selection by reading between the lines. And of course a critic should, if budget allows, make multiple visits—this provides a large sample size, which is at least better if not anything near scientific.

JACK KLUGMAN, actor, February 1, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I used to go to your store and get your flavored popcorn. What happened? I guess nothing last forever.
KLUGMAN: I went partners in a popcorn business in Philly, my hometown. I went out of business.

K.C. SUMMERS, Washington Post Travel Section Flight Crew, April 17, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: One of my favorite tipping stories is, when a Chinese delegation came to the D.C. area in the 1970s, they must have had some guideline somewhere that stated Americans left 13 ½ per cent tips. The delegation always carefully calculated 13 ½ per cent tips down to the exact penny and left that for a tip.
SUMMERS: Funny! I wish I could be that precise when I calculate tips, but I usually just end up way over-tipping to compensate for my poor math skills.

BILL BUFORD, former New Yorker Editor, June 20, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I walk into Babbo. What would you most want me to order, and why should I order it?
BUFORD: The pasta. The best thing in the restaurant. The best, I suspect, in America. (Italy, of course, is another story.) Split plates with the others at the table (you can split them three ways) and sample as much as you can.

ROBERT POPPENGA, University of California at Davis Clinical Veterinary and Diagnostic Toxicology Professor, May 8, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: I was told by expert at the Agriculture Department that it is impossible to test for most toxins in the food supply, and that the only way these toxins could be identified is to wait for someone, be it people or animals, to get sick and then use the symptoms of their illness to reduce the search criteria. They then conduct the search to discover which toxin caused the illness. Does this sound correct to you, or are they passing off responsibility on what information prior testing could yield?
POPPENGA: The problem is that there is no simple, single method for detecting every possible chemical. However, there is likely to be heightened surveillance as a result of this (adulterated pet food) incident.

LAURA MOSER, Slate Staff Writer, August 23, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Isn’t a lot of bottled water really just tap water?
MOSER: You’re absolutely right—about a third of all bottled water comes straight from our municipal water facilities. You may have read something about the Aquafina stink last month—Pepsi has agreed to labor its top-selling water more clearly, so that consumers know exactly what they’re buying. Often, but not always, the repackaged tap goes through additional purification.

KARI LYDERSEN, Washington Post Staff Writer, September 24, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Are sea lampreys safe to eat? If so, why did the King die from eating them?
LYDERSEN: As they say, everything in moderation. It sounds like it was the “surfeit” that did him in. Yes, sounds like they are totally safe to eat. Though like most fish, chances are the ones in the Great Lakes accumulate mercury in their tissue…

CARY FOWLER, Global Crop Diversity Trust Executive Director, February 26, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Who is funding this (doomsday seed vault in Svalbard, Norway) project? It sounds like a great idea and I wish you all the best.
FOWLER: The Norwegian government has paid the entire cost for constructing t and the Global Crop Diversity Trust. It’s an international organization which has as its mandate devising and funding a global system to ensure the conservation of crop diversity in perpetuity. We are structured as an endowment fund for this purpose. The crop trust will be funding the operational costs of the seed vault here and we are also financing the shipment of seeds from developing countries to the seed vault. We received a grant from the Gates Foundation for that particular purpose.

GREG KITSOCK, Beer Madness panelist, March 10, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What is your opinion of where the best beer is brewed? I know some speak highly of Belgium. Where are the best of the brewers?
KITSOCK: Actually, I’d say the best beer brewed is in America. We’ve been able to duplicate almost every style brewed in Germany, England, or Belgium, and our brewers have added a few twists of their own, inventing styles like steam beer and imperial IPA. What other country produces such a wide spectrum of beers ranging from 3.8% alcohol light lagers to the 27% alcohol Sam Adams Utopias?

RICK WEISS, Washington Post staff writer, March 10, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Smell has a large impact on how we taste things. What happens to our abilities to taste when we lose our ability to smell?
WEISS: You are right. I’ve seen some estimates that as much as 80 percent of what we think of as “taste” is actually the contribution from the nose. Without smell, many things taste alike (apples and raw potatoes, for example.) My wife, also a science writer, has a theory that this is not the worst affect of losing your sense of smell though, She says smell is also an integral part of what it takes to fall in love. Without it, it can be difficult to wholly bond to a mate. Anyone out there with little or no sense of smell and tales of woe (or otherwise) on the love front, please write in and add some data points to this idea.

HUNG HUYNH, “Top Chef” TV show season three winner, and GAIL SIMMONS, “Top Chef” panelist, March 12, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Would you please provide us with this hint: what are some of the most common mistakes, or perhaps something that most Americans do not realize, when they cook at home? What can most of us do at home to best become better chefs?
SIMMONS: Seasoning is the most basic thing. Washing your food properly, really cleaning lettuce and mushrooms, buying the best ingredients, tasting at every step. Don’t be afraid to get your hands dirty, that’s how you learn. Don’t make it fussy, the simpler the better.
HUYNH: Don’t be afraid to use salt!

DAMIAN MOSELEY, The Root Contributor, August 13, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: There may be much fault to the Los Angeles ban on new fast food places, but do you see some good? While it does not totally stop their number or eliminate them, doesn’t it prevent a continued sprawling growth of fast food places within neighborhoods? Wouldn’t it be better that more grocery stores that offer healthy foods be able to find more spaces instead of having more and more fast food places taking many of the new spaces?
MOSELEY: I agree. There is some good in the ban if grocery stores (or other food retailers) have been vying for the same real estate. In this case, maybe the moratorium gives those other food retailers the space in which to operate. But what will be done in conjunction with the ban to 1.) attract alternative food retailers and 2.) encourage people who typically patronize fast food outlets to instead patronize the new places? There seems to be an implicit assumption that if the options are there, please will use the, and community health will necessarily improve. I’m just not sure it’s so simple.

PAUL ROBERTS, journalist, August 19, 2008
` CZIKOWSKY: The population today is approximately equal to all who lived in the past 2,000 years before. We have found ways, with major faults, to attempt to feed as many people today as lived over the past 2,000 years. How are you going to continue to make such demands upon our food supply, especially since the population boom is growing, and doing so rapidly?
ROBERTS: That’s the trillion dollar question. Feeding a world that wants not simply more bulk calories but more “resource intensive” foods, such as meat and dairy, in safer and more convenient forms, all dramatically reducing the food industry’s use of energy, water, and fertilizers, its production of waste, and its degradation of soils, forests, and other natural system.

FOOTBALL

TY STEWART, Vice President of Marketing, National Football League, September 3,2003
CZIKOWSKY: Please forgive me if this sounds critical, but it reminds me of when football was introduced into Europe. The fans reportedly told how much they loved the entertainment and the side shows connected to the game, yet they found the actual game dragged down the evening. Are people going to see football with entertainment as an extra, or entertainment with a football game thrown in?
STEWART: Everything that the NFL does is grounded in the game of football. However, today football is entertainment and we want to give fans a total experience as has been a longstanding tradition with the Super Bowl. Music is one avenue that can help enhance the game presentation.

JOE JACOBY, former Washington Redskins offensive lineman, January 8, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: In your assessment, where did Coach Spurrier go wrong, and wrong correct moves did he make even if the season did not go well?
JACOBY: Where did Spurrier do wrong? I think coming in assuming that professional athletes will be professional in the every day world coming in to practice. The team needs guidance, structure, and discipline. It doesn’t matter if you’re 12 or 32, there needs to be someone in charge. Now that’s been taken care of and hopefully these guys will understand that.

GENE WANG, Washington Post Staff Reporter, January 29, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Football lasts four quarters (something Pennsylvania teams sometimes seem to forget). Which (Super Bowl) team do you believe is less likely to choke in the fourth quarter, and which team do you believe is more capable of organizing a come from behind rally in the fourth quarter?
WANG: Still a little bitter about your Eagles, are we? I don’t blame you. I was at the NFC title game, and boy were the Eagles fans bumming. As for Sunday, the Patriots are near impossible to beat once they get a lead because of their defense. The Panthers, however, have proven this season they know how to win close ones. Plus, they have the wide receivers, specifically Steve Smith, who are more capable of making the big play and getting points in a hurry.

MARK SCHOABACH, Washington Post Staff Writer, August 9, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Who are some of the (Redskins) rookies who have impressed you?
SCHOBACH: Gari Scott at receiver has looked good. The two tackles—Mark Wilson from Cal and Jim Molinaro from Notre Dame—have looked pretty good on that No. 2 line. And they’ve gotten a lot of snaps because of injuries to Winey and Jones. Cooley looks like he’ll be pretty good. Good speed. Decent hands.

GENE WEINGARTEN, Washington Post Staff Writer, August 24, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: The University of Pennsylvania Quaker mascot could smash any other mascot. Honest. That pacifist has powers no one has even heard about.
WEINGARTEN: The whole notion of The Fightin’ Quakers really appeals to me.

MARK MASKE, Washington Post Staff Columnist, August 28, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Hypothetical: Michael Vick wins work release and the indefinite suspension is over. Would any team dare hire him?
MASKE: That’s the big question. I don’t think we know the answer yet. To me, it all depends on how he acts and what he says once his every move and every word are no longer being scripted by his legal team. If he wins some measure of public forgiveness, then it’s entirely possibly that some team will feel two or three or four years from now that it can justify to its fans the signing of Vick.

JASON LA CANFORA, Washington Post Staff Writer, September 7, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: There is much debate over how much “spirit” or “team cohesiveness” or whatever one wishes to label it as, but: do the Redskins seem like a team that can excel as a team, or are they more apt (as we see with some teams) to be a collection of talented individuals, who seem to play more to make themselves look good rather than concentrating on the good of the team?
LA CANFORA: Chemistry develops over time and winning early has a whole lot to do with it, I can tell you that. I think the new guys generally will fit in pretty well, but certainly that was not the case last year and it had a lot to do with that lost season.
Wish I had the answers myself, but I’m not nearly smart enough to have it figured out.

CINDY BOREN , Washington Post NFL Editor, January 24, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: The psychological pressure is all on the Patriots not to blow their undefeated season. The Giants, who showed they are capable of challenging the Patriots, have little to lose. Is this grounds for a Giants upset?
BOREN: I have decided to pick the Giants, because no one else is. Yes, it is a pity pick. Your analysis has a great deal of validity; my intellectual argument is you cannot pick against Brady/Belichink in a battle of wits and with two weeks to prepared. Still, I am. Pity pick.

KEVIN MOHS, Animal Planet Production Vice President, February 1, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Are there any surprises about this year’s Puppy Bowl that you are allowed to leak to us?
MOHS: Well, a touchdown is scored pretty early in the game, but I can’t revel much more than that. You’ll have to tune in to find out who scored and who will selected as the Most Valuable Pup.

MARK BOWDEN, author, June 10, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Did you start writing this book (“The Best Game Ever”) before the most recent Super Bowl? I know people tend to think more recent events are of greater importance because they relate more to them, but where would you place the Giants beating the Patriots in the Super Bowl among the list of great games?
BOWDEN: I think it was the best Super Bowl ever. The 1958 NFL Championship game remains, however, the ONLY championship (or Super Bowl) to go into overtime, and is without a doubt a far more significant game in the history of football. I started writing the book in 2006.

STEPHEN FATSIS, author, July 10, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Have you read “Paper Lion” by George Plimpton and, if so, what are your thoughts of Plimpton’s observations on attempting to make the NFL and NFL culture back then?
FATSIS: “Paper Lion” was an absolute influence on me—as it is on many writers of a certain age. Plimpton wasn’t the first to do participatory sports journalism—a reporter named Paul Gallico did in the 1920s—but he is certainly the most responsible for turning into a widely regarded genre.
When I had the idea to try to join a team, the impetus was, absolutely, “it’s time to do a modern “Paper Lion””. I don’t shy away from that fact at all in the book (“A Few Seconds of Fame”). I think every writer who has ever joined a sport or a subculture owes a debt to Plimpton. But my intent wasn’t to do a mere copycat book. The business of the NFL has changed so much since 1963, when Plimpton went to Detroit Lions camp as a quarterback, and the job of the athlete had changed so much, too, that I knew my story would be remarkably different.
The cultures are in a lot of ways unrecognizable. Plimpton really focused on the then-mysterious locker room hijinks and the myths and legends of the sport—he’s a great storyteller. And the X’s and O’s of the game were revealing at the time. Today, the 24/7 media has revealed a lot of that. What I wanted to do was get to the core of what it means to be an NFL player—what did the players love about the game and the business, what did they hate about that. The members of the 2006 Denver Broncos really opened up to me in ways we don’t read in the mainstream media, in ways I think that will be revealing to readers.
CZIKOWSKY: Do you think the second most populous city in the country, indeed the most populated county in this country, will get an NFL team?
FATSIS: I think L.A. will get a team when the league decides that the economics imperatives dictate placing a team there. Not being in L.A. hasn’t hurt the NFL’s television deals, and money talks. The league can hold L.A. in its back pocket for when it needs L.A.—either because another franchise is in serious financial trouble or when expansion becomes desirable. But it’s a complicated issue—greater L.A. hasn’t found the winning answer on getting a new stadium built, which is the prerequisite, of course, in today’s pro sports world.
CZIKOWSKY: What was your kicking experience before you tried getting an NFL team to look at year? Did you play soccer or kick football in high school of college, if not a team than on amateur playing fields? How long did it take to practice with a coach until you were ready to try to make a team? In short, if Joe Sixpack stopped watching TV and practiced and trained really hard, could some non-players transpose themselves into professional athletes?
FATSIS: I had not football experience beyond messing around with friends as a kid. The only organized football I played was the touch football team in elementary school. I did, however, play soccer in high school, though not in college. I wasn’t good enough to play at my Division I school. And I played indoor soccer in NYC in my 30’s—until my second torn ACL.
Yes, I decided to try to become an NFL placekicker after two ACL surgeries. I write in the book about visiting my orthopedic surgeon before heading to Denver. He told me that my left ACL was shot—frayed—but that I’d probably make it through camp because kicking a football is a unidirectional movement—no cutting.
I worked with a professional trained here in DC for a year—a guy named Steve Kostorowski, who’s worked with Wizards, Capitals, and other athletes. I gained a dozen pounds of muscle. And I spent about four sold months working with a kicking coach, the great Paul Woodside of Alexandria, Va., a great college kicker at West Virginia in the 80s who tried and failed to make it in the NFL.
CZIKOWSKY: OK, so maybe kicking isn’t your destiny. How is your pitching?
FATSIS: Maybe in my next book.
Nah, Plimpton already did it.

GEORGE SOLOMON, Washington Post columnist, August 1, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Do you remember when you first met Darrell Green and when you first met Art Monk, and what your first impressions of them were?
SOLOMON: I met Darreell Green at a boxing match; he moved around a lot in the community. Did not hide, as some athletes do.
I met Monk after one of his earlier Redskins’ home games; and at a charity event the same season.
Both are classy, first-rate individuals.

CINDY BOREN, Washington Post NFL Editor, September 8, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What can you tell us about the Patriots backup quarterbacks?
BOREN: That they do a damn fine job of holding a clipboard—they are all-Pro. If you’re really smart, that’s what you do. You can make a boatload of money doing it and keep your health. Matt Cassel said he hasn’t started a game since high school. He’s so smart, he watched Carson Palmer and Matt Leinert take all the lumps while he enjoyed himself amid the palm trees at USC. He threw something like 33 passes ad I believe he may have had a poster of Todd Collisno n the wall of his dorm room.

JAMES BROWN, CBS football shows host, October 9, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How did you make the leap from the business world to broadcasting basketball and then football? How did you get hired for your initial broadcasting jobs? I am glad they found you and all the best on your future work.
BROWN: Wow! How thankful I am. You can’t see me, but I’m blushing. Believe it or not there’s a lot of similarities between the business world and sports broadcasting---especially as related to interviewing. On sales calls, in essence I was “interviewing” a potential customer to get to know more about the, and their needs, clearly it’s the same process for interviewing athlete and coaches.
My first broadcasting efforts were as a freelancer for the Washington Bullets. Then I did Black college sports for BET, local television, and then ultimately came to the attention of CBS while doing some syndicated college basketball games. I was asked to be football play-by-play for them, and survived my first broadcast and major fumble when I said a player was tackled at the 60 yard line and looked at the (incorrect) stadium clock and said “we’ll be right back after this commercial break with 8 minutes and 99 seconds to play.” I’m very glad not to have been fired then.
CZIKOWSKY: Is there, or should there be, anything the NFL can do to better prepare NFL athletes for life outside of pro football, such as money management, behavioral difficulties, and counseling on coping with life after one’s playing days are over?
BROWN: An excellent question. Both the NFO and the NFL Players Association, for at least the past several years, have been doing just that. For instance, the league sponsors a boot0camp that I have been blessed to host for the past two years at NFL Films Studios in Mount Laurel, N.J. where select players are exposed to the full range of career opportunities in the media---television, radio, Internet, and print. It also sponsors an entrepreneur’s program where select players go through intensive entrepreneurial training at prestigious business school like Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, University of Chicago, etc. I’m happy to say that a number of players are taking advantage of that program, and I’m very impressed with how forward-thinking and diligent these players are.

FRANCE

KEITH RICHBURG, Washington Post Foreign Correspondent, May 6, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Has news about the Le Pen candidacy been overblown? Had there been a different configuration of election returns, especially if the left wing had not been as divided and perhaps had run better campaigns, this would not have been such a large news item. Or, am I incorrect, and there has been a serious growth in the right wing in French politics?
RICHBURG: You are right that the divided French left allowed Le Pen to steal second place. But the threat was serious enough considering only two candidates make it to the runoff. There was never a doubt Chirac would win, but the French wanted a massive turnout to show the world that they reject what Le Pen stood for. To most French, even letting Le Pen get 30 percent would have been a global embarrassment.

JAMIN RASKIN, Visiting Professmor Institut d’Etudes Politiques, December 18, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Attempts to ban religious symbols have failed throughout history. Africans brought to America, whose religions were banned, secretly incorporated the ir banned religious deities into Christian images. Eastern Europeans chose bake goods and other secret symbols to represent religious symbols banned by Communism. Does France believe that banning religious symbols will quiet religious divisions when history shows us that banning them tends to only stimulate resistance to the bans?
RASKIN: Fair point. But remember that France clings dearly to the Enlightenment and, by the way, to a number of our Revolutionary heroes, like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine, who were considered atheists and heathen in their time. Everything in French life revolves around rationality and proving things correct through empiricism, science, and logic. This is a deeply admirable impulse, I think, especially in a world with so much religious fanaticism and hatred. But this policy, as you are properly suggesting, may just be driving something underground that needs to be expressed. Those Moslem girls should be in French schools learning math and science and history and the values of La Republique.

DANA PRIEST, Washington Post Staff Writer, July 7, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: It is certainly ironic that, after all the negative comments that Secretary Rumsfeld has said about the French government, that it is the French Alliance Base that is in fact one of our best collaborators in intelligence. Has Rumsfeld finally agreed that working with the French has its benefits, and that the French may at least participate in Red Flag exercises and that American and French military personnel may resume greater communications?
PRIEST: Not that I know of.

DAVID MILIBAND, United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, September 27, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: How do you view the changes in the French government and their revised foreign policies?
MILIBAND: President Sarkozy and Foreign Minister Kouchner have brought a new dynamic to French relations with Britain and the rest of the world. Their commitment to closer working inside NATO, for example, and their readiness to support economic and political reconstruction in Iraq, is welcome.

GAMBLING

RUSSELL ROSENBLAUM, high stakes poker player, December 23, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Several years ago, I met a famous actress and her husband, who was introduced as “a professional gambler”. Aren’t the odds stacked against gamblers? How many people, besides you, really can earn money as a professional gambler?
ROSENBLAUM: First of all, I’m not a professional gambler. That said, most good professional gamblers can and do take money playing poker and blackjack. The problem is they don’t take enough money to survive. It’s much easier to win gambling when you don’t have to win to pay your mortgage.

MATTHEW MOSK, Washington Post Staff Writer, April 11, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: One of the lessons learned a few years ago in Louisiana is” there can be too many gambling establishments. They overbuilt gambling places and many failed. New Jersey may be hitting the saturation level, as noted by Trump Casino filing for bankruptcy. Now, Pennsylvania is building casinos. So, why are some legislators still fighting to build casinos in Maryland? Maryland may be attempting to join the game too late.
MOSK The Senate President, Mike Miller, has made a similar point, although he strongly supports slots. He says the interest in gambling is cyclical, and Maryland has just about missed it’s opportunity to really benefit from this. Now that Pennsylvania, Delaware, and West Virginia have slots, there’s some question whether there would be as much to gain. Other supporters, however, say there’s a strong market in Maryland, given its proximity to D.C. and Virginia.

GAY MARRIAGE

JONATHAN RAUCH, National Journal Senior Writer, May 5, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: For people who do not accept gay marriage for religious reasons, I like to point out the following. Unless you believe your religion is the one true religion and you know for certain your religion is correct, then you should consider the following: why should you impose your religious beliefs upon others? Some religions accept gay marriage. Why not let the decision to enter a gay marriage be a decision made according to the beliefs of the people involved in the decision? In my belief: if you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t marry a gay. Am I making sense?
RAUCH: Yes!
I’d be concerned if I thought that any church would be required to celebrate or sanctify a same-sex marriage. And I’d fervently oppose steps in that direction.
But, as time goes on, we’ll have religion on both sides of this question. On my book tour, I met a Baptist church elder in Memphis whose church is even now considering whether to sanctify gay unions.
So there’s no way to have every religion happy. We’ll have to decide civil marriage as a civil matter.

JOSHUA LEGG, Freedom to Marry Foundation President, May 17, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: There is legislative movement in Pennsylvania (and I presume in other states as well) that our state would not recognize another state’s gay marriage. At a time when Philadelphia is actively marketing for gay tourism and urban areas are seeking attempting to attract gay homeowners, doesn’t this seem to be economically counterproductive?
LEGG: I’d imaging that this will be counterproductive economically for Pa. We’re already seeing an impact in Virginia. There are major calls for tourists to boycott the state because of the extent to which the legislature there decided to infringe on the civil rights of citizens. I’m not certain just how much of an impact that boycott will have on the opinions of the legislature, but if it’s anywhere close to the success that the boycott had in Colorado in the ‘90s, there could be a real economic impact. Pa. and other states may face the same issue, particularly if the state is trying to capture the gay dollar.

MATTHEW MOSK, Washington Post Staff Writer, January 23, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Is there any polling data (on a proposed Maryland Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?) If so, are there any signs, as has been claimed by at least one Political Scientist studying the recent gay marriage election voting, that there appears to be a significant backlash in Democratic voting areas that increased Democratic voting strength is more significant than the increased turnout in Republican areas? In sum, could this issue cut politically both ways?
MOSK: You’re asking a question that is being closely examined by all the politicians who are running for office in Maryland in 2006. I have not seen polling on same sex marriage. But my first clue as to how it polls is in the answers we got from many of the Democratic candidates running for Governor and U.S. Senate this year: namely, they support granting rights to gay couples but stopped short of supporting same sex marriage. My sense is that their polling signaled to them that actual marriage ceremonies would turn off the moderate Democrats they need to get elected. (Of course, I’m not suggesting they all formed their opinions on this by taking polls!)

PETER BAKER, Washington Post Staff Writer, June 6, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Mr. Milbank refereed to the Marriage Protection Act as the Republican Protection Act, which is probably correct. Yet, in Pennsylvania, Republicans are losing their formerly solid Republican base in the suburbs on these social issues. These social issues may galvanize the base, but the backlash causes the opposition to come to the polls in even stronger numbers. I know the polls show the majority of voters favor this amendment, but has anyone done any analysis on how this affects elections and turnout?” It would be my hypothesis that the anti-amendment backlash is stronger than the increase in the Republican base.
BAKER: It’s a good question and one that probably has different answers depending on the answerer. A number of analysts have concluded that ballot measures banning same sex marriage in 11 states in November 2004 helped drive up turnout of culturally conservative voters and that that helped President Bush win reelection. I haven’t seen a real study, though, that quantifies that.

GOLF

DAVID VON DREHLE, Washington Post Staff Writer, June 2, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: The late Ian McHarg told one of my favorite golf stories of all time. He helped design a golf course near a tourist attraction where children fed alligators marshmallows while tourists took their pictures. The lesson Ian McHarg learned: Prepare for the unexpected. On the first day the golf course opened, they discovered a problem they had never even considered: Alligators can’t tell the difference between marshmallows and golf balls. So, you’re right, there are all kinds of lessons to be learned at the golf course.
VON DREHLE: Ha! Great story.
I lived in Florida for a few years in the ‘80s, and I vividly recall the time I shanked one into the reeds next to a water hazard. “Ah!” I thought. “It’s right there next to that log!” I was about four inches of stomping on the “log” when I realized it was a gator!

LEONARD SHAPIRO, Washington Post Staff Writer, August 12, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I am not a sports psychology expert, but a recent Tiger Woods interview has me worried about him. When he admitted that he is beginning to doubt his own ability, isn’t that just about the worse thing an athlete can do? Failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think a more positive and perhaps more relaxed attitude might help him. Is Tiger Woods dooming himself, in your opinion?
SHAPIRO: Tiger was extremely upbeat in his comments on Tuesday before the tournament started, and said he was pleased with his progress and excited about his game. Whether he’s in denial or not, only he knows for sure. I do think he’s not the confident player we saw three and four years ago, but I believe he’s still capable of winning any time he plays. More important, so do his peers.

GOVERNMENT

DONALD F. KETTL, University of Pennsylvania Political Science Professor, February 28, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: What happened to “common sense” in civil service? It seems one problem is rules are created and followed to the letter without regard to common sense flexibility. I see managers finding ways to create flexibility in the system, such as by not permanently filling positions so the position may be “permanently temporarily” filled by technically unqualified candidates yet who are the best people at doing the jobs. Shouldn’t the system be designed somehow to allow for common sense flexibility?
KETTL: Ahhh…Common Sense. I once worked at a place where the first rule was that every sentence beginning, “wouldn’t it make sense that…” was ruled out of order.
But you’re right. The key is creating a system that makes sense. And the keystone is a system that focuses on strengthening government’s capability to maximize performance.

JONATHAN D. BRUEL, IBM Senior Fellow, September 20, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I heard an economist in the Comptroller General’s office forecast that our country will have a shortage of about 60 million employees from what we should expect to maintain our economy. We are already beginning to see this shortfall in jobs held by teenagers (due to the less proportion of Americans being teenagers, who will soon be the future lower proportion of the entire workforce) and in health care professions (where shortages of people to fill the demand for jobs are evident). What are the forecasts for jobs in the public sector? What are the future employment needs within the public sector, and are we producing enough graduates in the public sector fields?
BRUEL: I don’t have the data to forecast the needs for jobs in the public sector, but the reality is that the challenges of today’s society are such that individual agencies and programs cannot succeed in delivering results on their own any longer. The fundamental performance improvement challenge in government is for leaders to achieve results by creating collaborative efforts that reach across agencies, across levels of government, and across the public, nonprofit, and private sectors.

DAVILD WEIL, author, March 15, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Is it also a problem that not only lots of government documents are delayed a while before they are made public, but when they are made public, it’s a huge amount of documents released all at once that make it difficult to find anything?
WEIL: You have hit on am important issue for transparency: freshness of data, Transparency policies are only effective if they provide information that users find relevant to current decisions. If information is out of date or provided in a way that users find it difficult to use, it won’t take long for users to view the policy as ineffective.
An example of this is the policy of drinking water disclosure. The idea is to provide the public with information about the quality of the water they drink. The reality is that the information is often a year old. So by the time that people receive their water quality report, it is telling them about conditions that may no longer exist.

HAITI

ROBERT MAGUIRE, Director of International Affairs and Haiti Programs, March 1, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What was the degree of corruption before and during Aristide? Do the rebels promise serious reforms, and what seems to be the likelihood that such promised reforms can actually be met?
MAGUIRE: Haiti has always been plagued by corruption. Many experts have argued that the corruption seen under Mr. Aristide was not as bad as that under various military governments or dictatorships. Still, Mr. Aristide did not appear equipped to clamp down on corruption, something that would have earned him strong international support. I have yet to see any position papers or statements—about anything—from the rebels or the political opposition. This has been a struggle for power, not of ideas.

EUGENIA CHARLES-MATHURIN, Co-Director, Quixote Center’s Haiti Reborn, March 2, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What is it the rebels want? It seems they have no clear objectives. Is there any hint of what they plan to do now that they have power?
CHARLES-MATHURIN: The rebels want the Haitian people’s blood and they do not want to see democracy prevail. They most certainly don’t have any objectives and that is what the international community should ask them: to indicate their plan for the Haitian people. How are they going to continue to move forward with the process of democracy? Are they going to respect the Haitian people’s rights? Will they submit themselves to the justice system given that they have been convicted in absentia for killing over 5,000 Haitians in 1991-1994? I think the plan is to reconstitute the Haitian army and continue to massacre the people who support democracy, the people who have been craving education, basic healthcare, clean water, and food, most importantly, the children who are dying of malnutrition.

JANE REGAN, writer, September 7, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: How used to hurricanes is the Haitian government? Do they know to respond quickly and to seek people who are stranded and to either rescue them or, if that is not feasible, to at least drop food and water to them?
REGAN: The Haitian government so far has a horrendous response to hurricanes. The last two storm and hurricane related flooding incidents killed over 5,000. The U.N. was already in Haiti, as were tons of aid agencies, sot hey did all the work.
The Haitian government has no plans, and a budget totally dependent on foreign aid. Worse, it has no real disaster relief network or programs. Once, there was the threat of a hurricane and so government officials got on the radio and told people to “move in with friends who live on higher ground and buy canned food and bottled water to last three days.” Millions of people live in sea level slums and would not know anyone “on higher ground” and with two to three million living on less than $1 a day, do you think they can buy even one can of food?

HEALTH

CHARLES N. KAHN, Federation of American Hospitals President, February 19, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: States will be allowed to expand their children’s health insurance programs to include coverage for pregnant women without health insurance. Yet, some analysts note state budgets will not have the funds to pay for such expansion. Do you have any thoughts on this?
KAHN: The states are in a bad way fiscally right now. That is not good for health coverage. But, so much is tied to the economy. If the economy gets moving again, that would solve some of this problem. This is a fiscal not a health issue.

ABIGAIL TRAFFORD, Washington Post Columnist, and ED LOWENSTEIN, Harvard University Professor, March 12, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Do you see any significant improvements in the dissemination and understanding of information, as understood by the medical community, to the political community. It is often difficult for policy makers to understand medical information. Especially when there is often conflicting information. In addition, policy makers need to be attentive to other communities. These communities may further fail to properly understand that which is accepted by the medical community. What can be done to create greater understanding of complex medical information?
TRAFFORD: You raise good points. Basically health is a very political issue. So you have politicians making health policy and health professionals recommending political solutions. But this gests very dicey when the subject is a particular medical practice such as end of life care. Dr. Lowenstein, when should politicians stay out of medicine---and vice versa, when should physicians stay out of politics?
LOWENSTEIN: I would guess there is more medical information in the public domain today than even in the past. One of the problems medicine has with many other constituencies is it does not speak with a single voice, for all sorts of reasons, but certainly reflecting the many differences individual physicians have. For instance, less than half of the physicians in the United States belong to the American Medical Association, but many assume the AMA speaks for all doctors.
I agree it would be more effective if we spoke with a single voice to the policy officials, and I hope we can figure out how to do this better in the future.
On the other hand, it may be even more important that physicians and their patients are the one who are in the driver’s seat rather than politicians.

DEIRDRE THORNLOW, American Association of Colleges of Nursing Program Director, July 18, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: There is a shortage of nurses. State governments are responding by providing more funds to nursing schools to increase their enrollments. Do you believe this would be helpful, or would it be more useful to direct such funds to more scholarships or in some other way?
THORNLOW: The funds are dispersed in many ways. Some of the money does to go fund student enrollment and student tuition, yet other funds are directed to faculty development and infrastructure improvement. All are important for ensuring a quality education. AACN is working with local, state, and federal legislators to secure more financial assistance for students.

BILL FRIST, United States Senator, July 18, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Do you think it would be beneficial to district potassium iodide to residents living near nuclear power plants?
FRIST: Generally, the first rule is to evacuate. However, if the tables are available they can be taken, but offer only very limited and partial protection---just to the thyroid gland. Again, evacuation is the first priority.
No protection against dirty nuclear bombs.

DAVID MURDOCH, Frontline Producer, October 18, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: What is the state of mental health care in most prisons? What types of mental health care are lacking and what do you believe, if anything, should be done?
MURDOCH: I think it’s safe to say that it’s a problem for prisons across the country. They’re stretched. In society in general, the mental health system is stretched. And to take that system and put it in a correctional system, you can imagine. Their primary concern is controlling the inmates, whether they have mental health problems or not. When you go to the hospitals for the most severely mentally ill, and they’re treating these patients, their aim it to return this person to prison---not to society. So their aim is to stabilize and make the person more controllable.

ORRIN HATCH, United States Senator, October 22, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Thank you for your support of stem cell research. It would mean so much to so many people who suffer, and may prevent suffering, from several medical conditions. What is the current political mood on stem cell research? Do you see the public becoming more supportive of such research as they learn more about the details of this issue?
HATCH: I believe the public will become more supportive and I believe the Congress will do so as well as more and more scientific research is explained. I believe we have at least 60 votes in the Senate to allow participation of the Government/

HENRY J. AARON, Brookings Institution Senior Fellow, November 25, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: A claim was made during the last campaign that the amount of deficit created by the Bush Administration could have paid for national health care. Is this true or is this rhetoric? How much health care could be purchased by the amount of the Federal budget deficit?
AARON: The revenue cost of the tax cut could easily have paid for both Medicare reform (a prescription drug benefit, long term care, and reduced and rationalized cost sharing) and for health insurance coverage for the uninsured. The decision not to use these funds for these purposes or to address other domestic needs (such as closing the projected long-term deficit in Social Security) was, in my view, a major lost opportunity.

MICHAEL J. THUN, Vice President of Epidemiology and Surveillance Research, American Cancer Society, January 31, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Have there been any recent studies on whether there is any correlation between nuclear radiation leaks and cancer? Legally, the courts have answered and stated there is no correlation. Yet, for those of us in the Harrisburg area who wonder if our cancer rates indeed are normal, or whether there are long term affects to the Three Mile leakages, questions continue. These concerns remain, especially when we observe that questions of increased infertility were never addressed, nor does there seem to be much of an effort to obtain data from people who lived in the area and then moved away. Do you have any thoughts on the effects of radiation as a cancer risk?
THUN: Yes. Since I grew up within 50 miles of Harrisburg I share your interest in Three Mile Island. Several large studies of the episode have not found any relationship with cancer. Radiation is carcinogenic, but the affect is related to dose. Unlike the catastrophic release at Chernobyl, the type and amount at the Three Mile Island episode has not resulted in a detectable uptick in cancer.

CECI CONNOLLY, Washington Post Staff Writer, May 23, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: There were flu outbreaks in the 1950s and 1960s that killed millions of people worldwide. While it is tragic that so many people died from SARS, it has not reached these proportions. How concerned are experts that it could potentially blossom into a greater epidemic of similar proportions?
CONNOLLY: Experts are very concerned about SARS because there are many unknowns at this point. In addition, as NIH’s Anthony Fauci has pointed out in recent Congressional testimony, the death rate for SARS is much higher than influenza. In a typical years, flu kills 1 percent of people infected and during the pandemic of 1918-191 the death rate reached almost 4 percent. By contrast, the SARS mortality rate at this point appears to be 8 percent and could rise as high as 15 percent.

NORMAL ROSENTHAL, Clinical Professor, Georgetown University, May 28, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: How are people in far northern parts of the world affected by seasonal disorders when sunlight is present and then absent for long periods. Do they adjust, or do they tend to show signs of health disruptions?
ROSENTHAL: Many people in the far north suffer year after year, whereas others such as the Icelanders seem particularly protected against the effects of SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder).

JON PALFREMAN, FRONTLINE Producer, June 20, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: There is a Pennsylvania state legislator who arranges bus trips for senior citizens in his district to travel to Canada so they may save money on purchasing pharmaceuticals. At least people in Maine are closer to Canada. I know your film addresses this, still, doesn’t this tell us something when the same company charges two different prices for the same drug?
PALFREMAN: The reason drugs are cheaper in Canada is because the Canadian government, the provinces, determine the prices. If a drug company can lump it or leave it, the state of Canada is free to take out a compulsory license so the Canadian company can make the drug anyway. So there’s not much the drug companies so do. The U.S. market is the last unregulated market in the world. That is why they are so scared and why they’ll do anything to prevent schemes like Maine’s.

PAUL ZEITZ, Global AIDS Alliance Director, July 28, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: AIDS has been alternately described as a very difficult disease to transmit, and also as one of the fastest spreading diseases in history. Yet, these two comments do not necessarily conflict. Would you please explain, in layperson’s terms, how a disease that is difficult to get is so widespread? Is it that people engaging in risky behavior are statistically more apt to be infected? Is the body able to fight infection and it is as repeated infections build up that AIDS develops, or is it that a one time infection means a person will likely gets AIDS?
ZEITZ: Thanks for your question.
HIV is a very fragile virus that only survives in bodily fluids like blood, saliva, and sexual fluids. The virus is only transmitted through these fluids. It can be transmitted through blood, via blood transfusions, needle sticks. While the virus is found in saliva is very rarely it at all causes an HIV infection. The most common form of HIV is through sexual fluids. Only viruses like the flu are air borne and can spread by breathing in the virus, thus it is much more easily spread.
As sexual behavior needs to change to stop HIV transmission, HIV/AIDS is spreading rapidly in many parts of the world, including here in the USA.

BRUCE LEFF, Associate Professor of Medicine, John Hopkins University, August 6, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: It used to be that I was hesitant to ask public leaders about health care because it was a difficult issue to follow. Yet, after hearing Uwe Reinhardt, I now realize I should not be afraid to ask about health care policies because the reason it is so difficult to understand is what makes the system a total mess. One needs to take a course in learning who is covered by want, and even then, it is not certain. No one would sanely have designed such a confusing system if it were designed from scratch. The irony now is: if we had a single payer system, it would probably not be any more expensive because so many administrative costs would be eliminated. Is there any way we can make the healthcare system something that most Americans can at least understand their benefits?
LEFF: You raise a terrific point and I wish I knew the answer to it. Unfortunately, most people don’t understand their benefits. I can’t tell you how many times in my practice that I talk with people who believe that Medicare covers long term nursing home care.
Perhaps we need to demand more from our elected officials…

MATIAH BURTON NELSON, former professional basketball player, August 12, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Do you have advice on when a second medical opinion should be sought? When something is misdiagnosed or made to seem less serious than it really is, what should tell someone to seek a second opinion, and what should tell us that we’re being foolish in doing so?
NELSON: Seek a 2nd opinion:
1) If you feel like it
2) If you’re facing a major decision
3) If you want to be sure, even though you trust your doctor. S/he could be wrong.
As for foolish—who cares? Do what you need to do to get informed and reassured. Also—I told the first doc that I was seeking a second opinion. No reason not to let them know, and even to compare notes afterward, ie The second doc said this, what do you think about that? THIS IS YOU BODY YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT…do whatever seems right to YOU.

LINDA PERLSTEIN, Washington Post Staff Writer, September 9, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Your article contained excellent anecdotal information. In your book, do you have some statistics and studies to support that your observations are part of a growing national trend? In sum, are middle age children growing up faster than in previous generations?
PERLSTEIN: Statistics and studies are cited in the notes and bibliography of “Not Much, Just Chillin’.” In some ways, middle age children are growing up faster—“The Hurried Child” by David Elkind and “The Disappearance of Childhood” by Neil Postman are excellent books on the subject. But in some ways, they’re staying pretty much the same. According to some studies, for example, the number of teens preparing in sexual activity has plateaud.

SALLY SQUIRES, Washington Post Health and Nutrition Writer, September, 9, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I have a friend (honest, it is a friend, not me) who has started a diet where he fasts every other day. I believe it is better to eat less every day. Are there any health risks to this type of fasting diet? If one pursues such a diet, do you have any suggestions on how to make it more successful? Or, would you advise him to abandon it entirely? (For the record, he claims it is working well for him.)
SQUIRES: If your friend doesn’t have any health problems, there’s probably no great harm in fasting every other day. It would be most important on the days when your friend does eat to have a balanced diet that meets as many essential nutrients as possible. And a multivitamin, plus some calcium might not be a bad idea. Also plenty of water would be prudent.

JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., Member of Congress, Februaryu 3, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What is President Bush proposing for prescription medication assistance? Are Democrats prepared to note the inequities in his proposals?
SPRATT: What we would like to do is make a completely new proposal and we will begin with cost containment by calling upon the government to use its clout to bargain for lower prescription drug prices. It is no wonder that OMB estimates the cost at $135 billion more than CBO, because they have minimal cost containment provision and literally prohibit the Federal government from negotiating lower drug prices.

ROBIN HERTZ, Phizer Inc. Population Studies Senior Director, February 25, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Let me please ask your thoughts on the widely debated topic of the time and expense required to research and develop medications for so many diseases, while at the same time attempting to keep costs affordable so they may benefit large numbers of people around the world. What are the criteria you believe should exist in finding the balance between the need for timely research versus the need for cheap and swift delivery of medicine to people who need help?
HERTZ: You’re right. It is expensive and time consuming to develop medicines. But cheap and quick is not the answer. While we need to shorten the process, let’s not overlook quality. We need quality medicines that are effective, safe and easy to use. Staying on treatment and adhering to the treatment regimen is essential.
CZIKOWSKY: Medical schools and other medical related schools are very competitive and difficult to enter. Yet, isn’t there a looming major shortage of health care professionals? How should we respond to get more people to work in health care?
HERTZ: There is a shortage of healthcare professionals. What we’re doing right now as part of the ACOVE program is working towards getting medical students, interns, and residents the right kind of information about taking care of older adults. It’s not an issue of quantity; it’s also an issue of education.

MELISSA JOHNSON, President’s Council on Physical Fitness Executive Director, March 30, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What exercise opportunities are available in the office where you work?
JOHNSON: The Health and Human Services Building here in Washington, D.C. (Humphrey Building) offers an on-site fitness center complete with cardio and weight training equipment, as well as all kinds of fun fitness classes (yoga, dance, toning, etc.). It’s open all day and into the evening, which allows employees to work out before or after work or on their lunch hour. Secretary Thompson encourages all employees to be active on a regular basis. We even had a “Secretary’s Challenge” here in the building, which was a six week program that used our President’s Challenge websit program as the tool to get people moving. We tracked our activity on-line. Check out www.presidentschallenge.org , and you can do the same! Many corporations are adopting this program at their company wellness program.

SUZ REDFEARN, writer, June 29, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Let me begin by stating I had a neighbor who was paralyzed for ten years who tried every treatment he could, and finally it was acupuncture that relieved his paralysis. So, I am definitely open to the idea that acupuncture has benefits. Would you please explain what acupuncture does that overcomes some types of infertility. How does it work?
REDFEARN: The classic traditional Chinese explanation goes something like this: energy (or “qi”, pronounced chee) runs in river-like patterns through the body. Any obstruction in the energy flows acts like a dam that stops energy from flowing in the right direction. TCM practitioners believe this can lead to disease. Sticking needles in at very specific points in the body is said to reestablish the flow of qi. As for fertility, small studies have shown that it can help balance the endocrine system as well as bring more blood to the uterus and ovaries, which are often blood-starved in infertile woman, apparently. Let’s hope it’s so!

GEORGE McGOVERN, Former Presidential Candidate, July 28, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: You wrote a very touching book about a deeply personal tragedy regarding your daughter’s alcoholism and death. For readers who did not reach your book, would you please summarize some of the excellent points you mentioned: about how we need to be available for an alcoholic to reach out, even when they claim they don’t want help, so that when they are ready to admit they need help, there is someone there to help, along with any other useful advice you may wish to provide.
McGOVERN: I think the important thing to keep in mind is that alcoholics are desperately ill. We are dealing with a disease that is as real as cancer. I learned from my daughter’s tragic death the importance of reassuring the alcoholic of our love for them even when we find their conduct revolting. I wish that we were investing more in determining the cause of alcoholism and in the best possible treatments for it.

FRANK BEADLE DE PALOMA, Academy for Educational Development Center on AIDS and Community Health, July 30, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Do you have an estimate as to what the annual cost to the United States would be to achieve the goals you seek from us? Personally, I believe we should be making these efforts, yet for those who insist it costs too much, I wonder how the bottom line compares to how much we spend on other areas such as the war in Iraq.
BEADLE DE PALOMA: In 2001, Brookings Institute said we needed $5 billion/year globally to mitigate AIDS.
In 2004, UNAIDS estimated that we would need $10 billion a year by 2005, and $15 billion a year by 2007.
Currently, $130 billion has been committed for war in Iraq through appropriations.
These are daunting numbers, but it does seem that where there is a will, there is a way…

CHRIS MOONEY, “American Prospect” Senior Correspondent, December 15, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: It seems as if state governments such as California are becoming more of a source of funding for stem cell research. Is it the proper role of state governments to invest in such research?
MOONEY: The states are certainly playing their role as “laboratories of democracy” on this question—what a fitting phrase that turns out to be true. I recommend that you read William Safire’s column today about this. It’s not just California: Other states are hopping on the stem cell wagon, hoping to prevent their best researchers from packing up their bags and heading west. Is this the “proper” role for states? Well, I think most people would consider the National Institutes of Health to be a stellar research institution and the first choice for funding this research. But because of the current Federal policy, that hasn’t happened at a level that scientists, disease advocates, and others consider necessary. So states are filling the gap, and apparently they can afford it.
So this strikes me as little more than a new development in our long tradition of federalism. I do see some possible grounds for concern, in that these states don’t have the long tradition of sponsoring major research that the Federal government has through the National Institutes of Health and other agencies. They’re starting from scratch. That’s definitely a challenge, and we have to hope that they will proceed with care and draw lessons from the NIH, universities, and so forth.
There’s also an irony there that I can’t resist remarking upon. Federalism used to work against the scientific community; local control of education, for example, facilitated creationist attempts to control Biology curricula. But now, it turns out that states are helping scientists get around a policy at the national level that they don’t like.

ROBERT KRULWICH, NOVA scienceNOW correspondent, February 23, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts on the warning that the flu could mutate into a virus that could kill millions? Is this a theory that has been given too much media attention, or do you think this is a serious fear that requires urgent actions? While people panic when hearing about the flu of 1917, there were over a million who died from the flu as recently as 1968, if I recall correctly.
KRULWICH: Ahhh.
Now this is, maybe, the single biggest thing we have to worry about. I have not read it yet, but Michael Spector, a very good reporter, has a big fat story in this week’s New Yorker magazine which asks the key question: How likely is it that a dangerous virus, moving from bird to bird will somehow spread to people and then mutate so fast it will pass through the air from person to person.
So you start with a chicken, or duck, or goose. The germs move from birds to people, where they are new to humans, and very, very harmful. Deadly even.
Then people start infecting other people through the air, like the flu you mentioned from the last century, and then lots of people, tens of millions, get sick. And many of them, maybe most of them, die. Sounds like a remote nightmare, I know. But, even without reading Michael’s article, I am very nervous.
I am nervous cause humans and birds live so closely together, so intimately. I was knocked out a few months ago when I read in New Scientist Magazine about a kid in Thailand who raises cocks to fight. Cockfighting goes on everything. That’s almost normal. But this kid feeds his birds FROM HIS OWN MOUTH. He puts his mouth over their beaks and food passes between them. Not just food, germs, bacteria, and, maybe one day, a horrible disease.
I don’t know this stuff. Now I worry about it.

ANDREW P. HARRIS, Maryland State Senator, March 10, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: If these embryos are not used for research, what would happen to them? Would we be able to produce a human for each unused embryo?
HARRIS: Absolutely. We had a couple at the hearing, a paraplegic and his wife, with their two year old daughter who was a donated frozen embryo. I hope we can all agree that’s the best outcome for a frozen embryo. It’s called the “snowflake” program, encouraging couples to donate their “extra” embryos to those who can’t have their own.
CZIKOWSKY: How would you feel if there was a guarantee that cancer research funding would not be affected by stem cell research?
HARRIS: A good question, but I and other Senators have to consider the implications in their entirety. There are several levels of objection to this approach. These other objections still exist, and in my mind, still would lead me to conclude that this is not good policy for Maryland. You should look into the most recent research that would allow that creation of embryonic stem cells without killing a living “embryo”!

JOHN GEARHART, Johns Hopkins Medicine Professor, March 10, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: If these embryos are not used for research, what would happen to them? Would we be able to produce a human for each unused embryo?
GEARHART: IVF patients must decide what to do with embryos that are stored and will no longer be used by them. Options can be (depending on the facility) that they are discarded, used by other couples, or used for special research projects.
Your question is difficult to answer. Certainly some of these embryos could successfully produce a child. Not every embryo placed in the uterus results in a pregnancy or a newborn.

ARTHUR CAPLAN, University of Pennsylvania Bioethnics Professor, April 12, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Medical malpractice is a major issue at both the state and federal levels. It seems to be many doctors want to limit the ability to be sued, but do not want any further intrusion into their work records. Isn’t it possible that systems be implemented that can understand both the risk of the type medical work done and the error rate of the medical work done so we can flag whenever there appears to be physicians than have higher than expected error rates? At what point should these physicians be removed from performing certain procedures? Wouldn’t that then lower medical insurance when those creating most of the errors and lawsuits are removed from practice?
CAPLAN: We don’t have to argue about marginal cases or people with higher than average error rates. The Post series revealed just how incompetent and dangerous doctors are out there. Let’s focus on getting rid of them, then we can focus on those doctors who have above error rates. Right now the system can’t even get rid of the manifestly and indisputably incompetent and inept!!! I once proposed a simple test to get rid of the blatantly incompetent physician. To keep your license every doctor could be required to simply return a postcard answering 10 or 12 basic questions. That simple test would do more to weed out mentally ill, drug addicted, and senile physicians than the current system in place!

HANK McKINNELL, Pfeizer Inc. Chairman and CEO, June 223, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: The health care system is spiraling out of control. I know economists who state they are not worried about social security because any projected deficits in social security are within the margin of error for what they predict the deficit will be in attempting to continue to pay for our health care. We spend more on the administrative costs of health care than we do on pharmaceuticals. Wouldn’t it make sense to have just one health care insurance, whether a combination of private insurers in one big pool or a national plan, so we can significantly reduce the administrative costs so we may free up more money to devote to preventive and necessary health treatments?
McKINNELL: There is no question we face a crisis, but it’s not in health care, it’s in sick care. I have written a book on this topic, “Call to Action, Taking Back Healthcare” for future generations. We need to spend less treating heart attacks and strokes and spend more on prevention and wellness to avoid people having to be treated for those heart attacks and strokes. That is one of ten “Calls to Action” in my just published book.
CZIKOWSKY: Would you favor an increased government role, and/or increased government contracts with academic and research centers, in pharmaceutical research so that private pharmaceutical research costs could be lowered and, in turn, the costs to consumers of pharmaceuticals could be reduced?
McKINNELL: You’re kidding. Can you think of anything where government does it cheaper or better? National Defense is a good start, but it’s a short list.

JARED DIAMOND, University of California, Los Angeles Professor of GeograPhy, July 21, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Do you have any thoughts on the fears of another flu epidemic hitting humans, particular the Avian flu concerns that exist now in Southeast Asia?
DIAMOND: Yes, there could be another flu epidemic, but I’m not worried about the risk of its wiping out the human race or our economies. The big threats to the human race and our economies are not flu, but environmental and population problems and their political consequences.

JOHN E. WENNBERG, Dartmouth University Physician, July 27, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: If we could go to a single health insurer, do you think it might become easier to create a sensible reimbursement to hospitals?
WENNBERG: It would be easier to deal with incentives and fairness issues; whether the system would be better depends on how the incentives are designed.
CZIKOWSKY: Would an unscrupulous hospital administrator encourage reporting of poor practices to deliberately receive additional money?
WENNBERG: Can’t tell from the data; but it sounds like a good definition of unscrupulous behavior.

MICAH FINK, producer, September 21, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Some of the worse case scenarios come from an interesting source: “Foreign Affairs” magazine, which almost reads like a horror novel. It almost seems as if the mainstream press is downplaying the potential affects of a major flu outbreak while the professional journals are warning of potential disaster. I hate to use this analogy, but are we potentially repeated what happened in New Orleans: we are aware of a disaster, but because the costs of preventing the disaster are high the odds of disaster low, we prefer to look away and go with the odds and just hope the disaster never happens?
FINK: I think your sense is right. The professional journals and websites (like promed) have been keeping a very close watch on the avian flu virus for the last few years, but the main stream media---perhaps because the evolution of the virus seems like such a technically complex issue---have until recently avoided the issue. Also, to be fair, terrorism and the war in Iraq have dominated much of the foreign coverage and the news hole, never large for international affairs, has been filled. That said I agree that this is a pressing and important issue (or else would not have proposed the program “H5N1: Killer Flu”) and I think we should be doing much more than we are doing now. Antiviral supplies are very small (and the patents are held by just a few corporations) and even in the best case scenario, will not be available on a large scale if a pandemic strikes. Not even in the U.S.---if ever there was a time for patent sharing, it would seem like now is a good moment---to allow the world to prepare. Also most of the Federal money in the U.S. these days seems to be getting spent on terrorism related issues---which may be very short sighted.

ALAN CASSELS, author, September 21, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Do we need all these medications? I keep seeing an ad for curing a yellow toenail and then the side effects are mentioned. If I had the side effects, I would rather take medication to get rid of them with a yellow toenail being the side effect. Isn’t advertising just creating new things to be fearful of that probably aren’t urgent needs for medication?
CASSELS: There are more than 20,000 drugs on the market in the U.S. The World Health Organization keeps a list of “Essential Drugs” that any nation needs to provide to its people. Guess how many drugs are on the WHO Essential Drugs List? 306.
As for the toenail thing, my mother took that drug and when I explained the rare but serious side effects she still chose to take it. At the end of the day people need to be fully informed as to a drug’s risks and benefits and when they have that information, whether or not they take the drug is up to them.

DAN FROOMKIN, Washington Post White House Briefing Columist, September 21, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: There are warnings of a potential avian flu crisis. Have you learned our lesson from the Gulf Coast hurricane and will the White House be better prepared, or will we, line in deciding not to repair the levees and hope a disaster never strike, turn away and hope this potential flu crisis never hits? Should we have Federal legislation to require patent sharing and should the Federal government be prepared to respond to be able to rapidly produce enough of the correct flu shot, if and when so required?
FROOMKIN: Hey, remember last year’s flu season , when we couldn’t get enough vaccines for something entirely predictable?
The avian flu, should it strike, would be a total disaster000and the end for all practical purposes of the Bush Administration---unless some action is taken right quick.
Over on my Niemanwatchdog.org site, the Harvard School of Public Health Professor Marc Lipsitch raised this point six months ago.
Michael A. Babcock, a professor who has written about pestilence in the late Roman Empire, writes today in the Houston Chronicle that Bush’s mention of avian flu last week in his speech to the United Nations might possibly be a turning point. We’ll see.

JILLIAN MICHAELS, “The Biggest Loser” TV show personal trainer, September 26, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Are you ever concerned that someone might lose weight too quickly just to help the team on the television show? How do you monitor that people are losing weight properly?
MICHAELS: Good question. I love this one because it allows me to dispel dieting myths which is one of my favorite things. I dedicate an entire chapter to explaining questions like this in my book.
We’ve all heard that saying, “losing one to two pounds a week is healthy”. Not so…it’s REALISTIC. That’s the difference.
Losing weight quickly when done through exercise and not starvation is not dangerous at all. In fact there is no true scientific evidence to suggest otherwise. The only complication that could occur are gallstones, however if the person is taking in plenty of fiber, exercising, and staying hydrated the chance of a gallstone is next to none.
In fact, I think the evidence has show quite the opposite. If you look at our contestants on the show they come in with all kinds of afflictions: type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, sleep apnea, etc. When they leave the show they are in better shape then me and off of all their various medications.

PHILIP J. HILTS, author, November 2, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Have you explored the topic of the need for medical researchers and pharmaceutical company executive to better share data and information, on an international basis?
HILTS: I have done some reporting on that issue, but not for this book (“Rx for Survival”). It is a real problem, and in fact I was thinking of taking on medical information and its control for my next book. The system is broken, and it is time to address it, I think.

ALFRED SOMMER, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health Professor, November 4, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: I would like to learn your opinion on fluoridated water. I agree that it has helped reduce cavities. Yet, there are claims it may increase cancer risks. Are these cancer risks real, and if so, are they significant?
SOMMER: There is no good scientific evidence that fluoridation causes cancer. In areas of the country where fluoride naturally occurs in high concentration in the water there can be some mottling of teeth and bones but this is not harmful. At levels at which it is added to water, it does not cause this and simply reduces cavities, which is an important public health advance.

STEVEN PEARLSTEIN, Washington Post Columnist, January 18, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Let me state the obvious. The health care system is too complicated. Even experts do not understand it. I recall an audit of health insurance forms in Harrisburg that found an extremely high error rate (I believe there was at least one error on just about every form). If the experts either don’t know the system or at least can’t handle the paperwork, how can we expect the public to understand it? Most reforms tinker at the edges, and maybe reforms will improve things, but isn’t there a bottom line here: how does it help a complicated system by making it even more complicated? Is there any way we can just make health care understandable, serfices knowable and guaranteed, and affordable?
PEARLSTEIN: The administrative paperwork is obviously more complicated than it has to be. But I’m not sure you can avoid some level of complication in health care, because the answers aren’t always easy and obvious, there’s lots of judgments and emotion and risk involved, and the sums of money shelled out by people other than patients themselves are very large, so there is a need for accountability. It is true that we spend as much as 20 percent in our private sector system on administrative paperwork, and that is way, way, way too high. Making better use of simpler reimbursement mechanisms and information technology should be able to cut that in half.

JAMES RESTON, JR., author, March 7, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: It was sad reading what happened to your daughter and how this changed her life. I was surprised that your daughter Hillary’s condition remains a mystery to medical expert. In your opinion, what are some of the best theories as to what happened?
RESTON: As you’ll see when you read the book (“Fragile Innocence”), we were given a number of explanations, some of which were just general but complicated words like encephalitis (which just means brain disease) or stroke. The word “stoke” too we later learned is just a general term and not a specific diagnosis. But that word has been the most useful, at least to the question our friends ask.
“What happened to your daughter when she was two years old?”
“Oh”, we answer, “she had a stroke.”

MARC EMERY, Cannabis Culture magazine publisher, March 21, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I am one who believes that dangerous substances such as alcohol, tobacco, and pot should be regulated strongly but not illegal. Would you agree this is a consistent and logical position to take?
EMERY: Cannabis might more accurately be regulated like coffee, although coffee is less value-added in that coffee workers are thought to be underpaid, exploited. Cannabis growers typically receive the highest price in the market of any cash crop.
Alcohol and tobacco kill hundreds of thousands each year, cannabis kills no one. Is the alcohol and tobacco paradigm really applicable? I think not.
Cannabis is subtly consciousness changing, but I don’t think it is mind altering. One thing I tell young people, alcohol when consumed will have a person acquiesce to any kind of immorality, but pot does not change any moral parameters. For example, on alcohol, standards drop rapidly and women often end up having sex with someone they ordinarily wouldn’t have sex with. On marijuana, that never happens. Pot never has you do something that goes against your moral beliefs when sober. Pot will have you enjoy more what you would already do. Alcohol will have you do things you would never do ordinarily.
They are not similar. Alcohol is dangerous. Marijuana, if it has undesirable effects, subsides quickly and with no long term damage.

CHARLES P. GERBA, University of Arizona microbiologist, April 3, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Is exposure to germs good? Do our bodies build resistances to germs as our bodies are exposed to them? Or is it better to avoid the germs as best as possible?
GERBA: Some people have suggested that exposure to disease causing germs is good and may help build up the immune system to better fight off other infections. This has been referred to as the hygiene hypothesis. It has not been proven. A good life style and nutrition are the best things to maintain your immune system.

RICHARD P. ALLEN, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center Co-Director, June 13, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Are dreams mostly the filing of information in our brains? Do dream analysts over emphasize what things mean?
ALLEN: Yes, dream analysts over emphasize.
But then some also under emphasize the importance of dream contents. They have some limited meaning for normal psychological status when awake.

GAIL H. JAVITT, Genetics and Public Policy Center Law and Policy Director, June 13, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: It is possible to purchase a DNA test, but how reliable are these laboratories?
JAVITT: Any laboratory that is offering genetic testing is required, at a minimum, to be certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. But, there is no easy way for a consumer to know if a lab is CLIA certified, since the government does not make this information easily available. We are aware of genetic tests offered directly to consumers by non-CLIA certified laboratories.
Even if a laboratory is CLIA certified, CLIA does not address the clinical validity of tests, meaning whether they provide information that is relevant to disease or future disease or condition.

JENNIFER HUGET, Washington Post Contributing Writer, October 3, 2006
CZIKOWSY: What do you believe would qualify someone to teach yoga?
HUGET: That is a great question. There’s no universally accepted—or required—set of qualifications for yoga teachers, and only in recent years have certification programs been offered. Though I personally felt comfortable knowing my teacher had been through a rigorous training at a well-regarded school, I also know that there are older teachers around who have been self-taught and practicing for years and years, and I imagine their insights and skills match or beat those of, say, a much younger person just out of teacher training. I suppose this is an area where you just have to trust your gut.

HARRIET A. WASHINGTON, author, January 9, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Doesn’t the past history create continued suspicions within the African American community? I have met people who were convinced that infertility drugs were put into fried chicken and who have heard the rumors about AIDS being a plot to kill Blacks. Does your book (“Medical Apartheid”) cover how the past real incidences lead to these suspicions?
WASINGTON: That is * the * crucial question, and the answer is that you are absolutely correct. The legacy of medical abuse and exploitation has created a climate of distrust and one important manifestation of this is the proliferation of fears that are logical and factual, but also fears that are mythical, such as the belief that reproductive agents have been infused into soda sold into Black communities and into delicacies associated with Blacks, such as fried chicken.
I do address directly medical-research fears such as the prevalent belief that the subjects of the USPHS Tuskegee syphilis study were injected with syphilis, which was a logical belief. But there was no need for me to revisit the non-medical beliefs such as those you cite because they already been very ably analyzed and discussed in a book entitled “I Heard It Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture” (1998, University of California Press).It’s very well written, is available via Amazon for about $20, and I think you would enjoy it.
I want to point out that some suspicions that sound like paranoia are later found to be true or mostly true. Most have at least some kernel of truth, although they may be wildly overblown. There is a lot of myth that needlessly frightens people from medical care but there are also some pretty unbelievable medical transgressions I am much slower than I used to be to reject oral warnings as myth until I’ve had a chance to investigate them myself.

DAVID M. DOSA, Brown University Medicine Assistant Professor, July 27, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: We have dogs that can sniff out tumors. Is there possible something the cat can physically sense about impending death that we can’t tell with out senses?
DOSA: My sense is that the cat responds to a pheromone or smell that we simply, as humans, cannot recognize. Of course others have ascribed Oscar’s unique abilities to everything from behavioral mimicking to higher powers. I’ll leave it for the experts to figure out.

LIZ KELLY, washingtonpost.com celebritology blogger, August 16, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: I just want to say one serious message about rehab that I believe is getting lost in the celebrity news: Rehab can work, but everyone is different. For some people, all it takes is one visit to rehab and they’ll never drink alcohol or do drugs ever again. For many people, they lapse back. That still does not mean that they can’t eventually kick their addictions. In fact, drug and alcohol addicts have little better odds at following their doctor’s instructions after hospitalization than do asthmatics or diabetics. Yet, many do not follow instructions, and even some who do follow instructions may have a setback. Do not give up on people. Unfortunately, it may take several chances. Addicts, whether or not they are celebrities, need help, some more than others.
KELLY: Thanks for sharing this. You’re absolutely right. I was having this conversation just yesterday with someone. Most of the time, it takes several tries at rehan before a true life change actually kicks in. The only difference with Lilo and Brit and Amy Winehouse is that they have, for better or worse, the world watching them fall and pick themselves up over and over again.

HOCHANG BENJAMIN LEE, Johns Hopkins University Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Professor, September 6, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: I am reminded of the episode of “The Sopranos”, where art imitates life, on how it is considered weakness than an Italian American would get mental health assistance, and Tony Soprano has to gently break the news before the rumor gets out that he is seeing a psychiatrist. I like how Paulie Walnuts comes to his rescue where just about the most psychotic character in TV history admits that even he “has issues”. Does television portraying people like Tony Soprano seeing a psychiatrist help send a message to viewers that it is alright to get help, and maybe TV helps break down some of these barriers?
LEE: I haven’t been keeping up with the HBO specials, but mass media does play a major role in lifting the stigma attached to mental disorders. I certainly hope that the biological aspect of psychiatric disorders continues to be highlighted in the mass medial to emphasize the need for health services.
CZIKOWSKY: There are parents in Philadelphia asking judges to adjudicate their children because the only available mental health programs are in correctional facilities. Thus, I guess it would be harder to immigrants who have difficulty understanding our mental health operations to even understand these intricacies where people have to bend the system to get help?
LEE. Yes, I agree.

SANJAY GUPTA, CNN Medical Correspondent, September 27, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What are some basic dietary changes most of us could make that could improve our lives?
GUPTA: Great question and I wrote almost an entire book of this topic but let me tell you some of the pearls that I learned.
Caloric restriction, restricting the number of calories, does seem to make a difference. Maybe that’s obvious but in animals a calorie-restricted diet can increase life span by up to 35 percent. There is now a study going on in humans to see if that same thing applies.
I don’t put a lot of focus on supplements, mainly because I believe it is hard to get “the good stuff” out of foods and put it into a pill form. I recommend eating seven different colored foods a day (we’re not talking about jelly beans here). If you eat seven different colored foods you’ll probably get all the good stuff you need.
CZIKOWSKY: I notice there seems to be differences on studies in America versus studies published in Asia over the health benefits of such things as ginseng, green tea, acupuncture, etc. where the American studies claim they do not find the same extent of health benefits as the Asian studies do. Why do these studies seem to differ and what do you think is the truth as to the health benefits of ginseng, green tea, and acupuncture?
GUPTA: First of all, I have spent a lot of time both in China and in the U.S. looking at these studies. I am not sure which specific studies you’re referring to in the world of TCM or traditional Chinese medicine. I have spent time with professors of TCM and most acknowledge that they wish they had better data. Having said that, I was definitely interested to learn that TCM, which has been around over 1,000 years, has been able to withstand the test of time. I believe that many things including ginseng, the antioxidant properties of green tea and even acupuncture have benefit. It will be some time before controlled trails and the associated science catch up. Many people don’t want to wait.

JOSHUA MENDELL, Johns Hopkins University Genetics Researcher, November 13, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What is RNA and what is the research about at the University of Pennsylvania where they are injecting RNA into cancer cells and they hope it will fight cancer?
MENDELL: RNA is a molecule that is similar to DNA. All organisms use DNA to store genetic information. When a cell needs to utilize the instructions stored in DNA, it first makes a copy as RNA. Cells use RNA for many purposes. For example, RNA carries the instructions to make proteins (called messenger RNA). There are other forms of RNA that function to regulate messenger RNAs (for example, a type of RNA called microRNAs). Over the last five years, cancer researchers have become increasingly interested in microRNAs because these molecules exist at abnormal levels in cancer cells. This causes abnormal amounts of other proteins to be made than can promote tumor formation. Several labs are indeed trying to restore normal microRNA levels to tumor cells as an experimental therapy. These approaches have shown early promise in the lab, but there are still years away form being used in actual patients.

CHARLES BARBER, Yale School of Medicine Lecturer, March 4, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What percent of high school students are on prescription medication or psychological reasons? Is this leading to any changes, positive or negative, on their abilities to learn?
BARBER: The rates have gone up dramatically in recent years, including for drugs that were rarely prescribed for young people before, like antipsychotics. It used to be true a long time ago that the use of these kinds of meds for young people was all but taboo—those days are long gone. The ADD/ADHD drugs can be very effective, and help kids learn. But again, I think they are over-prescribed and parents are sometimes not looking at commonsensical issues like diet and parenting styles.
CZIKOWSKY: Is there any data indicating the number f violent incidents that are increasing due to people who are under medication? Is it possible to hypothesize that some types of violence in our society are related to side effects of legal medication?
BARBER: I don’t have the data on that. I’ll just make a general comment.
Violence perpetrated by the mentally ill is vastly over-reported and sensationalized by the media. The true risk for violence with the mentally ill is hurting themselves, not other people. I ran facilities for people with schizophrenia for many years—we had one aggressive incident by a client, but we have three suicides. I don’t worry about my clients hurting other people, I did worry about them hurting themselves.
Research has also shown that it is not mental illness that makes people violent; it is the addition of substance abuse with mental illness that can increase the violence. I quote a study in the book (“Comfortably Numb”) of people leaving a psych hospital. They were no more violent than their neighbors, but when substance abuse was added, the rates of violence were higher.
Also, people with mental illness are about 11 or something more likely to be murdered and have violence perpetrated on them than the average person.

J. PAUL ROBINSON, Purdue University Immunopharmacology and Biomedical Engineering Professor, and DAVID BROWN, Washington Post Staff Writer, April 8, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Do you have a rough estimate oh now long it will take these cell technologies and advances in research to be applied towards the public health? I realize numerous tests need to be conducted, yet I am often sympathetic to the terminally ill who are often denied potentially life-saving procedures because they are not approved and ready for use.
ROBINSON: This is an interesting question. For many years we have talked about “next gen” technologies that will change public health. I believe in the next five years, there will be a revolution in these technologies driven by the basic electronic consumer products that are now very cheap and accessible. These low cost consumer products will become the bases for the true next gen public health tools particularly in diagnostic and basic tests.
BROWN: I should make it clear that cell-counting and cell-sorting is in clinical use today, with the best example being the CD4-cell counts (also known as T-cell counts) routinely done for people infected with HIV. It is also used clinically for people with some forms of cancer, especially blood-cell cancers.

MARY-FRANCES O’CONNER, UCLA Researcher and ROB STEIN, Washington Post staff writer, August 4, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Is it normal to mourn the death of a pet from 28 years ago? The sadness does not affect my ability to act in life, but every now and then I recall and it makes me sad. I’d hate to think I would ever forget. Is this normal?
O’CONNOR: I am sorry to hear about your pet—and it is a relationship that many experience: grief after losing. I would say that you have hit the nail on the head—it doesn’t affect your ability to act in life (which it would if it were complicated grief). But I would have to think anyone would forget a person or being that they loved! It is very common to remember those who we have lost with sadness, even tears, especially around holidays and times of remembrance.
STEIN: Yes, having lost a dear pet myself recently, I can attest to how sad that can be. I’m sure that I will thinking about our dog for a very long time.

CECI CONNOLLY, Washington Post staff writer, August 7, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: When might we get the international community to send underfunded AIDS assistance to the nation’s capital with the highest rate of AIDA of any national capital city in the world? And, yes, this is a trick question, yet still a serious one.
CONNOLLY: Okay, it is a bit of a trick question. But a good one! DC’s epidemic is on par with sub-Saharan Africa, so is the AIDS rate in other Africa-American communities in the states. Interestingly, former President Clinton mentioned this in his speech to the conference. He had no details, but expressed an interest in getting his foundation involved in AIDS work at home.

JESSE PINES, University of Pennsylvania Medicine School Assistant Professor, and ZACHARY F. MEISEL, University of Pennsylvania Physician, September 18, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How much is the shortage of health care professionals contributing to the increased use of emergency rooms?
PINES :While there are shortages across the board for healthcare professionals (nurses, doctors), the major shortage is in primary care physicians. This is because the economics: primary care does not allow them to be paid a large amount per patient they see. As a result, they have to book their clinics at 100% to pay their staff. When clinics are 100% booked, there is little room for urgent patients or extra time to spend with those who are more complex. Most people don’t plan on getting sick. Therefore, clinic overflow and more complex patients at directed squarely to the ERs/
MEISEL: There is some debate among economists about the physician supply. In Philadelphia, if you can pay or have coverage you can find good primary care. However, other communities do struggle with primary care shortages. In our Slate piece, we are particularly interested in why patients who are covered and have doctors still choose (or are sent) to come to the ED when they may not have to.

GENE WEINGARTEN, Washington Post Staff Writer, October 28, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Is it true that in many breast enlargement surgeries that some women lose nipple feeling? In other words, the woman has decreased abilities for sensual pleasure, all in exchange for supposedly making herself more attractive to men? (Only to learn that, for a lot of men, that is not an issue?) If this is so, shouldn’t there be greater warnings to women, or do they know this and proceed with the surgeries anyway?
WEINGARTEN: A quick Google search confirms this. Permanent loss of sensation is not uncommon. As you point out, the irony here is disturbing.
I don’t get the whole breast enhancement thing, but I’m not a woman and don’t pretend to understand the calculus behind it.

JEAN JOLLY, Remote Area Medical Volunteer Corps Volunteer Coordinator, November 10, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Will telehealth and telemedicine help provide access to underserved areas? Could patients be able to show symptoms through web cameras, people monitored by remote devices etc? True,, there will still be a need for doctors to see patients up close even for periodic reviews, yet not every case needs to see a doctor. Isn’t there a good future for telehealth and, if so, how could it be used?
JOLLY: Thanks for this important question! We do use Telemedicine at RAM’s largest domestic event each July in Wise, VA. Because we move to different areas each month and hold each clinic for a weekend, setting up Telemedicine can be a difficult task. However, as we are invited to return to locations and as we work with our host communities, we would like to see and use more of the benefits which Telemedicine can provide. It certainly can be most useful and even life-saving for very rural and underserved areas. Being recognized, set up, and used by local communities is the challenge.

HOCKEY

GEORGE McPHEE, General Manager, Washington Capitals, March 14, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: How is the team adjusting to being without the services of (injured player) Jarmoir Jagr?
McPHEE: Well, short term, I think most teams quite often play better when their top players are out of the lineup. Everyone else looks forward to the extra ice time and responsibilities, but long term we certainly miss him.

TED LEONSIS, owner, Washington Capitals, October 1, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Are you going to the Czech Republican to find any Czech talent to consider signing?
LEONSIS: Hi ya—I hear Prague is beautiful; Jagr and Lang have done great things here. We wish (the Czech people) well!

GARY BETTMAN, National Hockey League Commissioner, February 26, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How are all the teams doing financially? Are there any teams in danger of folding?
BETTMAN: Unlike the era before the work stoppage, our franchises are healthier than ever. While there still is some room for some of our franchises to improve, all of our franchises are in better shape and none is in danger of going out of business.

HORSE RACING

CELESTE KUNZ, New York Racing Commission Chief Examining Veterinarian, January 29, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: If Barbaro was not euthanized, what would likely have happened to Barbaro’s future condition?
KUNZ: There would have been increased pain, he would be reluctant to rise and all four feet which had founded (laminitis) would start sloughing their hooves.

HUMOR

ANDREW MARLATT, SatireWire.com Editor, June 19, 2002
CZIIOWSKY: President Bush claims he reads Touqueville and Adam Smith. Should I be glad that he is trying to become an intellectual, or concerned that he is relying on 18th and 19th century intellectuals to find solutions to 21st century problems?
MARLATT: Perhaps you misunderstood. I believe the President said he had “been” to tokeville, not read him.

ALEX KEYSSAR, Kennedy School of Government Political Expert, and FRED SILVERMAN, Television Producer, October 21, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: How about that election in Iraq? Any chance of a recount? Where is Kathleen Harris when we need her?
KEYSSAR: We have to remember that the two parties is only more than one.
SILVERMAN: I think at least there they didn’t have to have the court decide.
KEYSSAR: Do we think Bush will let everyone out of prison?

GENE WEINGARTEN, Washington Post Staff Writer, October 25, 2005
WEINGARTEN: Is human kosher? Could a cannibal be kosher?
CZIKOWSKY: Only females are kosher. Everyone knows all men are pigs.
WEINGARTEN: Hahahahahaha. Okay, very good.

DAVE BARRY, author, February 15, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: What creeps me out is not the eye on the back of the dollar bill but the floating section of building. Does our government advocate the overthrow of the laws of physics? What is it with that floating top of the building?
BARRY: There’s merely an accurate rendering of the famous Floating Building in Washington, D.C.
CZIKOWSKY: If it costs more than a penny to make a penny, can I sell my pennies for more than a penny?
BARRY: This is EXACTLY why we have eBay.
CZIKOWSKY: Today, the Philadelphia Inquirer, which normally prints two pages of comics, printed only one page. Where are the protests against this offense to our cultural traditions? Will you and Gene Weingarten help those in Philadelphia protest this cruelty?
BARRY: I say we burn down a Danish embassy, assuming there are any left.
HiCZIKOWSKY: I just sent $10,000 to a widow in Nigeria to help her move her $10 million inheritance out of the country. When she pays me my half, how should I best invest those profits to ensure my future financial security?
BARRY: I would think you could easily afford to purchase several hundred thousand copies of my book, which by the way is for sale.
CZIKOWSKY: This broker keeps calling wanting to sell me hedge funds. What are hedge funds? Are they futures in hedgehogs? Are hedgehogs good eatings?
BARRY: They make FINE eating. I like to fry up a big mess o’ hedgefundhogs after shooting them with the Vice President. NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING FUNNY ABOUT THIS.

PETER MEHLMAN, former “Seinfeld” writer, and JONATHAN TURLEY, Georgue Washington University Law Professor, February 21, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Peter, which one of the Seinfeld writers ruined my life? We had a great secret in New York: the International House of Soups. But one of the Seinfeld writers had to let the secret out. Now, Al has gone commercial, the original store is closed, and some mass produced discount version of the original soup is being produced at chains of stores. Fess up: which writer has destroyed life in Manhattan as we used to know it?
MEHLMAN: His name is Spike Feresten. Want his phone number?
CZIKOWSKY: Could Cheney potentially face charges in the shooting? If convicted, would a Vice President be sentenced to a secret prison? All this time Cheney thought he’d be sending people to secret prisons, not serving in one.
MEHLMAN: No chance of him being arrested, indicted, or prosecuted in any way. But there’s no harm in dreaming.
CZIKOWSKY: Has there been an explanation to the discrepancy between the owner of the ranch where the shooting happened stating that no alcohol was present and Cheney’s statement he had one beer? Is it advisable to hunt while drinking alcohol?
MEHLMAN: I haven’t heard any explanation so I’ll just irresponsibly offer one. Since the woman clearly lied, saying there was only Dr. Pepper served at lunch and Mr. Cheney admitted to having a beer…he probably had three beers. And maybe a vodka gimlet.
CZIKOWSKY: If we assume irresponsibly that Cheney had three beers and a vodka gimlet: are there any penalties for shooting a person while drunk? Or in Texas, is just a warning issued?
TURLEY: Indeed, it is considered negligence per se to hunt while intoxicated. As you might imagine, this is one of the main concerns for game wardens who often look for alcohol consumption after a “mistaken for game” incident. This is why it was a bit surprising to see the delay in the interview of Cheney by Texas officials. Having said that, Cheney has a reputation for being safety minded and there is no evidence of intoxication like an effort to skin Whittington in the filed or follow the shot with a bayonet charge.
CZIKOWSKY: Why can’t two men go into the woods together without questioning their sexuality? Oh, I’m sorry, is this the Brokeback Mountain discussion?
MEHLMAN: Two months late on that one.

GENE WEINGARTEN, Washington Post Staff Writer, June 6, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: This reminds me of a tale someone connected to the TV show “Fridays” told me once. They did a comedy sketch that made fun of Hassidic Jews. They were surprised that they did not receive a single complaint from a Hassid. Then, someone pointed out: the show is on Friday nights after sunset. No Hassids were watching.
WEINGARTEN: Precisely.

GENE WEINGARTEN, Washington Post Staff Writer, June 27, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: As a Christian Scientist who believes in the power of prayer, but doubts if Jesus is the Messiah, I have converted to Judaism. Yet, now I find I am a Jewish Scientist. I have now discovered the power of healing myself by constantly complaining about it long enough until I feel better.
WEINGARTEN: I’m laughing.

GENE WEINGARTEN, Washington Post Staff Writer, July 11, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I have a confession. I have not gotten what the “no soap, radio” joke is. I assume there is something I am missing, but I can’t figure out what the humor is between the lack of soap and a radio, nor can I think of any analogous hidden meaning that would make this funny. Would someone please explain to me what the joke is? I would really appreciate it.
WEINGARTEN: First you have soap, right? Then you DON”T have soap, but there is still radio! The radio never goes away.
CZIKOWSKY: I still don’t get it. What is funny about the radio still being there?
WEINGARTEN: Because there was a time when it was not there, and then it is there. But the same cannot be said for soap.
CZIKOWSKY: Thank you. I think I now understand it, although it doesn’t seem that funny. Let me think about it some more.
WEINGARTEN: Congratulations!
You have all of us laughing, so thank you, too.

ANDREA SACHS, Washington Post Travel Section Flight Crew, August 7, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I wish to please share with you a cute traveling story. On a flight once, there was a little boy who was flying for the first time. After the flight attendant got to the part where she says “your seat may be used as a flotation device”, he excitedly turned to his mother and asked “they have a pool on this plane?”
SACHS: That is soooo cute, the little bugger.

GENE WEINGARTERN, Washington Post Staff Writer, June 9, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Sarah Silverman has the perfect line for every Catholic bad boy. Her line is “yeah, we Jews killed Christ. And I’d do it again.
WEINGARTEN: A great line. It ranks right up there with Bill Hick’s great line: “What I don’t get is why Christians wear crosses. When Jesus comes back, do you really think he’s going to want to see a f-----g cross?”

K.C. SUMMERS, Washington Post Travel Section Flight Crew, August 28, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I know there are codes somewhere, so that when booking a flight the person booking the flight already knows my preference for seating. What is the code for “seat next to the fattest person on the flight” and how do I get the code removed?
SUMMERS: Now, now.

BEN BRADLEE, Washington Post Vice President, January 18, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: How good a gin player was Art Buchwald? What are some of your favorite gin game stories of Art Buchwald?
BRADLEE: (LAUGHS) He wasn’t very good at all and neither was I—not to put on a too fine about it. It really was a way of being together and shooting the breeze and talking about the hell was going on in Paris.

JENNIFER BUCHWALD, daughter of Art Buchwald, January 18, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: In looking back while growing up with your father, what are some of the funniest moments you recall?
BUCHWALD: The funniest moments are his playfulness and not worrying about how he looked when he had the rabbit outfit on at Easter (he did this every year at Ethel Kennedy’s house) and being a Jewish Santa Clause (at home). And he was a “ringmaster: for choosing the best dog of the group at the Kennedy’s and every dog wound up getting a prize. And by the way, he hates dogs. Thank you very much.

LIZ KELLY, washingtonpost.com celebrity blogger, June 14, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Mike Huckabee stated “one of the things that’s frustrating is there’s more attention on Britney Spears getting out of the car without underwear than who’s going to be the next President.” My question: does anyone know what kind of underwear Britney is now wearing?
KELLY: What kind of underwear is Barack Obama wearing? That’s the question.

ANNE APPLEBAUM, Slate Writer, August 3, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: OMG, ltr-writing is dying? LOL. Y U think that is?
APPLEBAUM: I’ve never written learned to be eloquent in IM-speak. But I gather it is now reaching new levels of sophistication. Danielle Crittenden has just written an entire book in IM-speak-“The President’s IMs” imagining how Bush/Condi/Dick etc. would communicate with one another if they used it.

STREETER SEIDELL, CollegeHumor.com Front Page Editor, August 16, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: My college roommate is a sleepwalker. He says not to wake him if he sleepwalks. Yet, he sleep walks and mumbles about how he is planning to kill me. Now I can’t sleep. Any advice?
SEIDELL: In this case, I believe a preemptive strike is in order. Why, just look how well it was worked for us in Iraq.
CZIKOWSKY: I have a problem adjusting to college. I walked around the streets of Philadelphia for hours looking for something to do. I finally asked a local and told him “I’ve been walking the streets of Philadelphia for hours looking for something to do. What is it that you Philadelphians do?” He told me “you just did it”. What should I do?
SEIDELL: Go to Pat’s and get a Cheese Wit.
CZIKOWSKY: I remember my freshman year, a guy announced he’s had enough. He hopped on his motorcycle and left. I thought that was so cool. Of course, he came back a week later.
SEIDELL: I’m surprised you remember me. I thought everyone forgot about that.

GENE WEINGARTEN, Washington Post Staff Writer, August 21, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: If Rupert Murdoch bought the New York Times, do you think it would start running comics?
WEINGARTEN: Yes.

JONATHAN WEISMAN, Washington Post Congressional Reporter, August 28, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Might the Log Cabin Republicans endorse Larry Craig for re-election, and would he accept the endorsement?
WEISMAN: Not if he’s taking the wide-stand defense!

GENE WEINGARTEN, Washington Post Staff Writer, August 28, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Of course Berkeley Breathed draws pornography. Haven’t you noticed how Opus always gets the sexiest women in all comics?
WEINGARTEN: The sexiest women in all comics might be in “9 Chickweed Lane”, an otherwise reprehensible comic. But Berkeley is close.
I was hot for Calvin’s mom, but I’m a little weird.

LIZ KELLY, washingotonpost.com celebritology blogger, August 30, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: If Leona Helmsley’s dogs do not pay all their inheritance taxes, will the IRS place them in a kennel?
KELLY: I just can’t even comment on this, except to say that I take fabulous care of my pets and there’s always room here for a couple more.

AMY ARGETSINGER, Washington Post Reliable Source Columnist, September 12, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: I look a little like Russell Crowe. I’ve been stopped three times now for an autograph. How do I know these sightings aren’t really me? Also, should I start going around throwing telephones at people, just to keep the image up?
ARGETSINGER: Would you please? I mean, if Actual Russell Crowe persists in behaving nicely in local restaurants, we’re going to have to stop writing about him.

DAVE BARRY, humor writer, January 3, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: In addition to being a famous humor writer, I know you are also a specialist in Physics. I am new to Physics, so maybe you can explain something to me. If nothing can move faster than the speed of light, and if light consists of both particles and waves, aren’t the waves, which travel in different directions while maintaining the same forward momentum of traveling at the speed of light, in fact traveling at a speed greater than the speed of light while moving in their nonlinear trajectory?
BARRY: I did take Physics, but that was at Pleasantville (NY) High School in the 1969s. I was in Mr. Heideman’s class, and what I mainly remember was, during Physics Lab, dropping various objects out of the window with my friend Joe DiGiacinto, who is now an attorney. We determined that there was definitely gravity around Pleasantville High. There was also light, but I don’t remember seeing any particles or waves, at least not until later in the Sixties. I hope this helps.

MICHAEL SHOWALTER, comedian, February 2, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What do you find funniest about Michael Ian Black?
SHOWALTER: The funniest thing about Michael Black is his stanky BO. It’s funny in a “OMG I can’t believe your BO is that stanky” kinda way.
CZIKOWSKY: Didn’t Proust also write “Everybody Poops:?
SHOWALTER: No, Proust wrote “Everybody Prousts.”

JEFFREY GOLDBERG, The Atlantic National Correspondent, March 6, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I have to admit this. I have been living in a cave for the past several years. What is “The Wire” and what have I missed by not seeing this show?
GOLDBERG: “The Wire” is an underwater musical starring Esther Williams.

ANDREA SACHS, Washington Post Travel Section Flight Crew, March 17, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: My favorite St. Patrick’s Day was observing people doing a pub crawl through several Chicago pubs. They printed the names of the pubs they were hitting on the back of t-shirts worn by all in the group. Two gentlemen wondered which bar was next, so they tried to read each other’s t-shirt. Unfortunately, as each moved forward to read the back of the other’s shirt, one could not read the other’s shirt, causing both to run in drunker circles attempting to read their shirts. I think, though, they were having a good time overall.
SACHS: Hope they also wrote on the t-shirts: “If lost, please return to…”

DANA MILBANK, Washington Post columnist, March 21, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I am enjoying this new reality show on C-SPAN “Congress”, and I have to admit your book is a good guide to better understanding the characters. Yet, I have to admit—I am not finding the characters believable. Maybe they should try new writers. There is no way that anyone would ever behave like that in real life.
MILBANK: I was worried I wouldn’t be have a chance to plug my book, “Homo Politicus: The Strange and Scary Tribes that Run Our Government”. Doubleday 2008. Available where fine books are sold. Proceeds to benefit the Alberto Gonzales Defense Fund.

GENE WEINGARTEN, Washington Post staff writer, March 24, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: You literally have been to the end of our country, in Alaska, and now kept in a roomful of media blasting for 24 hours straight. What tortures are you thinking of doing to yourself in the future?
WEINGARTEN: All that’s left is castration without anesthesia.

KENNY MAYNE, ESPN Personality, April 24, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: If your research is incomplete and inaccurate (in his book “An Incomplete and Inaccurate History of Sport”), how come you haven’t been snatched up by Fox News?
MAYNE: I watch mostly Matthews and Olbermann for news thought I do take in some Fox and CNN.
I like the BBC also.
CZIKOWSKY: Who are some of the best athletes and sports writers turned dancer? To me, Hershel Walker domes to mind, and for those snickering, ballet is very athletically challenging. Anyone else?
MAYNE: Walker used ballet as part of his training…I’m sure he’d do well (on the TV show “Dancing with the Stars”).
So far it seems football players stand out…Jerry, Emmitt, and now Jason.
Jerry says it has to do with their commitment…of course, Jerry said this while wearing glitter yesterday.

DANA MILBANK, Washington Post columnist and DANA PRIEST, Washington Post investigative journalist, July 17,2008
CZIKOWSKY: What is the correct pronunciation of the name “Dana”?
MILBANK: “BROW-klee”.
PRIEST: What he is referring to is our newly named Executive Editor, Marcus Brauchlis, who comes on board September 8.
MILBANK: Apparently a lot of people think it’s funny that our new Executive Editor’s surname sounds like the vegetable broccoli.
I wish for the record that I found this absolutely radichhio. I have been peppered with this nonsense endlessly, and I carrot allow this to leek out any further. Lettuce squash this silliness and never allow it to sprout again.

JOHN DICKERSON, Slate chief political correspondent, July 31, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I was just sitting in a bar with some of my fellow Pennsylvanians debating whether today to turn to God or to our guns to get out of our despair, when we saw the new commercial where Britney Spears and Paris Hilton support Obama. We realized that if Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, whom we presume are Republicans, can support Obama, then Obama must not be that bad after all.
DICKERSON: I hear many people do still drink at lunch.

LIZ KELLY, washingtonpost.com Celebritology blogger, July 31, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I drank this drink that claimed when I woke up I would see a blue fairy. Well, that didn’t work. When I woke up, all I saw was a naked Andy Dick outside my window.
KELLY: Gene Weingarten, everyone!

DANA MILBANK, Washington Post columnist, August 7, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: My focus group tells me the voters see the most articulate candidate as Paris Hilton. I hear the Hiltons have money. Should we be vetting her for Vice President?
MILBANK: I have begun the, um, betting Paris already. But the Post IT folks have apparently started blocking my access to certain web sites. Go figure.

LIZ KELLY, washingtonpost.com Celebritology blogger, August 28, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Whatever happened to Abe Vigoda? He’s not been dead for so long now that he finally has to be old.
KELLY: Man, he’d be fab on “Dancing with the Stars”. At 87, he’d totally out-age Cloris Leachman.
CZIKOWSKY: How about Val Kilmer campaigning with Ralph Nader? Shall we expect you to now be the Post’s Nader reporter?
KELLY: Man, I would love to be on that bus.

ROXANNE ROBERTS, Washington Post Reliable Source Columnist, September 3, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I heard one joke: A guy goes up to David Letterman and says he has a psychic parrot. The guy asks the parrot “who’s going to be the next President?” and the parrot screeches “barawk, barawk”. Letterman says the act is terrible and throws the guy out. The guy stands outside mumbling to himself “I can’t imagine what went wrong” and the parrot then squawks “mccawn?”
ROBERTS: Macaws for McCain.

CHRISTOPHER BUCKLEY, author, September 10, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: In an effort to understand the current political discourse, I wish to report that I tried to put lipstick on both a pit bull and a pig (I wanted to be bipartisan about this). I wish to announce my conclusions that neither the pit bull nor the pig wish to wear lipstick.
BUCKLEY: Isn’t it wonderful how elevated our political discourse is there days? When I was working as a speechwriter in the White House in the early 80’s, I learned a wonderful saying (the context was: trying to get Congress to alter its big-spending habits): “Dot try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.”
CZIKOWSKY: Well, Justices read cue cards written by their clerks and, in fact, if you are Justice Thomas, you seldom have to speak at all. Wouldn’t the problem with a television show judge being named to the Supreme Court is they would become bored by the relative lack of work?
BUCKLEY: You put your finger right on it. She (in “Supreme Courtship”) quickly realizes it’s pretty dry stuff. But the Court becomes a pretty lively place once she’s on it.

AMY ARGETSINGER, Washington Post Reliable Source Columnist, December 17, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Here is the problem I have with pay to play. Whoever cuts Rod Blagojevich’s hair obviously paid someone off to get his barber’s license.
ARGETSINGER: What I want to know is how much blow drying maintenance that look takes every day.

HUNGARY

KATI MARTON, author, December 19, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I have read and found your book (“The Great Escape”) immensely insightful. What are some of the uniqueness of Hungarian culture that helped guide these people who became destined to change our world?
MARTON: Hungarian culture is an orphan in Europe. The language is unrelated to any other (though it shares roots with Finnish and Turkish) but the culture, one of Europe’s oldest, is really kind of mysterious and unrelated to its neighbors, the Slavs and the Germans. This creates a sense of great isolation among Hungarians, combined often times with super-nationalism. What made the nine men I profiled extraordinary was in part that they were growing up at a time when the city of Budapest was really creating itself from three small provincial towns into a world-class capital. My nine figures were incubated by a city in full boom—a period of great opportunity and a hunger for the new on the part of their fellow Hungarians. It was a remarkable mix of both a secure atmosphere and explosive intellectual climate. The curtain rang down of this great Golden Age with the outbreak of World War I.

IMMIGRATION

JORGE RAMOS, Noticiero Univision Anchor, February 7, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: In your observations, in recent times, has the nature and incidences of racial profiling changed?
RAMOS: Every single immigrant could suffer the consequences of racial profiling. My position is that immigrants should not be the scapegoats for the enormous failures in intelligence work before September 11th.
Yes, more precise, accurate, effective intelligence work is needed to fight terrorism. But immigrants should not be the scapegoats.

GITA SAEDI, “The New Americans” Series Producer, March 20, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: We note that Baltimore and other cities have created immigrant offices that help immigrants thrive as a community. They are encouraged to work and assist each other and to reside nearly each other in marginal neighborhoods. This seems to be successful in stopping the spread of urban decay and turning it around. Have you observed this, and what has been your impression of these efforts?
SAEDI: I have seen this and tonight you’ll meet the Flores family, and their experience in the U.S. shows you a community that helps and a community that doesn’t have the infrastructure to help. After working on this film I see what an incredible difference that community effort makes.

AUDREY SINGER, Brookings Institution Visiting Fellow, June 4, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Baltimore and other communities have encouraged and assisted immigrants to move into marginal neighborhoods, establish a stable community, and reverse the past spread of urban decline. Do you see this as a possibility in other cities, and what needs to be done to allow such efforts to be successful?
SINGER: Really, what will revitalize declining communities in cities with dropping population is job opportunities. For Cleveland or Baltimore of Philadelphia to have success in their campaigns to attract immigrants, it should come with some economic development plan as well. Then the available housing and commercial stock that exists and is vacant can be utilized.
I do think leadership that sends a symbolic welcoming message is important to this process too.

JORGE RAMOS, Univision News Anchor, March 30, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Our nation’s history has been acceptance of immigrants into a country of opportunity, followed by those residents then seeking to close entrance to others. Isn’t this no different from other times in history and, if so, wouldn’t it be interesting to watch the descendants of subsequent waves of immigration explain why immigration laws should restrict immigration now rather than before their ancestors arrived?
RAMOS: There is nothing more sad in the US than to see an immigrant criticize other immigrants. The identity of the US is linked to our diversity and to our acceptance of immigrants. On the other hand, the US needs more immigrants. For example, the white working age population is going to decrease five million in the next 20 years. And who is going to replace those workers? Who will pay for their social security? Immigrants.

MICHELE WUCKER, author, May 30, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Would you please describe how the rate of retirement is higher than the rate of new employees being created and the role that immigrants could play in filing jobs that otherwise will be unfilled?
WUCKER: The aging of the Baby Boomers is a very big story in this country, as is the growing need for health care personnel to attend to their medical care as they retire. Because the U.S. birth rate in recent years has been much lower, not enough new people are entering the work force. Some industries are already reporting shortages—including, interesting enough, in manufacturing—and others predict rapidly growing worker shortages, particularly in health care. Immigrants generally come when they are at prime working age, so this helps to balance some of the demographic trend.

LIZ STERN, Baker and McKenzie LLP Partner, May 24, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What is the point of requiring people to return to their home country before they may become a legal citizen? Doesn’t this make such people a greater potential security risk as any criminal interests back in their home country would know which people were applying for American citizenship? They would know which people to contact while they were back in their home country in hopes of recruiting them to engage in criminal activity when they return to American. Wouldn’t it make more sense not to require people to return to their home countries?
STERN: The home country return allows for security checks to occur in full before return to the U.S., hence that’s part of the current political compromise. Remember this is only for folks who have not been in legal status, or are in the pool of guest workers that is now being created and which, in a sense, have to earn the ability to return. The professional corps will still have the ability to adjust status is the U.S., provided they have maintained their status throughout their tenure in the U.S.

JOHN T. STIRRUP, Prince William County (Va.) Supervisor, July 16, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: I understand your concern, yet I don’t believe you understand the motivation of many of the illegal immigrants. They wish to be here illegally because it is still a better life, with better opportunities, than what they left behind. Throughout our history, the issue has been the same. People arrive in American, and then wish to shut the entrances and not allow anyone else after them. Our nation has grown with new immigrants, and without new immigrants, our economy will not grow as it should.
STIRRUP: I agree with you to a point. What we are discussing is the Rule of Law. We have always welcomed immigrants to the United States, legally. By giving illegal immigrants the same status as those who have waited and entered legally, you do an incredible disservice to those who entered legally.

ORIANNA ZILL DE GRANADOS, PBS Frontline/World producer, May 28, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: About how much smuggling (across the Mexican-US border) is human traffic, how much is drugs, and what are some of the other things being smuggled across the border?
DE GRANADOS: We were very surprised to learn that the US government does not have estimates or research studies about how many people or drugs are actually being smuggled across the border. The UC San Diego study we referred to in the piece (“Crimes at the Border”) estimates that slightly less than 50 percent of the people who cross get apprehended and there about 800,000 apprehended last year along the southern border.
In terms of drugs, there is no way to know how much is getting across, but it’s a large amount.
Guns are one thing that are actually smuggled from the US INTO Mexico because it is illegal to sell guns in Mexico. Money (from drugs) is also smuggled back the other way from US into Mexico.
CZIKOWSKY: The introduction states that smuggling has a corrupting influence on guards. Yet, are these payoffs creating the corruption, or might some of these guards have been corrupt to begin with and perhaps that is why some sought to become guards?
DE GRANADOS: We learned that some smuggling organizations ARE actively trying to recruit guards. And some use tactics like offers of sex and money to do that.
Obviously, if the guard takes the bait, he is corrupt, but what we found interesting as that in the old days, the smuggling business did not have enough money to really tempt these guards to throw away their careers. Now, the money is plentiful and it presents a temptation that some people find hard to resist.
Most border agents are not corrupt and do not succumb to that temptation.

INDIA

STEPHEN COHEN, Brookings Institution Senior Fellow, July 19, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: First, and obviously, how is Pakistan taking to this (agreement between the United States and India to share nuclear technology and information)? Second, and also very importantly, aren’t we sending mixed signals to China: please be our friend, but, just in case, we want to be able to destroy you if need be? Will the negative reactions outweigh the potential benefits of this move?
COHEN: You are right to ask these tough questions—politics, especially international politics, is inherently tough, otherwise these issues would be taken care of by normal diplomacy.
Pakistan will regard the recent U.S.-India agreement as further evidence of a.) India’s attempt to become South Asia’s dominant power, and b.) that the Americans are willing, at least to some degree, to help India do this. Pakistan will in turn try to improve its relations with China and even Russia, while using the Americans to constrain India as best as it can. The real question is whether this move will make it easier for India to ignore Kashmir.
Some Chinese will regard this agreement as evidence that India is lining up to contain China, others will recognize that India may be trying to “free ride” on American power, and that India and China can work out a strategic accommodation in the long run, both concerned about American strategic dominance. As they say, “time will tell”, in that the calculations are subtle and complicated, but I am personally convinced that if India exercises restraint, they have promised not to test nuclear weapons which would enable them to develop a second generation device—then this will not be seen as an anti-China development. Big questions remain: will a more powerful India be more accommodating or less.

INDONESIA

ORLANDON DE GUZMAN, Frontline/World correspondent, June 27, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: If there was to be another natural disaster, how do you think the past experiences might guide how well the two warring sides would make agreements on future disaster relief?
DE GUZMAN: I do hope there is not another natural disaster. Indonesia has suffered too many of them the past few years! The price paid for peace in Aceh—the death of 170,000 people—is just too high. But I worry that as the memory of the tsunami begins to fade away, officials and leaders will return to old habits. When I interviewed the military general who was in charge of counterinsurgency operations in Aceh for the documentary, I asked him specifically if it was the tsunami that brought the peace. The general said that it was a “tool” to bring the two sides together, but it still remains to be seen if it is the main reason for the peace.
I think that major natural disasters can put their own human follies into perspective, but how stubborn are we, and what are the limits of our ability to change?

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

JAMES BAMFORD, author, May 1, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Many of us are still trying to figure out Tom Ridge’s role in Washington. How much authority should a Homeland Security office be provided? Should a Homeland Security office how the power to order the FBI. CIA, NSA, and other agencies to do as they ask on matters of homeland protection?
BAMFORD: My own opinion is that the Office of Homeland Security was a quick kneejerk reaction and probably should be eliminated. It is just one more thing to slow down and complicate an already complicated process. Also, by merging domestic and foreign intelligence collection there is great room for abuse. It should also come under Congressional oversight.

BOB ZOELLICK, United States Trade Representative, August 13, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: What are potential new trade markets for the United States? Is it expanding into countries such as China, or emerging markets in Africa, and, if so, where do you see other emerging trade markets?
ZOELLICK: Because the U.S. is about 25 percent of the global economy we want to try to open markets everywhere. We would like to operate globally, regionally, and with individual countries which are called bilateral agreements. We are pursuing free trade agreements with countries in Latin America, southern Africa, Asia, and perhaps Australia as well.
We are pursuing a global trade agreement in Doha Qatar. That is the international negotiations that failed to launch in Seattle in1999. In addition we last year completed the joining of China and Taiwan into the WTO which activated the lower tariffs of the agreement the U.S. has with China.
We look to expand markets in Asia, Latin America, but we also want to extend trade ties in Africa.

JEFFERSON MORLEY, washingtonpost.com World Editor, October 14, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: One of the most important elements of the Cuban missile crisis was the importance of diplomacy and understanding to which messages to reply, which to ignore, and the ability to allow both sides an out without ruining each other’s reputations. Would you please tell us about the diplomatic channels that existed during the Cuban missile crisis?
MORLEY: President Kennedy used a wide variety of channels, public and private, to respond to the presence of nuclear missiles in Cuba. These included vigorous use of the United Nations and the Organization of American States to enlist their support and public support in countries overseas. Via his brother Bobby, the President also sent private messages to Soviet diplomats in Washington.

THOMAS S. BLANTON, National Security Archive Executive Director, October 16, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: What lessons on diplomacy are to learned from studying the Cuban missile crisis? Wasn’t a significant part of diplomacy in this crisis the choice of the Kennedy Administration to ignore an antagonistic Russian communication and respond to a more conciliatory communication, thus setting the level of discussion toward conciliation? Are there other lessons you would mention?
BLANTON: You’re put our finger on a key moment. JFK and his advisers are debating what to do about the two letters and thinking, well, we’ve got to respond to the tough one, that says the Soviets will only pull out if the U.S. pulls out of Turkey. At this moment, Tommy Thompson, longtime Russia expert, former Ambassador to Moscow, knows Khruschev personally, says, he’s let’s give him a way out, he wants to be able to say he saved Cuba, let’s ignore the Turkey letter and give him a pledge of Cuba. JFK did both, the pledge on Cuba publicly (with conditions of course) and the Turkey deal secretly. The main lesson is they achieved Khruschev’s pullback by putting themselves in their adversary’s shoes, they avoided backing him against the wall, and they looked for alternatives short of war---what at best is a crude instrument of policy, sometimes necessary to be sure. As JFK commented on the tapes, we’re not going to have a very good war if we out later we could have gotten the missiles out by trading ours in Turkey.
CZIKOWSKY: After the fall of the Soviet Union, did any more Soviet papers regarding Cuba become public? Also, hasn’t Cuba recently released more of its own documents? What interesting details, if any, have you seen emerge from the papers from the other side of this crisis?
BLANTON: There was a brief golden age of openness in the Soviet archives, from 1991 to 1993---ironically corresponding with the brief openness in the CIA archives. For the conference this past weekend, the National Security Archive’s Russian specialists, led by Dr. Svetlana Savranskaya, unearthed more than a thousand pages of new Soviet documents, such as actual military orders that gave local commanders authority to fire tactical nuclear weapons in an invasion came, then took that authority away at the height of the crisis because Moscow feared were getting out of control. Plus the Cuban government declassified nearly a thousand pages of its files, including all its defense agreements with the Soviets, long lists of all the equipment the Soviets gave them, transcripts of Castro’s very difficult meeting with Soviet emissary Mikoyan---amazing stuff. What’s really is the Cuban sense of constant threat from the U.S., or put another way, our covert operations that were meant to deter Castro from subverting the hemisphere actually compelled him to accept Soviet missiles. For the Cubans, they call the crisis “the October crisis”, in effect the crisis of the month. From the new U.S. and Soviet files, you can see both Kennedy and Khruschev being reckless before the crisis, JFK with his covert operations and Nikita with his secret deceitful missile deployment, and both of them immediately going totally cautious once the crisis broke, knowing the world was on the brink, both looking for a way out.

AMANDA PIKE, PBS Producer, November 1, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Maybe this is a question with no answer. How does a leader kill or let a third of his nation die? What leader can turn to his people and think for the good of our nation, many of you will die? What kind of legacy does such a leader expect? When someone’s ideology allows massive deaths, why doesn’t a leader begin to question such an ideology?
PIKE: You raise a fascinating question, though as you say, there are no easy answers. One of the things that surprised me most in talking to the remnants of the Khmer Rouge was their continued commitment to what they see as the original ideals of their revolution. The educated men who make up the upper ranks of the movement say that they were patriots were truly believed that their new independent government would better the country. I do believe that most of the people we met had the nation’s best interests at heart---many fought for years at great personal risk to try and make a difference. What is so confusing and heartbreaking is how their struggle went so quickly and so horribly wrong---and why these men stayed with the movement for decades after the atrocities became known.

MARK HERTSGAARD, author, November 20, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Does American television distort the American images in the eyes of foreigners? Is so, would you please give some examples and discuss any possible consequences from these distortions?
HERTSGAARD: Of course American television distorts foreigners’ views of life in the United States. I think of a young South African man I interviewed for “The Eagle’s Shadow”. He was a bus driver and loved everything about America. His view of our reality, however, was based almost entirely on the soap operas as “The Bold and the Beautiful” and hip-hop music videos, so it wasn’t a terribly realistic perception. At the end of our conversation, he was telling me about the township near Cape Town where he lived and he complained about all the street gangs and crime. Then he brightened and asked me, “Did you know that every township in South Africa has street gangs named after your country?”
“Really?”, I said.
“Yes,” he replied. “One is called the Young Americans and the other is called the Ugly Americans.”
“What’s the difference?” I asked.
“The Young Americans dress like Americans”, he said. “The Ugly Americans shoot guns like Americans.”
\ I actually open my book with this story. To see the U.S. as a very rich place that shoots lots of guns is surely not the most sophisticated analysis, but it’s a fair shorthand for how many foreigners view our homeland. And it’s drawn to a large degree from American television, which in the past ten years especially has come to dominate the world.
CZIKOWSKY: What are children in different countries taught about the United States? I recall reading an autobiography of someone who grew up in Afghanistan who wrote the reason why protestors proclaim American as the “Great Satan” is because that is what they were taught in school. They were taught that Islam is the one true religion and that leaders of Christian nations and Israel are agent of Satan. Did you find similar teachings amongst people you interviewed? If so, do these teachings stick with people in adulthood?
HERTSGAARD: Yes, there are these teachings abroad, but in my experience this is really a minority. Most outsiders are taught much more fairly and comprehensively about the United States and I must say, they know much more about us than we do about them---to our loss, I think.

JAMES LINDSAY, Council of Foreign Relations Director of Studies, November 11, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Bush campaigned in 2000 stating he was not in favor of nation building. Now, he is faced with dramatic decisions that, if they are not “nation building”, are close to it in Iraq and Afghanistan. Should the United States engage in nation building and, if so, under what circumstances should it become so involved?
LINDSAY: The Bush Administration has never been a big proponent of nation-building. That was a clear message in the campaign. It’s an approach the Administration has stuck to in Afghanistan, where despite the rhetoric American reconstruction efforts have been modest. (The White House’s original FY04 budget request didn’t request any money for Afghanistan).
In the case of Iraq, the White House went to war on the assumption that is wouldn’t have to get into the business of nation-building. The expectation was that Hussein’s government could be removed but the rest of the government apparatus would remain intact. Events proved otherwise.
This has pushed the Administration toward greater involvement in Iraq. Still, the general drift of Administration policy has been to try to get out, again notwithstanding rhetoric to the contrary.
The United States clearly has a strategic interest in seeing Iraq succeed. The open question is whether we have the capacity to make that happen.
CZIKOWSKY: To me, it appears the Bush Administration prefers to develop foreign policy without extensive consultation with other nations. In acting unilaterally, don’t we temporarily gain what we want yet, in the long run, we are losing respect through the world which will complicate our future endeavors in foreign relations?
LINDSAY: That’s always the risk with unilateralism. President Bush’s calculation is that because others understand that the United States is a uniquely just great power that eventually they will come around to accept what we have done even if they dislike how we do ii. Right now we have what is in effect a large-scale test of this proposition.

LEE HAMILTON, Former Member of Congress, November 19, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: What specific actions do you believe President Bush and Congress could do to better improve the role of the United States in the United Nations? Also, while I support the United Nations, there are many critics of the United Nations. How could the United Nations be useful towards encouraging world cooperation and reducing conflicts?
HAMILTON: I think in short the answer would be that you want the U.S. to engage the U.N, pay our dues, to make it a better U.N. We have to explain to Americans the important, the successes, and the failures of the U.N. We have to speak up for the U.N. and let people get a realistic assessment. Criticism comes because the U.N hasn’t lived up to our ideals, but it doesn’t understand the criticism, many of the beneficial activities of the U.N. and it deserves our support.
The President has to take the lead in strengthening the U.N. Every President has voiced support as an effective tool of U.S. foreign policy. That’s sometimes limited to one speech a year, though, and it is important to speak up more about the importance.
The Congress and the President have to work out a better process to deal with the U.N. Congress often complains about activities of the U.N., lack of consultation from the President re: U.N. commitments. There has to be a lot better communications.

ROBERT KAGAN, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Associate, November 14, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: When you discuss European interests, how do you define such interests? Do you look only at the economic policies of the European Union, or do you also include England and Eastern Europe? Where do the economic interests of England, the European Union, and Eastern Europe coexist and where are they in conflict? Further, what differences and similarities exist amongst the economic interests of the nations within the European Union?
KAGAN: Your very smart questions require an essay-length response. I can’t do them justice here. When I discuss European interests, I am not addressing specifically economic interests but general national interests. In fact, I don’t talk that much about ‘interests”, I think, I talk more about ideas and fears and aspirations. In that regard, there are clearly differences within Europe, between East and West, on either side of the channel, etc. It is always a risk—as I have been reminded about a million times by now—to try to talk about “Europe”. (Which is funny, since Europeans themselves constantly talk about “Europe”).
Obviously, Europeans have conflicting economic interests—on farm policies and subsidies, for instance. And now with the unraveling of the stability pact regulating European budget deficits, it will be interesting to see how “Europe” holds together. I suspect it will survive.

NOAM CHOMSKY, Linguistics and Philosophy Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, November 26, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: You are very critical of our current policies. If you could change United States foreign and military policy, what would you make as our primary objectives? Should we have a role in providing economic assistance that may have mutual benefits and should we engage in military operations that prevent genocide?
CHOMSKY: We should surely provide economic assistance that has benefits (I don’t know why “mutual” enters). And there is no shortage of examples. To take just one, at least 3,000 children die every day in Africa from easily preventable diseases, and with funding so slight that we wouldn’t even notice it, we could easily end this catastrophe. As for preventing genocide, yes, I think it would be legitimate to use force to do so, and I even know of a few cases. In the post-World War II period there are two real examples that might qualify: India’s invasion of East Pakistan and Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia. In both cases, the U.S. strenuously opposed the actions to terminate huge atrocities, and punished India (and particularly Vietnam) for doing so. I don’t know of any cases remotely comparable. If you have Kosovo in mind, I’d urge that you look at the massive Western documentation on the topic, which is quite decisive. You can find some reviews in books of mine, including the most recent one, “Hegemony or Survival”, but you should not take it on faith, but check the original sources, which is not hard.

PAUL ZEITZ, Global AIDS Alliance Executive Director, December 1, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Noam Chomsky (see previous question) stated the costs to Americans of combating infectious diseases in Africa would be so slight we wouldn’t even feel it. How much would it cost to properly fight infectious diseases in Africa, including HIV? What do you see as preventing us from making that commitment?
ZEITZ: Noam Chomsky is correct.
UNAIDS estimates that we need $10.5 billion per year starting by 2005.
WHO estimates that an additional $5.5 billion is needed to achieve the goal of putting 3 million people on treatment with lifesaving AIDS medications by the end of 2005.
WHO has global estimates for TB control of 3 billion per year and Malaria control at 2 billion per year. So in total we about $20 billion per year to control these diseases of mass destruction. We are calling on the U.S. government to provide 1/3rd of the total costs, or our US fair share based on the fact that we control 1/3rd of global wealth.

TONY MENDEZ and JONNA MENDEZ, retired Central Intelligence Agency agents, February 25, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: It is stressed that students interested in CIA work should learn foreign languages. Yet, unless the language is native to you, isn’t it hard to learn a new language without an accent that would be detected by a native? Is there special training for emersion in language skills for CIA recruits seeking to work in foreign countries? Or, are such recruits usually then hired primarily for translating documents?
MENDEZ and MENDEZ: There are lots of different language requirements in the intelligence community. The CIA itself has a very robust language program, teaching and testing to the highest levels. Yes, there are special schools that take it further, The Monterey Institute in California, for instance, where they do total immersion and get very good results. A friend of ours at the agency, a very senior man, had both Chinese and Russian language skills, tested at a “5”, which at CIA means native proficiency. Some people are better at the skill than others—but every can at least learn to operate in a language.

NEELY TUCKER, Washington Post Staff Writer, February 26, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Foreign adoptions can be difficult, you hopefully for those who stick with it, ultimately rewarding struggles. A friend of mine also had an involved foreign adoption. While I don’t know all the details, it required her living in another country for several months while various political and administrative difficulties were settled. She, too, plans to write about her experiences. My questions: what were the most difficult aspects about writing about your experiences? Did you find it emotionally draining, or perhaps it was emotionally helpful to get your thoughts collected and to express them?
TUCKER: The most difficult part of the book, as you surmised, was how emotionally draining it was. I wrote in three months flat, locked in a room on my parent’s farm in rural Mississippi. I had grown up in that room, and my Grandfather, who came to live with us in his later years, died in it. Writing there, day after day, surrounded by my own history, and so many memories of the war and conflict I had witnessed, came back to me in waves that I could not have foreseen. I would ride around at night for hours after writing, just trying to clear the pressure in my head. At the end, I suppose it was very therapeutic. A lot of demons let loose and, one hopes, banished.

ROBERT E. HUNTER, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, March 29, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts on concerns that expansion of NATO may make it more difficult for NATO to reach a consensus on how to act? Since some military actions require quick decisions, how well will NATO be able to balance consulting its member nations while making responsive actions?
HUNTER: It may seem that the larger NATO becomes—as of today, it has 26 members, only five years ago it had only 16—the harder it will become to take decisions, which, as the questioner knows, are always taken by consensus: indeed, NATO never takes a formal vote. But what seems obvious may not be so. In the first place, the new members are deeply devoted to the same principles as the existing members—in particular to preserving and extending security in Europe. Furthermore, NATO has always been most effective when there is vigorous debate about (what) it should do—and not do—against a background of knowledge both that having an alliance that works is critical to all and that, when it has taken a decision, NATO has never failed in what it has set out to do. Thus, with 16 members or 26, the task is the same: for all the allies to become convinced that a particular course of action is important; and for their there to be effective leadership—and a reputation for probity, good judgment, and commitment to allied security—remains vital to the alliance; and this administration like those before it must husband that resource. If it does so—in particular to move beyond the crisis of the last year, then the number of allies will not be that important.

DAN FROOMKIN, wasingtonpost.com columnist, April 21, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Is there a sense that Colin Powell will not be back for a second term in the Bush Administration (assuming Bush wins reelection)? If so, I have trouble balancing this with Secretary Powell’s statements that he admired a previous State Department Secretary who remained loyal to both his President and his principles even when his principles dissented from his President. If this is so, why would he then quit when he has a chance for another term of arguing for his principles? If he wishes to remain and it is known he won’t be rehired, why doesn’t he resign in protest now?
FROOMKIN: Well, it does seem pretty obvious that Powell would not serve in a second term. But he ain’t a quitter.

STANSFIELD TURNER, Former Central Intelligence Agency Director, August 11, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What would be the advantages and the difficulties of having one person in charge of all our intelligence operations?
TURNER: The military have a great need for intelligence, including tactical intelligence which should not be run by a central, national authority, e.g. scouts on the right flank.
We also need to ensure that differing interpretations of the intelligence data are free to percolate upward.

RONALD KESSLER, author, August 12, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: We have read the spin from both sides. Either CIA employees are exuberant because “one of their own” has been named to lead them, or CIA employes are upset that a person so critical of them may be in charge. Of course, with so many employees, both sentiments could exist. What do you believe is the prevalent mood within the CIA regarding the possibility that Porter Goss may be their boss?
KESSLER: Some are a little troubled by the fact that Goss occasionally has made unfair criticism of the agency, but overall I think the employees are positive about him because his overall record shows that he understands intelligence and that he will make changes that are responsible.
CZIKOWSKY: If Porter Goss is replaced as CIA Director, does he intend to return to politics: perhaps even to seek to win his Congressional seat back? I haven’t read if he’s been asked this. To me, this is important, as it indicates whether he considers his political career as a fallback to his administrative career. If this is the case, might it indicate that he will be keeping more attuned to the political of his actions than if he has decided not to return to politics?
KESSLER: I think it would be unfair to ask any prospective government official what he plans to do next, assuming he even knows the answer. What is important is the person’s track record and I think he has shown himself a thoughtful and objective person in this field.

MARK SHAPIRO, FRONTLINE/World Correspondent, August 20, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: As the U.S. refuses to sign various international treaties, in addition to invading Iraq without widespread international support, is there less respect for the U.S. as we seem to be a country that does as it wishes without consulting the international community?
SHAPIRO: One word answer: Yes.
CZIKOWSKY: What are your forecasts for how the future of international trade as our lifestyles changes to an informational society?
SHAPIRO: Disputes over trade issues will continue to accelerate as the international legal hallmarks of our time…
That said, I think our reliance on imports is increasing…and hopefully there will be some cultural-reverb from that as U.S. comes more attuned to realities of the world. Already see it in emergence of Spanish as second language of the U.S.; of increasing emphasis on foreign policy in current Presidential debate; number of student studying abroad; number of great music bands from distant locales finding popular reception here; same with films; and then there’s always Ikea to give you the feeling of Scandinavia. Not necessarily in that order.

DAN MORGAN, Washington Post Staff Writer, October 18, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Why has no one noticed the inconsistency of the Bush foreign policy where they decline to negotiate directly with North Korea in order to preserve the negotiating efforts of foreign nations, yet then refuses to recognize the negotiating efforts of other nations when it comes to Iraq?
MORGAN: The President argues that he is being a “multilateralist” in the case of North Korea, by bringing in other parties, such as China. Yet, the Administration has resisted creating such a multilateral group of neighboring countries to work on the Iraq situation, i.e., Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia—and maybe even Iran. So the Administration’s view of multilateralism does seem to shift on a case by case basis. For example, the Administration generally has taken the view that economic sanctions are more effective when applied by a group of nations acting together, rather than one alone. Jimmy Carter’s solo grain embargo of the Soviet Union after the invasion of Iraq is ofen cited as an example of the folly of unilateral sanctions.

MEL GOODMAN, former CIA analyst, November 15, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: To me, a fault of the current Administration is they neglected to consider analysis that contradicted the policies which they had already decided to adopt. By now seeking the resignations of people within the CIA who question their politices, what dangers are there towards compromising independent analysis? Is there now a fear that the analysis must agree with already drawn conclusions and, if so, doesn’t this hurt the very nature of why we need independent analysis?
GOODMAN: I totally agree. The major problem at the CIA, which the agency refuses to concede, is the politicization of intelligence on Iraq and then the absurb defense that George Tenet and Stu Cohen (the chairman of the phony October 2002 estimate) made to the media and to an academic audience at Georgetown University, where Tenet is not Professor of International Diplomacy (please!!!) We need some integrity in the process and you don’t need to apply additional funds or additional reform measures to introduce integrity. We are back to telling truth to power.

MICHAEL SCHEURER, former CIA analyst, November 23, 2004
CZIKOWDKY: What are your thoughts on the recent forced resignations within the CIA? Is this sending the wrong message: that analysts who do not send reports that agree with Administration policies might be in trouble? Or, does this not affect the manner in which intelligence is gathered, analyzed, and presented to the President and his advisors?
SCHUERER: The major resignations to date have been senior operations officers and both officers, Mr. Kappes and Mr. Sulkcik, were distinguished officers and the agency is poorer for not having them. They were probably the best leaders we had in the directorate of operations in a decade. That said, there are certainly other officers at senior levels across the intelligence community who need to be removed because they are risk adverse and more bureaucrats than leaders.
Nothing that Mr. Goss has done to date will necessarily skew the intelligence product but surely the situation requires watching.

PATRICIA HARRISON, Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, November 29, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What is your outreach for cultural and educational exchange programs in Islamic countries? I believe many Americans lack an understanding of the Islamic and, vice versa, many in other countries do not understand Americans. What are you doing to allow such an exchange of understanding which, over time, can lead to greater dialogue, perhaps in future generations?
HARRISON: I agree with you that there is a lacking of understanding going in both directions. In fact, my bureau is charged with the mission of “increasing mutual understanding”. And you have really hit the nail on the head when you say we need to create a dialogue with future generations.
My primary focus as the leader of this bureau has been to reach out to younger audiences. Through our Partnership For Learning program we work in partnership with people of good will, youth influencers such as clerics, teachers, journalists, coaches, counselors, women’s organizations to ensure that the successor generation has the tools needed to meet opportunity.
We have hundreds of high school students studying in the United States from countries with significant Muslim populations in the Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, and Africa. We’ve started a new undergraduate program for students from the Middle East, and through our Culture Connect program we are sending prominent American cultural artists, musicians, and athletes to countries around the world to engage and interact with youth.
If we sustain this outreach to a younger more diverse group, we will be able to build on these relationships for the long term. Our goal is to increase mutual understanding, mutual respect between Americans and those of other countries through exchange programs. At the same time, we are using all the tools of technology as well to connect further. But nothing beats face to face. Long after the official program is over, our exchange participants have told us they continue to talk with, meet with, exchange views with the Americans they met on their program. In the process, Americans who host people from other countries are enhanced by the experience as well.

BRUCE SANFORD, attorney, and VICTORIA TOENSING, author, January 12, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Is there anything akin to an Internal Affairs division within the CIA? What internal monitoring does the CIA have on itself?
SANFORD and TOENSING: The CIA has an Inspector General (IG) responsible for internal investigations.

DAN FROOMKIN, washingtonpost.com White House Briefing Columnist, March 23, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Are the neocons extending their power or are they being shoved out of the State and Defense Departments into less influential positions?
FROOMKIN: I would tend to believe the former. But it’s worth keeping an eye on.

PETER DENNIS, former Foundation for International Dignity Legal Aid, April 12, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: From your perspective, do you believe these (sexual misconduct) incidences were primarily localized in Sierra Leone, or do you believe there is an institutional inability of the United Nations to provide proper supervision and that this may be only part of a widespread problem that exists in many other U.N. establishments?
DENNIS: Well, I am not a U.N. insider. My experience with the U.N. has pretty much been limited to my time in Sierra Leone. I do think that I see some pattern though, and that is what led me to the article. It was actually after the news that Mr. Annan had vetoed the internal report on sexual misconduct by the former U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees that I hit a breaking point. It seemed ridiculous to me that while sexual abuse allegations were coming from Congo, we were learning that the head of a U.N. organization was allowed to keep working in the midst of his own sexual misconduct. What kind of message does that send? During Mr. Lubbers tenure the report on sexual abuse surfaced in Sierra Leone, along with allegations of sexual abuse among refugees in Burma the following year. If the U.N. was really serious about sending a message of “zero tolerance” that must apply to all!

DANA PRIEST, Washington Post Staff Writer, July14, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: What is the law on exposing CIA agents? I recall a radical political group once incorrectly exposed me as an agent for the CIA (I believe that was one of their attack methods.) Is claiming someone works for the CIA an expression of free speech, or do they risk being charged with a crime even if it is false? Or, if it turns out they accidentally are correct, can they then be charged with a crime
PRIEST: The law was written after that case you cite. But it expressly says you must know that you are exposing someone who is covert. You can’t be charged with a crime—and neither can the media—if they accidentally name someone. The Washington Post’s policy is not to name someone who is still undercover. I believe that in the Plame case, we did not name her until much later, and after consultation with the agency. Although, just to show how imperfect these safeguards are, I believe the Post syndicates the Novak column and that Novak’s naming of her was distributed by The Post syndicate. The Post does not view the naming matter as a Freedom of Expression issue. Same goes for some other, highly sensitive national security matters. Other concerns come into play and the calls are made at the highest levels of the paper, in consultation with the reporters involved.

ROGER COATE, University of South Carolina Political Science Professor, Septe,ber 14, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Do you see much hope that the United States will allow itself to be in a position to make emergency actions to prevent genocide by sending food and supplies to threatened people with troops to guard threatened people without making a political statement on taking sides in a dispute? It seems to me that there should be a response to protect civilians anywhere against mass death without having to worry about the political consequences of such actions.
COATE: Permit me to rephrase the question, “Do you see much hope that the members states (especially the P-5) will allow the U.N. to…” The problem is not the U.N., it is the major member states, and, most importantly, the largest and most powerful member state, the USA. This you should ask Mr. Bolton.
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts on the United States agreeing to be subjected to the World Court?
COATE: International law is based on reciprocity as its binding force. Americans, more than almost any other people (except perhaps Europeans), need a stable and well functioning international legal order---one in which reciprocity prevails. That is what is really at stake. It is the ability of American civil society and the private sector to operate effectively in the global environment. (The U.S. orientation toward ICC is another matter. In the military realm the U.S. is not just a superpower but a Giant with a big “G”.)

DAFNA LINZER, Washington Post staff writer, September 19, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Why don’t our leaders seem to realize that it helps to lead by example? I am not suggesting that we dismantle our weapons, but shouldn’t we realize that when we’re the ones with the weapons and we’re the ones that invade countries in their region, that other countries are going to get nervous? Indeed, when we declare a country a part of an axis of evil, aren’t we guaranteeing they will begin acting defiensively?
LINZER: I have a few thoughts on this. President Bush’s “six of evil” speech in 2002 isn’t talked about that much in the United States anymore but it is still very much on the minds of people outside this country. Some experts outside government think it has really hurt the administration’s ability to convince countries to jump onto its Iran policy and frankly, the North Korea one, too. I’ve heard others make the interesting argument that the Bush Administration would have more success if it spent more time trying to assure countries about their peaceful intentions and commitment to diplomacy.

MOHAMMED MAMDANI, Muslin Youth Helpline Founder, November 16, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: It has been said that a lot of the religious and political repression that has been supported by Muslim adults in various countries has failed to be supported as strongly by the young. Do you think that, as young Muslims become older, they will be more open to less restrictive lifestyles and governance and more open to alternatives?
MAMDANI: I think it’s inevitable that young Muslims across the Western world will adopt aspect of their new surrounding culture and become more open to new ideas. However, before we can hope for the emergence of a new generation of integrated young Muslims we as a society need to ask some difficult questions. To what extent is discrimination halting the progress of young Muslims? To what extent are young Muslims given a chance to articulate their concerns and hopes for society? Why is there an expectation that Muslim youth must leave integral parts of their identity and faith to be considered integrated? Is diversity a policy ingrained in the hearts of people or just a politically correct statement used by governments? Sadly, it is rarely considered appropriate to question whether WE as a society are creating obstacles for the integration of Muslin youth.

THOMAS CAROTHERS, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Democracy and Rule of Law Project Director, March 7, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: To what degree do you believe that the resistance in non-democratic countries to democratic values is less an objection to the idea of democracy and more fear of the imposition of foreign values that goes against their traditions and cultures?
CAROTHERS: Governmental elites in some regions, especially the former Soviet Union and the Middle East, say they are resisting democracy promotion efforts to defend their national security, but in most cases they are basically using that excuse to maintain their own anti-democratic power.
Citizens of some countries, particularly in the Middle East, do worry that calls for democracy by the West are more about cultural imposition than about political change.

MICHAEL MANDELBAUM, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies Professor, March 17, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: The United States is a military goliath, but can we sustain that, even if we decide that it is our role to continue as such? We are no longer the world’s economic goliath. China’s economy (granted our per capita wealth is far greater) has or soon will surpass ours. The U.S. has a trade imbalance with substantial debt held outside of the United States. The military is not a sector of the economy that strongly benefits other economic sectors than do investments in other areas. Can the United States sustain continued spending on our military while the rest of the world invests in sectors that contribute more to their economic growth?
MANDELBAUM: I believe that the global role of the U.S. does face an economic challenge ahead but, as I argue in “The Case for Goliath”, it is likely to come not from the costs of the country’s foreign policies—the ‘imperial overstretch” to which Paul Kennedy refers to in his book “The Rise and Fall of Great Powers”—but rather from the rising costs of our entitlement programs—Social Security and Medicare—as the baby boom generation retires. The threat comes not from China but from prescription drugs costs.
CZIKOWSKY: If we act as a “goliath”, shouldn’t we expect other countries to believe we are acting as “imperialists”, and doesn’t our military presence often create more nationalistic resistance to our presence than our diplomacy would better achieve?
MANDELBAUM: Other countries may say they resent our presence, but they don’t act as if they do. Most countries welcome the U.S. presence. Some, of course, do not, but the U.S. is not present in those countries. The Japanese and South Koreans, for example, continue to play host to the American military even though the Cold War has long ended. This general acceptance, accompanied, of course, by criticism, is, I believe, important evidence in favor of my thesis—that the U.S. provides governmental services to the world.

KAREN DeYOUNG, Washington Post Staff Writer, October 2, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Did you learn if Colin Powell kept in touch with General Schwarzkopf while he was Secretary of State? I wonder what General Schwarzkopf thought of the current plans for the war in Iraq and whether he was able to provide any comments to Powell directly.
DeYOUNG: Powell and Schwarzkopf shared the Vietnam experience (both also in the Americal Division), something that has resonance in the psyches of both. But they are very different personalities and had a sometimes rocky relationship during the Bush I Administration and the Gulf War.

ROBERT KAGAN, author, October 31, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Do you see a guiding philosophy behind our nation’s foreign policy? Do our foreign policy implementers tend to see us as the police of the world and we expect the rest of the world to act according to our expectations? Has there been any shift in that the current administration seems to believe we do not need to answer to the international community? Especially since we seem to claim how we are acting in a Judeo-Christian manner which represents the majority (but not all) our nation, shouldn’t we follow our beliefs and statements with actual actions by providing greater humanitarian aid around the world? Indeed, if we acted more to help people, regardless of their politics and religion, wouldn’t we actually set an example and create greater respect and cooperation throughout the international community?
KAGAN: A very thoughtful comment and set of questions. I do see a guiding philosophy behind our foreign policy, rooted more in principles of the Declaration of Independence, however, more than in any religion. (Although one could argue that the principles of universal rights may have a religious underpinning.) We are not always true to this philosophy. Americans are capable of hypocrisy and selfishness, as are all other peoples. Yes, people would like aid. But they often bridle at what they regard as an imposition of American, or Western, economic and political ideas—the strings that come attached to the aid. Ever since the nation was young, Americans have offered what they regarded as the “blessings of civilization” to other peoples. This offer has been coupled, often, with certain demands and efforts to enrich Americans, as well. Others, whether the native Americans of the 17th and 18th centuries, or the conservative Islamists today, have seen this offer of assistance as a ruse, an effort at “peaceful conquest.” So it hasn’t always made Americans beloved—even when Americans have acted from their own point of view with the best intentions.

MAURA HARTY, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, November 20, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I have never lost a passport, yet I know I am supposed to go to a consulate if I ever lose or have one stolen. What actually happens then? What is done to prove who I am, what paperwork is involved, and about how long do these cases take to resolve?
HARTY: It’s always a good idea to be sure you know where your nearest embassy or consulate overseas is when you’re traveling. If you are unfortunate enough to lose your passport, we’ll do our best to help you.
We’ll record your passport as having been lost, so no one else can reuse it. We also will be able to use an electronic version of your passport application to verify your identity and citizenship so we can issue a new passport. Normally, we’ll send a new passport from the U.S. within a week. If you have immediate travel plans, in some situations we can also issue emergency passports (limited in validity) directly from the embassy or consulate.
Good luck with your travels!

RICHARD L. RUSSELL, National Defense University Security Affairs Professor, May 9, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: How bad is the gap in language skills within this country? Isn’t it difficult to recruit people to work for the CIA because so few people speak Farsi, Arabic, Korean or other languages where the needs have jumped significantly in recent years?
RUSSELL: I look at the problem from the other side of the coin. In my view, the CIA and the intelligence community writ large do an overall poor job of tapping into the wealth of foreign language capabilities that we have resident here in the United States. Our country is loaded with first and second generation Americans who speak languages other than English at home. The CIA’s security vetting of potential personnel, in my view, much too readily dismisses individuals with hard language capabilities such as Arabic, Farsi, and Chinese because they have relatives still living abroad. That security barrier is simply too high though because no one is going to be fluent in hard languages without family, friends, and extensive living experience abroad.
CZIKOWSKY: Have you identified procedural aspects in the flow of information that, if corrected, could sharpen the abilities for policy deciders to better use intelligence analysis? For instance, I generally have read that field analysts usually provide useful information, but that problems arise as this information rises up through the ranks. Administrators and senior advisors attempt to fill in the blanks when making best guesses at what is not known. People in higher ranks of policy making then transform this analysis into actual policy actions, which often means transforming facts into opinions, which can mean that opinions more strongly favor some facts over other facts. What is your sense of the current flow of information, an dhow would you change that?
RUSSELL: There are several problems here. A major problem with writing analysis is that it must pass through too many layers of bureaucrats in order to get passed over to policy makers. There might be eight layers of management between working level analysts and the CIA Director. At the same time, more taskings for analytic products are generated from the top down, which often forces analysts to try to answer questions for which there is not a critical mass of intelligence. And CIA managers are increasingly micro-managing the process to compensate for their insecurities regarding an increasingly inexperienced workforce.

MARCUS MABRY, Newsweek Correspondents Chief, June 26, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Secretary Powell supposedly privately argued against Secretary Rumsfeld on a number of matters. What did Condoleeza Rice think of these debates, and how did she view Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld?
MABRY: It was one of the most fascinating exchanges of our three interviews. The Secretary of State told me point blank that she didn’t understand why Secretary Powell has been saying that he had less influence than Secretary Rumsfeld. She argued, for instance, that Powell had just as much access to Bush as Rumsfeld, which no one in Washington believes.
But, as always, she stuck to her guns and she just insisted her view was correct. It was amazing to see. But that kind of discipline—some would call it, delusion—is what makes Rice unshakeable and unrelenting. She sticks to what she needs to believe. That strength and determination carried her from segregated Alabama to the White House to being the most powerful woman of color in 230 years of American government. But it also gives her an un-surpassing faith in her own opinions and perspectives. It was one of the strengths that became a tragic flaw in the run-up to the war in Iraq: when she ignored the critics and doubters.
CZIKOWSKY: Does (Condoleeza Rice) take in good humor the storyline of Jack Donaghy of “30 Rock” dating her, does she view it as an insult, or might she not even be aware of this storyline?
MABRY: You know, I’m sure she’s aware. But I think it developed after our three interviews, so I don’t know. But she’s got a pretty thick skin. Though her friends and family described chapter and verse to me of how it’s not as thick as the outside world thinks it is. Still, that sort of thing wouldn’t bother her. She finds her dating-life speculations funny.

TIM WERNER, New York Times correspondent, July 24, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Is it true that, in order to hide the CIA’s budget from foreign powers, that Congress used to hide its appropriation under the Bureau of Public Roads line item in the budget?
WERNER: The CIA’s budget is buried in false and mislabeled line items in the Pentagon’s budget. In 1961, the new sign on the highway leading out to CIA headquarters (newly opened that year) read “CIA next exit”. This displeased the new Attorney General, Robert F. Kennedy, who lives just down the road at Hickory Hill. He was livid, and after several increasingly furious calls the sign was replaced by one reading “Bureau of Public Roads”.
CZIKOWSKY: What is the general flow of information between the CIA and the White House? I find it fascinating that recent accounts are that materials reaching the President today seem to reach him in far different routes than previous Presidents. Would you agree with these accounts, or do these routes change dramatically among Presidents?
WERNER: Every President differs in his desires for how he wants his intelligence served. Something Richard Helms once said comes to mind: “If we are not believed, we have no purpose.” After the 2002 WMD (weapons of mass destruction) debacle, it was hard for this White House to believe in the CIA. That may be why President Bush said in 2004 that the CIA was “just guessing” about events in post Saddam Iraq.

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK, State Department Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion Committee Member, August 21, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What is your reaction when democracy is accepted, yet that democracy elects a government we don’t like? What it terrorists win an election, or fascists win an election, or communists win an election? What should our policies be towards encouraging the continuation of democracy when the elected governments are ones our government does not like?
MURAVCHIK: That is a good question and a tough one.
I believe our policy should be that we will accept any electoral outcome, so long as the winners don’t themselves shut down the democratic system and prevent future elections. There is no way to guarantee it, but we should put that question in bright lights by means of our diplomatic actions from day one of the new government.
However, accepting the outcome of an election does not mean that we are obliged to give the winners our money. When Hamas triumphed in Palestine, it was in no way undemocratic for us to say: OK, you won, but we are not going to assist you unless you commit to peace.

JOHN BOLTON, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, January 30, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Now that you have observed up close and participated with the United Nations, I am wondering what do you see that the United Nations does that you believe they are effective at doing? How do you believe they could build upon what they do well and become an even more effective organization?
BOLTON: As I explain in my book (“Surrender Is Not An Option”), I think the most effective UN agencies, by and large, are those that are financed through voluntary contributions by members governments, rather than through the system of assessed contributions in place in most UN agencies. The singly most important change we could make would be to move toward a system of fully voluntary contributions for UN agencies, which would allow us much more flexibility in where we provide funding and where we do not. It would also provide an incentive within the UN for better performance, which is basically absent under the “entitlement system of assessed contributions.
CZIKOWSKY: Are you aware of Peter Earley’s book that claims that Georgi Mamedov, Russian Foreign Affairs Deputy Minister, claims that a high level American advisor was “an extremely valuable intelligence source.” Is this the Russians attempting to cause confusion in our diplomatic circles or what is that all about, in your opinion and observations?
BOLTON: I know Mamedov well, and negotiated with him frequently during the first Bush term, as I describe in the book. I wish I knew who he was talking about!

PARAG KHANNA, New American Foundation Senior Research Fellow, March 25, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How do you see China as fitting in with the countries of the Second World?
KHANNA: China is both a second world country in terms of its internal characteristics (level of stability, socio-economic divided, etc.) but is also a superpower in its own right in terms of its geopolitical activities and ambitions around the world. So it’s a unique case of a country I analyze internally (like other second world states) but also, of course, it’s a major factor in my geopolitical world-view.
CZIKOWSKY: Others have commented on how much of the world viewed the United States after the 2001 terrorist attacks, and how those views in many countries have changed dramatically since we sent troops into Iraq. Has your analysis included these rapid changes in attitudes towards the U.S. and, if so, what have you observed?
KHANNA: Definitely—having traveled to all these second world countries AFTER 9/11 I’ve seen very clearly how it has deteriorated America’s image and how very concretely countries are moving to partner with others as a way of hedging against excessive reliance on the U.S. as a partner who could, potentially, turn against it. This is purely rational and self-interested behavior and we should not expect anything else, especially after the Iraq War!

FARRED ZAKARIA, Newsweek International Editor, May 12, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: America’s run at dominance was short-lived, especially compared to Rome, Greece, or even England. At the beginning of World War II, we were not even in the top ten of military powers, and we emerged from Word War II as the world’s largest military and economic power. Did our putting too much on emphasis on military slow our economic growth?
ZAKARIA: Not really, at least not in the strict economic sense. We have been able to have both guns and butter. And U.S. share of world GDP has been large (about 25%) for more than a century, so I don’t think our dominance has been short-lived. The unipolar era has been brief but that has been such an unnatural situation, never seen before since the Roman empire 2,000 years ago. The real culprit is not us but “them”. IN the book (“The Post-American World”) I call it “the rise of the rest”---everyone else finally growing their economies that is changing the world. The pie has expanded and while our slice is still large, it will shrink somewhat over time.

TIM SHORROCK, investigative journalist, June 3, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Since we have essentially privatized much of our intelligence operations, how do we oversee that the contractors are not secretly in collaboration with a rival intelligence agency?
SHORROCK: We now spend about $60 billion a year on all intelligence agencies. It is important for readers to know that about 85 percent of that money is controlled by the Pentagon, which has command and control over the NSA, the NGA, the NRO, and the DIA, plus of course the individual intel units within the military.
And as I report in the book (“Spies for Hire”), about 70 percent of the budget goes to private contracts, covering the acquisition of everything from pencils to satellites.
CZIKOWSKY: I am among many who have questioned why there were not the correct protective vehicles manufactured and sent to Iraq and why there aren’t more drone airplanes patrolling in Iraq. The answer we receive is that long term contracts require the purchasing and use of resources according to previous agreements. Have you los sight of the importance of protecting our soldiers over protecting legal rights in business contracts?
SHORROCK: A few months ago, at a conference I heard a high-level military commander complain to an audience of contractors that they were trying to sell technology to soldiers on the ground that really didn’t help. He urged them to better understand the need of commanders and soldiers. Capitalism in my opinion has no place on the battlefield.

RAND BEERS, National Security Network President, August 27, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Some foreign policy experts say we should only become involved in military engagements when our own interests are immediately threatened, or for humanitarian reason—such as to prevent genocide--, when our involvement would be effective, and when we have an exit strategy or options for how to conclude the engagements, and considering the consequences of such engagement on our foreign policy as a whole. Do you have a general series of conditions for evaluating when it is proper for us to engage militarily?
BEERS: I think this is a pretty standard comment by a lot of people who have thought have and long about this both before and since our engagement in Iraq. I’d start first and foremost with the effect of that engagement on our national interests, the direct effects on the safety and security of the U.S. That’s the first point where the U.S. should be prepared to use force. The second consideration, about genocide and humanitarian considerations, is a very important point at which we should look hard and see whether we’re prepared to move forward. In addition to the point about the clear exit strategy, I’d say we’d need the clear support of the American people, that we almost certainly should have friends and allies prepared to work with us in those situations, that we should have a clear idea of how we’re going to proceed—it’s not sufficient to say we’re going to put x number of solders into an area, we need to know what the plan is and how they’d be employed. That I think helps get us to your last point. Regarding a clear exit strategy—even a threat to the United States’ imminent being is justification for the President to consider force, but having said that, we should make sure we haven’t ignored other instruments of power before employing force, unless a time span makes that impossible. In Iraq, there were options other than the use of force to ensure any weapons would not be used against the U.S. or our allies. It was not an imminent threat—even the U.S. when challenged on that point acknowledges that. Even though a lot of Americans may have the impression the Administration used words like those. I think they tried to be careful not to.
CZIKOWSKY: In a poll of Presidential qualities, John McCain sees his biggest increase in support over Barrack Obama when the quality is asked as to whom the voters sees as better prepared to be Commander in Chief. How should Obama deal with this weakness?
BEERS: I think it is important for the American public to understand that bluster and heartened rhetoric are not solutions to international problems, just as use of force frequently is not. Sen. Obama should continue to convey this more reasoned approach, while at the same time not giving the impression that he’s unwilling to use force when it’s necessary. He has said, for instance, that he would be willing to go after bin Laden in Pakistan if their government wouldn’t. I don’t know any serious student of national security who would disagree with Obama on that. It’s hard to think about peaceful solutions to these conflicts because they aren’t as dramatic—wars avoided are less known than wars engaged in. It leads to the idea that warriors are the best defenders of national security, when in fact people who make tough judgments without necessarily having to resort to the use of force in the long run solve more conflicts than people who simply resort to the use of force as the first and always chosen solution.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, former U.S. Secretary of State, November 6, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: There are people, like Warren Buffet, who presumable never would take an official position with the Administration, yet whose advice frequently might be sought and considered. Who do you believe might fill such roles in the Obama White House on foreign policy (i.e who should Obama call on as unofficial advisors)?
ALBRIGHT: I think there are a number of people who have been part of the senior citizen policy group he has had, but I’m not going to suggest who he should call on. He has shown during his campaign that he is interested in a variety of views and is a very good listener and is very good at assessing the value of different people’s opinions, and then makes up his mind based on a lot of important and very valuable information.
CZIKOWSKY: I think It is an important message for the rest of the world to realize that a woman born and raised in the Czech Republic can become U.S. Secretary of State and that a man with roots in African can become U.S. President. Does this have meaning in foreign governments and among people worldwide? What message are they taking from this?
ALBRIGHT: I think the message they’re taking---and we certainly saw that in worldwide reaction---is that people understand that America is a country with a wonderful history of accepting people as immigrants from different countries, that democracy works in America, and I hope people see how good American people really are---home generous and interested in what is going on in other countries and in cooperation more.

INTERNET

PAUL SMITH, Partner, Jenner and Block Law Firm, March 5, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: If the (Internet Protection) Law is upheld (by the U.S. Supreme Court), a library that does not filter its Internet would be ineligible for Federal funds for its internet programs. How important are these funds to most libraries?
SMITH: They are a relatively small part of overall library budgets. However, in these times of fiscal stress at the state and local level, it is quite predictable that some libraries will feel that need to comply to keep the subsidy.
In any event, our argument is that as a matter of principle, Federal funds should not be tied to conduct that improperly restricts the information flow to patrons.

ARIANA CHA, Washington Post Staff Writer, July 14, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: My family is yelling something about the house being on fire, or some jibberish like that, yet I am too busy writing this question on the Internet to pay attention.
Haven’t families always been distracted by something? It used to be television was breaking up families. Now it is computers. Perhaps television was at least something a family could watch together. Are families separated longer periods through computer use than they use to spend watching television, in the pre-personal computer days? If there is a significant difference, is this causing problems?
CHA: A great question, but I’m afraid I don’t have a great answer. There’s considerable debate about this. On the one hand, the Internet is much more interactive than television ever was; more families, including the one in the story, use it to keep in touch and coordinate schedules. Some studies have found that a lot of parents spend time in front of a computer with their children. On the other hand, it is a sometimes solitary activity, because, obviously, only one person can type at the keyboard at one time.
The Pew Internet & American Life Project has been done some research on this. As have Grunwald Associates and UCLA. Also look for studies by Stanford University and Carnegie-Mellon University.
CZIKOWSKY: I appreciate where you explain some of the short-cuts, such as ROTFL. I never would have guessed that one. I am very bad at figuring those things out. For the longest time, I though LOL meant “lots of love”. I then realized the woman who I thought loved me was laughing at me the whole time. Are there more standard initials I should know before I make more of a fool of myself?
CHA: I think most of us over the age of 15 have trouble keeping up with the ever-changing shorthand of the Internet. You might find it fun to go on to Google and type in “internet” and “abbreviation”/”symbols” to get a list of some charts.
I like: S, “Smile”, L8R, “Later”, and KISS, “Keep it Simple, Stupid”.

JENNIFER HOWARD, Washington Post Book World Contributing Editor, November 17, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I know that “blog” is short for “web log”, yet I believe blogs would get a more positive public response if they were called something else. Whenever I mention I have a blog, people respond with well wishes that I recover soon. Perhaps reporting such as yours will inform the public to learn what blogs are. How much confusion do you find people have when they first hear the word “blog”?
HOWARD: Not a lovely word, no. It’s like the sound a hunk of mud makes when you throw it at a wall. Not that I do that often. In my experience, people either know what blogs are or they don’t, and it doesn’t have to do with the word. (Although my mother-in-law, bless her heart, thought I was talking about “bling”, as in “bling-bling”, as in the hip-hop term for jewelry).

JOEL ACHENBACH, Washington Post Staff Writer, February 20, 2994
CZIKOWSKY: Will future historians even find the remains of information from the Internet? Web sites die. Data stored on discs begin deteriorating after ten years. Even our paper disintegrates at one of the fastest rates in paper history.
ACHENBACH: There’s something called the Internet Archive (run by Brewster Kahle) that I think is designed to put all of human knowledge on the Web, and that included old Web sites. I did a big story a few years ago about the problem of information getting lost, degrading,etc., and the issues of digital storage, it’s a threat but I guess I assume that, yes, people will figure out a way to transfer the data from medium to medium so it’s not lost.

WALLACE WANG, author, November 17, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I tried to steal the book (“Steal This File-Sharing Book”), but I couldn’t get it past security. Would you please post it on the Internet so I may just print it out for free?
WANG: I’m sure someone will eventually scan and post the book on the Internet.l In fact, my book shows specific web site that will tell you exactly what you need to do to do just that.
I actually requested that the publisher post the book online for free publicity and advertising, but right now publishes are still squeamish about file sharing and they want to protect their profits first, which is understandable. Still, fire sharing can often help publicize a book, recording artist, or movie just as much as it can hurt sales too, so file sharing is definitely a double-edged sword.

ROBERT O’HARROW, Washington Post Staff Writer, January 21, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: I understand all this (private Internet) data is out there, and the government wishes to get that data, but isn’t the real question: what does the government intend to do with that data, and how might someone misuse that information?
O’HARROW: Excellent point. I agree, to a degree. I believe we have a lot of homework to do first to understand these companies and the role they’re playing in observing us with increasingly fine resolution.

SHANNON HENRY, Washington Post Columnist, March 10, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts on the current security of the Internet? How vulnerable is it to an organized attack from a terrorist group or some high tech hackers? What are the laws should financial accounts be hacked into: are our investments insured or are we at potentially serious risk should hackers get into them and move the funds to an unknown place, or to a country with which we have no diplomatic ties?
HENRY: Yes, everything is vulnerable, both to terrorists and to teenagers with too much time on their hands. I personally find it frightening. We should all know the extent to which our accounts are protected.

WENDY HUI KYONG CHUN, Brown University Professor, March 10, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Aren’t bloggers and writers of private journals in potential trouble if someone sees something they said that they can print out and show to an employer that might get them into trouble?
CHUN: Yes—and I’m intrigued that more and more employers will do a google search on their perspective employees.
The question is this: how many bloggers care?
I know a lot of them write to generate publicity, and being in public cuts both ways. I know quite a few people who have written things earlier in their careers that they now disagree with—we just need to accept the fact that people can change their minds, that a person can’t always be tethered to one text. As more and more people have blogs, maybe we can stop treating them as “secret” selves.
The question you bring up, though, is an important one, especially in terms of data backup. What does it mean that it’s almost impossible now to withdraw something from public circulation?

IRAN

MELVIN GOODMAN, Center for International Policy Senior Fellow, January 28, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: While considering our reactions toward Iraq, what actions do you think the United States should take towards Iran? Are there steps the United States should be taking to appeal to broader segments of the Aram and Muslim communities? If so, what would you recommend?
GOODMAN: Clearly the U.S. has not done enough to improve our relations with Iran and have even missed some opportunities. It would not be easy to improve bilaaterals with Iran but we don’t even try. We should also be doing a better job of getting our message to the Muslim countries. Abolishing USIA several years ago was an absurd idea…thank Sen. Helms for that one.

LINDA MacINTYRE. Frontline Correspondent, May 3, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: How can we reach out to the Iranian youth? Is there some sense among the young that Americans embrace all religions and that democracy has its merits?
MacINTYRE: That is a very good question.
We found universally that young people are curious about the U.S. They like North America. When we were in Iran we were a Canadian, a Scotsman, and a Jewish American who made no effort to hide either condition. He was probably more interesting to the Iranians than any of us. They have an instinctive fondness for North America that has to be with their sophistication who were very Western for many decades. As Persians, they have an incredible culture. That gives them a world view that is more advanced than the more tribal attitudes in other places there.
I’d suggest that anybody who wants to explore some sort of contact get in touch with Sen. Biden, who has been preaching about the need for closer connections among young people and professional people---who want better cultural relations.
CZIKOWSKY: Is there any reason why Iran could eventually become an American ally?
MacINTYRE: Many reasons. Iran is pro-Western (culturally). It shares the same interests as the U.S. in terms of stability, sensible management of petroleum resources, and the population has an open warmth for Americans. So, notwithstanding the state hard line Islamic apparatus, the reality of the people of Iran is very different.

STEVEL COLL, Washington Post Managing Editor, November 10, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I found it very interesting the comments that some young people in Iran believe the United States can assist in producing positive change within Iran. How widely exposed are the young to American ideas and culture, and how accurately, in your opinion, do you believe Iranians understand American culture?
COLL: Intriguing questions. Satellite television, the world wide web, and other forces of globalization do connect Iranian students to American ideas and culture pretty thoroughly. So does the enormous, fluid Iranian diaspora, which has a large base in the United States. Yet at the same time Iranians are relatively isolated; their travel is limited, sometimes by their government, sometimes by their means. The students I talked to understood American and European political ideas with impressive specificity, yet there was also a bracing naïve earnestness about their sense of American ideals.

RITA HENLEY JENSEN, Women’s eNews Editor and SHADI SADR, Women in Iran Editor in Chief, May 19, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Please explain more to readers what Iranian women face when they attempt to state their opinion about their role in society where they are given limited opportunities to speak out against a society which has expectations about their silence.
JENSEN and SADR: As you know, Iranian society is patriarchal and it’s natural that women have difficulties expressing themselves or earning equal rights in this type of society. Patriarchy, in terms of a system, exists everywhere—in the laws, in the policies, in the home and everywhere else.
CZIKOWSKY: What is the status of abortion in Iran? Is it difficult to obtain an abortion within Iran? When an abortion is performed in Iran, how skilled are the surgeons? Do you have any information on the rate of complications and/or deaths associated with abortions performed in Iran?
JENSEN and SADR: Abortion is illegal, and is also a crime. The women, the doctor, and any one who assists in the abortion will be prosecuted. The only abortion that is legal is if, in the first trimester, it is determined that the mother or the child’s life is endangered by carrying the child to term. Regardless, the rate of abortions increases by the day. Home abortions, conducted by midwives or secretly in doctor’s offices, are the norm. Because it is illegal, there are no records or statistics about abortion in Iran.

THOMAS W. LIPPMAN, author, June 14, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: How does the Saudi government, as well as Saudi dissidents, view their relationship with Iran and the role of their country in relation to Iran? Now that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and no longer has to worry about Iraq, is there concern that Iran’s increasing dominance may pose threats to Saudi stability?
LIPPMAN: Very good question, with no simple answers. The Saudis and Iranians cooperate, politely if not warmly, on many issues of importance to both countries, such as OPEC oil quotas and the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. On the other hand, Iran is a Shiite power that has challenged Saudi Arabia’s position as leader of the Muslim world, and there have been serious tensions, especially in the 1980s when Saudi Arabia supported Iraq in its war with Iran. Acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran would be a source of deep concern in Saudi Arabia—even to the point that some Saudis believe the country would seek to acquire its own nuclear arsenal to balance the Iranian threat.

PAUL KENYON, Frontline/World Reporter, May 25, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: What are the Iranian government’s goals in developing its military abilities?
KENYON: I believe the Iranian government wants to sit at the top table. Pakistan gained its position through a weapons program disguised as one for energy, so there is a precedent. I really don’t think there is a history of Iran being expansionist…but there is the Hezbollah issue of course.
CZIKOWSKY: Do you think it is a mistake for the U.S. to indicate it may make pre-emptive strikes on sites developing nuclear weapons? Does this increase the danger that a country, such as Iran, may decide it is going to be struck and therefore they have a right to make a preemptive strike themselves, say on Israel?
KENYON: It’s possible but unlikely because Iran would prefer to play the whole thing diplomatically. For a country saying it is not interested in nuclear weapons to launch what would be seen as a preemptive strike against Israel would lose it the support it has from many countries away from Europe and the U.S…problem is we always think through that prism: U.S. and U.K. interests…however…even South Africa is sympathetic to the plight of Iran at the moment, as are several other neutral countries.

MICHAEL FLETCHER, Washington Post Staff Writer, August 3, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Rep. Curt Weldon claims Iran is perhaps months away from developing nuclear weapons while other reports claim they are ten years away. What is the White House’s reaction to these divergent reports and what is the White House’s response to growing Iranian influence within their region?
FLETCHER: I think you saw evidence of the Administration’s attitude toward Iran just before their Presidential elections when President Bush basically called the democracy there illegitimate. As you know, Iran’s government is really a theocracy, where ruling clerics essentially have veto power over the elected government. Ironically, though, the question of acquiring nuclear arms seems to be a question of national pride for many Iranians, be they reformers or fundamentalists. From their viewpoint, it would put them on equal footing with other nuclear powers in the neighborhood, including Pakistan and Israel.

DANA PRIEST, Washington Post Staff Writer, August 4, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Have you read Rep. Curt Weldon’s book (“Countdown to Terror”)? If so, do you believe his source “Ali” appears credible? He claims the CIA is not paying attention to Ali’s warnings. I can’t believe the CIA would dismiss these warnings, especially when passed along to them from a Republican Armed Services Committee Vice Chairman, or if they are ignoring these warnings, then there must be some difficulty they know of with the source. Do you have any observations?
PRIEST: Yes. Since I wrote an article about this, I do have some backgrounds on it. I think the CIA investigated this and do not think he’s credible. Ali has also given some interviews in which he says he is getting his information second hand.

WILLIAM J. DAUGHERTY, CIA Officer held hostage in Iran, March 20, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I was shocked to learn that you have not received compensation. As one of the millions of Americans who feared daily for your safety, I think we owe you our gratitude and sorrow that your work put you into that danger. What is the argument against compensating you, and why has it taken so long for the issue to arise?
DAUGHERTY: The argument for not compensating was the provision of the Algiers Accords—the ransom agreement that the U.S. government negotiated under duress (sign these accords or we’ll execute your hostages)—that took away our right to sue. President Carter fully intended that there be an alternate method of compensation, but later administrations did not follow through. The “token detention payment” we received in 1986 declared us to be POWs. But we were not in a war with Iraq, we were all diplomats accredited to Iran, the Iranians gave us permission to be there, and Iran and the U.S. still had full diplomatic relations. To consider us as POWs was ludicrous. I would note that the Algiers Accords enabled the U.S. banks with investments in Iran to be reimbursed 100 cents on the dollar, and the U.S. corporations were likewise compensated through a tribunal in The Hague. We are our families—who arguably suffered more than we did—got the shaft. Again, it’s a matter of fairness and holding Iran accountable for its actions.
CZIKOWSKY: Cheney opposed compensation because he did not want to upset the Iranians? Isn’t this just another of a series of indications that the Administration has some obsession over Iraq while totally ignoring the perhaps greater threat in Iran?
DAUGHERTY: Another good one. The number of Americans killed by Iranian terrorism is around 300, and the number of wounded double that. The number of Americans killed by Iraqi-sponsored terrorism from 1979 to 2002 was ZERO. Which member of the axis of evil did we invade?
A side note: a Professor I know and respect spent a good part of the 1990s is Beirut, where she got to know members of Hezbollah and Hamas. They all told her that they expected the U.S. to hit them and Iran, and hit them hard, after blowing up our embassy in Beirut and the Marine barracks (241 Marines died). When the Reagan Administration did NOTHING (despite warnings that terrorists who attack Americans would receive “swift and effective retribution” in welcoming us back to the White House in 1981), the terrorist groups then realized they could kill Americans and take them hostage with no penalty. We now want to penalize them, at least financially.
CZIKOWSKY: You stated you don’t want Federal funds to pay for the compensation. Yet, if Congress were willing to provide the compensation, would you urge Congress to appropriate the funds? It seems to me you and the other hostages deserve compensation for the time or torment while in duty to our country.
DAUGHERTY: Any measure that would provide compensation from the U.S. Treasury should—no, MUST—be accompanied by a law directing that whoever is President when the day comes to reestablish relations with Iran MUST, as a part of that new relationship, require the Iranians to reimburse the USG. But I’m not convinced there aren’t sufficient frozen terrorist funds in the US, Iran and others, to cover this.

STUART EIZENSTAT, former Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary, March 20, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: If businesses are able to tap into compensation from Iran, why can’t individuals be compensated?
EIZENSTAT: Please understand that under the Hague Tribunal process in The Netherlands, both individuals and businesses have pursued claims—and have recovered a total of some $2.5 billion. The U.S. government obligated itself to recover U.S. property taken in Iran.
CZIKOWSKY: You favor $1 million per person for compensation, and they received $50 per day plus education consideration. Isn’t there a gap between these two figures? How much have the hostages received, and if it is less than $1 million, would you have no objection to raising their compensation so it totals $1 million?
EIZENSTAT: Yes. The amount they received form the 1980 and 1986 legislation is very inadequate. I would favor giving them $1 million total, deducting the amounts they have already received. However, I would favor this only in the context of compensative legislation providing the same payments to other victims, past and present, of international terrorism.

MARK BOWDEN, author, May 9, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts on the (1980) rescue mission? In retrospect, it is easy to pinpoint the failure as they should have sent one more helicopter. Yet, at the time, the decision was to keep the number of helicopters at a minimum to avoid detection. Without having known the bad result in advance, do you think that was a wise gamble, or was it being too cautious?
BOWDEN: I do think the mission was so complicated it had only a very small chance of success. I think all of the decisions about the force were carefully weighed to increase that small chance…to no avail.

DAFNA LINZER, Washington Post Staff Writer, September 1, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I know Bush will never debate a foreign leader, yet I wonder what would happen if they would just sit down and talk. Is that ever a possibility? If Bush is an evangelical Christian, isn’t there a benefit to learning to understand your enemy and seeing if there is a way to resolve your problems peacefully rather than aggravating them to the point where war is the only option?
LINZER: Hi there, you’re right, there’s no chance that Bush would engage in a debate with Mahmoud Ahmadinajad but it sure would be fascinating if he did.
There was a serious of secret discussions between Bush Administration officials and the Iranians between the fall of 2001 and the spring of 2003. They collapsed over a few issues: A bombing in May in Saudi Arabia, and a proposed swap—some al Qaeda guys in Iranian custody for some Iranian militants operating in Iraq under U.S. authority.
After things went south in the talks, the rhetoric on both sides started hearing up again, spurred by the IAEA investigation of Iran’s nuclear program.
That said, Secretary Rice said a few months ago that the Administration would be willing, again, to sit down with the Iranians if they suspend the nuclear program. The Iranians have indicated they might do that, but not as a precondition for talks—so we have a bit of a stand-off on timing and wills at the moment.

ROBIN WRIGHT, Washington Post Staff Writer, August 15, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What are the Revolutionary Guard Corporation’s business interests? Is this move more (designating them as terrorists) symbolic or can they be financially hurt by this action?
WRIGHT: It may take quite a while before any designation actually has serious impact on the Guards’ business interests. But it could certainly make foreign companies that do business with them think again.
CZIKOWSKY: Other than the expected outrage, what is the Iranian reaction to this? DO they see this as a standard political move, or do they see this as an act of provocation?
WRIGHT: Iran in a proud country with a great civilization and history and they do not like to be seen as pariahs. The psychological impact may hit first.

GREG BARKER, Frontline Producer, October 24, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What are the thoughts you’ve heard from experts should Iran develop nuclear weapons? Would one expect they ever will use them, or isn’t it more the threat that they have them might allow them to bully the region? If Iran were to use nuclear weapons, wouldn’t there be swift international retaliation?
BARKER: That’s the big question. Many experts argue that at its highest levels the Iranian regime is ultimately rational and is trying to extend Iran’s influence across the region to further their national interests, not to pursue some kind of ideological agenda. If that is the case, these experts argue, then the regime would never actually use the weapons themselves. Others say that given the Islamic Republic’s history of supporting terrorist groups, it’s not worth taking the chance that they would exercise restraint if they had nuclear weapons.

FRED KAPLAN, Slate columnist, December 6, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What are your impressions of Iranian society? I believe there is a genuine interest within Iran in our culture and that many Iranians hope we may improve relations. I hope, over time, these desires will filter upwards and that future Iranian leaders will be open to better relations. What do you see are the possibilities that this could happen?
KAPLAN: I have never been to Iran. However, a few journalists and scholars who have been there several times tell me, on a street level, it-or at least Tehran—is one of the most pro-American places in the world. That said, the current regime has shown tremendous resilience for 30 years now. The mullahs have suppressed any dissident group that has started to gain a foothold. They have pushed aside any politician who starts to put out feelers to the West. The West—and not just George W. Bush—must bear its own share of blame, perhaps for not picking up on some of these feelers quickly enough. Still, chances for an effective reformer rising to the top and actually accomplishing reform seem slim. Furthermore, even the pro-American masses do not want the American government to intervene in their domestic politics. Memories are still very strong of the CIA’s overthrow of Mosaddeq in 1953.
CZIKOWSKY: What are the concerns that, even if Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, that they may be positioning themselves to rapidly change towards developing nuclear weapons—especially if they could do so with another country, such as Pakistan or China?
KAPLAN: This is a good point. The NIE does address it. The document says, “we continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate to high confidence it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon.” Not exactly airtight, but there it is.

IRAQ

LES GELB, Council on Foreign Relations President, February 21, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: I would appreciate your thoughts on the possibilities of what might result if America were to invade Iraq. What is the strength of the Iraqi military forces? Should the Iraqi government be overthrown, what would be the likely future directions for Iraq? How would such an invasion be greeted by the international community?
GELB: I think Saddam has virtually no support in the world and very little in Iraq itself. I think Bush is right that Saddam is evil. And virtually everyone would like to get rid of him. The Bush Administration needs to explain far better than it has how it will generate diplomatic and military support for the military campaign against Saddam, and ensure victory. One example: once Saddam thinks we’re coming to get him, he isn’t going to sit there and do nothing. What are we prepared to do if he threatens terrorist attacks in the United States or against our friends in the Gulf or our friends in Israel?

TED CARPENTER, Cato Institute Defense and Foreign Policy Studies Vice President, October 8, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Do you believe the American public fully understands the potential for casualties in a war with Iraq? Also, do we have an exit strategy and long term goals for Iraq in a war with Iraq? What should we hope for in a post-war Iraq, and how do we get the Iraqi public to support a subsequent government that is willing to work with the United States?
CARPENTER: The growing uneasiness of the public (reflected in recent polls) suggests that people are concerned about potential casualties. The reality is that no one can predict how the war will go. There are simply too many variables: the loyalty of the Iraqi military, whether Iraqi forces opt to hole up in cities and force the U.S to wage urban warfare, whether Saddam uses chemical and biological weapons (and whether he can use them effectively), to mention just a few of the more important variables. This conflict could be a cakewalk similar to the original Gulf War, or it could turn into a very messy, bloody conflict.
The U.S. does not have a clear exit strategy. Most experts believe U.S. forces will have to stay in Iraq for years to stabilize a post-Saddam regime. Iraq has no democratic traditions or institutions, and even holding that artificial country together in the race of secessionist impulses by the Kurdish and Shia populations could take some doing.

BENJAMIN CARDIN, Member of Congress, October 11, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: If we go to war with Iraq, we should expect Iraq to fight back. Are we prepared to take casualties, are we prepared to withstand their retaliations, and are we prepared to remain for the long-term to stabilized Iraq with a government that respects both us and its own people?
CARDIN: We all hope that President Bush will follow his stated intent and seek United Nations support for actions against Iraq. I think that is our best hope to avoid unilateral military action, which I believe could lead to many consequences that the questioner raises. If we proceed with the support of the international community any military action would have far less risk and we would have the support from the region to rebuild Iraq, which will be necessary.

VERNON LOEB. Washington Post National Security Reporter, October 16, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: What should be our long term strategy in Iraq? After Saddam Hussein, what steps could and should the United States do to encourage an Iraqi government that both respects its own people (unlike Saddam who killed many of his own people) and that will engage in peaceful relations with others?
LOED: Boy, those are tough questions. Assuming the U.S. invades Iraq and topples Saddam, I guess our long-term strategy should be focused upon helping to rebuild the country and fostering democratic elections that make it possible for some kind of representative government to come to power. I suppose I’m kind of outlining the process followed in Afghanistan, but with much more robust nation building. I don’t think a U.S, interim government would be a good idea at all.

TERRY NEAL. Washingtonpost.com Chief Political Correspondent, October 18, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Do you believe the American public has a firm understanding of the tensions in the Middle East and the possible reactions of the international community, especially other nations with large Islamic populations, should we go to war in Iraq? Do you think most people have memories of the previous war and thus believe this will be another relative easy war to win? If this turns out to be a costly war, do you think American support of military actions will remain firm?
NEAL: Yes, I believe they do. I think what people disagree on is to what extent the reactions of the international community matter. Some conservatives, in particular, believe that the United States, by the virtue of being the world’s lone superpower and economic leader, should lead and others will follow. These same voters are the most likely to be unconcerned about cries from Europe and elsewhere about American unilateralism. When you talk about “the last war”, I’m not sure which one you’re talking about. People of my generation (I’m 35) have no real recollection of Vietnam. But they know about the Gulf War, the conflicts in the Balkan, the war in Afghanistan. But I think most people understand a war in Iraq would probably be more costly and difficult than any of those conflicts. The real debate in this country is about whether these risks and costs are worth what we might accomplish.

DENNIS ROSS, former U.S. State Department Policy Planning Director, November 12, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: What is the opinion of Saddam Hussein among Arab countries? Are some nations in fear that he may attempt to spread his influence throughout the Arab world? Is there much fear of American intervention spreading beyond Iraq? How much support does Saddam Hussein have outside Iraq?
ROSS: Saddam has very little support outside of Iraq. He is known throughout the Arab world for what he is: a very brutal dictator. But there is also a tendency in the Arab world to oppose outside powers imposing on Arab leaders. A history of colonialism an outside domination fosters a deeply held attitude in this regard. However, should a U.S.-led coalition succeed quickly in removing Saddam, and as it likely the Iraqi people rejoice over their liberation, we will hear little criticism from the Arab world. Should, however, it take time to remove him and should there be many casualties among Iraq civilians, then it would be a very different story.

ROBERTA COHEN, Brookings Institution Senior Fellow, December 9, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: We are seeking assistance from Iraqi exiles in the battle against Saddam Hussein. How helpful can this be? When Saddam Hussein leaves power, can the exiles help create a stable government, will the residents of Iraq welcome their assistance, and will the people of Iraq welcome American assistance?
COHEN: There has been much skepticism about the ability of Iraqi exiles to unite and form a coherent government and secondly to find acceptance within Iraq following a change of regime. However, there seems to have been some progress to date. Exiles are talking more and more to each other at different gatherings. Most pertinent, the Kurdish Regional Government in the north of the country which now unites two principal Kurdish factions (after considerable conflict) in a workable government could offer an example for a more broadly based Iraqi government.

BIANA JAGGER, human rights advocate, January 16, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: What general sense are you getting from government officials in Iraq? Do you believe they are stalling for time and appear deceptive? Do you believe they are trying to be open and honest and genuinely wish to avoid war? Do you hear any negative comments against members of people of other religions and racial groups amongst the people you’ve met in Iraq, or do you see a willingness to reconcile and unite a nation?
JAGGER: I am leaving with a profound impression that everyone in Iraq that I met wants to avoid a war. They are aware that this war will be descimating. I met one minister who is a Kurd, the Minister of Health. I met the Speaker of the House, who is a Shiitte. I met with academics who were Catholics and of other religious denominations. I was not aware of a religious persecution; however, I cannot make a conclusive statement and it is for that reason that I came to urge the Iraqi government to allow an official delegation from Amnesty International Human Rights Watch and other human rights organizations to assess their human rights records.
CZIKOWSKY: Do the people you meet seem to be speaking freely, or is there fear they may face consequences if they say anything critical to you? How much open discussion are you finding amongst students and the general population in Iraq?
JAGGER: We have been able to have an open dialogue—difficult at times—with academics and Iraqi students where myself and my colleagues have asked extremely difficult questions either to politicians, government officials, academics, students and average Iraqis. We have asked extremely difficult questions, often on camera, and we have been given answers. I can only speak for what I saw and that’s why I think it will be important for visitors to come and engage in a dialogue with government officials, academics, students, and the average Iraqis to continue an open dialogue.

MEL GOODMAN, Senior Fellow, Center for International Policy, January 21, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: With so much international focus on Iraq, aren’t they effectively contained against striking against anyone else? What possible offensive military strategies remain for Saddam Hussein?
GOODMAN: The CIA believes that Saddam Hussein is contained, and I agree. Indeed, CIA Director Tenet believes that the best scenario for Iraqi use of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) is in the wake of a US invasion. So our policy appears to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

MICHAEL KAZIN, Professor of History, Georgetown University, January 21, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Saddam Hussein may be a threat, yet he is contained. He would not dare strike anywhere, for he would face strong retaliation. I think many are opposed to a war because there is no need for war unless a real threat emerges. Why strike an enemy who is unable to make a first strike? I think this explains quite a bit of the anti-war sentiment. What do you think?
KAZIN: I agree. The Administration’s decision to seek UN sanction has also, as some conservatives argued at the time, helped make a case against US military action. Many Americans wonder how much of a threat Saddam can be with hundreds of inspectors swarming all over his country.

ANNE APPLEBAUM, Washington Post Staff Writer, February 6, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: How is Saddam Hussein viewed in other countries? Stephen Pelletiere, a CIA analyst, stated a few days ago that it may have been Iran and not Saddam Hussein who used chemical weapons to kill large numbers of Iraqi Kurds. If this is correct, the real threat to world peace may be from the Iranians, more so than the Iraqis. How does the rest of the world sit in the conflicts between Iran and Iraq?
APPLEBAUM: There are plenty of people, including many in Washington, who are more unnerved by Iran’s nuclear program than by Iraq’s missing anthrax. Still, different threats required different responses, and Iran represents a different threat from Iraq. I don’t think even the most hawkish person in the Pentagon is suggesting an invasion of Iran.

KEN ALLARD, Adjunct Professor, National Security Studies Program, Georgetown University, February 14, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Perhaps Saddam Hussein is minimally complying with United Nations directives. Yet, as long as he is complying, even belatedly and suspiciously, would the United States do severe damage to our international reputation if we attack Iraq while they are under compliance with international standards?
ALLARD: The U.S. now faces a tough choice-at what point does it conclude the U.N. is simply a weak reed that cannot be counted on to do more than endlessly debate. That it is indeed the feckless debating society that Bush has warned against. And that unilateral military action is the only way. If so, it would not say very much about the future of the U.N.

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN, Washington Post Foreign Correspondent, February 24, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: What is the mood of the Iraqi people, as you have seen? We are receiving conflicting predictions that Iraqis will greet American soldiers waving American flags to reports that civilians are taking arms and preparing to fight American soldiers. Perhaps a bit of both will happen. What is the dominant feeling towards the United States amongst the Iraqi people?
CHANDRASEKARAN: Good question—and I have to say it’s one of the toughest to answer. I’ve spent weeks trying to understand just how the Iraqi people would react to a possible U.S. invasion. Given that it is very difficult to speak to people without government officials present—and even if I could, people here often are too scared to speak only—it’s almost impossible to feel like you can get candid responses.
That said, one Iraqi told me the other day, in a private, whispered comment, that Baghdad would respond in a “half and half” way—that is to say, half the populations might welcome U.S troops while another half might choose to mount some sort of opposition. I know U.S. officials believe American troops will counter only minimal resistance here. That may well be the case. But I tend to think there will be pockets of opposition. How strong they are is impossible to tell now. But U.S. officials also should not expect lots of people to be lining the streets, saving American flags. Most people probably will be hiding indoors, afraid to express their feelings too open until they are certain of the new political dynamics.
CZIKOWSKY: I am concerned for your safety (in Baghdad). How safe do you feel?
CHANDRASEKARAN: For now, I feel plenty safe. In fact, Baghdad is probably one of the world’s safer cities in terms of street crime directed against foreigners. But if a war starts, all bets are off. There are concerns about getting hit by bombs, exposure to possible weapons of mass destruction and getting caught in score settling that might occur if the government falls. Foreign journalists here are trying to take steps to prepare for these eventualities.

PHILLIP GORDON, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, February 28, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: What economic stake, if any, does France have in a war with Iraq In how much trade do France and Iraq engage? Also, and perhaps this is more of a personal comment: while many Americans are criticizing the French for their position on Iraq, shouldn’t we also consider that there may be some validity to their position?
GORDON: I think the French economic stake is less important than most Americans believe. France used to have major commercial dealings with Iraq, but that was more than a decade ago. In the mid-1990s, France was a leading partner for Iraq in the oil for food program, but now they’ve fallen to around 11th place in dealings with Iraq. French imports from Iraq account for around 0.3% of French overall imports, and exports to Iraq about 0.2% of overall French exports, so it’s hard to see how that effects French foreign policy. Iraq owes France around $5bn in debt, but the French know they’ll never get that money while Saddam is in power. And while French oil companies reportedly have reached agreements to develop the Iraqi oil industry if sanctions are ever lifted, the French know that this will also not be the case so long as Saddam is in power. So I don’t think commercial interests are irrelevant, but they’re far from being the driving factor. Indeed, I think if all France cared about was oil or trade they would get on board for the war and simply insist on part of the booty—but they’re clearly not doing this.
As the second part of your question, I do think they have some serious arguments about how hard it will be to impose stability on Iraq and how invasion might lead to more terrorism. That’s why we’re wrong to simply say “it’s about oil”, excluding the possibility that maybe the French (like most Europeans, including those who have no commercial interests in Iraq) genuinely think invading Iraq is a bad idea.

RICHARD MORIN, Polling Director, Washington Post, and CLAUDIA DEANE, Assistant Polling Director, Washington Post, February 4, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Isn’t it interesting that so many politicians have doubts about war with Iraq, yet they are fearful of expressing their doubts too strongly over fears of public reprisals, even though so much of the public has similar doubts? When will our politicians courageously at least catch up to the public sentiment?
MORIN and DEANE: Republican politicians are leading a party that is very unified on the war-about nine in ten Republicans support an invasion of Iraq, even without the support of the U.N. It’s Democratic leaders who are in a box. Most Democrats currently oppose the war.
It has been interesting to see the increased partianship on war in recent months. Majorities of both parties as late as six weeks ago supported taking military action to topple Saddam Hussein.

MICHELE FLOURNOY, Senior Advisor, Center for Strategic and International Studies
CZIKOWSKY: How long after a war with Iraq should American troops remain in Iraq? Once troops leave, what are the odds of the new government collapsing and being overthrown by anti-American activists? If troops remain, how much would this encourage anti-American militancy?
FLOURNOY: It’s not clear how long American troops should stay in Iraq, but I believe our exit strategy should be driven by the achievement of our objectives, not by a present timeline. Their presence will be absolutely critical for a couple of years to maintain a secure and stable environment while the Iraqi military and police are vetted, reorganized, retrained, and redeployed. In principle, we should seek to transition security functions back to Iraqi institutions as soon as we are confident that we have capable, civilian controlled institutions that are respectful of human rights in place.

ARIEL COHEN, author, Heritage Foundation, March 5, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Russia has a long term relationship with Iraq and reasons to fear terrorism. What is the sense of the Russian people on what the Russian government should do in the Middle East?
COHEN: The Russian people don’t like Saddam Hussein. He reminds them too much of Joseph Stalin who murdered over 20 million Russians.
CZIKOWSKY: What are the internal political risks to the Turkish government if they allow American troops to launch a strike from Turkey? What would American economic assistance do for the Turkish economy, and how do the Turkish people view such offers of assistance?
COHEN: The Turkish economy will further suffer if (the) American assistance package will not be forthcoming. The Turkish people want American assistance and they need to understand that the U.S. needs Turkish bases and transit to get to Northern Iraq. I believe the Turkish government is stable enough to survive that challenge.

PETER FEAVER, Political Science Professor, Duke University, March 6, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts on the argument that there is no need to invade Iraq while we have them contained and they are at last busy trying to hide their weapons and are thus unable to use them? Or, if they appear they are going to use them, then there will be fairly unanimous consent that we strike then? What is the need to invade Iraq now?
FEAVER: I found Kenneth Pollack’s op-ed on the containment question (in the New York Times) fairly persuasive on this point.
The real problem of imminence is that it takes quite a while to mobilize/deploy U.S. troops to the region. So what you are asking is will we be able to state with confidence that roughly six months from now the threat will be imminent and so we better move now in order to be in a position to deal with the threat when it is imminent then.
If what you are suggesting is that U.S. troops now in the region stay in place indefinitely so that they would be ready to go quickly if the threat ever did become imminent, you are raising other problems. It is important to note, however, that the French/Germans et. al., are not really doing much to make it easier for the U.S. to maintain that ready deployment posture for the indefinite future. On the contrary, they are working hard to undermine support for the U.S. deployment/threat of force, and this is contributing to the sense of urgency you hear from the Administration.

ROBERT G. KAISER, Washington Post Associate Editor, March 7, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: George Bush appears set on going to war, no matter what. In looking back at all his statements, he has never deviated from a course toward war. Maybe I am wrong. Is there anything, in retrospect, that indicates he seriously considered closing the avenues towards war? Maybe he’ll surprise even me, and this whole time it has all been a ploy to corner Saddam Hussein into destroying his remaining weapons. Yet, if war starts, won’t most historians conclude President Bush was set on war from a long time?
KAISER: Interesting question. You know, if Bush had been trying from day one to intimidate Saddam (or his senior colleagues who could deal with him effectively, and still might), I think we could say he probably would have acted precisely the way he has up to today. In other words, the best way to pursue a strategy of trying to get him out of office through intimidation would be essentially identical to the best way to pursue a war against him. I think we’ll know for sure pretty soon.

JAMES RUBIN, Former U.S. State Department Advisor, March 12, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Let us take a hopeful look at this conflict. We successfully maneuver Saddam Hussein into realizing that adhering to our demands is his only alternative to war. He decides to agree to our demands. What is the bottom line he has to do to avert war?
RUBIN: It looks like the latest draft of the U.N. resolution will require him to very quickly reveal the biological weapons, the chemical weapons, the delivery systems for such weapons, and show he has made a fundamental decision to disarm without war. I think we should all hope for that but it would be unreasonable to expect in these final days.

JOHN FELMY, Chief Economist, American Petroleum Institute, March 14, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: For all the people who want to boycott French products, maybe we should first consider boycotting Iraqi products? Why do we still import oil from Iraq?
FELMY: Prior to the strike in Venezuela, we imported about 8-9 percent of our oil consumption from that country. With that loss, the industry sought alternative sources to supply American consumers and…our refineries. Some Iraqi and Venezuelan oil are similar in properties, so U.S. companies bought Iraqi oil under the U.N. Oil for Food program. Our companies are committed to supply consumers with the petroleum they need to get to work, educate their children, heat their homes, and enjoy the benefits of the U.S. economy.

ANTHONY SWOFFORD, author, March 21, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Having been on the scene, what are your thoughts as to how many people died during Desert Storm? One Defense Department estimate was 100,000. One analyst states that estimate may be low. An Iraqi source claimed 1,500 died. That is quite a range of difference. How much damage did you witness, and which end of the estimates do you feel is the most accurate?
SWOFFORD: I witnessed a lot of carnage that was a result of the bombing campaign, from the SA/Kuwait border to Kuwait City. Lots of corpses.
I gathered the following from a newspaper report about a month ago. A woman named Beth Osborne Daponte, now at Carnegie Mellon University, was researching Iraqi deaths at the end of the war, and her numbers were as follows—12,000 direct civilian deaths, 70,000 subsequent civilian deaths, 40,000 dead soldiers.
As I recall, she was doing this work for the DOD, and got bumped when she came up with these numbers.
She also claimed that due to the uprisings in the north and south of Iraq, 30,000 died,
Her number now, for overall dead, is 205,000.

VERNON LOEB, Washington Post Staff Writer, March 21, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Actual conversation overheard:
A: “What’s on television?”
B: “The news series updating the war on Iraq.”
A: “Is that still on? When are they going to cancel that show?”
How long do you expect this war might go on? Further, do you believe that the public is getting insensitive towards war the more it is shown on TV? During Viet Nam, there seemed to have been the reverse result, although that war wasn’t being shown 24/7.
LOEB: At this moment, I don’t think it’s going to last that long. I don’t see the non-stop television coverage making people insensitive to the war. People watching television right now are getting a real sense of the incredible violence of aerial bombardment. If there is ground fighting, people around the world should get a very up-close-and-personal sense of that as well, with over 500 reporters embedded with U.S. forces. I personally find it far more preferable that people get to witness this, than not. As voters and taxpayers, we elect the people who decide whether to take the nation to war. Thus, voters and taxpayers need to understand, as best as possible, what war is all about.

TIMOTHY D. HOYT, Associate Professor, U.S. Naval War College, March 24, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: As it has been reported we don’t have the resources to feed and house large numbers of POWs, our forces have been telling some surrendering soldiers to just go home. Wouldn’t we get more soldiers to surrender if it was known they could get decent food and shelter from the Americans and coalition forces, instead of just being sent home?
HOYT: I think one of the main reasons we’re not getting large numbers of prisoners is because unlike Kuwait, the Iraqis know they can just “melt away” and go home. In Kuwait, they were surrounded on foreign soil, and were in a hurry to get out of that situation.
Certainly food wouldn’t hurt, though.

KARL VICK, Washington Post Foreign Correspondent, March 25, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Have you been able to interview many civilians? If so, what are their reactions to the war? In particular, what impressions are you getting from civilians from different ethnic groups, if you’ve had the opportunity to talk to people from different groups?
VICK: Civilians aplenty here in Sulaimaniya. But they’re pretty much all Kurds. In fact, I spent an hour the other day with a kid, 19, who had never even met an Arab.
The Kurds are in the unusual and rather luxurious position of watching an Iraq war on television. Mostly al Jazeera. They seem to think it’s not going well. Or not quickly enough. “I’m not worried, put people are”, one official told me today. The Arab sat. chancels are tending to emphasize Saddam’s defiance, the POW footage, and other elements that reinforce the skeptical perspective.
But the Kurds also seem to have embraced rather more enthusiastically than other publics the Bush Adm’s extremely enthusiastic and confident predictions of about a one or two week war. Suli, as the city I’m in is known, for sure, has been on a roller coaster. It nearly emptied out the first day of bombing. On the second, as armored columns bounded toward Baghdad, the evening street scene was all smiles and gamboling. And the pickups piled with clothes and mattresses were coming back IN to town.
Mercurial is a word.

JOSEPH BRAUDE, author, March 25, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Iraq is composed of several ethnic groups that have historically fought with each other. How likely can any central government command the respect and cooperation of most of the Iraqi people? Further, how well will most groups accept a government they feel is imposed by America and our coalition allies? What would you recommend our government do that could best gain public support throughout Iraq for a democratic government that respects human rights?
BRAUDE: Although difficult, I believe it is possible for a pro-American central government to hold the country, given scenarios of autonomy and a redistribution of wealth to the south and north. A response to the question of how to gain public support for an American initiative would be lengthy. But I will make a few points:
- The regional dynamics pose a complex challenge. An effort to cut down oligarchs and foster new elites in Iraq may net a loss of capital for Sunni elites as well as gains for Shi’is and Kurds, neither of whom form a traditional base of support for regional nationalist ideas. This may anger individuals in the center and predispose them to seek support from the region around them in making problems for the nascent government. Our ability to address these challenges through public diplomacy is unfortunately limited. But America must face up to this challenge. From a rhetorical point of view, it’s important to present our plans through the prism of economics, and not colonial identity politics, e.g., it’s not about cutting down a particular ethnic or religious group; rather, it’s about spreading opportunity and fostering new elites.

MARTIN SCHRAM, author, March 25, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Under what conditions do you believe Saddam Hussein would use his weapons of mass destruction? Is he more apt to hold out until he thinks he is militarily cornered? Or do you think he might use them to gain advantage during war, even though their use would confirm he was lying about them?
SCHRAM: I believe Saddam will use—or try to use—his weapons of mass destruction when he feels cornered, trapped, about to be defeated, caught or most likely, killed. I believe he will try to drop chemical weapons on Israel as his inhuman parting shot. We must remember that whether or not people believed this was the right waro or the right time to fight this war, there can be no doubt that Saddam is as bad and as brutal as was his hero, Joseph Stalin.

JAY COUPE, President, Coupe Associates, March 26, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: At first, I avoided asking this question, because I didn’t wish to draw attention to it. Yet, I have now heard several times on television commentators discuss how the black smoke that Iraq is burning to try and confuse missile attacks on Baghdad will not work because our updated weapons are not affected by the smoke, unlike some missiles during Desert Storm. When I first heard this, which was mentioned while Iraqis were digging the holes before the war started, I was stunned. Why is potentially sensitive military information being made public, especially when it seemed Iraq was unaware of this (for if they were, they wouldn’t be wasting their time digging the holes and subsequently burning the oil to create the smoke). Am I wrong, or should information such as this not be made public?
COUPE: The protection of our forces should be an overriding consideration in granting media access to military action. I am convinced that virtually every American journalist in the field understands and respects that requirement. However, the fact remains that foreign journalists are also embedded with some of our troops. I believe that the field commanders are giving explicit direction to journalists as to what they can and cannot report. This remains a matter of concern and we cannot permit our security in the field to be compromised in any way.

NICHOLAS DE TORRENTE, Executive Director, Doctors Without Borders, March 26, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: The issue of whether Iraq has chemical weapons remains. If it turns out they do have, and they use such weapons, are medical facilities prepared to deal with such an attack?
DE TORRENTE: This uncertainty is a major concern. Humanitarian organizations have been in a situation where they would be in a position to respond to such weapons affecting civilians. We have done our best to prepare our teams for this prospect (self-protection) but we are clearly unprepared, as are all organizations, to deal with this kind of problem affecting civilians on a large scale. We reiterate that all illegal weapons and weapons with indiscriminate effect (that do not distinguish between civilians and military) are not to be used by either side.

DAVID WILLIAM EBERLY, Senior Ranking Allied Prisoner of War, Gulf War: 1991, March 27, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Did you witness any violations of international law by the Iraqis? If so, what were they? If not, do you fear there might be violations this time, as Iraq has stated they fell this war violates international law and thus they seem to hint they may not feel bound by the international laws to which they previously agreed?
EBERLY: Yes. Under the Geneva Convention, there were four distinct accords including humane treatment, photography, and two others. All four were violated 12 years ago and we have already seen similar actions in the past week, most notably the use of a clearly designated hospital as a barracks for Iraqi soldiers and storage of ammunition and chemical warfare suits.

MEL GOODMAN, Senior Fellow, Center for International Policy, March 28, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: If this war is only going to lead to more instability and possibly more terrorism, and if bringing democratic peace to Iraq is a far-fetched idea, what was the purpose of this war? Why did we attack a country that may have been a threat, yet, as long as it was hiding its weapons and posed no threat, there was no need to attack?
GOODMAN: You have raised a serious question and issue. My fear all along has been that this war is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you have developed a scenario that involves Iraq’s use of WMD, the greater proliferation of terrorism and WMD, and greater instability in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, then invade Iraq. Remember that CIA Director Tenet warned the President and the Congress in October that the most viable scenario for Saddam Hussein’s use of WMD would be to counter a U.S. invasion. Clearly this war does not represent military force as the last resort, and we have underestimated the fact the Saddam Hussein had been successfully contained for the past 12 years.
CZIKOWSKY: How is information brought to the attention of decision makers in Washington? I ask this important academic question because it seems to me that much of what you are mentioning was known to laypeople such as me who read reports from you, the Brookings Institution, Roger Hilsman’s book on Iraq, etc. To me, it is obvious that the Republican Guard is strong and that guerilla warfare has to be a concern. Why doesn’t this information seem to reach the President and the people around him making decisions?
GOODMAN: It is very difficult to get contrarian ideas to any Administration, particularly the Bush Administration. They are a tight and tiny group of policymakers and they are victimized by their own groupthink. On the other hand, President Kennedy excluded himself from the Cuban missile crisis executive committee because he wanted to make sure that ALL opinions were heard. It is obvious that the President receives his policy broadcasts on a very narrow band of frequencies. Very unfortunate.
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts on the announced plans to rebuild Iraq with $30 billion in aid? Does this assistance appear targeted in the proper manner, or are there important aspects of rebuilding Iraq that would help stabilize and revitalize the country that are being missed?
GOODMAN: Don’t expect this country to invest $30 billion in rebuilding Iraq. The current supplemental appropriation of $75 billion includes $2.4 billion for reconstruction. The Bush Administration should be turning this task over to the U.N., but thus far has been unwilling to do so. Another calamity is out there waiting for us on this one.

ROBERTA COHEN, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, March 28, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Are there numerical estimates on how many people need assistance with food, medicine, and other important supplies, and how many are being served and how many are not being reached? If we can finally reach all who need help, how much more food and supplies is required, and are these supplies readily available?
COHEN: Most of the Iraqi population, an estimated 16 million people, are completely dependent on food aid from abroad and have been for many years, because of 12 years of sanctions and Saddam Hussein’s policies. 400,000 metric tons of food have to be shipped in every month in order to feed the population. Even before the war, this was the largest humanitarian assistance program in the world. Iraqis reportedly have 5 weeks of food stockpiled but that probably doesn’t apply to everyone. It is urgent that more food be provided. In addition, in Basra and other cities in the south, the people have been without water for several days, although efforts are being made restore the water systems.

ANDY SHALLEL, Founder, Mesopotamia Cultural Society and Peace Café, April 10, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I feel sorry for many Iraqi Americans. Many fled the brutality of Iraq to come to America only to be treated suspiciously as supporters of the regime from which they had escaped. How do people cope with this ignorance and, on the other hand, is there some understanding that there are some legitimate fears that there might be Iraqis in America sent by the Saddam Hussein government and thus there is a need for caution within our country?
SHALLEL: A reported once asked me about sleeper cells in the U.S.-I asked her to write about American sleeper cells in which our civil rights are eroding while we are asleep.
Iraqi Americans are being questioned by the FBI and other agencies. There is certainly fear from these tactics. Some Congressmen have suggested internment camps as an option (Coble-N.C.)
Iraqi Americans love the U.S. and are some of the most educated and productive citizens.

LEWIS MATSON, U.S. Central Command Spokesman, April 10, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: No war goes as planned, as this war was no exception. The key often are the contingencies that were in place and how well the military adjusted to the situations they faced. How well do you believe our forces adjusted to contingency plans?
MATSON: One of the key aspects of the plan—its ability to remain fluid, its ability to change to circumstances, it was developed more as a chess game—if he does this, I’ll do that.
The commanders now have that freedom—we watched them adjust on the fly—I was very impressed with the way they did this. The key to making this work was the effort of the 101st and the 82nd to follow behind Armor and secure the towns that had been passed over—they did tremendous work here securing Najv, Karbala, Samawah and Massariyah, as well as the Marines up through the center—the 1st Regimental Combat Team took an important job of securing the right center up toward Al Kut—this was critical but got little attention.

SUSAN RICE, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, April 11, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Now that a government has fallen, who is in control? Who sees to it that the police force shows up for work, that whatever utilities are operating continue and that the ones that are down are repaired, that food is shipped, etc.? How much is the country in disarray, and what will it take to at least restore order, utilities, food?
RICE: Under international law and the Geneva Conventions the U.S. is, as the occupying power, in fact responsible for controlling and at least in the short term governing the country. The country does indeed appear to be in disarray and the task of restoring law and order and basic services is an enormous and daunting one. The U.S. and Britain seem not to have sufficient forces in country yet to protect key civilian infrastructure like hospitals and to prevent widespread looting. Undoubtedly, we will seek to salvage as much of the former policy force as we can find and who are acceptable to the people of Iraq, but we should expect that the process of forming new policy forces will be difficult and slow and in the meantime those tasks will fall to coalition forces. Our reluctance or inability to fulfill that responsibility could well be the biggest short-term impediment to achieving our objectives of stability and eventually democracy.
On the humanitarian side we have failed thus far to do as we set out to-to win hearts and minds through effective provision of key goods and services. We need urgently to find ways to restore electricity and water and make sure it is distributed effectively.

LAITH KUBBA, President, Iraq National Group, April 11, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: How possible would it be to create a Kurdish state, or perhaps a Kurdish subdivision of Iraq with a fair amount of autonomy, out of northern Iraq? How much will Turkey object, and how much influence have they lost over the matter by not joining the coalition? How much objection would the rest of Iraq have to a Kurdish state, and how could such objections be settled?
KUBBA: In view of history and regional politics, it would be harmful to the Kurds to push for a separate state; however, their national aspirations as Kurds need to be addressed and can be addressed through a decentralized state system. In the long term, Kurds can benefit most if Iraq is secular and democratic rather than a confederation of an Arab and a Kurdish state.
The most worrying issue on the Kurds comes from Turkey. As they legitimately see a Kurdish state in Iraq as a threat to their national security. There are more than 10 million Kurds bordering Iraq and they will seek a separate state too.
There are minorities within the Kurdish region who strongly object to a separate Kurdish state as well as many Kurds who also see their interest served best within Iraq rather than a separate Kurdish state.
CZIKOWSKY: What are the dangers of a sovereign Iraqi government reverting to a dictatorship? How well can the different factions within Iraq hold together and prevent disintegration of power?
KUBBA: In the long-term, the best buffer against dictatorship is a well-developed civil society. In the short-term, America should prevent a military takeover in Iraq.

KARL VICK, Washington Post Foreign Service, April 16, 2003
CZIKOWKSY: What is the mood of the Kurdish people you’ve met, and what are their expectations? Do you believe that, once again, they have fought hard in initial hopes that a Kurdish state will be granted with expectations of being denied again, or do they see hopes for some type of greater autonomy? How will they react if they do not receive as much as they had hoped?
VICK: Kurds: Happy.
My sense is that they’ll state that way if they don’t loose the autonomy they’ve got. As a tribal leader in Chamchamal, a grubby little frontline town about an hour from here (Sulaymaniyah) put it to me: “We’ll take federalism and then try for independence later!” I can’t imagine that later is coming any too soon: what do you need a flag and an army for if you’ve got your rights and your culture (and no Turkish army to fight) in a free and democratic Iraq?
Now to get one…

PETER BAKER, Washington Post Foreign Service, April 15, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Do we have early indications on how the prisoners were treated? Were there violations of the Geneva Convention, and, if so, are there suspects who have been found and are being held responsible?
BAKER: The US maintains that the airing of a videotape of their interrogation was a violation of the Geneva Convention. If as the POWs say the Iraqis deliberately moved an artillery gun into their prison to attract enemy bombs, that too would be construed as a violation. I’m sure that Army debriefers are going through the full accounts of their captivity and may identify other violations as well. But at the moment, we know of no identifiable suspects to purse.

SHIBLELY TELHAMI, Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland, April 16, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Saddam Hussein envisioned himself as the future leader of the Arab world. Now that he has been removed from the picture, what is the current status of others seeking to emerge as leaders of the Arab world? Is Iran encouraged to fill any vacuum, or are they sufficiently worried about attracting American attention that they may be somewhat silenced? Or, perhaps, the Arab world is so diverse that it is not useful to think in terms of anyone hoping to provide it a unified voice?
TELHAMI: Unlike President Nasser of Egypt in the 1950s and 60s, very few people in the Arab world saw Saddam Hussein as a true potential leader of the Arab world, at least since 1991. I do no think that there is a vacuum created by his demise. I think the real problem in the Arab world now is that the political order in place for the past several decades have repeated failed to address vital crisis including the war in Iraq. In that sense, there is a pervasive sense of weakness and helplessness and disguist with states and international organizations. Unfortunately, that could well play in the hands of militant non-state groups that would exploit the anger and the despair.

DANA PRIEST, Washington Post Staff Writer, April 17, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: How well, from what you can tell, was Defense and Central Intelligence information used during the war? There seems to be independent streaks within Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush where they tend to follow their instincts and they appear to ignore some important intelligence reports. Is this an accurate description?
PRIEST: That’s a good way to put it. They definitely did not follow some of the intelligence community’s thinking on links between Iraq and Al Qaeda (minimal) or on lots of the worst case scenarios about invading Iraq (paramilitary violence, suicide bombers and anti-American terrorism in Middle East).

VERNON LOEB, Washington Post Staff Writer, May 14, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Have there been any independent counts on the number of civilian casualties during the war with Iraq? What have been the civilian deaths in total from American interventions, and how hard is it to win over the support of a population that may be happy that we rid them of a dictator yet have also caused them harm?
LOEB: I have seen no independent counts of civilian casualties in Iraq that have been made by investigators on the ground in country. Certainly, killing lots of civilians would only make winning the peace that much harder. My hunch is that the U.S. did not kill large numbers of civilians, and, in fact, took considerable pains not to. But I do think it is important that somebody—journalists or NGOs or both—go in there and try to determine, as precisely as possibly, how many civilians were killed.

SWANEE HUNT, Former U.S. Ambassador to Austria, May 22, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: There are people in Iraq who have theological objections to women serving in government. To what extremes do such people appear willing to go to defend their beliefs, and how can an American presence help to assure that women will not be prevented from serving in government?
HUNT: Your question is extremely important. Some Westerners think of Islam as having one interpretation. Since there are literally hundreds of variation of Christian faith, we should be able to understand that there are many different interpretations of the Koran vis a vis women’s roles. Only the most extreme on a very long continuum would say that Islam prohibits the full involvement of women in public life.
Whether the extremists will use violence to try to frighten women and moderates away from public positions is partly determined by the signals the U.S. sends. If we bring women into full participation in the current peace process, it is more likely that the notion of excluding them later will seem preposterous.
Iraqi women must have the opportunity to negotiate their social and political positions with Iraqi men. Our job is to ensure an even playing field not only for women, but all parts of the society. It’s too easy for the screamers to get onto the agenda, and more modulated voices to not be heard.

WILLIAM BRANIGIN, Washington Post Staff Writer, May 22, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: You reported on Desert Storm as well as the past war with Iraq. Did you find any striking differences in how reporters covered the two events? Was the military more cooperative during either of these wars? Do you believe you had a better overall awareness of what was happening during one of these wars?
BRANIGIN: I did indeed cover Desert Storm, and there was a world of difference between that coverage and the latest. We did not have sat phones in the field during the Gulf War, there was an unwieldy pool arrangement, and the stories were censored. The military was much more cooperative this time around and pretty much let us do our thing. I think the result was much better coverage.

SAM KILEY, FRONTLINE/Word reporter, May 30, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Among the Kurds you have met, how do they seem to feel the prospects are for their future? Are they worried about the directions the next Iraqi government might take towards them? Do they believe America will protect them (even though we have failed them in the past)? Do they think much about what Turkey might do? Are they optimistic they will be provided a fair degree of autonomy, or are they fearful they will be disappointed again? Or, is it too soon after the war for most Kurds to start thinking that far ahead?
KILEY: Generally speaking, they’re optimistic that they will get some federal autonomy. They remain extremely suspicious of the Turks—who have threatened to invade N. Iraq to prevent a Kurdish state. But some are beginning to realize that a Kurdish state might not be the best answer—they would be very vulnerable to Syria, Turkey, and Iran. They are optimistic about the Americans because they have administrations in N. Iraq that have managed to function with some degree of democracy and respect for human rights. By no means perfect, but they realize that the areas under their control at the moment are the safest and best-run parts of Iraq.

JIM WILKINSON, Strategic Communications Director, Central Command
CZIKOWSKY: How well are public services being restored? Are public safety services about normal? Has looting been contained to a point where the public can feel safe? Does everyone have the electricity and the usual public utilities? Finally, who is actually making governing decisions, and is there a definite plan to phase these decisions to others?
WILKINSON: The situation in Iraq improves every day. In many areas Iraqis already have more power and water than they did before the war under the Saddam Hussein regime. On the looting front, we must remember that Saddam Hussein released thousands of criminals from his prisons into the Iraqi streets just before the war. It will take some time to round up these criminals who have been responsible for much of the looting. Our forces conduct roughly 2,500 patrols a day and every day they are arresting those who loot and otherwise cause trouble.

VERNON LOEB, Washington Post Staff Writer, July 9, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: The White House has admitted they accidentally used false information that Iraq was purchasing materials for weapons of mass destruction. How does false information get passed along so far, didn’t anyone disagree and if so who decided their objections should be ignored, and what steps could the White House do to see they use better information from now on?
LOEB: I think false information made it into President Bush’s State of the Union address because the CIA did not formally pass along a review of the situation it had commissioned. And other concerns about the veracity of Iraq’s alleged attempts to buy uranium from Niger were unheeded. To some extent, I think, these concerns weren’t passed along or given appropriate weight because the people writing the speech very much wanted to prove that Iraq had a state in pursuing nuclear weapons.

RICHARD LEIBY, Washington Post Staff Writer, July 14, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: What were your impressions of (Sabih) Azzawi (who states he was tortured by the Saddam Hussein regime)? How truthful do you believe him to be? You obviously found his stories interesting enough to be worthy of an article. Yet, it would be hard to confirm what he says, and even people who could confirm it would have reasons to deny it. What do your instincts tell you?
LEIBY: My instincts told me he was an honest cop. So did my observations. His wounds provided good evidence that he had been tortured by the regime. I watched him interact with ex-Iraqi Army officers and saw how he gained their respect. He clearly had a lot of credible connections, as an ex-street cop would. I went to his neighborhood and met his family. I never uncovered a contradiction to his account. All of this led me to conclude he was not a fabricator.

PETER STOTHARD, author, July 18, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: What was Tony Blair’s thinking on how war should be conducted against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq? Was he in basic agreement with the American war plan, or were there any major differences? If there were differences, what were they? To me, it sees we fought a bold war knowing we might be cornering an enemy with great retaliatory potential, especially if it was thought they had weapons of mass destruction. How concerned was Tony Blair that England might suffer serious retaliation for the war?
STOTHARD: I was with Tony Blair in his apartment preparing for “Prime Minister’s Questions” and the issue came up about an al Qaeda threat to a British nightclub. Normally in those conversations he dealt with every point with his staff but on this point, he just said “Hmmm…”(And a long sigh.) Of course he knew there was a risk. But he also thought the risk of not acting against Iraq was much greater. So yes, he knew there was a risk.
On the war plan, you need to remember that the British Prime Minister is not the commander in chief. Whereas George Bush is in command of American force and with all the war planning to match, in the British Prime Minister’s office there were just two little maps of Iraq on an easel. I think most British schools had more details of the terrain of Iraq than there were in the Prime Minister’s office where I was.

NOAH FELDMAN, New York University Law Professor, July 23, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Democracy is a concept compatible with Islam. What I believe makes many people in Iraq and other Islamic countries suspicious is the belief that foreign countries wish to change their system of government to make them subservient to foreign powers. How do we reassure the people in Iraq that they can control their destiny, yet they must do so in a way that respects human rights, the rights of religious and ethnic minorities, and that these ideas are crucial to their lives and not an imposed Western ideal?
FELDMAN: It’s natural for Iraqis and other Muslim and Arabs to be skeptical of a foreign presence in Iraq. The best and only way to reassure Iraqis of the coalition’s intentions is by actually creating the conditions where Iraqis can design their own institutions and govern themselves. No Iraqis that I met in the country argued to me that protection of freedom and equality were foreign ideas. To the contrary, Iraqis have suffered under oppression, and they want rights to ensure they are not oppressed again.
CZIKOWSKY: Iraq used to claim that democracy exists in their country. After all, Saddam Hussein was democratically elected, and with 100 percent of the vote. Does this make the Iraqi public cynical about elections, and how do we make them more assured that democracy can work?
FELDMAN: The Iraqis whom I spoke to fully understood that what they had under Saddam was not democracy but oppressive dictatorship. But they have not yet seen democracy in practice, and they will be discovering many things about democracy’s benefits and demerits in the near future. Democracy is no panacea. It is the worst system of government, except for all others, as Churchill is supposed to have said.
CZIKOWSKY: What type of economic development would be most useful to the Iraqi people, and what type of American and international assistance should be made available?
FELDMAN: Beyond ensuring that basic needs and services are satisfied, the best thing the international community can do is to speed the construction of Iraq’s infrastructure, including its oil infrastructure. That label the Rockies to earn the money they need for reconstruction on their own.

PHYLLIS BENNIS, Institute for Policy Studies Fellow, August 20, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: President Bush declared the war in Iraq over. Do you believe we understand the nature and extent of guerilla warfare in Iraq? In Viet Nam, we underestimated enemy soldiers and we did not know how to best combat guerilla soldiers. Do we understand our enemy in Iraq, or do you believe we have once again miscaluculated?
BENNIS: A great question. First of all the war is clearly not over, despite Bush’s on-board carrier photo op. I don’t know what is happening right now in Iraq is yet a full-scale guerilla war—but it’s certainly moving in that direction. You’re right about the parallel with our ignorance regarding Viet Nam—because there, we refused to acknowledge the nationalism and opposition to colonialism that undergirded the Vietnamese resistance in both northern and southern parts of the country.
In Iraq, certainly we have once again miscalculated. One of the big questions is who is “our enemy”? I don’t think Iraqis view Americans as their enemy, but U.S. troops are occupying their country, killing civilians, controlling their oil, failing to provide real security for anybody—those policies may at some point be enough to end the existing distinction between American people and the American government or American policies.
Unfortunately, some of the ideologues in control of the White House—the Paul Wolfkwitz-Richard Perle-Doughlas Feith-Lewis Libby etc. crowd—actually seem to believe their own rhetoric that “our troops” would be “liberating’ Iraq and would be greeted in the streets of Baghdad with flowers and rice…What a surprise when that turned out to not be true. But they couldn’t get past their own true-believer views that just getting rid of Saddam Hussein (which we haven’t done do far, we should remember) would be enough, and that after that everyone in Iraq would be happy, rich, would love Americans and everyone could go home and live happily ever after.
What a fairy tale.
Too bad so many lives had to be lost to prove it wasn’t true.

MICHAEL O”HANLON, Brookings Institution Senior Fellow, August 20, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: President Bush declared the war in Iraq over. Do you believe we understand our enemy in Iraq? In Viet Nam, we miscalculated the nature of guerilla warfare. Have we learned our lessons and now know our enemy or have we repeated our mistake and once again do not know how to combat a guerilla warfare opponent?
O’HANLON: I think we actually know how. The problem is, this is a tough guerilla enemy, and our technological advantages don’t apply as well, so we need patience and persistence, and some adjustments to our broader political strategy (a key part of any counterinsurgency effort as you know) as well.

VIVIENNE WALT, freelance journalist, August 20, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I have received different answers to this question, so I wish to please request your opinion. Do you think we understand what we are facing in Iraq? Do we seem to be prepared to deal with the guerilla, or whatever you wish to call it, warfare that we have been facing? Or, do we seem to be repeating the mistakes we made in Viet Nam by not understanding what we were up against?
WALT: It’s hard to know who the ‘we’ is-when you travel around Baghdad you meet a lot of American soldiers who seem truly bewildered. They’re young, scared, and many have never left the U.S. before in their lives. They certainly don’t know what they’re facing here in Iraq. On a more official level, I think it’s fair to say the U.S. came into Baghdad in April believing there would be flowers and cheers all round. There has been a lot of that-but equally, there are a lot of people who truly dislike the U.S., even among those who also truly disliked Saddam.

SUSAN MANUEL, United Nations Peace and Security Section Chief, August 21, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: The facts that the United Nations has been attacked shows, perhaps, someone sees it as a symbol of oppression rather than as an organization providing humanitarian assistance. How has the Iraqi press been describing the United Nations, keeping in mind that the dissemination of news in Iraq is different than in many other countries. Do you believe the U.N. needs to do a better job of educating people as it its mission?
MANUEL: Yes, I was told this by Iraqis when I was in Baghdad last week: that few Iraqis know much about the humanitarian work the U.N. has been doing there. The U.N. clearly needs to do more to describe its work internally. However, with the limited staff allowed back since the war, domestic public information has not been a priority. Also, the media scene is quite chaotic: there are many new newspapers, but with very low circulation. There is the Iraqi Media Network, which is the communications organ of the CPA and not extremely popular there. There is a big surge of satellite dish purchasing, in order to watch Arab-language channels from outside Iraq, and they would have scant news on U.N humanitarian activity.

ROBERT BAER, Former Central Intelligence Agency Agent, August 22, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I recall in Beirut in 1983 that there were concerns expressed by Rep. John Murtha and others that our troops were in an exposed position in a valley and that guards were ordered not to have bullets in their guns. The troops were wide open to a terrorist attack. Have we learned any lessons since then? When we see places that are vulnerable to attack, are we slow to respond because there are just too many possible targets, or what? If terrorists can find targets weakly defended to attack, why do we keep weakly defended targets?
BAER: Washington, like Lebanon in 1983, misassessed the situation in Iraq. We did not realize we were viewed as a combatant by a large segment of the population. In the case of Lebanon it was the Shi’a; in Iraq the Sunni Arabs. In Lebanon, it was unforgivable that the Marine guards around the barracks did not have bullets in their guns or cement barriers around the buildings. It’s always a steep learning curve in countries like Lebanon and Iraq. I hope Washington picks up on what is happening in Iraq faster than we did in Lebanon.
CZIKOWSKY: A point I found interesting in your article is when you mentioned how we were blaming the Syrians for attacks when it was the Lebanese who were behind the attacks. How good and bad is our intelligence? This issue has been raised again recently concerning weapons of mass destruction. Doesn’t this send a chilling message that we maybe quick to attack someone based on poor intelligence? What can be done to improve this situation?
BAER: If I have my history right, Lebanon, 1983 was not a straight forward intelligence failure. The experts warned that by sending the Marines in we were walking into an ambush. The Reagan Administration wasn’t listening. In the case of Iraq, I recall the CIA Director sent a letter to the Senate stating that Saddam probably wouldn’t resort to terrorism unless attacked. This just possibly could be what we are seeing now. What this administration failed to understand was that this was the worst possible time to put
American troops into the Middle East. They didn’t need intelligence to figure that out. Although we may not have had specifics on threats, we should have had the imagination to see what was coming. As for the WMD, it’s clear to everyone Saddam didn’t have it deployed with his troops. As for WMB programs, the jury’s out. All in all Iraq was a black hole for us.

ANTHONY CORDESMAN, Center for Strategic and International Studies Senior Fellow, August 27, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: If the citizens of Iraq were engaged in the planning of the rebuilding of their country, what do you believe would be their priorities? How involved are the people of Iraq in the planning and implementation of the rebuilding of their country?
CORDESMAN: The CPA has tried to involve as many Iraqis as possible. A number of key elements, particularly Shiite have refused to participate. There are many Sunnis and Saddam loyalists in central Iraq that will not participate at all. The country is deeply divided between Sunni and Shiite and Arab, and minorities like the Kurds. It has no political history where these factions have had to work together. We do know that ordinary Iraqis want ordinary things: security, food, electricity and water, jobs, health and education. The problem is that we not only have to build an economy, we have to build a political system in which the Iraqis have never had the experience of leading and key factions have never had to work together.
CZIKOWSKY: The Congressional Budget Office is warning that we are entering perhaps an even more severe budget crisis than most expected. We may need to seriously consider: how much can we afford to pay to keep the military in Iraq? Do you have any comments on the long term costs of these operations? Next, while we are increasing our expenditures in Iraq, the White House is seeking to reduce the pay to the troops. Has this affected the morale of the troops? When seeking to cut costs, is cutting salaries the best first move?
CORDESMAN: In regard to the first question, the basic problem is we are there. And we simply are going to have to spend what it takes. The bad news is the budget deficit. The good news is we will still spend far less on Defense as a percentage of the GNP than we have over the previous half century. In response to the second question, the issue is not salaries, but how to define combat pay. And those actually in combat are not going to be affected regardless of how this debate comes out.
CZIKOWSKY: If pay is reduced to soldiers who are no longer in combat, which solders in Iraq are considered as no longer being in combat? All soldiers in Iraq are potential targets for terrorists and guerilla attacks. Are all soldiers in Iraq considered as combat soldiers?
CORDESMAN: The exact definition is still being argued out within the Department of Defense. It is simply premature to get into an argument over a series of decisions where we don’t know the details.

YASMINE BAHRANI, Editor, USA Today, October 6, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Your article conveys the doubts and legends circulating among the Iraqi people about Americans. There were those who stated before the war ended that Iraqis would be greeting us with cheers and flowers. Would it be correct to state there is mistrust about the country that now controls their destiny? What, if anything, could Americans do to win greater public support amongst the Iraqi people?
BAHRANI: I can say that most of the people I spoke with in Baghdad had a positive view of Americans when they arrived. They now feel abandoned. I think perhaps if general security, water, electricity and jobs were available to Iraqis, they would feel better about the situation. It’s hard to say whether everyone mistrusts the United States, but many do seem to think that the Americans did not kick out Saddam Hussein simply to liberate the Iraqi people. They suspect the U.S. was motivated by something else.

VERNON LOEB, Washington Post Staff Writer, November 19, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I keep searching for news for casualty figures of who are fighting in Iraq, including civilian deaths. Am I missing something, or are these figures not being provided or are they well hidden? In particular, how well are we doing against the guerrilla-terrorists who are firing at us? Are they tending to get away, or are they being killed or tending to be killed or captured during these attacks?
LOEB: Very good questions. The U.S. military, I suppose as a reaction to Vietnam, doesn’t do body counts any more. And it certainly doesn’t tally civilian casualties. How well is the U.S. military doing against the guerillas? Well, I was never satisfied that I was getting a good handle on that. Commanders I interviewed consistently argued that they were winning a war of attrition against the insurgents, effectively targeting their operational cells, reducing their numbers, and seizing their weapons. That may be. Yet the number of attacks continued to increase on a daily basis during this same time, and the sophistication of the attacks continued to increase, which said to me that U.S. commanders were being overly optimistic, and that the insurgents were succeeding at replenishing their ranks, and at planning on higher and higher levels. U.S. commanders also continue to argue that their primary opponents are Baathists, not foreign fighters. But I am not convinced they have a good handle on exactly who they are fighting. To me the scariest prospect in Iraq is that, over time, it becomes a Jihan ground for Islamic fundamentalists and terrorist throughout the Middle East and Southwest Asia. If that ultimately happens—and again, U.S. commanders believe it has not thus far—the insurgents will be able to replenish their ranks, and victory will be much harder, if not impossible, to achieve.

ROBIN WRIGHT, Washington Post Staff Writer, December 15, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Is there any concern that a new majority within Iraq could display pro-Iranian sympathies and that together a new dynamic could be created within the region? If so, what are the long term plans to forming relations with such a government? If not, what possibilities appear to exist on future relations between Iraq and Iran?
WRIGHT: One of the questions often asked about Iraq’s Shi’ites is what their relationship is with Iran, a predominately Shi’ite country We had one answer during the 1980-1988 war between Iraq and Iran when the Iraqi Shi’ites, who made up the majority of the foot soldiers in Iraq’s army, did fight and not defect or refuse in large numbers.
There does appear to be an Iraqi national identity among Iraqi Shi’ites. Remember, they are also Arabs, not Persians—and there are longstanding tensions between Arabs and Persians. But some of Iraq’s important Shi’ite clerics are Iranian born or trained in Iranian seminaries or under Iranian mullahs, so your question will continue to be asked as the political situation unfolds.

CHARLES FENYVESI, historian, December 16, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: A local newspaper ran a picture of the captured Saddam Hussein next to a picture of a captured Mussolini. Mussolini, in contrast, was wearing his uniform and at least in the picture was attempting to appear dignified before he was killed by a mob of people. Obviously, Saddam Hussein made little attempt to maintain the appearance of dignity while in hiding. Does this provide us with any insight into the type man Saddam Hussein is?
FENYVESI: Mussolini was captured by his dissident Generals, and he did not know in advance that he would be arrested, I think. He was in a military uniform because that’s what he wore during the war. Saddam, on the other hand was hiding, moving around, not receiving visitors, and his morale was probably low, and he didn’t think he needed to worry about his appearance. Besides, why dress up when headed for a spider hole?
Opinions vary although almost everyone in the country was opposed to the war.

ROBERT NOVAK, columnist, December 18, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: How would you recommend we allow Iraq to become a democratic society that respects human rights when our mere presence stirs up such resentment? If a Defense Department study is accurate, over 200,000 civilians died during Desert Storm. As Anthony Shadid of the Washington Post has pointed out, many Iraqis fighting us have had a friend or family member who died at the hands of Americans. Wouldn’t it be better if we allowed the United Nations, with our assistance, reorganize Iraq? Wouldn’t we, in the long term, win more trust in the Middle East if we provided more humanitarian assistance than if we continue to project the image of a country that does what it wants because it has the military power to do so?
NOVAK: Not everybody in Iraq resents our presence, but it doesn’t really matter. We didn’t take a poll in Japan and Germany after World War II to see whether they wanted us. And remember Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden.

MARTIN SMITH, Frontline Producer, February 13, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I keep hearing we are going to do this, yet I want to know exactly how we are proposing to devise a government that will allow democracy while protecting the rights of minority populations? How do you assure the protection of the Kurds? What protections are there that a new majority government will not slowly manipulate the system into another brutal government?
SMITH: Well, the protections are those of any representative democracy. As people in any multi-ethnic state know, the protection of minority rights is best accomplished through some sort of coalition building among groups. Iraqis are going through the difficult and painful process of learning these ropes. By most accounts, the Shia make up 60 percent of the population. Sunni Arabs make up about 20 percent. Kurds and other minority groups make up the rest. Minorities are going to have to find ways to form alliances and find common interests. Both Kurds and Sunni Arabs are fearful of a democracy. At the same time they recognize there are opportunities.

MICHAEL DORAN, Adjunct Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, February 18, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Is there any possibility that a Kurdish territory, with limited self-governance and American protection, could be established within an Iraqi state such that Turkey would be satisfied there is no independent state, Iraq would be satisfied that Iraq remains whole, and the Kurds would feel protected from any possible future attacks from Iraqis?
DORAN: Yes, such an arrangement can be worked out. But it will be tricky and, as I said before, independent control of oil revenues will make the Turks very nervous.
CZIKOWSKY: I like your mention that the younger generation appears to wish change and will be more willing to accept it. I believe old hatreds will slowly vanish and improved ideas will be accepted by a more open minded new generation. Is this hope real, and what could the U.S, do to encourage freer thinking in other countries?
DORAN: That is the $64,000 question—when adjusted for inflation comes out to be $3,500,212. We are engaged in a struggle that will take at least an entire generation. The entire political and economic system in the Middle East is stultifying. It offers the young generation no hoe. It’s a very tall order.

EAMONN MATTHEWS, Frontline Producer, February 27, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I recall during the invasion asking if there were counts or estimate of Iraqi deaths—military and/or civilian. No one seemed to know. Finally, one journalist responded that it was policy not to release these figures, because the military did not want to turn Iraq into another Viet Nam where the nightly news would provide the public with daily casualty figures on both sides. Still the question remains: do we have any figures on the number of Iraqi deaths: military and/or civilian?
MATTHEWS: A really difficult question. In the chaos a lot of record keeping fell by the way. I’ve seen estimates of 3,000 up to 10,000. But all of these estimates are heavily qualified.

TUCKER CARLSON, CNN Political Analyst, March 2, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Like you, I am concerned about the intelligence failure regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Yet, it is my recollection that there were intelligence and academic reports, as well as incomplete inspectors’ reports, that all questioned the existence or extent of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Thus, isn’t it less of an intelligence failure and more of a process failure that our leadership chose what it wished to believe from the collective intelligence reports?
CARLSON: That’s partly true. There was debate over Iraq’s nuclear weapons program. And there were some who suggested that maybe Saddam had destroyed some of his chem and bio weapons. But I don’t remember ever hearing anyone even near the mainstream suggest Iraq had no significant quantities of WMD.
In other words, just about everyone was fooled. Again, this is a big deal, made frivolous when it’s leveraged for a partisan attack. Let’s find what happened and how.

JOHN V. PARACHINI, RAND Corporation Policy Analyst, March 2, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: It is being reported that some reports are informing the Iraqi public that the Americans are behind the attacks (of shrines in Baghdad and Karbala). There is belief that Muslims could never do this to other Muslims, and thus it had to be Westerners. How are these reports impacting the Iraqi public and our efforts at winning the respect of the Iraqi public? What should we be doing to gain the confidence of the Iraqi public?
PARACHINI: Repots that Iraqis attacked U.S. Army medics as they tried to assist some of the victims in the attacks in Karbala are disturbing. Resentment about American and other Coalition forces in Iraq runs high in different parts of the country, but this is hard to comprehend.
In societies where information is not easily available and suspicions of foreigners run high, a gallop effort often takes hold among a frightened public. Conspiracy theories about U.S. activities are common in the Middle East. This seems to be yet another ugly expression of the presumption many people in the region have about the U.S.’s activities. Additionally, you can imagine the tremendous grief and horror people must have experienced at these sites during the course of religious celebration. The situations were undoubtedly confusing and people were inclined to strike out at anyone the people (see as) a possible enemy. This does not excuse their behavior, but we should attempt to understand it as best we can.
Iraqi attacks on the U.S. military personnel who rushed to sites to render assistance is yet another reminder of the terribly difficult job of communicating the reality of the situation on the ground. U.S. and Iraqi authorities should see these confusing events as an example of the challenge of changing the understanding of Iraqi people of their national situation and the perception they have of who is their enemy.

WALTER PINCUS, Washington Post Staff Writer, March 20, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Scott Ritter and weapons inspectors were saying, before the war that they had yet to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction. My recollection from articles from retired CIA gent Mel Goodman and others was that there were serious questions as to whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, if they had the, they were unlikely to use them. Now, after the fact, we are arguing over the supposed intelligence failure that failed to detect that these weapons did not exist. I am wondering: is it really less of a failure of intelligence of that our leaders decided which intelligence to listen to and which to ignore?
PINCUS: It appears Saddam Hussein’s chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and any stocks of agents were mostly destroyed in the 1991 to 1998 period while the first United Nations inspectors were in Iraq. Subsequent to their leaving, without proving to the U.N. that the stocks they declared in 1991 were destroyed, Iraq appeared to have continued to buy some dual purpose equipment which because of their former habit of deception, left intelligence analysts with the belief that Saddam Hussein was building his weapons up again. Disbelief based on the past, and lack of first hand information from human sources, was mixed with spy satellite materials to allow analysts to create inferences that more was going on than has proved to be the case.
Those people who said there were no weapons, and there were many inside the intelligence community, have apparently turned out to be right. I saw that because they were the people that led me to write before the war that the intelligence on his weapons was inferential and unproven.
But remember, the search is still on and even the finding of small amounts of some agent would be promoted as making the entire effort worthwhile.

STEVEN A. COOK, Council on Foreign Relations Fellow, March 18, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: How is the press in Iraq and surrounding countries treating these terrorist attacks (in Baghdad)? What news and opinions are being provided to the public about these explosions in specific and about the coalition occupation in general?
COOK: The Arab media has been tough on the U.S. and the U.S. occupation. I am an avid watcher of al-Jazeera. The Arab media portrays events through Arab eyes and in many instances the U.S. is not viewed as a benevolent liberator, but a clumsy occupier that has wrought instability.
Still, 56% of Iraqis believe they are better off today than they were under Saddam.

MEL GOODMAN, Center for International Policy Senior Fellow, April 5, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Was the war in Iraq less an intelligence failure (as most are claiming) and more a failure of those analyzing the intelligence? I ask, because it was my recollection that it was well understood that al Qaeda was not associated with, and indeed supported the overthrow of, Saddam Hussein. Further, while it was uncertain that Saddam Hussein still had weapons of mass destruction, there were some theories that he could be exaggerating his strength in an effort to keep Iran from invading. Thus, it was important that we give the weapons inspectors time to finish their work: something the Bush Administration decided not to wait for. Further, there was even a report from the Army War College claiming it may have been Iran, rather than Saddam Hussein, behind some of the mass killings in Iraq. Finally, it has long been understood that an American presence in an Arab country would be met with resistance and likely would serve as an inducement for increased recruitment for terrorist organizations. Thus, my question: in your opinion, was the war in Iraq an intelligence failure or a failure of the White House to understand their own intelligence?
GOODMAN: The question is not an either/or question. Both the CIA and the White House are to blame for the decision to go to war, particularly the White House. First, the CIA politicized the intelligence, beginning with the phony October 2002 national intelligence estimate, and took a worst-case position on many key issues. Then the White House used misinformation and disinformation, some from the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans, to distort all sensitive information. After all, how did a fabrication get into a State of the Union message (2003) to make the case for Iraq reconstituting its nuclear capability? There was no evidence to make such a case, but even the 2002 estimate referred to the possibility of Iraq obtaining uranium from western Africa. Shabby story all around.

GIDEON ROSE, Foreign Affairs Managing Editor, April 8, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Hasn’t the Bush Administration learned one of the most important lessons from the Watergate crisis: the public dislikes the stonewalling more than the original act? Isn’t this unwillingness to admit mistakes and hide the truth apt to hurt the reputation of the White House more than if they had just come forward from the beginning and explained how the mistakes were made?
ROSE: You’d think so, but I guess not. I joked to somebody the other day that the Bush team refused to learn even those lessons from the Clinton years that were worth learning, such as the importance, during potential scandals, of getting as full and accurate a story out as quickly as possible. As to whether they will pay for being so stingy with information, facts, etc., who knows…that’s the province of the politics, not the wonks.

RICHARD LEIDY, Washington Post Staff Writer, April 23, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What do you think of the firing of the workers who took pictures of coffins of American soldiers? The Bush Administration learned one lesson from Viet Nam: the daily death reports did a lot to drain support public support for the war effort. Isn’t it interesting that during the revelations of the Richard Clarke book and the hearings, polls show support of Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq was hardly affected. Yet, images of Americans killed and their bodies mutilated caused a sharp, overnight drop in support. Does the American public react more to imagery than to facts. (I further mention the polls stating where people still believe Iraq is behind al Qaeda and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but that opens whole new areas.)
LEIDY: I don’t want to talk about Iraq anymore! I get depressed. Seriously. I have good Iraqi friends, I know their families, I worry about them every single day.
But more to the point: Most Americans, I think, don’t relate to this war. They relate to “American Idol” and whether they have jobs. The war is far away, and complicated, and I just don’t think many Americans pay attention.

SEWELL CHAN, Washington Post Foreign Service, May 3, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I am worried about our disregard for international law. Our government is trying to claim that captured prisoners do not fall under international standards. I fear that if we fail to set an example, how can we expect others to treat American prisoners with the same respect and standards expected worldwide? Now that we not only are telling the rest of the world that we are above international law, we are now showing the rest of the world that some of our soldiers violate normal standards of respect and show abuse and humiliation towards captured prisoners. Do our soldiers fear retaliation if captured, or have you not heard such fears stated?
CHAN: You raise excellent points. The difficulties in classifying these detainees—and the subsequent lack of the due-process rights to which criminal defendants in the United States are entitled—raise profound legal and ethical questions, I believe.

JOHN BRADY KIESLING, U.S. Foreign Service veteran, May 10, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: From a military assessment, doesn’t the knowledge of the abuses of the detainees mean that those fighting us are both more likely to gain in recruitment and that they are more likely to fight to the death rather than to surrender, as they may fear imprisonment now more than death?
KIESLING: Human psychology is odd. In a crisis situation, people don’t have time to think rationally about death versus surrender, and in urban warfare against U.S. firepower the choice often doesn’t exist. But yes, militarily the release of those photographs was a terrible setback. Assume that Iraqis are just as proud as we are, but with stronger taboos about being naked in the locker room. Like Americans, they are heavily armed. And they are occupied by foreigners. A deadly combination.

JEFFERSON MORLEY, washingtonpost.com Staff Writer, May 18, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: The Philadelphia Daily News today reports that the White House debated attacking Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s terrorist camp in June, 2002, but decided against it as they “feared destroying a terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam Hussein.” Please pardon my ignorance, but I don’t understand what the White House meant by that. Aren’t terrorists the primary objective of the American fight against terrorism? Or, do I understand this correctly, and the American objective seems primarily limited to removing Saddam Hussein from office?
MORLEY: I haven’t seen the story and can’t speak for the Bush White Hosue. If the story is true, my guess is that the White House held off because of 1.) uncertain prospects of success and 2.) the certain prospect of international criticism from allies on Iraq was still being solicited.
As for the stated American objective in Iraq, it has changed many times in the past 18 months: From removing weapons of mass destruction to implanting democracy to removing Saddam Hussein. I think you understand correctly that the White House is no longer emphasizing the first two goals.

PETER SLEVIN, Washington Post Staff Writer, May 27, 2004
CZIKOWKSY: The Connecticut press has reported that one of the alleged abusive prison guards in Iraq had a questionable past as a Connecticut prison guard. Has the national press been running background checks on those alleged to have been abusive?
SLEVIN: Newspapers, in many cases led by the post, have been doing just that. And the results have not been pretty, particularly when it comes to the two MP offices believed to have directed much of the abuse.

RICHARD H. SINNREICH, military affairs columnist, June 1, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Isn’t it human nature to expect a country to not trust an invading country, and any government established by an invading country would naturally have difficulty winning widespread public respect? What do you see as the most degree of respect to American interests that Americans can expect to see from a new Iraqi government? Towards what long term goals should we be assisting a new Iraqi government to achieve?
SINNREICH: I think we were naïve to believe that removing Saddam Hussein automatically would generate unreserved support for remaking Iraq’s political culture in a way that would satisfy the President’s objectives. Certainly we were under no such illusions about German and Japanese reactions to the removal of Hitler and Tojo. We understood very well that both societies would have to be compelled to change. Our occupation policies were designed according. Of course, we never claimed to be “liberating “ Germany or Japan.
That said, unlike some skeptics, I do think it’s possible to compel a traditional society to alter its political culture. In a sense, we did that in Japan, and earlier in our own Southern states. It isn’t easy and may well require a level and duration of military coercion that Americans in most circumstances are loath to apply.
Whether, absent that coercion, establishment of a unified and politically moderate Iraqi government inhospitable to terrorists is feasible seems to me very much in question. The President apparently believes it is. Others are less optimistic.

JEFFERSON MORLEY, washingtonpost.com Staff Writer, June 1, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What is your sense of the reports that Mr. Chalabi’s ties to the Iranian government? Supposedly the CIA warned the White House that these ties existed, yet the White House chose to disregard these reports and allow our policy on Iraq to be guided by information Mr. Chalabi and his associates were providing. Now that his information turns out to be wrong regarding weapons of mass destruction, shouldn’t we be taking a stronger look at how we filter intelligences information of this nature?
MORLEY: Chalabi’s ties to the Iranian government are well-known. The Iraqi National Congress even held a conference in Tehran during the run-up to the war as if to advertise such ties.
As for taking a stronger look at how we filter intelligence information, I don’t think that the system really failed on this point. The CIA and State Department warned that the INC was unreliable and they were right. What we need to look at is who in the Bush White House chose to ignore the intelligence professionals. The intelligence system worked. The question is whether the political system can establish accountability. So far, the answer is no.

DANA PRIEST, Washington Post Staff Writer, June 3, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: It has been reported that the CIA and State Department warned the White House in 2001 that Mr. Chalabi had ties to Iran. For whatever reasons, the White House likely weighed this information and decided, perhaps in error, to downplay these warnings and to accept information from Mr. Chalabi and his associates regarding the threat Saddam Hussein posed.
The question I have is not what and when the White House knew these suspicions, but when did the public finally learn of these ties between Iran and Mr. Chalibi? Personally, I am only recently reading about this. I ask because I think it may have been useful in forming public opinion over whether we should go to war in Iraq if we, the public, knew that the main source of information regarding the threat Saddam Hussein posed was form sources that were self-serving at best and connected with Iran at worse.
PRIEST: You are right that Chalabi’s ties to Iran were well known for years. In fact, U.S. taxpayers helped fund his office in Tehran.

DANA PRIEST, Washington Post Staff Writer, June 16, 2004
CZIKOWSY: Was there a gap in time between the time is seemed to be commonly known amongst Washington insiders that Chalabi had ties to Iran and when the press informed the rest of the nation of these ties? I think it would have been crucial to those of us outside the Beltway to have known of the level of credibility that should have been given to claims made by Chalabi and whether we should have followed his claims into going to war in Iraq.
PRIEST: Not really. Reporters who covered Chalabi in exile wrote about his links to Iran—mainly his office and well-known contacts with Iranian intelligence. All of this was the subject of news reports, as were his links to Bush neo-cons (talk about a politician!) Now, getting and giving away such a big secret as he is accused of doing—takes his Iranian connection to a whole new level.

ROBERT BRYCE and ROD D. MARTIN, authors, September 10, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Do you think President Bush considered a war with Iraq considered a war with Iraq before September 11, 2004? Do you think the war in Iraq diverted any resources from our operations in Afghanistan?
BRYCE: I think it’s clear that Bush was spoiling for a fight with Saddam. President Clinton has said that when he met with Bush right before Bush was sworn into office, that Bush disregarded the threat posed by bin Laden, and said instead he was going to take care of Saddam.
Second, there’s no question that the war in Iraq not only diverted critical resources from Afghanistan, the Iraq war also hurt the war on terror. Look at James Fallows’ current piece in the Atlantic. By fixating on Saddam, Bush and the Pentagon let bin Laden escape. Furthermore, and most dangerous, is that the Iraq war has created a breeding ground for terrorists. Bush has put us into a decades-long war with Islamic fundamentalists and the war will cost Americans trillions of dollars. Our situation in Iraq could not be any worse: we can’t leave and we can’t stay.
MARTIN: I agree with Mr. Bryce to the degree that Iraq was a serious consideration prior to 9/11—as indicated by the Clinton Administration! Bill Clinton has said repeatedly—even as late as a month ago—that though he disagreed with the timing and exact details of Mr. Bush’s actions, he thought all along that Saddam was a dire threat to this country and that regime change was ultimately necessary. Needless to say, the Kerry campaign doesn’t like to quote Mr. Clinton on this issue.
I disagree with Mr. Bryce regarding any supposed diversion of resources. Vladamir Putin tells us that his intelligence service uncovered at least six separate terror plots against the United States by Saddam/s intelligence service between 9/11 and the war. ‘Nuff said: Saddam was after us, and needed taking out. But what’s more, on our Axis of Evil list, taking out Saddam eliminates one source of terrorism, and outflanks an even bigger one, Iran. Look at a map: we now surround Iran. And as we deal with their imminent nuclear threat, that’s going to matter. It will matter even more as their youth look to the successful creation of a democracy in Baghdad as a model for revolution in Tehran.

MICHAEL HIRSH, “Newsweek” Senior Editor, September 27, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: If we permit true and free democracy into Iraq, are we prepared for the possibility that an anti-American government will result? Have we decided how to best reach out to the Iraqi people should that happen?
HIRSH: We had better get prepared for just such a result. No matter who is elected, they will probably have to run on a platform of getting the Americans out.
CZIKOWSKY: If it was our goal to show the Arab world and other countries living under dictatorships how well democracy works and how much America intends to be supportive, wouldn’t it have been better if we delivered quickly on rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure rather than concentrating more on military responses?
HIRSH: Yes, you are exactly right. See the cover story my colleague Rod Nordland and I did in “Newsweek” last November, headlined “Bush’s $87 Billion Mess.” It makes just the point.

SEYMOUR HERSH, author, November 4, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: To me, the report that Secretary Colin Powell stated we are losing the war in Iraq should be bigger news than it has received. I remember this movie before when it was titled “Viet Nam”. How do we convince this Administration of the dangers of sending more troops to fight a nationalistic guerilla opponent in a country where more people have been killed by Americans than by Saddam Hussein and that seems willing to fight us for years if necessary?
HERSH: Tough question, different answer. Kerry certainly did not have one. The answer may come from our military, but they are extremely reluctant to tell the White House the truth. That must change.

WESLEY CLARK, former Presidential candidate, November 15, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Secretary Powell is reported to have privately stated we are losing the war. How would you assess the war overall? Will many more troops be needed in coming months, and is this an engagement that should be expected to last for several years, or might it end soon?
CLARK: It looks like the insurgency has gotten stronger with each passing month, but the insurgents are incapable of standing up to U.S. firepower. So long as they stand to fight, and then are destroyed, we win…It’s too soon to know the ultimate outcome at Fallujah, but it is entirely possible that we will be very successful on the battlefield but that this will give us nothing more in terms of preventing the spread of insurgency or gaining wider political acceptance of Mr. Allawi. Still, as I indicated, the battle at Falluja was simply necessary. We had to!

ANDREA BRUCE WOODALL, Washington Post columnist, November 15, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: You made reference to the abrupt manner in which the military talks to Iraqi civilians. Is this necessary, as our soldiers can not trust who among civilians may be a sniper or an attacker Has there been any effort on the part of the military to soften our image to the Iraqi public, since a primary aim of our occupation is to gain support of the Iraqi people to a democratic government supporter by the United States? If we are viewed as harsh occupiers, they may defeat our main purpose of the occupation.
WOODALL: I think many soldiers don’t know who they can trust among civilians—and tone of voice is often the only way they can communicate. From my experience, missions were either to gain the confidence of civilians or to find “bad guys”. There was usually was no in between.

COLUM LYNCH, Washington Post Staff Writer, November 30, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: How do billions of dollars get siphoned away? Does the United Nations lack proper auditing or lack enough auditors? Or is it accepted that governments will siphon funds in hopes that some funds get through as intended and the United Nations looks the other way?
LYNCH: That’s a good question. The Oil for Food program was established in December 1996, a time when Iraq was plagued with high levels of malnutrition and soaring mortality rates, especially for children. At the time, the Clinton Administration was under extreme pressure from humanitarian groups and other governments to improve the humanitarian situation or end sanctions on Iraq. The Clinton Administration and other governments agreed to establish an imperfect program that provided large scope for profiteering and abuse. But in general the program represented a success for the Clinton Administration. The Oil for Food program relieved political pressure on the Administration by lowering mortality rate. It also allowed the continuation of sanctions. The United States, meanwhile, turned its attention to preventing Iraq from using the program to importing weapons and other military components. On that score, the program was a great success. The United States and the United Nations were aware of the abuses of the program but seemed to agree it was a price worth paying.

MICHAEL EISENSTADT, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Security Studies Program Director, May 2, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Over how much of Iraq does the new government actually have functional control?
EISENSTADT: That is an interesting question, which is not easy to answer from Washington. On the one hand, government ministries are functioning, and are carrying out various projects in many parts of Iraq in conjunction with U.S. government civilian and military organizations. Likewise, Iraqi Security Forces have established a unilateral presence in parts of the country (in both relatively stable regions, as well as parts of the country—including some neighborhoods of Baghdad—which are considered bastions of the insurgency)—although they are backed up by coalition forces.
In other parts of the country (such as large parts of the Sunni triangle—encompassing Anbar, Ninawa, and Saladin provinces—and parts of Baghdad. Babil province, and Diyala province), there is no effective central government presence, and the U.S. military is the only authority. In these areas, because coalition forces are stretched thin, tribal militias, insurgent organizations, political parties associated with the insurgency, and criminal gangs, may be the sole authority.
But beyond this, it is very hard to quantify the extent of government control.

STEVE COLL, Washington Post Associate Editor, May 31, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: There are reports that Colin Powell privately expressed doubts about how well the war in Iraq is going. We have barely secured Baghdad. We do not seem to have the hearts, minds, and support of the Iraqi people for a pro-American government. In your assessment, how are we doing in Iraq?
COLL: I haven’t been over there recently, so I’m really not in a position to say. I did talk to a sober-minded colleague who travels there regularly and who said that in comparison to February, when the elections had given them a sense of new and positive momentum, that today they were comparatively glum/ But who knows. Hearts and minds are volatile organisms, we all know.

NORA BEHSAHEL, RAND Corporation Policy Analyst, June 7, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Part of the long range goal is to create a stable Iraq. Shouldn’t we be doing more to provide Iraq with stable lies, in terms of basic necessities such as public utilities, public safety.? It seems we have concentrated on the military objectives while forgetting the final objective. Plus, wouldn’t we win more respect and confidence of the Iraqi people, and indeed the rest of the world, if we devoted more attention to the social needs of the Iraqi people?
BEHSAHEL: In the long term, power, education, jobs, and opportunities are critical ingredients of a successful and stable Iraq. The problem is, though, that none of those things can be achieved while the security situation is so dangerous. Jobs can’t be created and kids can’t be educated if people are afraid to leave their houses. The United States and the international community are undertaking many, many measures to try to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens, but many of those measures are undermined by the continuing insurgency. The insurgents, for example, have continued to blow up pipelines almost as quickly as they can be repaired, which limits the amount of revenue that the central government has to spend on social services. So, the best way—indeed, the only way—to provide basic social services in Iraq is to create a more stable security position first, so Iraqis feel safe in their own country and believe that any investments they make in the future will not be undone by political instability.

MICHAEL SMITH. Sunday Times of London Reporter, June 16, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: In your research, did you or any reporter you know come across War College or other military-academic research that indicated that Saddam Hussein likely no longer had weapons of mass destruction and that a foreign invasion of a country such as Iraq with a strong anti-American sentiment would be a costly venture? It seems the military academicians and intelligence reports had the facts right, but this information never filtered upwards to the White House or, if it did, it was ignored, nor did the press ever consider any of it useful except for perhaps a one day news spin and then was quickly forgotten.
SMITH: I think it is clear from the documents themselves that the whole venture was widely viewed as being highly dubious with no certainty of what would come of it. The Administration ensured that it only got the answers it wanted. But they either ignored the advice they were getting on the likely cost or managed to filter it out with this highly pressurized regime of come up with the right answers, or we will be on your back to do so all the time. That is what resulted in the National Intelligence Estimated of October 2002 which was designed by George Tenent to get a questioning Congress off the President’s back. Everyone has heard about the British “dodgy” dossiers but the actual intelligence analysis, the so-called JIC report, on which the main dossier was based spoke mostly of weapons programs, i.e. production of the agent that would be put into weapons, rather than actual stockpiled weapons. The closet it came to saying there were actually any weapons was to say there “may be” 1.5 tons of VX gas, a conclusion that went back to the conclusions of the UNSCOM weapons inspectors in 1998. The CIA’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on the other hand, said there were probably up to 500 tons of chemical weapons in Iraq. That gives you a feel of the kind of distortion that was going on. But as for the idea that he has very active programs going on, well everyone, including the French and the Russians, thought that. There was a kind of group think that no one was challenging.
CZIKOWSKY: George W. Bush once slipped during a speech and stated he was upset that Saddam Hussein had tried to kill his father. Is this a possible explanation for his fixation over Saddam Hussein? Indeed, perhaps if he had been more honest about it, it might have been understood more.
SMITH: Maybe. That was clearly the view of Peter Ricketts when he said in one of the memos that it looked like a grudge match.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, Stanford University Hoover Institute historian, September 6, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: People in Iraq and throughout what used to be Arabia have a long history of resisting the intervention of military forces from foreign nations. Wouldn’t it be better, as a general strategy, to spread democracy and mutual understanding more through economic development assistance, trade, and diplomacy than attempting to force it through military occupation?
HANSON: In an ideal world, yes. But after the 1991 Gulf War, 11 years of occupying his air space, four attacks on regional neighbors, genocide, and legitimate worries over his past record of doing everything from harboring the 1993 World Trade Center bomber, Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, providing shelter for Afghan terrorists like Zarqawi, and sending Iraq intelligence agents to promote terrorism, the decision was made to remove him, and second, not to leave as in the past, but do the dirty work of staying on, reconstructing the country, and trying to offer a real chance at freedom. I note I was not in favor of the 1998 letter to President Clinton by some asking for Saddam’s removal. I supported the war only in the context of a post-September 11 world.

DANA PRIEST, Washington Post Staff Writer, September 8, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: I have a question on the security guards protecting business interests in Iraq. They seem to be very close to being military troops without actually being such. As they essentially a private army, or do they coordinate their activities with Defense Department officials?
PRIEST: They are private armies and their coordination with the military has been extremely ad hoc. It sort of depends on the military commanders in a given area and how much they want to coordinate. Some of this depends on personal relations with the men in the private companies, who are generally former military and may know people in uniform on the ground. In the beginning, there were really no runs of the road, no standardized rules of engagement and no real way to hold accountable private security people who broke the law or killed people by mistake (or not by mistake). This is still not a high priority. On the other hand, given the insecurity in the country, many sectors—including the Iraqi government, U.S. diplomats and CIA officials and private, foreign, and Iraqi businesses—could not function without them.

GEORGE PACKER, author, October 10, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Has it ever been concluded whether or not we could have prevented Iraq’s initial invasion of Kuwait? There have been articles written that stated that Saddam Hussein informed the American Ambassador to Iraq of his plans for the invasion and that our government responded that we would not interfere. Do you believe there is truth to that, and, if it is true, do you think we deceived Saddam Hussein into invading so we could then use that as grounds to attack him, or do you think it was a change of policy after the attack that we then felt a need to defend Kuwait?
PACKER: I only know what you do: that the Administration of George H.W. Bush signaled to Saddam that it regarded his dispute with Kuwait as a matter outside American interests. It’s a long way from that to a deliberate effort to deceive him in order to go to war, though. In general, my reporting on Iraq has taught me that ad-hoc improvisation, lack of imagination, and incompetence are far stronger characteristics of the U.S. government than Machiavellian conspiracy.

NATHAN BROWN, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Democracy and Rule of Law Project Senior Associate, October 12, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Terrorists and anti-government militants are flocking into Iraq. How can a Constitution hold together a country with such a large minority that seek to destroy it, regardless?
BROWN: It will be difficult. The hope was that the process of writing a constitution would wean the constituency away from the insurgency and towards parties that are willing to participate. It wasn’t a bad idea, but I don’t think it has really worked.

ZAINAB SALBI, Women for Women International Founder, October 12, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Did you ever meet any of Saddam Hussein’s sons and, if so, how stable (or lack thereof) did you find them?
SALBI: I never had a conversation with his sons. It was hard to miss seeing Udday. He was known as the rapist of Baghdad and he constantly toured Iraqi colleges and different clubs as he hunted women. Udday definitely had a crazy side to him. That’s not only in terms of the stories of his violence towards women, but also in the way he dressed, in the way he had his parties, and the way he forced so many people to dance when he wanted them to dance, to strip when he wanted them to strip. He was feared by every single woman in Iraq. I’m lucky not to have been hurt by him.

BERNARD FINEL, National War College Professor of Military Strategy and Operations, October 13, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Insurgents are hearing rallying cries and are pouring into Iraq. The constitution is but one specific goal they hope to destroy. Is the effort to create a constitutional government in Iraq slowly stabilizing the country, making it less safe, or is this something that only time will tell?
FINEL: Only time will tell. It depends on how the constitutional referendum turns out---do Sunnis vote? If so, pro or con? Is there violence? Do the winter elections come off successfully? Do ideologues or compromisers dominate the new government? And so on.
I do think the Administration is correct in pointing out that violence on the eve of the referendum is probably temporary, although I do have concerns when this argument is spun around to claim that violence is actually a good thing, i.e. “escalating violence shows that the extremists are getting nervous because the tide is turning against them.”

PAUL R. WILLIAMS, American University International Service Professor, October 19, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Would it be a wise strategy of Saddam Hussein to use the tribunal to introduce testimony that would embarrass the United States, especially noting the quiet support the U.S. gave him during the Reagan and Bush Administrations? While having nothing to do with his brutality, could he play for international sympathy by portraying himself as someone who was supported by the United States, even given no objection to invading Kuwait by the American Ambassador, and then was invaded contrary to international law by the current government? Or is the judicial system designed to prevent such unrelated testimony from being introduced?
WILLIAMS: Under international law, the defendant generally has wide latitude to argue his defense. In the Yugoslav Tribunal the judges have allowed the defendants to raise the argument of complicity of international actors and forces. The Yugoslav Tribunal has not, however, required international actors to come to the trial and testify. We can fully expect that Saddam will make the argument relating to international support for his activities and it will be up to the Iraqi judges to determine whether these are relevant and admissible.

MICAH GAREN and MARIE-HELENE CARLETON, documentary journalists, October 20, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Would you please describe the moments when you were originally taken hostage? What was going through your mind?
GAREN: Those moments are played out almost in slow motion, you really watch everything in front of you, and the terror becomes something you can almost taste. I knew that I could be killed in an instant in the market as the crowd began to go crazy, and you just hold onto anything to try to save yourself. It is like being caught in a sudden storm and being tossed around violently, and you appeal to anyone who will listen, and say whatever you can to try to regain some control and calm the situation down. My thoughts were focused on “if someone would just listen to reason, they would know they could kill us.” It really was a desperate appeal to reason, but those moments were about anger and deep emotion for those around us, not reason.
CZIKOWSKY: Did you feel resistance was impossible or dangerous?
GAREN: I was really determined to resist and break free through the entire ten days, but I knew it was very dangerous. I put my chances at 10 to 20% of making it out alive if we tried to escape. Still, if I knew for certain they were planning to kill me, that is what I had decided to do.
CZIKOWSKY: It is advised never to pay ransom as it only encourages more kidnappings. Marie, if you could have obtained Micah’s release by paying a ransom, what would you have done?
CARLETON: We are very fortunate that we did not have to make that decision, as Micah’s release was brought about by appeals and the work of journalists and others on the ground in Iraq.
It is impossible to answer a situation that thankfully for us became a hypothetical. There were times when we felt we would do anything to get Micah out, and in fact his kidnappers first talked about money to him, though never to us. But it quickly became political, and the death threat was linked to the Coalition fighting in Najaf against Sadr and the Mahdi Army.
The position to not negotiate with kidnappers and to not pay a ransom does makes sense as a policy, but when a family is faced with the possible murder of a loved one, they of course consider anything. It is difficult to say what one would do when pushed to that extreme, and I would not want to judge anyone who has been forced to make a tortuous decision where a loved one’s life hangs in the balance.

PEGGY BURYJ, mother of solider killed in Iraq, January 19, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: In your efforts (to determine if her son was killed by friendly fire), have you received any information on what proportion of deaths in Iraq are officially due to friendly fire, and how accurate do you believe such figures to be?
BURYJ: I think that Josh White found out there have been just 11 friendly fire cases in Iraq. I find that hard to believe.
CZIKOWSKY: We are sorry for your loss. While figures are hard to ascertain, it should be noted that some military scholars estimate that as high as one fourth of the deaths in some battles are due to friendly fire. We would cast doubt on an estimate that there have only been 11 friendly fire deaths during the Iraq war.
BURYJ: It doesn’t make sense—the numbers don’t add up. I agree.

JOEL CAMPAGNA, Committee to Protect Journalists Middle East and North Africa Program Coordinator, January 30, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Of the 14 journalists killed by American fire, what news agencies were they from and what were the circumstances of their deaths?
CAMPAGNA: They were from various news organizations and the circumstances also differed. Several journalists were killed in crossfire while covering clashes between military forces and insurgents. For notably, during the war in 2003, two journalists, one from Reuters, another from the Spanish television channel Telecinco were killed when a U.S. tank opened fire on Baghdad’s Palestine Hotel. Also, in 2003, a correspondent for al Jazeera was killed when a U.S. military aircraft opened fire just outside of the station’s Baghdad bureau.

JOHN LEWIS GADDIS, Yale University History Professor, January 31, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Do you see any lessons from the Cold War, such as what we learned from fighting a guerilla nationalist enemy in Viet Nam, that could be useful in advising current policy makers?
GADDIS: Sure, you can always learn things from history. The most important thing is to be clear on how the current situation is similar to, and different from, the Viet Nam situation. One example of each. A similarity is that what happens on the home front will certainly affect our ability to fight the war in which we’re engaged. A difference is that it’s not the same kind of war: Iraq is not Viet Nam.

BERNARD FINEL, National War College Military Strategy and Operations Professor, March 2, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Do you have an assessment as to the degree to which the Iraqi internal strife is being prompted by foreign sources? Iraq and Iran fought a long and gruesome war and we should presume Iran has a strong interest in Iraq’s future. In addition, there are several countries and organizations without boundaries that have interests in Iraq. Are there estimates as to what percentage of combatants are from outside Iraq, and how must support and what kind of support they are receiving from sources outside Iraq?
FINEL: As you know, this is the source of much, much debate. There are a couple of issues to keep in mind. First, the amount of support may or may not correlate with the importance of the support. In other words, it is possible that even small numbers of outsiders are making a big difference. Second, while it is tempting to blame Iraq’s troubles on foreign trouble makers, it strikes me that there are sufficient domestic sources of tension to result in violence regardless. There are plenty of weapons and disgruntled folks on the grounds. In other words, I don’t think we have a good idea of either the extent or importance of foreign trouble makers at this point.
CZIKOWSKY: To what degree do you think the presence of foreign military powers such as the United States has affecting the infighting within Iraq, and are these affects increasing or decreasing the violence?
FINEL: Interesting question. There is a school of thought that says that external intervention in domestic conflicts just prolongs the conflict. Proponents of this position will argue that it is best to just let conflicts run their course and ‘burn themselves out” more quickly. Maybe. It is hard to tell because the argument relies on a counter-factual claim—that Iraq would or would not be more stable if the U.S. were gone. But we face a moral quandary that complicates the issue. How much responsibility (morally rather than practically) does the U.S. have for the future of Iraq? Colin Powell argued that “if you break it, you bought it.” By that logic, we have to try to actively mitigate the violence, and pulling out on the hope that doing so will make things better is hard to justify. On the other hand, I do think it is worth asking whether we really feel we have “bought it” or whether at some point we can say, “Look, we removed Saddam as a matter of national interest. We’ve given you three years to help you get back on your feet. We’re leaving. Good luck.” If you can get to that point and still look yourself in the mirror, then your question becomes much more decisive.
CZIKOWSKY: How certain are you that majority rule will work in Iraq? The Sunni minority reacted to their past oppression by installing Saddam Hussein, who of course then developed a government that protected minority Sunni rights yet created his own oppressive government. Don’t we need a means to make Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds all feel safe and secure? Majority rule works in America because Democrats and Republicans both know they have the possibilities of electing their leaders. In Iraq, majority rule probably means domination by Shiite leaders. Would that work in Iraq?
FINEL: In the short-run you are right. In the long run, I don’t think you are. After a few elections, I suspect that people will vote on merit and platform rather than just ethnic/sectarian divides. The challenge is keeping the system working until you get to the point where political mobilization is based on issues rather than identity.

FRANCIS FUKUYAMA, author, March 28, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I find it interesting that people claim that “conservatives” are expected to support the war in Iraq. Going to war is neither a liberal nor conservative issue but one based on whether there is a proper need to go to war. As I recall, before we went to war, there were strong reservations expressed about going to war from Patrick
Buchanan, Tucker Carlson, Robert Novak, and other conservatives. More recently, the war has been questioned by William F. Buckley, Jr. and even more conservatives. My question: why do “neocons” seem to think they get to define conservative thought, and why is their defense of the war (as Anne Coulter does) is to challenge the patriotism of those who oppose their way when many of the most patriotic Americans opposed the war from the very beginning?
FUKUYAMA: Your answer is as good as mine. I know many long-time conservatives who opposed the war and there is no reason to question their patriotism whatsoever.

PHIL SANDS, kidnapped journalist, April 3, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: When you stated that no one knew you were missing during the six days you were gone, I began wondering” is no one really keeping tabs of the whereabouts of journalists? Also, I presume this means the kidnappers do not always announce when they have kidnapped someone?
SANDS: No; we keep tabs on ourselves. I mean, the Iraqi government knew where I was, and the US military authorities knew I was in Iraq but we are responsible for ourselves.
The kidnappers can choose their moment for announcing a new victim. They don’t need to hurry, especially if no one escaped (as sometimes happens) to alert the authorities.

PETER GALBRAITH, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Fellow, August 8, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I agree with you that the solution to the problems in Iraq may be best to partition the country and to allow Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd domination of three new countries. I suggested something similar and an expert stated that we Americans perceive there are more difference between these ethnic groups then really exists and that such an idea was nonsensical. Yet, since these groups are killing each other, doesn’t it indeed make more sense to agree that their differences can not be resolved, at least in the short term, and it may best to separate their leadership and all the leaders of each community to lead their followers? What is your thinking?
GALBRAITH: Kurds and Arabs are quite distinct nations, speaking very different languages. Kurdish is an Indo-European language while Arabic is a Semitic language. The Kurds have never wanted to be part of Iraq and now have a de facto independent state with their own government, army, and flag. Kurdistan law prohibits the Iraqi Army from coming into Kurdistan without permission from the Kurdistan Parliament. Central government ministries do not operate in Kurdistan and the Iraqi flag is banned. In January 2005, Kurds voted 98% for independence in an informal referendum. Kurds and Arabs are not fighting each other now, but the Kurds will never voluntarily agree to any control from Baghdad.
Iraq’s Arabs are 25% Sunni and 75% Shiites. These are religious not ethnic differences but increasing they operate more like ethnic or national differences. As long as the now dominant Shiites define themselves by religion, they exclude the Sunni Arabs who also resent the loss of their historic domination of Iraq.
I believe an independent Kurdistan is inevitable—not this year but likely in the next decade. At the moment, the Sunni-Shiite civil war is a struggle for domination of Arab Iraq. Forming distinct Sunni Arab and Shiite regions—with the weak central government already enshrined in Iraq’s Constitution—is probably the best way to limit the civil war. It is possible—by far from certain—that a Shiite and Sunni entity would become fully dependent.

DANIEL L. BYNAM, Georgetown University Center for Peace and Security Studies Director, August 21, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: What would happen if we were to announce that we declare that Iraq is indeed in civil war and that our military presence from now on will be only of a police nature to protect citizens from being killing by others, yet otherwise we are not interfering except to assist Iraq in its rebuilding of its infrastructure and its economic development?
BYNAM: The practical problems with such an impartial approach are twofold. First, rebuilding Iraq is a political act that threatens some groups—if parts of Iraq are more stable, and better off, some warlords will lose influence. So what seems like an uncontroversial act (building a hospital or a school) will lead some people to use violence to stop it. Second, much of the conflict now involves the sort of policing you describe—so we would still be heavily involved in the day-to-day violence, as we are now.
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts on the proposal of Professor Galbraith and others to divide Iraq into multiple countries with different warring groups in control of their own portion of the country?
BYNAM: I wrote a piece ten years ago that basically said “if Iraq falls into three pieces, it is not bad for U.S. interest.”
I’ve changed my views in a number of ways since then. First, I overestimated the solidity of the Iraqi Shi’a. Shi’a infighting is horrendous, and it is not clear whether there could be a “Shi’astan” that comes out of Iraq. The Kurds have the capacity and probably the unity to pull it off, but I’m not sure about the rest of the country. Second, when I wrote the piece, I did not think this would be done after the United States occupied Iraq. Having partition occur is one thing…creating a mess and then having it occur is another.
This is compounded by the practical difficulties of partition. Who gets what? What do you do about pockets of one community living inside areas dominated by others/ And, of course, partition might lead some neighboring states, particularly Turkey, to meddle even more.
But Iraq may end up partitioned in the end, at least in a de facto sorta way. (Right now, the Kurdish north enjoys a high degree of autonomy, and it is reasonable to call it a de facto state.) If the U.S. leaves (and even if it doesn’t), the war could go in about 20 different directions, some of which lead to partition.

T. CHRISTIAN MILLER, Los Angeles Times Investigative Reporter, September 5, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Are our reconstruction efforts what the Iraqi people want, or are they what we want them to have? Do we guide our construction efforts towards what we can build and should we spend more time figuring our types of needs, building design, open spaces, parks, etc. that the Iraqi public might prefer? When I read about a country that needs schools, electricity, and infrastructure, I wonder to what degree our construction is meeting their most urgent needs, and whether we are mostly building bricks and mortar that only becomes an open invitation for terrorists to destroy?
MILLER: All very good questions.
First, Iraqis have had only limited participation in the rebuilding, especially in the days after the invasion. Iraqi frequently complaint that they have had no input, and don’t know what’s going on.
Second, most international development specialists that I have talked to said that the Pentagon’s reconstruction philosophy was simply wrong. Building large infrastructure projects in 2nd and 3rd world countries usually results in lots of white elephants. The Iraqis need basic, simple improvements that deliver immediate results, rather than what we gave them.
CZIKOWSKY: Who is overseeing what is being spent in Iraq and how it is being spent, and why does it appear that the audits only find outrageous expenditures long after they have been made?
MILLER: Stuart Bowen was appointed by the Pentagon to be the Special Inspector General for the Reconstruction of Iraq. It’s Bowen’s job to oversee spending for the rebuilding project, now worth about $30 billion.
Your point on the time lag is well made. .Bown has frequently said that he wants to be a “real time” auditor. During interviews, he has told me that he has tried to speed up the process and frequently communicates his findings as soon as he finds them. I tell in my book how he’s won over many of his critics by his willingness to criticize waste and abuse in Iraq.

CINDY SHEEHAN, activist, September 25, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: This is not a question for you, but for your critics who presume that any criticism of our country means that we do not love our country. Why do such critics think we can not attempt to improve this country that we love by recommending changes that will improve it? We do so because we love our country. Please do not attempt to label any critic as one who does not love his or her country, and please do not especially do so to the families of those who have put a family member forward in defense of this country.
SHEEHAN: I agree. I think our country has been founded on dissent and shaped by dissent and patriotic people who are trying to make our country a better place.

DANA PRIEST, Washington Post Staff Writer, September 28, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Obviously, President Bush disagrees with the intelligence report that his policies have spread terrorism. What is the general feeling among the rank and file in the intelligence community: do they believe the White House is ignoring them, or how do they feel about the interpretation of their data by the decision makers?
PRIEST: Ignoring them. Just read the NIE and decide for yourself. No amount of spin can undo what is written there. It’s pretty darn clear.

JIM VANDEHEI, Washington Post National Political Reporter, October 20, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Yesterday President Bush was in Pennsylvania claiming that Democrats who want to withdraw troops from Iraq are essentially unpatriotic. Today, it appears possible that the white House may be considered withdrawing troops just before the elections? Is the President and his speechwriters the last to know of possible changes in policy?
VANDEHEI: Several GOP strategists have told me in recent days that they are very concerned that Bush appears disconnected from what is happening on the ground in Iraq. Ed Rogers, a prominent GOP adviser, said Bush should telegraph now that changes are coming so voters don’t think GOPers are offering more of the same. This is another of the worse kept secrets in Washington: changes are coming AFTER the election.

MICHAEL WEISSKOPF, Time Magazine Senior Correspondent. October 26, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I understand the protective vests are saving lives in Iraq, but the public seems not to be aware that there are very high injury rates. The vests do not protect limbs. How many soldiers have been injured in Iraq, and are there figures on how many soldiers have lost hands, feet, legs, and arms? Is it true the Pentagon would prefer we not know these numbers?
WEISSKOPF: More than 20,000 American soldiers have been wounded in action. Roughly 500 of them have lots limbs-arms or legs. The rate of amputation is twice that of other wars in the past century, except for Viet Nam, for which there are no good statistics.
CZIKOWSKY: Where do the plans to close Walter Reed Hospital stand? What will happen to the people in the amputation ward, patients and staff, and how do they feel about the planned closure?
WEISSKOPF: The place is scheduled to be closed in the next few years, but government procurement often moves slower than that. As long as the expertise is shifted to a military center in Bethesda, I am confident the service will be as excellent. However, it will be sad to see an institution that has cared for wounded soldiers since the first World War be closed.

ANTHONY SHADID, Washington Post Staff Writer, October 30, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Have you been estimates in the Iraqi press or Iraqi sources as to the number of civilian casualties during the current conflict and during Desert Storm? There are controversial reports that 600,000 have died during the current fighting and that 200,000 died during Desert Storm. Do you believe that the American public has a clear understanding of the degree of civilian deaths in Iraq from these conflicts?
SHADID: I can’t really speak to the number, but I could say something about the last part of your question. I’ve spent a lot of time in Iraq and try to follow it as best I can. And I was struck by how violent the city has become, the extent of the killing and the fear, distrust, and even paranoia it has bred. Virtually every person I talked to while I was there knew a friend, a relative, or a direct family member who had been killed. I’m not sure if I came across an exception to that.

PETER SLEVIN, Washington Post Staff Writer, November 1, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I was reading Michael Weisskopf’s “Blood Brothers” yesterdayl. One thing I noted was how he mentioned that some of the wounded soldiers return with less fanfare than the unwounded. It seems we wish to hail our heroes but hide the fact that war means death and injury. The returnees get warm organized welcomes while the wounded return without much notice. What receptions did the wounded you interviewed find upon their return?
SLEVIN: That’s an interesting point. More than a dozen Lima Marines were wounded seriously to be sent home early, many of them unwillingly. In organizing the company’s return to Columbus on Oct. 7, 2005, Lima leaders arranged for as amny of the wounded as possible to be there when the Marines touched ground.
It was a powerful sight, returning Marines said, to see their friends waiting for them. A number of the wounded Marines said the same. Many of Lima’s men have said that the solidarity of the company and the support of the city has meant more than they can convey.

LARRY KAHANER, author, November 27, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: What were the most popular paths that AK 47s took to reach Iraq? How profited from these sales?
KAHANER: It’s never certain how AKs reach their final destination because of the secretive nature of illegal arms trade. We do know that when the U.S. bought AKs for the Iraqi army they bought them from a dealer in Jordan who in turn bought them from Germany.

NORA BENSAHEL, RAND Corporation Senior Political Scientist, November 27, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Henry Kissinger has written that the United States should turn over the determination of the security of Iraq to the countries of the Arab region. How widespread is attention being provided to this idea?
BENSAHEL: In the past week or so, there has been serious discussion of involving Iraq’s neighbors, particularly Iran and Syria, in discussions about how to quell the ongoing violence. Both countries have interests in a stable Iraq, despite their ongoing policy differences with the United States on other issues. However, I’m not aware of anyone other than Kissinger who has advocated turning over the entire question of Iraq’s future to its neighbors. Right now, Administration policy seems to be to start exploring some engagement with Iraq’s neighbors, and that will likely be one of the major recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission report.
CZIKOWSKY: There has been various proposals that suggest that we divide Iraq into semi-autonomous regions by creating Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd sectors. Is some variation of this idea under consideration and, if so, how much attention does it seem to be receiving?
BENSAHEL: There have been several proposals for the partition of Iraq into three regions, based on the major ethnic divisions. I do not know how seriously this idea has been taken by the Administration, but most Iraq experts and military analysts believe that it is not practical and would actually incite a great deal more violence. There is a lot of intermixing of ethnic groups in Iraq, particularly but not only in Baghdad. So any partition of the country along ethnic lines would likely spark violence against the minorities in each area (Shiites living in Sunni region, Kurds in the Shiite region, and so on). Furthermore, the Sunni area has far fewer resources than the other two areas, which would most likely lead some elements of that community to resist any partition by force.

DAVID ROTHKOPF, Carnegie Endowment Visiting Scholar, December 11, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Is there a way that we can redefine our role in Iraq, such as form one with a military presence to one that is based only on humanitarian assistance and economic development, that might defuse the anger our presence brings yet will allow us to help guide Iraq towards a stronger society without our military forces being involved?
ROTHKOPF: We should certainly seek a more balanced involved in Iraq and across the region…one that is more oriented towards the diplomatic, political, and economic tools in our arsenal and one the seeks to restore our role as being a more constructive actor in the region. There is no way to eliminate the military component in a region where many factions and states are willing to take hostile and destructive actions that threaten our real and lasting interests. So, again….balance.

KAREN DeYOUNG, Washington Post Associate Editor, March 20, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: I have heard discussions on why Saddam Hussein would indicate he had weapons of mass destruction when it turns out he did not have them. This question seems to have perplexed people. My question: Do you think Saddam Hussein did that, not because he feared American retaliation if he had such weapons, but because he more feared Iran, and thought Iran would be less likely to attack if they thought he could respond with such weapons?
DeYOUNG: Lots of different opinions on this one. Some say he faked it because it gave him power over his own people. Others believe it was to intimidate the neighborhood. Still others that he had grandiose ideas about his global stature. I suspect all are true.

DEBORAH SCRANTON, director, March 12, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Was there a focus on the footage (in “The War Tapes”) that was shot, i.e. what percent was shot in barracks, what percent was shot on patrol, were they shots during battle?
SCRANTON: Filming took place over a year and a half. Ten soldiers initially agreed to take cameras, Steve Pink, Mike Moriarty, Zack Bazzi, Brandon Wilkins, and Duncan Domey filmed the entire year. In total 21 soldiers from Charlie Company, 3rd of the 172nd Mountain Infantry filmed for the project. The soldiers themselves filmed over 800 hours of footage, we filed an additional 200 hours statewide with both them and their families. The soldiers filmed whenever they could and felt like doing it. It was pretty across the board as far as in the barracks, on patron, and during battle.

THOMAS E. RICKS, Washington Post Staff Writer, April 17, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What do you see as some of the unintended consequences of our policies in Iraq in different countries? What do you see would be the reaction throughout the Middle East if, in the future, we acted primarily on providing humanitarian assistance and much less on military response except to protect threatened communities?
RICKS: The interesting thing is to a surprising degree, what you are describing here is now the U.S. military policy in Iraq. The most important aspect of the so-called surge isn’t the increase in troops, it is the changed U.S. posture and mindset that moves troops off the big bases and into smaller outposts across Baghdad—and then focuses them on protecting the people. General Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has made that mission explicit in his letters to his troops. There are mixed signs as to whether this is working.
If you ask U.S. commanders where they would like to be in a few months. It would be to have the bulk of their troops dedicated to protecting the people and backing up Iraqi security forces confronting insurgents and militias, with only a small Special Operations force focused on hard-core terrorists and foreign fighters. Those foreigners have never been as big a part of the enemy as many Americans seem to believe, U.S. commanders in Iraq have told me.

LOIS ROMANO, Washington Post National Political Reporter, May 7, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Don’t Minority Leader John Boehner’s comments that he expects to see success in Iraq by the fall effectively place a date on Bush’s Iraq policy? Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates is telling Iraq they need to create a timetable on taking over from our troops. Whatever you call it, it seems that just about everyone except the White House is in at least conceptual agreement that there needs to be a future arrangement with the next year or so when we need to start brining at least most of the troops back. Or am I wrong?
ROMANO: Republicans are just as frustrated as Democrats about what is happening in Iraq. The common mantra these days is to wait for September to see what is happening. There is a view (and hope) among Democrats that if the situation in Iraq does not improve by then, Republicans will start breaking with the President openly. Right now, they are still sticking together to give him the funding he wants.

THOMAS E. RICKS, Washington Post Staff Writer, May 8, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What is the latest on the private security forces in Iraq? Do they still act independently from military operations? I ask because previous articles have observed that some of these security forces more resemble soldiers of fortune who are fighting an almost separate war in protecting business interests. Is it good or bad that businesses use private security forces?
RICKS: This is a very important subject. I think of the aspects of the Iraq War that historians will note is the heavy reliance of the U.S. military on contractors—not must for logically support, as in other ways, but also as “trigger pullers” guarding VIPs and other contractors.

BOB WOODWARD, Washington Post Assistant Managing Director, May 8, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Are you aware of any reactions that George Tenet had towards your review of his book (“At the Center of the Storm”)?
WOODWARD: Other words, what’s the review of the review? I have no idea.
The review does not that some of the chapters, particularly on terrorists possibly obtaining nuclear weapons, are worth the price of the book all by themselves. Tenet comes out quite strongly and makes a compelling case that terrorism directed in the U.S. is not over. I unfortunately think he’s right.

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN, Washington Post Associate Editor, May 29, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: If we withdraw from Iraq, what are the capabilities and trustworthiness that nearby countries may be able to take more active roles in keeping Iraq as calm as possible?
CHANDRASEKARAN: Very slim, in my opinion. While the neighbors say they want Iraq to be more stable, it’s not at all clear all of them really want that. Even if they do, there is no definition of stability to which they would all agree. Iran wants to continue expanding its influence in Shiite-dominated Iraq. The Sunni neighbors—Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria—are very concerned about the growing influence of Iran in Iraq, and even more so by what they regard as the persecution of Sunnis by Shiite militias. Those nations are already funneling aid to Iraq’s Sunnis. If they deem Iraq’s Sunnis to be under greater threat from an Iranian-backed, Shiite-led Iraqi government, those nations almost certainly will increase support for Iraq’s Sunnis. It’s hard to see either side backing down. Bottom line: Iraq’s neighbors are doing—and likely will continue eto do—more harm than good in Iraq,

RAY TAKEYH, Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow, June 18, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: To perhaps oversimplify the problem in Iraq, there are two sides, each of which has a “winner take all” strategy. What strategies do you see that will get each side to agree to find some compromise, or do you think this is not something that cannot expect to change, at least during the current generation?
TAKEYH: The sectarian conflict in Iraq unfortunately will likely be mediated through a degree of violence. At this point a civil war is not to be avoided.

THOMAS E. RICKS, Washington Post Staff Writer, June 19, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Seriously, is there any proposed solution to Iraq that does not involve the likely result of a long and bloody civil war? If so, what is it?
RICKS: I think the beginning of wisdom is to recognize that there aren’t a lot of options left. The question is, what is the least bad option available?
As one official put it to me when I was out there last month, ‘We can leave in such a way as to make the situation worse, or we can try to develop an approach the mitigates the damage we have done.’
What we are trying to do now is operate tactically in such a way as to create breathing space for strategic political movement. (That is, the goal of the so-called “surge” isn’t simply to make Baghdad safer, it is to try to lead to a political accommodation of some sort.) So far, that isn’t happening.
So the thinking about a post-occupation force of perhaps 40,000 or 50,000 troops is trying to answer, OK, what do you do next year? I think it is as much about preventing negative outcomes as trying to win positive ones. That is, in many ways, the American goals in Iraq are now to prevent various forms of disaster: genocide, full-blown civil war, or a regional war. Not nice, but there you are. If you can get more than that—like a stable Iraqi government trusted by the people and able to reduce violence—that is just frosting on this sorry cake.

STEVE FAINARU, Washington Post Staff Writer , Jul 20, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Do I understand correctly that security contractors are absolved from liability for their actions? If so, what limitations are placed on them? Surely they are not allowed to torture, shoot civilians, or shoot even our own troops.
FAINARU: Under Order 17, a law created by the old US occupation authority, contractors are immune from Iraqi law, that is, they can’t be prosecuted in Iraq. One Triple Canopy guy said he was told by the company that if something went awry he would be spirited out of the country in the back of a truck. The US laws are more confusing. There’s been efforts to place the contractors under military law (UCMJ) or a law that applied to civilians under contract to the military (MEJA). There’s a MEJA case ongoing, but the issue hasn’t been resolved. It’s murky, for sure.

CHARLES FERGUSON, documentary producer, July 30, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Prior to the war in Iraq, there were academic reports from the War College questioning the need and success of a war in Iraq, and the press presented several reports from intelligence officials and experts that also both questioned whether there was a need to attack a Saddam Hussein who had been stabilized and was unable to move without immediate and fierce retribution. Does your film revisit some of these experts who were, correctly it turns out, warning that destabilizing Iraq with an attack was both unnecessary and very risky and would not be resolved in a couple of days with people greeting us with flowers (as Cheney predicted)?
FERGUSON: Several studies including one from the Army War College examined the challenges posed by an occupation of Iraq and all recommended a much large occupying force as well as a variety of other measures ignored by the Busy Administration. Several warned of the risk of sectarian conflict, of looting and of the need to demonstrate immediate tangible benefits to the population. In general, they concluded that a successful occupation was possible but would be risky, difficult, and would require enormous resources.
CZIKOWSKY: Does your film (“No End in Sigh”) look into one question that I believe has never been fully answered: since it turns out that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction (and probably only pretended he might have them to increase his standing with his neighboring countries, as some had speculated), why did we not wait until the inspectors finished their job of searching for the weapons? If we had put off the invasion until the inspectors had finished their job, we would have had a better knowledge of the threat—or lack of a threat—that Saddam Hussein posed.
FERGUSON: The Bush Administration was eager to invade and felt pressured to do so before the summer when heat and wind would make military operations extremely difficult. The Administration also felt that it would be too expensive to keep 150,000 soldiers in place, which is ironic, given the current state of affairs.

SHANNON SCRIBNER, Oxfam American Senior Policy Advisor, August 14, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: It amazes me when our leaders believe that a country will greet us with flowers and open arms when they saw, according to Defense Department estimates of approximately 200,000 deaths the previous time we were there in Desert Storm. Now the Iraqis have seen more deaths and serious disruptions of their lives. This question should be obvious, but I ask it because still don’t realize it, but: don’t we win more friends in other countries by aiding the country and improving the lives of their people? Shouldn’t we do more for humanitarian efforts, both to help others, yet also to serve as a model for other countries that the way to better diplomacy is through assistance?
SCRIBNER: Oxfam opposed the war from the beginning due to concerns about the disproportionate effect the war would have on civilian lives. Today in Iraq this is what we are seeing. 70% of people are without adequate water supplies compared to 50% in 2003, 80% lack sanitation, 43% live in poverty. Of the 180 hospitals countrywide, 90% lack key resources including basic medical supplies, 28% of children are malnourished today compared to 19% in 2003 and 92% of children suffer from learning problems mostly due to the climate of fear.

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK, State Department Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion Member August 21, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What is the policy of the State Department towards using more humanitarian assistance to win international respect? More specifically, when will we put a greater focus on rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq? I know we have made a lot of efforts in that direction, yet a lot remains to be done.
MURAVCHIK: As I understand, we’ve been trying like heck, and spending accordingly, to rebuild infrastructure but the efforts have been undermined by lack of security and sabotage. Perhaps with Petraeus’s new strategy we have begun providing the needed security in some places.

CRAIG WHITLOCK, Washington Post Berlin Bureau Chief, September 10, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: You are in Berlin. What do people you meet on the streets think of our presence of troops in Iraq?
WHITLOCK: Well, put it this way: I’ve lived in Germany for more than three years. So far, I’ve met two people here who supported the idea of US troops in Iraq. One was a German military officer. The other was an Iranian cab driver who was exiled from his country three years ago. So the US mission there isn’t popular here, to say the least.

JIM GOLBY, 25th Special Troops Battalion Company Commander, October 16, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Have there been any major shifts in any direction in the public sentiment of the Iraqis with whom you are familiar through the duration of the current war and, if so, what have been these shifts?
GOLBY: I have developed many positive relationships with local Iraqis. As my soldiers and I have been able to help them improve security and jump-start their economy, we have developed strong relationships built on mutual respect and increasing trust.

BILL NAGLE, Small Wars Journal Publisher, November 13, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What is the best case scenario, and what is the realistic possibility that Iraq can become a stable country—or does it appear hopelessly bound to continue ethnic fighting?
NAGLE: I think our entire species is hopelessly bound to continue ethnic fighting. We’ve been at it for eons, and even in the heart of the first world we are rife with tensions.
However, once you get out of the Logan’s Run concept and identify with an acceptable level of violence, the answer is definitive—yes, Iraq can become a stable country.

ANNE V. HULL, Washington Post Reporter, December 4, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Would you state that it is fair to assume that the Defense Department wants the public to think that war is all glory and wants the deaths, wounded, and mental illness caused by war to be hidden as much as possible? Sometimes I think one of the lessons the military learned from the Viet Nam War is to not let the cameras onto the battlefield. Coffins cannot be photographed. The wounded do not come back heralded by parades but are sent back individually to their families or stateside hospitals. Is it fair to state this is a deliberate policy?
HULL: It is a deliberate policy to block some access, including the coffins of deceased soldiers. On the other hand, the embedding of reporters during the invasion of Iraq gave great (through controlled) access to the battlefield. Many reports are still embedded with units now. On wounded soldiers, they have been glad to trumpet the medical advances that have kept soldiers alive. But we found it impossible to openly examine what happens after their lives are saved.

BOB DROGIN, Los Angeles Times National Security Correspondent, December 5, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Does your book (“Curveball”) examine the role that Chalabi played in advocating a war, and if so, what are your views on what Chalabi did?
DROGIN: I hope you’ll read the book. Curveball’s brother worked for Chalabi’s organization, the Iraqi National Congress. The CIA became exceptionally concerned that Chalabi sent Curveball out to provide disinformation to the West, as other defectors did. In the end, the CIA interviewed the brother at Chalabi’s Hunting Club residence in Baghdad.
As for my views, I consider Chalabi a charlatan who proved exceptionally capable at convincing many in Washington to support his goal of taking over Iraq.
CZIKOWSKY: Are you familiar with “Ali”, who provided intelligence information to Rep. Curt Weldon? If not, I ask because it is interesting that one anonymous source sees to be able to attempt to influence our decision makers. What should be done to better ascertain the credibility of someone who is the only source of a piece of intelligence?
DROGIN: I recall the case, but not the details. There is nothing inherently wrong with relying on a single-source information if you know the source is reliable, has known access, can document or otherwise provide proof, and the information can be verified through independent means. None of that happened here.
CZIKOWSKY: Are there lessons to be learned from your book for a current intelligence system that states Iran is not a nuclear threat, versus on Executive branch that fears Iran may be pushing us towards World War III?
DROGIN: I hope so. But I wrote my book as a spy story, not a book on policy. It describes how intelligence is supposed to work, and how in this case, it went so catastrophically wrong.

GEORGE PACKARD, New Yorker staff writer, February 11, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What is your sense of the role of the private security contractors who were able to protect American interests in Iraq without fear of prosecution? I know some soldiers in Iraq who believed they were fighting their own separate, personal war, and that it was not coordinated with military efforts. What is your perspective on their role?
PACKARD: They haven’t really protected American interests in Iraq. Keeping their “clients” alive at any cost—even in ten or twenty Iraqi civilians have to die as a result—is ultimately bad for American interests. I don’t think any security jobs in a war zone should be done by private contractors, for just this reason—their motives are not those of the military or of the U.S. government.

DAN SERWER, United States Institute for Peace Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations Vice President. February 19, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Is it possible to get the sides in Iraq to agree to stop killing each other, or is that a hopeless cause? If it is possible, what will it take to get the most extreme violent groups to stop their violence?
SERWER: Violence has dropped dramatically in Iraq, in particular inter-sectarian violence. We are now doing many of the right things: deploying troops into neighborhoods alongside Iraqi security forces, encouraging the ceasefire by Moqtada al Sadr’s Army, enabling Sunni and Shia tribesmen to guard their own communities. The big question is: what next? How do we withdraw from a situation that seems to depend heavily on our presence for stability?
CZIKOWSKY: Is it true that one problem with bricks and mortar construction by Americans is that these projects then become targets for terrorists? Yet, aren’t there other things we could be helping the Iraqi population with where we seem to have fallen behind, such as providing basic services and training teachers, health care employees, and public servants?
SERWER: The short answer to this is “yes”. We should have worried much less about building objects that can be attacked and much more about reconstructing a society that had been devastated by Saddam Hussein.

ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN, Center for Strategic and International Studies Chair in Strategy, March 4, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How much does our military presence in Iraq serve as an inducement for terrorist groups to organize and rally their forces in Iraq? Would it be possible for us to diminish our military support while keeping a secondary presence that does not attract and mobilize the enemy as much? By that I mean fewer brick-and-mortar targets being built by us, but more training, basic services, etc. Would a less physical American military presence and fewer physical terrorist targets deflate the enemy?
CORDESMAN: These are the goals and the current U.S. joint strategic plan for Iraq.
It is far from clear, however, that Iraq has really had a decisive impact on global terrorism. The number of outsiders has never been more that 10% of AQI, if that; the flow of foreign volunteers has been in tens of men per week, and most insurgents have been Iraqi.

SUDARSAN RAGHAVAN, Washington Post Baghdad Bureau Chief, March 25, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I know this is all speculative, but to what degree do you see the absence of foreign troops depressing the strengths of groups seeking their ouster and how much will deflating them on this issue minimize their impact To what degree do you see the Iraqi government being able to create a police-military force that will be able to handle the security and criminal threats within Iraq in the absence of foreign troops?
RAGHAVAN: Let me tell you what many ordinary Iraqis think. For now, they see U.S. troops as the best means of security. This doesn’t mean they like the U.S. occupation, but rather they feel the alternative could be worse. There’s little confidence in the government or its security forces. At the same time, I am noticing the Iraqis stand more up in some areas. In Baghdad, Iraqis control virtually al the checkpoints backed, of course, by U.S. troops.
But you’re right, the million dollar question on the minds of many Iraqis is” What will happen when U.S. troops leave?

REIDAR VISSER, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs Research Fellow, April 8, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What are the ingredients to getting the vast majority of the citizens of Basra to support a national Iraq government, and approximately what timetable might that require?
VISSER: Even though the people of Basra have some regionalist ideas they are also quite fierce in their attachment to Iraqi nationalism. What they object to is discrimination by outsiders, whether from Baghdad or Najaf, Shiite or Sunni. They are increasingly conscious about the fact that most of Iraq’s oil is in their area and they want to see some real improvement in living standards in return. But the “Basra question” is certainly something that can be solved within the framework of a unified Iraq, as long as Basra representatives are taken seriously in key processes, such as the drafting of oil law.

BRIAN TURNER, poet, April 22, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How many poems did you write while in Iraq? I also see you receive your MFA prior. Did you focus on poetry in your studies?
TURNER: I wrote all of “Here, Bullet” while in Iraq (71 pages, including preface material, etc.) plus about 10-15 poems which, as the poet Joe Millar suggested to me, were better off left ‘as woodchips left in the woodshed.’
I also wrote another 10, roughly, in the month we returned. Two or three made it into the final manuscript.
Mostly, though, I wrote journal entries, like a diary. Some pages included diagrams drawn also—of ambushes, patrols, things like that.
My MFA was at the University of Oregon, where I received an MFA in Creative Writing (with an emphasis on poetry/poetics).
All of this began as a teenager—when I started a band, playing bass guitar and trying to write lyrics. The lyrics were horrible, and I stopped writing them. I still play in the band though, and our guitarist writes the lyrics!

JED L. BABBIN, former Deputy U.S. Defense Secretary, April 24, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Why aren’t more drones used, especially to patrol routes to keep alert for terrorist actions along the routs? I see the Air Force is under criticism for not having enough drones in service. Will the new leadership be able to better implement what it seems more everyone agrees will save lives and improve our military operations, which is by placing more eyes in the sky alerting the ground forces as to what is going on around them?
BABBIN: Really good question. I certainly think we need more unmanned aerial vehicle operations,; the issue is crew training and rest. You shouldn’t have to be a rate F-16 pilot to fly a Predator and those who do fly Predators need crew rest like anyone else. They are, I’m told, falling asleep after too many hours in dark rooms.

MARY TILLMAN, mother of the late Army Ranger Pat Tillman, May 12, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: One of my prized possessions is a football card that your son signed for me. I think you for being with us for what I know must be a hard subject to continually speak about. Would you please tell us a little about how your son felt about football and how he put service to his country above even his career?
TILLMAN: Pat loved playing football, however, after the September 11th tragedy, Pat and his brother felt football and baseball were no longer important. Many young men and women were giving up the really important things in life: their freedom, their voice, and time with their families and friends to serve their country. Pat and Kevin felt they should do the same. However, they did not know the Administration would change course and go to Iraq.

RICARDO SANCHEZ, former Coalition Ground Forces Commander, May 13, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts on the prison abuse scandal? How would you recommend that we can build the confidence of a large segment of the population throughout the Middle East that now views us negatively over these prison photographs?
SANCHEZ: The prison abuse scandal was a grotesque, shameful event that became a strategic defeat for America. There is no question in my mind that the root causes are the elimination of the Geneva Convention and the subsequent lack of implementation instructions from the Service Headquarters that may have mitigated the loss of the foundation of our interrogation training, policies, and procedures. We leave the soldiers and commanders in the field to fend for themselves with a totally unconstrained interrogation approach that has no safeguards and oversight mechanisms. Rebuilding America’s image will have to begin with an acceptance that we unleashed abuse and torture with the publication of those policies. It will be very difficult to communicate the realities of what happens to us in Bagram and Abu Gharib—the combination of MPs punishing detainees who were never interrogated and the abuse of detainees that occur in those pictures will forever hound us as a nation.

LINDA BLUM, clinical psychologist, June 30, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I would like it if you would be able to confirm or explain stories from returning Iraqi veterans have told me. I think if these comments are accurate, it may help the public to understand the degree to which posttraumatic stress disorders and other mental challenges are even more of an issue than most realize.
First, I understand some of the bombs that the soldiers are exposed to cause atmospheric rattling, which literally rattles the brain.
Second, the soldiers go on patrol and face potential fire on such a regular basis that many have faced more days of combat than did soldiers in previous wars.
Third, the body gear saves lives but is not protecting limbs, meaning we have a higher survival rate yet a higher several injury rate.
Are all of these points true? These veterans are returning home, and some of them will have very serious issues they are bringing back with then, and we need to be there for them.
BLUM: All of the above are true. I would add, though, that soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have a very broad array of experiences with some going out on daily missions, with constant exposure to danger; others are protected on post.
Additionally, some U.S. bases are subject to considerably more incoming mortars and rockets and others,
CZIKOWSKY: The Veterans Administration has a backlog of 400,000 claims for disability, and it may take six months until the VA gets a claim. Does this VA backlog affect the health care that veterans are receiving?
BLUM: The delays in obtaining benefits and the arduous process involved certainly add to the stress level for many injured vets, but they can begin psychological treatment through the VA or Veteran’s Centers before getting disability.

KIMBERLY DOZIER CBS News Foreign Correspondent, July 8, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Don’t some of the returning Iraqi veterans face rather unique psychological problems that we need to recognize and handle? Don’t some of the bombs create compressions around them that literally rattle the brain inside the head, which can create medical problems that aggravate psychological problems?
DOZIER: I believe both Iraq and Afghan veterans face unique challenges in that many have gone through multiple explosions and therefore MAY have some degree of TBI—which depending on the degree of it, you can recover from if you can detect it and give your bruised brain time to recover in the field. (I understand that now, some commanders are keeping guys off patrol for a few days, if their brain got rattled by an IED to give it time to heal.) The more severe injuries, however…the military is still catching up on diagnosing. I keep asking every official I talk to about the subject: how about the folks with TBI from early on in this conflict, when we didn’t yet recognize the severity/frequency of the syndrome?
There’s a second problem—the ambush nature of insurgent/guerilla attacks…and the very nature of counter-insurgency theory, which wins over the population by putting troops AMONG the population to provide security.
All the time…U.S. troops must be both on their guard, and yet understanding of the people they are protecting—their culture and motivations. They’re not allowed to depersonalize them by calling them “hajis” or similar. They have to see them as people…who are sometimes friendly and welcoming, and then can in the next instant turn on them.
That must do your head in, in a unique way. Who is the enemy?
CZIKOWSKY: How are you doing, and how do you feel looking back? DO you find many people willing to listen and help?
DOZIER: I’m back to 100%...no limp, no pain, and I’m actually training for a 10K, and just found a decent aikido dojo, so life is good. I can almost do the child’s pose in yoga again, although Lotus is a struggle. Then again, Lotus was always a struggle.
Re: the attack. No bad memories, no flashbacks, no repetitive thoughts, no desire to self-medicate, etc. etc. As many people in the public assume that everyone develops PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) after a traumatic incident, I’ve done what I can to educate people that there are ways to avoid developing it…(for me, talking about the incident with friends, family, and anyone who walked into my hospital room helped, writing about it helped even more—defusing the pain/nightmare of the original trauma).
And if a soldier/Marine/airman/diplomat/contractor or journalist face a war zone does go on to develop PTSD, I’ve also tried to point out that there are some amazing treatments for it now. Many medical professional believe you can get beyond it, or at least mitigate it so it doesn’t affect your daily life.
My discussion of this has angered some in the Viet Nam vet community, who thought I was lecturing them on the subject—I hope they see I’m simply trying to use this tragedy to bring attention to an important subject, that a new generation of troops needs to hear about, so maybe they can avoid what happened to so many veterans who came home from Viet Nam.

WARREN ZINN, Former Army Times photojournalist, July 14, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I hope you do not consider blaming yourself (for photographing a soldier who gained notoriety yet later committed suicide). The emotional distress of returning veterans is a complex issue. Some have faced more days of combat or potential engagement with an enemy than soldiers of other wars. This is a stressful war, as the enemy does not wear a uniform and engage in defined battles. I am sure the whole experience caused any emotional distress, and not a particular non-injury event. If anything, you gave this soldier moments of recognition in a job where few realize the extent of that with which they are coping. Thank you for your photograph.
ZINN: Thank you. Yes, that was one of the big things when I was with the Cavalry is that the fighters attacking them were not wearing uniforms. In fact before this photo was taken they were hiding behind the village launching attacks at the Cav. This then lead to the bombing which hurt the boy.

KENNETH M. POLLACK, Brookings Institution Middle East Policy Research Director, July 29, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: If we, and most of the rest of the world, are able to reduce our demand for oil, is the Iraqi economy prepared to move into other sectors? What will happen to their economy should there be a significant drop in demand for oil?
POLLACK: Iraq will succeed or fail before the United States significantly reduces its oil exports, so I think it useful to broaden the aperture of this question a bit, because it does get at a few issues facing the region.
There is no question in my mind that the United States must reduce its dependence on energy from oil and we need to be LEADING a global effort to help other countries do the same. Burning hydrocarbons is environmentally and economically foolish, and the dependence on unstable countries like those in the Middle East, with which my new book (“A Path Out of the Desert”) deals, is potentially disastrous. For that reason, there is absolutely no reason not to do so, and every reason to do so.
Nevertheless, you have raised an important question that gets to the long-term future of the Middle East. All of the economies of the region are dependent upon oil to a greater or lesser extent, because even those without oil rely on remittances from their citizens working in the oil states, aid from the oil-producing states, and trade with them. As I describe in the book. All of the states of the region (expect for the smallest and richest of the GCC states like Kuwait and the UAE) are experiencing serious economic problems of one kind or another and those economic problems are already causing severe social and political unrest. The oil revenues flowing to help mitigate that unhappiness, but if the developed world does being to shift toward alternative energy sources, which is one of the principal problems I argue in the “Path Out of the Desert”, that the U.S., our allies, and the states of the region need to fashion a long-term grand strategy to address. And the reason that we have halved our dependence on oil, we and every other nation in the world will still be dependent on oil. So major problems in the Middle East will still be a threat to our vital interests, and the threats may be worse if the economic, social, and political problems have not addressed but the price of oil is plummeting because of conservation efforts in the developed world. Again, it is why we MUST think long-term about our approach to the Middle East and get away from our typical, short-term approaches.
CZIKOWKSY: How has Iraqi oil production been affected by the war? How much of Iraqi oil profits have been able to be channeled into the reconstruction of Iraq?
POLLACK: The chaos the U.S. created in Iraq hurt Iraqi oil production in three ways. First, the destructive dismemberment of the Iraqi bureaucracy meant that for many months, no one was taking care of the Iraqi oil infrastructure which reduced production and exports. Second, the insurgents (principally Sunni groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq) actively attacked Iraq’s production and export infrastructure which further depressed oil production. Third, because of the misguided way that the Bush Administration handled the oversight of the Iraqi government initially, HUGE amounts of oil and money from oil was stolen by a vast range of people from guys pulling up to refineries with tanker trucks and demanding that they be filled at gunpoint, to bureaucrats funneling millions to Swiss bank accounts.
Third, thanks to a whole series of new initiatives by the U.S., led by our very able Ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker,, and his team, and the greater security created by the surge, Iraqi oil production is now at about pre-war levels. Because the price of oil is so high, the Iraqis are now making a lot of money and paradoxically, many of the measures that we demanded they put in place to prevent theft and corruption in the oil sector is how hindering their ability to use that money to pay for reconstruction. This is being further hamstrung by political differences and the still-limited capacity of the Iraqi bureaucracy. As a result, there is something like $50 billion of Iraqi money sitting in New York, just waiting for the Iraqis to spend it. That is why a lot of American Congressmen are demanding that we cut our own spending and force the Iraqis to pay not only for their own reconstruction expenses but for the costs of our troops and our programs as well. So the bottom line is that while the Iraqis are doing better on exporting oil and using it to pay for reconstruction, there is still a long way to go.

STEVEN MADSEN, Washington Post staff writer, July 28, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Has the war disrupted oil production in Iraq and how of any influence has any lowered Iraqi oil production been on the market?
MADSEN: The war did disrupt oil production in Iraq, but it has recently crept back up to where it was before the U.S. invasion. It’s important to remember that even before the war, Iraqi oil production was lower than it could have been thanks first to the Iran-Iraq war in the early 1980s, then the aftermath of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait and the first Gulf War. Most oil executives and analysts I talk to believe a peaceful Iraq could produce 6 million barrels a day, which would have a huge impact on oil markets. Hard to say when we’ll see that, though.

JOHN CHARLTON, Army Colonel, and SARAH COHEN, Washington Post Staff Writer, August 11, 2008.
CZIKOWSKY: How many of the physical construction projects become targets of terrorist attacks? Does there appear to be a problem that terrorists target American built projects, and does this mean they need more security?
CHARLTON: The key to any type of reconstruction or stabilization project is to establish a secure environment first. In Ramadi, we spent several weeks clearing terrorists out of the city. Once we cleared those areas, we then used Iraqi police to maintain security in those communities. Once we had established a secure environment, we were then able to work with the Iraqis to rebuild. All of our projects used local contractors and were planned with community leaders. This meant that the Iraqis were major stakeholders in these projects and had a vested interest in making sure they were completed. Because of this, none of our projects were attacked by terrorists.
CZIKOWSKY: When can we be expecting the Iraqi government to increase its expenditures on these projects?
COHEN: Iraq has started picking up more, but there are members of Congress who would like the pace to pick up. In recent funding laws, there are some restrictions on how much U.S. money can go into various reconstruction programs. Right now, CERP is exempt from that. But Iraq has started pitching in money for this program as well. A version of next year’s funding law also addresses this.

RON SUSKIND, journalist, August 12, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What were the threat assessments from Iraq before the war? It seems to me Saddam Hussein was contained, that the no fly zones were working, and that the situation was relatively stable? How much of a threat did leaders really think Saddam Hussein posed?
SUSKIND: That’s a very interesting point. In large measure, my investigations are fairly consistent. The view was that Saddam Hussein was the “easy mark” in the region. The President also personally wanted to finish unfinished business. The view was that Saddam was someone we could make an example of. One of the threats at the start of the Administration that they felt was hard to contain was the spread of weapons of mass destruction, like spores in the wind. Memos from the early part of the Administration stated clearly that we didn’t really see a remedy for this, and that we needed to find a way to dissuade our enemies from getting these weapons and denying us primacy in many parts of the world. By making an example of Saddam, we could dissuade other rogue states from similar confrontational temerity. One neoconservative official I spent some time with said an apt definition of what they were thinking was that it would be an experiment in behavior modification. Those experiments don’t work with three people in a locked room, but ultimately we try it in one of the world’s most troubled and strategically important regions.
So interesting when Habbush says Saddam doesn’t have WMD at this point, and when we find out he’s concerned with other countries in the region—Iran and its nascent nuclear program—and that he didn’t want them to know he had no such weapons, it fits the idea we had that he was caged, a toothless tiger, shooting at our planes overhead by largely contained. So all of that remains consistent/.
CZIKOWSKY: Weren’t there those who argued that the war would pay for itself from Iraqi oil production? Well, if their oil is back to where it was before the war, and if their government is running a budget surplus, what happened?
SUSKIND: That’s a good question. Of course that’s just happening now in terms of the industry there getting back on its feet. Over this period there was such profound destruction in the country, primarily caused by the U.S. not thinking clearly about what owning such a country would entail. Hundreds of millions of dollars have vanished into Iraq. There’s a meeting in the book (“The Way of the World”) from 2002 when Rumsfeld is overseeing a big Pentagon meeting with State, the CIA, etc., which is about steps C and D, right after the coming invasion (which they’re planning then in January 2002). At this point, it’s the spring of 2002 and they’re talking about stabilizing and rebuilding the country, steps C and D of the Iraq plan. Rumsfeld has people from State and the CIA pressing him and Casey that ownership of Iraq will be a very complicated endeavor. These of course are people who have been there, and they say “you can’t do these things with PowerPoint presentations.” Rumsfeld responds “we will impose our reality on them”. This sums up the Administration’s hubris in this period, that the U.S. as a lone superpower, could shape reality. Of course, we learned otherwise, and five years later are dealing with those lessons.
CZIKOWSKY: It is the duty of a soldier to disobey an illegal order. Do separate rules apply to the CIA? If an agent is ordered to forge a memo, what are the duties of that agent to carry forth that order? How did you get the CIA to then confirm they obeyed a possibly illegal order?
SUSKIND: When you look at the nuances of this thing, I even have two of the folks who cooperated on the project talk about the fine line of what is not legal and what was done here. One of the sources says in a kind of self-defense that it was intended to effect opinion in Iraq, which of course would not violate CIA statute that it’s illegal to run disinformation campaigns in the U.S. One of the other sources on the Habbush letter says that’s ridiculous, that this was clearly designed to solve a political problem at the White House, which they were focusing much of their energy on.
Let me just say that these are particularly good questions, which are revealed in the book regarding some of the thorny issues involving this letter.

KOREA

BEN ANDERSON, BBC reporter, January 17, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: What are the living conditions of the people in North Korea? Is there anything that can be done to improve these conditions without complicating matters within the political realm?
ANDERSON: There are many parallels with Cuba. People are industrious and find incredible ways to survive. So you see lives of real inconvenience—such as having no fuel. So that’s why it hasn’t collapsed yet, because they find ways to survive. People are working incredibly to overcome the inconveniences.
The one thing that really struck me is that we were taken to a coop farm and many died during the famine. I think they need aid from the outside world. There isn’t much they can sell, save for booster missiles. If there is a drought or flood, they’ve got no safety net. It’s difficult to make sure it’s dispersed properly, too. And to give it to Kim Jung II without him losing face and looking a charity case.
The food has a big U.S. symbol on the side and cover that with plaster immediately. But he can’t admit the slightest failure, it is very hard. You have to look to him for some kind of compromise.
He allowed some reforms—part of the World Cup to be shown, for example.

MARTIN SMITH, Producer, “Frontline”, April 11, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: It seems North Korea has been willing to negotiate terms that keep it from developing nuclear weapons—yet, they realize they can get bought off for doing so. Do you feel negotiations can continue to keep North Korea from developing nuclear weapons, and, if so, at what point should we agree to stop paying them for making threats?
SMITH: I think that negotiations should go forward, and we should look for any agreement where there can be verification. I believe that’s the consensus approach of people who’ve dealt with North Korea over the years.
As far as payoffs, diplomacy is and always has been a matter of give and take. Demanding that North Korea do something when there are no benefits for this is probably doomed to failure.

ANTHONY FAIOLA, Washington Post Foreign Service, November 25, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Did you get the impression that the people being interviewed were briefed, prior to the interviews (of people in North Korea), on what they should say and what they could not say?
FAIOLA: Absolutely, many answers were identical despite the fact that the people being interviewed were in different areas and had different positions. But sometimes, I was surprised by the candor and curiosity of the North Koreans—especially their desire to know about U.S. politics.
CZIKOWSKY: Presumably, most people in North Korea have never been in South Korea. Do you believe they have a good understanding of what life is like in South Korea, or are facts hidden from them?
FAIOLA: No, I don’t think they have a good idea of what life is like in the South, although interviews I have done with defectors who have gotten out of the North through China indicate that news is filtering through, albeit slowly.

GEORGE PERKOVICH, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 22, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: What was the administration thinking when they deliberately lied about North Korea selling its nuclear technology? Did they think it was worth a few debate points versus ultimately being exposed for providing incorrect information? Hasn’t this undermined our ability to convince the rest of the world of the trustworthiness of our word?
PERKOVICH: I don’t know what they were thinking, and they are very smart people. It is damaging to credibility, as many people around the world think the U.S. is giving Pakistan a pass, while coming down very hard on other countries whose “sins” are perhaps not as great as Pakistan’s. The Administration’s effort to obscure the Pakistan connection in the briefing it gave about North Korea’s export of uranium haxaflouride is the latest example. Not a good move.

SELIG HARRISON, Center for International Policy Asia Program Director, June 10, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: There seems to be a campaign to portray the North Korean government as irrational. Do you perceive the North Korean government as acting rationally? If so, are the North Korean officials aware of their image within our country, and, if so, do they care?
HARRISON: I believe that North Korea’s perceptions of a security threat by the U.S. are rational based on the fact that the U.S. has staged a pre-emptive war in Iraq in order to achieve regime change. Regarding North Korea’s perception of its image in other countries, the regime is very insular, with only a handful of officials who have had overseas exposure in-depth. However, the regime is beginning to understand the importance of public opinion in the West as demonstrated by its decision to admit an ABC news team this week.

DANA PRIEST, Washington Post Staff Writer, July 6, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I know the North Korean long range missile was not shot down. Yet, is it possible that someone could have tested with it in some fashion that could have assisted in its failure?
PRIEST: Well, it might be possible, but I don’t think that’s what happened. It fell into the sea after 40 seconds so there would not have been any time to try to shoot it down. What missile experts and the White House mainly learned about this is that the North’s missile capability is, as former UN inspector David Kay put it: Not ready for prime time. That should buy a little time and relieve a little angst about all this because even if they do have bad intentions, they aren’t able to act on them with the Taepodong-2.

JUNG SUNG SAN, director, October 3, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Before your story (“Yoduk Story”), I have not seen much written about North Korean prisons since John McCain’s description of what he went through in a military prison. Do you recommend some good resources that will tell more about the conditions of North Korean prisons?
SAN: Yes, there is Kang Cheol Hwan’s “Aquariums in Pyongyang”. This book has been translated into English. In Korean, there is a book written by An Myung Chul called “They Are Crying”. Another defector, An Hyuk, wrote a book called “Yoduk List”. Defector Lee Young Gook and his book, “I Was Kim Jung Il’s Bodyguard”.
If you read these books, they give detailed descriptions of North Korean prison camps.

DAVID KANG, Dartmouth College Government Professor, June 27, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: The American media has portrayed Korea as a country with a lunatic leader, but doesn’t their government operate more rationally than the public is led to believe? I ask because I believe there is hope that we can focus negotiations on rational choices and discussions, as we see a first step recently was reached.
KANG: The view of North Koreans (and leader Kim Jong-Il in particular) as being crazy or irrational is a common one, but few policy analysts or academics believe this to be true. We have a fair amount of evidence that Kim is quite rational, after all, he he has held power for 14 years in an environment that requires great skill to manage all the palace politics and external pressures.
I would make the point that North Korean negotiating behavior is fairly predictable: they meet pressure with pressure of their own; and increasing pressure rarely makes the North Koreans back down, but instead they ratchet up their own pressure. We have made real progress in the past year or two by realizing that both sides distrust each other intensely, and that only small steps by both sides can move us in the right direction.
CZIKOWSKY: What are China’s feelings towards having an all—yet still in independent nation—in North Korea as it builds nuclear weapons: How well does the Chinese government trust the North Korean government, and especially the future succession of North Korean governments?
KANG: China has very mixed feelings about North Korea. While they remain North Korea’s closet “ally”, relations between the two countries have never been that close. North Koreans tend to feel that China pushes them around and views North Korea as a vassal; China feels North Korea is a troublesome neighbor that is potentially a real problem. However, their relations are fairly close, and Kim Jong-Il has travelled numerous times to China, most recently in 2006. China is nudging North Korea to follow the Chinese path or economic reform and opening, which they believe is the best path for North Korea to follow. There is also the problem of refugees and economic relations—the Chinese are vigorously supporting economic relations across their border, which has led to some South Korean suspicion that Chin has designs on North Korea or its territory.
China, and South Korea, are quite concerned about the negative effect that an economic or political collapse in North Korean could have on their own countries. China has no desire for hundreds of thousands of North Koreans refugees flooding over the border in China, so they view North Korean reform as in their own interests.

LEBANON

KATE SEELYE, Frontline/World Producer, May 18, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: What is the breakdown of the Lebanese people according to what percentages belong to different religions? Do most people within the same religious group hold similar political beliefs? In sum, how large a role does religion play into whom Lebanese people believe should govern them?
SEELYE: The Shia make up the largest religious group at bout 40%. Then you have the Christians who make up about 33%. The remainder are Sunnis and Druze. The Lebanese do tend to relate along religious lines, although not exclusively. For instance, the Greek Orthodox and the Maronites tend to have very different political views, even though they are both Christian sects. The big challenge in Lebanon, now that it is free of Syrian control, is to encourage Lebanese to being identifying along national, rather than religious lines. That will entail the creation of national political parties that promote non-sectarian issues, such as employment for all, welfare for all, betting hosing for all, etc. Currently most Lebanese believe that only a leader of their own religion can be trusted to fight for their interests, so by and large Shia will vote for a Shai leader, a Maronite for a Maronite, etc. That needs to change and many Lebanese recognize that.

PAUL MITCHELL, film producer-director, July 20, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: How deep are divisions between the various ethnic groups? Would you assess the divisions as resolvable, or do you see some taking perhaps a generation or two to overcome? Despite these divisions, do you see hope that various groups can eventually agree, given the right circumstances, to work together and avoid violence?
MITCHELL: The divisions between the groups are real, but it’s hard to say how long lasting. There are plenty of people who see themselves as Lebanese first, and members of their community second. And there are plenty more who don’t. What is interesting to me was the people of say 30-40 years old who spent a long time outside the country during way, they all tell you that OUTSIDE Lebanon, the differences tend to fade. But once they are back home…The most one can say at any given time that there is no violence now, not like 15 years ago.

FAWAZ GERGES, Sarah Lawrence College International Affairs and Middle Eastern Studies Professor, July 25, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I read the arguments that Hezbollah can not be defeated because it is not just a small band of fighters, but it is a state of mind that is supported by a large number of people in Lebanon and other surrounding countries. Aren’t there other large scale states of mind? Aren’t there also large numbers of Muslims who want peace? If so, is their voice getting weaker or might it gain strength someday soon?
GERGES: There is a misunderstanding in Israel and the United States that Israel can defeat Hezbollah, or Party of God, on the battlefield and rid Lebanon of pro-Iranian Shiite’s militancy. Here are some facts to consider.
First, Hezbollah is not just a militia; it is a social movement that is deeply rooted within the Lebanese Shiite community which represents 38 percent of the population. Hezbollah has a large social and welfare infrastructure that provides social services to hundreds of thousands of people—schools, clinics, daycare centers, and much needed employment opportunities.
Equally important, Hezbollah provides a large segment of the Shiite community, historically disadvantages and marginalized, with a sense of identity and pride. The hammering away at Hezbollah will likely deepen the feeling of victim-hood within the Shiite community and turn it against Israel and the West.
Secondly, contrary to the conventional wisdom, Hezbollah is not like a rotten tooth that can be plucked out easily. Hezbollah is one of the most pivotal political players on the Lebanese landscape. It has two ministers in the current government and a large popular base of support in the country and the region.
Thirdly, since the mid-1980s, Hezbollah has proved itself on the battlefield against Israeli military might. It forced Israel to withdraw under fire from a small strip of land in southern Lebanon in 2000. No other Arab state or a group has been able to militarily defeat Israel on the battlefield. Hezbollah is the most powerful paramilitary non-state organization in the region. Its military and organizational skills dwarf those of Palestinian Hamas and other militant groups like Al Qaeda. It is a power to be reckoned with. Israeli leaders have already scaled their demands in the last few days because they have come to appreciate the costliness of aiming too high in its fight against Hezbollah.

MICHAEL FLETCHER, Washington Post White House Reporter, August 4, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: How well is the Lebanese government holding up, as of today? It is sad that a democratic government may be pushed aside by a country searching for a more militant stance against Israel and the United States.
FLETCHER: It has to be struggling. Bombs are raining down over much of the country. A quarter of the population is displaced. The infrastructure is being battered. It seems to me that those tings tend to radicalize a population.

MICHAEL YOUNG, Opinion (Lebanon) Editor and SAUL SINGER Jerusalem Post columnist, August 15, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: What is your advice on achieving a permanent solution, not just a temporary cease fire? Will it take a few generations to decide that peace is better and living with respect of each other is best, or can there be a general acceptance of peace within the current generation? If so, how can it be achieved?
YOUNG: I’m very pessimistic about achieving a permanent solution in south Lebanon. Hezbollah won’t disarm, and its adversaries in Lebanon are too frightened of provoking a civil war to challenge the party by demanding more forcefully that it bend to the national consensus and surrender its weapons. This is an impossible situation, and one bound to lead to more violence in the future.
SINGER: A permanent solution ultimately means dealing with the root cause of the problem, namely Syria and Iran. This is an opportunity to demonstrate that supporting proxy terrorist armies is a sanction-able international offense. The war against terrorism is not serious so long as states like Iran and Syria can support terrorism with impunity.

LIBERIA

MICHAEL DOBBS, Washington Post Staff Writer, July 7, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: My understanding is the situation in Liberia is utter chaos. It has been written that people, including children, are shooting with little purpose other than immediate survival. The soldiers you are shooting with during the day may be the people you are shooting at during the night. Thus, it may be hard to negotiate a ceasefire amongst the various sides in the fighting when the sides are hard to distinguish. If President Bush sends troops into Liberia, will he have a plan to end the violence, and will he send in enough troops to keep the peace?
DOBBS: There is a U.S. military team in Liberia right now looking at the issues you raise. Most Liberians say that U.S. troops will be welcomed in Liberia with open arms, and will not face the kind of guerrilla war they faced in Somalia, and are beginning to encounter in Iraq. But who really knows? Some experts believe that it will be foolish to count on a warm welcome.

NANCEE OKU BRIGHT, filmmaker, July 8, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: How does Liberia encourage investment? It seems the international community is good at providing countries with large scale projects yet seldom provides projects at the human-level where careers and enterprises are created. That type of investment too often is left to the private sector, which is probably frightened off by the fighting and the instability. If you could advise the American government on how it should invest in Liberia, what would you recommend?
BRIGHT: Education and healthcare are not normally seen as investments but they are very important for the future. Large-scale agricultural projects will help Liberia achieve food sufficiency and could also help small-scale farmers to export their produce.

WIL HAYGOOD, Washington post Staff Writer, July 11, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: You discuss a proposal to have an interdisciplinary committee assist in bringing stability to Liberia. Would you please tell us more about how that would work? What authority would it have? Would the various tribal factions agree to this? Or, is there a need for American troops and leadership to impose some will over the people of Liberia until peace is achieved? Finally, what types of economic assistance could America bring to help revive Liberia?
HAYGOOD: I think Liberia would be quite open to a team from America composed of former politicians, business executives, scholars, who would go in there and study the situation. Something will be needed beyond a military presence. Understand, this is a country that was involved in a civil war that killed more than 150,000 people. And even when Taylor became President, little if anything got done in the interior of the country. He continued to think like a warlord, with a warlord-sized security detail around him. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund might be encouraged to work the country again, but only in the face of improvements inside the country, starting with security. People do not feel safe in side Liberia. It needs a kind of Marshall Plan.

EMIRA WOODS, Co-Director, Foreign Policy in Focus, July 14, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: We hear that an American presence may bring stability to Liberia. There are many factions and the country is in chaos. What is the actual process that should be followed that will bring stability and peace?
WOODS: The processes that will bring stability and peace in Liberia are as follows:
1) Peace enforcement-the US should join a multilateral peace stabilization force with minimal US troop presence, coupled with financial and logistical support to African peacekeepers.
2) Stem the flow of weapons, illicit diamonds, and illicit timber in the region.
3) Kick start the economy through demobilization of combatants-shifting them to productive, constructive economic activities and cancellation of Liberia’s debt.
4) Build new political culture that will mend the social/political fabric of the country.
5) Reconstruct an active civil society and an engaged/independent Liberian media.

KRISTA RIDDLEY, Amnesty International Advocacy Director for Africa, August 11, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: From your observations and knowledge, how are the various communities within Liberia responding to Taylor’s departure and what are their expectations for the future? Are these expectations in conflict, and what are the chances these conflicts may lead to future violence?
RIDDLEY: The vast majority of Liberia want peace. They are hoping that his departure will bring an end to the fighting and usher in a new era where they can participate in the future of their country, and live without fear. Should the situation be stabilized and a peace agreement reached, an interim government will have to prioritize the disagreement, demobilization, and reintegration of fighters from this war. If this doesn’t happen successfully then the violence is likely to continue. The international community will need to provide substantial resources for this effort. During that process human rights issues will have to be prioritized, and perpetrators of the most heinous crimes will need to be brought to justice for Liberia to heal, reconcile and move on. Impunity cannot be allowed to continue, as it is one of the reasons for the current state of affairs,

JENNIFER G. COOKE, Center for Strategic and International Studies Africa Program Deputy Director, August 12, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Liberia is composed of many divergent communities, many of whom have been fighting each other for some time. With President Taylor in exile, will all communities be able to settle their differences peacefully? What could the international community do to ensure such a peace? What could the United States do to improve the lives of the people of Liberia?
COOKE: This is a big question! Currently negotiations are underway in neighboring Ghana to construct an interim government that would rule Liberia until a generally credible election can be held. If all goes according to plan, the coalition government will include representation from the two main rebel movements, from Charles Taylor supporters, and civilian political figures who over the last decades have not taken up arms and have either lived in exile or kept a very low profile within Liberia. But its going to take a tremendous investment by the international community to make this work, helping to provide basic security, humanitarian assistance, technical expertise, and basic services like health, education, and sanitation.

DOUGLAS FARAH, Former Washington Post West Africa Bureau Chief, April 24, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Is it true that the fighting in Liberia was so confused that people would even be fighting on both sides at different battles?
FARAH: People fought for whoever could pay them, generally. People fought on many different sides of the conflicts, often turning on their previous allies.

P.W. SINGER, The Brookings Institution Senior Fellow, June 12, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Does your book (“Children at War”) include examining child soldiers in Liberia? It is my understanding there were many young soldiers in Liberia and that often it became very confusing as to who was fighting who as soldiers would often change sides. This has to be a most tragic way to grow up,
SINGER: Yes, it covers the tragedy that went on in Liberia.
Liberia has seen two waves of war over the last decade, much of it driven by this child soldier phenomenon. First, Charles Taylor seized power at the head of a mainly youth rebel army in the early 1990s. He recruited kids both through abduction and trickery, for example telling kids he would give them computers and Mercedes Benz cars if they fought for him, basically taking advantage of their gullibility. Soon, he won the war. By the end of the decade, Taylor faced new foes in the LURD and MODEL, rebel groups who also used child soldiers to eventually topple him in 2003. The UN estimates that some 20,000 children served as combatants in Liberia’s war, up to 70% of the various factions’ fighting forces.
The war is now over, but the danger is what happens with many of these ex child soldiers if they don’t get proper aid and assistance. Children return form these conflicts scarred by the violence they have either seen or been a part of, and have to wrestle with the demons of the past. They often find their homes or villages broken and are faced by family and neighbors that often do not know them, or treat them with suspicion, meaning they must not only recover for themselves, but must to regain the trust of those who should love them. They must rebuild the skills they need to survive, while at the same time battle the various temptations that threaten to pull them back into a world of violence. Their stories can be ones of turning tragedy into triumph, such as Liberian kids who returned to school and now support their families. Or, they can be of tragedy building upon tragedy; In Africa, one can find bands of former child soldiers that now travel across the continent in search of more wars to fight in. Liberian kids ended up fighting as far away at as in Congo.

LITERATURE

RANDALL KENNEDY, author, February 26, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Did you or your publisher pick the title of your book?
KENNEDY: I chose “Nigger” as the primary title of the book. The publisher had nothing to do with that. My editor and I went back and forth with respect for a subtitle. I ultimately determined that subtitle. Therefore the title for the book, for good or for bad, is my responsibility.
JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER novelist, April 14, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Do you have another book or writing project underway and, if so, how far along are you?
FOER: I’m working on another novel and getting farther from the end with each passing day. The hope is that it will come out next year.

ROBERT LITTELL, author, May 15, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: What are your retrospective thoughts regarding Aldrich Ames?
LITTELL: Listen, as long as there are intelligence organizations there will be moles/traitors. How about the FBI’s Hanssen who was just sentenced to life without parole? The interesting question is what motivates these guys. Money is one obvious answer. Hanssen said he couldn’t raise / educate his kids on his FBI salary and so decided to augment his salary. But I suspect that other things played a role once he got started. Adrenalin started to flow. His (perhaps) mundane dull life suddenly got very exciting. He got a thrill from pulling the wool over the eyes of the people he was working with…that kind of thing.

ETHELBERT MILLER, author, May 12, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: How much difference did you find between writing poetry and writing your memoirs? Did you find any greater difficulty writing one or the other? What obstacles did you find with each type of writing and how did you over come them?
MILLER: It was a major challenge. I started out writing very short poems back in the 1960s. Writing a short story or a novel was beyond me :-) I felt that writing my memoir (“Fathering Words”) was a gift from my father and brother who died back in the 1980s. I felt the book almost wrote itself. I made sure that I sat down and wrote everyday. That’s something I don’t do when writing poetry. I did read sections of the memoir aloud…I wanted it to read (and sound) like poetry.

JOYCE CAROL OATES, author, July 2, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: What was your childhood like? Do you see the affects of your upbringing in the characters you write?
OATES: I grew up on a farm in upstate New York, my parents were very concerned with keeping the farm going and my father had supplemented income by working in a factory. Neither of my parents was strong disciplinarian and when I look back upon those years I can see that they must have sacrificed a good deal of their youth to keep the family as prosperous as we were. (They were married very young and I was born when my mother was about 19). It was a different era then and life was generally harder, but in some ways easier.
Certainly I write out of my own experience and novels like “A Garden of Earthly Delights’ which was recently reprinted, I draw upon those memories quite directly.
CZIKOWSKY: Have you ever considered writing a screenplay? Decades ago, many great authors wrote some screenplays, yet some stated they found it more difficult to write a screenplay than a novel. Since then, there have been few novelists who have crossed over to writing screenplays. Have you ever been tempted to give it a try?
OATES: Most writers only write screenplays for money. It’s because the screenwriter has virtually no control over the material, a movie ultimately belongs to the director and producer. Your screenplay is purchased from you and can afterwards be altered or tossed away by the director. This is in contrast to the autonomy we have as writers of prose. Writing plays is different because no director or producer can change any line in a play without the permission of the playwright. The play is not purchased outright.

JHUMPA LAHIRI, Pulitzer Prize Fiction Winner, October 7, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I look forward to reading your book. In reading the reviews, I am confused. Is your book about people caught between two cultures, or is it your intention to point out the similarities amongst cultures? Or perhaps your argument is both: despite our many differences, many similarities emerge. Or, maybe you do not have any such theme in mind. Did you intend to have any special commentary on cultural differences?
LAHIRI: My intention was to write a story about a family adapting to a life in a new world. As a result, I’m talking about the existence of difference cultures and how they intersect and sometimes don’t intersect. But I don’t have a specific commentary on cultures per se. I think that’s something a reader might bring to the work. But I think my work does highlight the value and significance of culture to individuals, and that is a universal feeling, that we all yearn to feel at home in the world.
CZIKOWSKY: What was your upbringing like and do you believe it had much of a factor in your learning the discipline to become a writer?
LAHIRI: My upbringing was essentially being raised by parents who came from one part of the world and who were learning to live in another part of the world. I have two influences all the time. I spoke two languages on a daily basis, I ate two kinds of food, I knew two parts of the world, in a way. I think one of the things that drew me to writing was the opportunity to create my own world. I felt someone inadequate in both my Indian side and my American side. I always felt I was coming up short somehow because I was not fully one thing. In writing, I felt I didn’t have to answer to anyone’s expectations other than my own.

CHARLES BAXTER, novelist, October 16, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: What are you currently working on? How far along are you? How much will you tell us about the plot or characters or even future ideas of your writings?
BAXTER: It’s interesting: I don’t have any idea of what my next book will be. I feel a bit wrung-out, like a washrag. I’ll have to daydream my way into my next project, whatever it will be. I’m editing a book on William Maxwell, but so far no new book has appeared on my imagination’s horizon.
CZIKOWSKY: Are you or have you ever been a bit of an insomniac? If not, how did you learn to write about insomnia so well?
BAXTER: I certainly was, and am. I suffer from the particular kind of insomnia that allows you to fall asleep but then causes you to wake up in the middle of the night, wide awake. I thought I would put it to use in “The Feast of Love”, and set up Charles Baxter as a sort of sleepless collector-of-stories. That entire book is haunted by moonlight, in any case. Insomnia seemed to fit its contours very nicely.

EDWARD P. JONES, National Book Award Nominee, October 30,2003
CZIKOWSKY: I realize your work is fiction. Yet, what research sources did you use in creating “The Known World”? To what degree did you strive for historical authenticity, and about how much is pure fiction?
JONES: I think it’s probably 98 percent fiction, I used a few names here and there, people like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, but those are very minor and that’s only in passing that I mention those.
I started out thinking I would read a whole bunch of books about slavery. But I never got around to doing that. I kept putting it off. I started thinking about reading the books in ’92, but while I was putting off the research, I was also crafting the novel in my head. So in 2001, after almost 10 years of thinking about the novel, I had about five weeks of vacation with the day job I had then, and I decided, I could either spend that vacation time and the next year or so reading all those books, and I decided not to do that. I decided just to go with the novel that was in m head. Everything was in my head except for about 12 pages.
In life, you accumulate facts about the world and history as you go through your life. And I figured I knew enough about 1855 Virginia to write the novel. And as I said last night at a bookstore, if I say it’s 1855 Virginia, then you’ll believe me until I say something to contradict that.

MAX BROOKS, author, October 30, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: What piece of literature first mentioned zombies? How the concept of zombies changed over time?
BROOKS: Every culture has its own version of the dead returning to life. The classic zombie that we know today (corpses rising from the grave to eat human flesh) first entered public culture with George A. Romero’s “Night of the Living Dead”. Since that time, the pop-culture has mutated into many forms. You now have “the brain eaters”, “Zombie Dogs (From Resident Evil)”, “Crimson Heads (Again, R.E.).” I’ve even heard of a movie that has zombie birds, although I haven’t seen it.

RICHARD NORTH PATTERSON, author, October 21, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: What were your experiences working as a liaison from the SEC during the Watergate like? What lessons do you believe the nation should take from the Watergate affair? Did these experiences serve as inspirations for subsequent writings?
PATTERSON: First of all, the “Lasko Tangent” is very loosely based on that experience. The short if it was that we were assigned to investigate whether William Casey had covered up wrongdoing by the Nixon Administration while serving as Chairman of the SEC. This investigation was cutoff by the firing of Archibald Cox. What I learned is that we should never tolerate official lying and secrecy, whether it concerns Watergate, 9/11, or the war in Iraq.
CZIKOWSKY: While you are researching the death penalty for your book, may I suggest you look at some of the research conducted by the late Marvin Wolfgang at the University of Pennsylvania? He found the death penalty is not a deterrent: many killers are not thinking of the consequences when they kill. More interesting is some data showing countries and states with the death penalty have higher homicide rates than countries and states without the death penalty. Some believe the death penalty helps induce some people to murder: there is a thrill to challenging death, or a belief one will become a martyr for killing. This might be something worthy of considering when writing about the different reasons people kill and what their psychologically make-up is.
What are your thoughts on what your potential murderous character(s) will be like?
PATTERSON: I’ve looked at that. I’m familiar with much of the research you mentioned and can find no persuasive evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. If you want to argue for the death penalty, it is fair to argue that it is, simply, just.
In the end, I believe that we have already executed a number of innocent people. That is an unacceptable price to pay particularly in the absence of any persuasive evidence that the death penalty saves lives.
As for the accused murderer in my novel, he is a retarded 18 year old from an abusive hone—a fairly typical profile for a death row inmante.
CZIKOWSKY: The NRA began as an organization that supported gun shooting competition and promoted gun safety. Indeed, a large minority of NRA membership supports gun control. The problem is the NRA has politicized its membership so many blindly deluge their elected representatives with calls and letters in opposition to any legislation that would restrict the sale of any guns.
The NRA has never disclosed its financial base. I would presume they are supported by the gun industry. At the very least, the sound like they are industry-supported as they support the right to unrestricted gun ownership, and we need authors like you to take them on. Will you be taking on the NRA some more in future writings?
PATTERSON: First, you’ve neatly defined the role of the radical leadership of the NRA. They mislead their followers and raise money by a steady drumbeat of fear: that we all need guns to protect ourselves—whether at home, in church, or at a ballpark—and that folks like you and me are trying to confiscate the weapons of honest people. That enables them to extract money and stampede voters to the polls.
I appreciate your support, as I certainly do anger folks who’ve been taken in by the NRA line. I serve on the Board of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and will continue to work on, and speak out on, this issue.

RICHARD BAUSCH, writer, November 20, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: How does an 800 page novel become a short story? Did you realize that the story could be told just as well in condensed form? What extra existed between the short story and what was contained in the rest of the pages?
BAUSCH: Just like a kidney stone was passed.
I thought I was writing a novel and it ended up being 800 pages of crap around one thing that was real and alive, and unfortunately all the crap was necessary to arrive at that. Nothing is ever wasted. You did this, every single time you do it, you learn stuff. That’s why there’s only one question to ask yourself every day: Did you write today? If the answer’s yes, it’s the only question you have to ask.

MICHAEL DIRDA, Washington Post Book World Senior Editor, November 20, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: You are an expert in English criticism. Do you have any criticism of film criticism? Do you believe there is enough about film to warrant a separate field of criticism (and its own department in some colleges?) Do you have any advice of what film critics should be most observant?
DIRDA: I would hesitate before going after a degree in film criticism. Why? For purely economic reasons: How may film critics are there who make a living by writing about the movies? Maybe a dozen. You’ll have to be really lucky, as well as talented, to land one of those jobs. That said, I would think a good liberal arts degree would be more useful—art history, intellectual and social history, perhaps cultural studies, as well as lots of courses in literature and some in film. There are a handful of wonderful books of writing about the movies: Agee on Film, the collections of Pauline Kael, some of the writings of Andrew Sarris, Robert Warshow, and Charles Lane. But I think most people would recommend a good general education as the best prerequisite to this specialized filed. Just go to lots of movies on the weekend.

PAUL AUSTER, novelist, December 16, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: It is great to see writing with skillful comedic touches. That is a difficult type of writing to do well. How do you approach adding humor to your work, or do you, say, simply write what you yourself find funny?
AUSTER: Life is both funny and not funny. It has its tragic moments and its hilarious moments. I try in my work to embrace all aspects of what it means to be alive, and humor is an important part of that. So even in some of my grimmest works, there have been comic touches. There have to be, because that’s the way we’re built as human beings, and often when we’re in dark circumstance we survive by cracking jokes.

DAVE BARRY, syndicated humor columnist, December 29, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I love your columns. Have you ever thought about making your life into a TV series?
BARRY: That was already done. It was called “Baywatch”.

MICHAEL CUNNINGHAM, Pulitzer Prize in Fiction winner, January 29, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: So, how does Walt Whitman unintentionally become a character? Did you realize he was just the person needed for a storyline?
CUNNINGHAM: The novel I’m working on is three interrelated novellas, each in a different genre. There’s a gothic horror story, a thriller, and a science fiction story. The first, the gothic horror story, is set in New York City in the mid-1800s, toward the beginning of the industrial revolution, when people who had been working on farms, living according to the seasons and their needs, were suddenly working 12 hour shifts in factories. And I was struck, as I did my research, by the fact that this is when Whitman appeared, and walked the streets of Manhattan saying “I sing the body electric, and every atom of me as good belongs to you.” It was interesting to me that this great transcendental poet appeared just then, and I was struck by the ways in which Whitman was a great and immortal poet, and was also writing poetry that did not entirely contradict the desires of the factory owners. Whitman said, every man is a king, including those who work these terrible jobs. Whitman said, the redwood tree loves the axe, because that’s the redwood tree’s destiny, to be felled. So he becomes a character in the first novella, and I decided, if Whitman’s going to be in one, he should really be in all three. So in the second, the thriller, he’s a terrorist, and in the third, he is a mythical scientist who has disappeared with a great secret.

FRANCES ITANI, author, February 12, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: As with most stories that are based on factual experiences, I’m curious: Which portions of your novel (“Deafening”) are real and about how much is total fiction?
ITANT: As a fiction writer, my job is to create story, but because “Deafening”
is set during a particular period of time, I had to do factual research so that I could learn the social and cultural history. In the book, I tried to stay true to actual happenings at the school for the deaf, and for sure, the war scenes are set in real time for the period.
What is made up is the entire story, and all of the characters. But the reason I did so much research was to make sure that every small detail, which grounds the story, is entirely accurate.

JOANNA SCOTT, novelist, March 11, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Do you have many ideas for novels? How do you narrow your ideas down into the novel you choose?
SCOTT: So far in my years as a writer, I have had a lot of ideas, and a lot of dead ends. So I find myself writing in one direction and then another, and sometimes it clicks and sometimes it doesn’t. I feel there has to be a certain amount of improvisation as I’m writing, which means any idea or any commitment to a project is risky. It involves times, it involves gathering of material, and sometimes it just doesn’t work. Sometimes it does. As I’m starting out on a project, I can’t tell if it will click or not. If it will keep generating its own future, in a sense.
It partly has to do with the independence of the characters, the strength of the voice. If I feel there’s a distinct voice that deserves to keep speaking, that has a music of its own, a rhythm of its own, then I find myself seduced by the voice I’ve created, but that I feel that I’m hearing from elsewhere.
There’s a point I set for myself, and it’s an arbitrary point, when I think no matter (what) happens I’m going to finish that book. And that’s when I get to page 100. I have to see it out.
There are two points of exhilaration for me, when I’m writing. There’s the point of reaching page 100, when I think, I’ve got something here. And then there’s the point when I write the final word, and I say, OK, that’s done.
Although I once heard William Gaddis say he wrote long books, because he didn’t like them to end. And I can understand that.

STUART DYBEK and JOHN McNALLY, writers, March 25, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: It has been said that writers write best when they write what they know. How essential was your knowledge of the culture of Chicago to your writings, and how important is it to have your stories set in Chicago?
DYBEK: Whether you’re writing about Chicago or whatever your subject is, I think the writing what you know stuff, what you have to remember is that the imagination doesn’t feast on fact. So sometimes, whether it’s library work, or life work research, what you have to keep in mind is you’re feeding the imagination. What you know is not what you’re writing about. You’re using what you know to make imaginative leaps.
McNALLY: You’re writing about what you know so that you can write about what you don’t know.

BILL WALSH, Washington Post National Desk Copy Chief, March 29, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I like the mention that the rules of proper writing style are not iron clad. Indeed, the rules of 19th century literature would probably not agree with the general Post circulation. What are the various reasons that causes these rules to change over time?
WALSH: Predominance of usage eventually steamrolls old rules. I write in “The Elephants of Style” about trying to strike a balance between “it’s always been that way” and “that’s how everybody does it.”

ELIZABETH GLAVER, author, April 8, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Do you have a target audience in mind when you write, and, if so, who are you writing for? Or, are you writing for yourself, and you hope those interested will find your work?
GLAVER: I don’t have a “target” audience in mind in any specific way. I have a few trusted friends who see the book in pieces, at various stages: my friend, the writer Lauren Slater sees it first, then other close friends, some of them writers, others not; then my parents, my sister, and my husband.
It then slowly makes its way out into wider circles. My editor, Jennifer Barth, is an amazing editor, and I think of her as an audience as I write in that I trust her taste and also trust her to help me shape my novels. If I had to try to define who my ideal wider audience would be, it would be readers who admire the work of contemporary writers I deeply admire. That list might contain (among other names), the following: Alice Munro, Toni Morrison, Howard Norman, Julia Glass, Margot Livesey, Michael Ondaatje, Grace Paley, Gish Jen, William Trevor…If people who loved those books were also to love my own, I would be thrilled.
During the actual writing, though, I suppose I’m writing for myself, in that I’m inside the world I’m creating, not thinking about being read so much as getting words down, one by one, on the page, until they form into sentences, then paragraphs, then chapters.
CZIKOWSKY: Did you study writing in college? If so, what aspects of collegiate level writing instruction assisted you, if any?
GLAVER: I did study writing in college, at Wesleyan University, and was lucky enough to work with the writer Annie Dillard. Annie asked us to memorize poems; I still remember the ones I memorized in her class. She steeped us in language, and she had no tolerance for sentimentality. She was forthright and brilliant and took her students utterly seriously, even as she was quite hilarious herself. In addition to giving me feedback, writing classes also game me something very simple: deadlines. I think that when you’re starting out, it’s sometimes hard to keep producing, and even harder to revise and revise and revise. The workshops I took in college gave me a structure, as well as a little community of readers, and that was helpful. I think I would have fumbled along and made my own way without it, but it would have taken longer. I also took many literature courses, and those—along with the reading I did on my own—were as important to my development as a writer as any teacher I had.

A.S. BYATT, author, April 22, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What are the four levels of Dante?
BYATT: I’m not 100 percent sure of the fourth one, but the levels are the literal, the allegorical, the anagogical, and I think the fourth one is spiritual. And literal level is what the story means at the literal level—Dante traveling from pit to pit in hell. The allegorical is the metaphorical meaning of this—the people who are talking represent the quality of pride as well as being people. The anagogical is to do with the way he related to the Holy stories and the Holy scriptures. For instance, you can read the whole of the Old Testament anagogically as all the stories in the Old Testament prefigure the truths of the world after the birth of Christ. And the spiritual I think is deep meaning. There is kind of absolute vision, a vision of the nature of things. You end up with a vision of the whole of the heavens singing around God. There’s a visionary meaning. The medieval world was used to reading the Bible is all these four ways, and Dante wrote to be read in all these four ways.

MITCH ALBOM, author, April 27, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: How would you compare and contrast themes from your book “The Five People You Meet in Heaven” versus “It’s a Wonderful Life”?
ALBOM: OK, I love the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life”, so I am honored if people think there is a comparison. In the movie, I believe Jimmy Stewart finds out what the world would be life if he had not been in it. In my book, Eddie discovers only what the world really was like while he was in it—but he was too preoccupied or unfocused to understand. I think there’s a similarity in that both the movie and my book celebrate how one life can affect another. That’s a message not limited to me, Jimmy Stewart, or many others, but one that I hope is celebrated just the same.

JOHN DALTON, HANNAH TINTI, and CLAIRE TRISTRAM, authors, May 6, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Congratulations to each of the first-time published authors. Have any of you begun, or perhaps finished, your next project? If so, what may we look forward to seeing from each of you?
DALTON: I have begun a second book. I’ve only got a few chapters. It is not set in Asia. For me to write, I have to know a setting very well. The first setting was Taiwan and China, which I knew very well. This setting is a summer camp, which I also know very well. Beyond that, I don’t write close to my own life. That is, I invent characters who have more interesting dilemmas than I have.
TINTI: I am working on a novel, which has already been bought by Dial Press I’m about three-quarters of the way through. It’s a historical novel about a gang of grave robbers. I’m having a lot of fun with it. There’s so much more space. There’s so much more room to explore these side alleys and side stories that you just can’t do with a short story. With a short story everything has to be on track with your goal. With a novel I can go off with a side character and tell their story. And I’m having a lot of fun doing that. I think it was Alice Murno who said that a novel is a house with many rooms, and if that’s the case, I’d say a short story is a closet—with lots of interesting things in it, but still a closet.
TRISTRAM: I am almost finished with the second novel that I may never send anywhere. The first novel is so explicit, and it really made me feel exposed, because it’s so close to my feelings about the world. Now, everyone knows what I think! I guess that’s good, but it takes getting used to. So this second one has really been for me. I’ll definitely send it to my editor, but I’m ready to move on.
DALTON: I threw lots of stuff away, too. That’s good advice.
TRISTRAM Sometimes things are just for you, and that’s okay too.

THISBE NISSEN, author, August 5, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Living near the Long Island Sound, I am curious about your choice of location for your book. Have you spent time in one of the beach communities and/or islands off of Long Island? What inspired you to pick a beach location and to write about characters in a community with year rounders and summer residents?
NISSEN: Yes, “Osprey Island” is definitely influenced and shaped by summers and weekends spent on Shelter Island, way on the top of Long Island, between North and South Forks. And I think my draw toward that setting is there because I have such a visceral memory of that place and the time I spent there as a kid. The quality of air and light is unique. And I don’t live in a place like that at all now. And I really do think I write in some cases to evoke those feelings in myself to awaken that visceral sense of a place. It’s like going on a private vacation.
CZIKOWSKY: Do you prefer writing short stories? I know some writers who like being able to tackle more subjects, and exploring more topics over shorter periods of time writing appeals more to them than writing at length about one topic in a novel. What appeals to you as a writer?
NISSEN: I think both serve really different drives in me. I really like getting wrapped up on a novel, and the particular kinds of challenges and problems that you have to solve working on a novel, and the research one has to do working on a novel. I love doing that. And the latitude to follow whims and funny trails and see where they lead you I feel is a lot greater in a novel. On the other hand, I really enjoy the economy of short stories and the way it makes my brain have to work to hone ideas into the economized framework. So they really do serve different drives in me.

MAUREEN HOWARD, novelist, September 16, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I kind of thought Connecticut was a little more mythical than Rhode Island, but each person has different tastes. Why did you pick Rhode Island as a setting (for “The Silver Screen”).
HOWARD: I’m from Connecticut, and I’ve used Connecticut a lot in my work. Indeed I use it in “The Silver Screen”). I very much wanted Bel, the Murphys, to be somewhat displaced people. And they are somewhat displaced in Rhode Island. It’s not home, though they make it home. It’s kind of like a new leaf, a place where given her past and she was recognizably Bel Maher, the actress, it’s a way of escaping reality. I also suppose that I visited Rhode Island, where my daughter and family so often in the summer, and could see the possibility of the sea and how that would tie in with Melville. Whereas the industrial river towns of Connecticut don’t quite do that for me. I don’t have a particular town in mind to name…I could point to it on a map but I didn’t want to give it a name. The actual place would be quite different now.

DAVID SCHICKLER, author, September 24, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Your writing is excellent. You let the reader explore characters facing lots of conflicts and twists. What are some of your thoughts for what makes for interesting reading? When you write, do you write strictly for yourself, or are you aware that you need to keep your stories appealing to anonymous readers?
SHICKLER: Good question! Some writers do seem to write for themselves (almost like therapy), and while that is fine, I personally write very much for others. I write to entertain, and I write because I can’t wait to see what my characters will do or say next. As for what makes interesting reading…I try to put my characters in very high stakes situations, where their lives, their hearts, and souls and sexualities are in danger or on the line.
Also in terms of what makes interesting reading…I often like to write about (and read about) a character who is just reaching a boiling point of epiphany in life, a day or moment when he or she feels it’s time to break out, do something new and daring and frightening, almost as if life itself depends on this new action. The gangster Henry Dante in my new novel “Sweet and Vicious” and his lover, the fire haired Grace McGlone, have both come to such points, and they throw themselves into their torrid love affair, their diamond stealing, and their cross country road tip with not only abandon but with a sense of almost spiritual mission. I thrill to gutsy moves like that in fiction and in real life.

JILL CONNER BROWNE, author, October 18, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: You recommend women search for men in funeral homes? Aren’t there laws against that? Seriously, are funerals really a good time to talk to men and then later ask them out? How does funeral attending for men work?
BROWNE: In the South, at least, funerals are excellent times for Visiting—I’m rarely in favor of asking men out—they really do love to chase the car, so to speak.
CZIKOWSKY: I love your illuminated light that comes on when the lid is up. What didn’t anyone think of that sooner? Think of how much harmony there could have been throughout the world before this.
BROWNE: The Johnny Light is truly a miraculous invention—countless relationships COULD have been saved with this—thank God we have it now! Even if your man absolutely CANNOT be trained to put the seat back down—it is now, through modern technology—no longer necessary to beat him to death with a shoe—you can simply install the Johnny Light so you KNOW when he’s left the seat up! And romance can continue for all of your days! Of course, we’ve got the Johnny Light—and a hot of Queenly Crap—at sweetpotatoqueens.com!

MARGOT LIVESEY, author, December 2, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Your writings are excellent explorations of relationships and families. Are you aware of any particular events or times in your life that drew you to contemplate how people interrelate? What sparked your interest in these matters?
LIVESEY: My father was 50 years old when I was born, and my mother, Eva, died when I was 2 ½. Subsequently my father remarried a woman of his own age, so at the age of 5, I was living with two fifty-five year olds. I took refuge with a neighboring family who had four children. I think this early experience of inventing my own family is a major factor in the on-going preoccupation in my work with what constitutes a family, how we sort out the competing loyalties of family vs. new affections. And I’m aware at the point in the 21st century that many people are in a similar situation of inventing and reinventing their families.

RICK LAYMAN, biographer, January 15, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: It seems writers today have adopted different styles of writing. Do you see any writers today who remind either of you of the writing style of Dashiell Hammett? If Dashiell Hammet was an unpublished writer and submitted “The Maltese Falcon” to publishers today, what do you believe would be their reaction?
LAYMAN: Hannett’s influence is vast. I would name wo writers, though, one mystery and one so-called mainstream writer. Three-time Edgar-winner Joe Gores knows Hammett’s work thoroughly and writes masterful mystery novels. He pays homage to Hammett frequently in his works. The mainstream writer is Paul Auster. His “Book of Illusions” is a tribute to Hammett and his writing reminds me of the clarity and complexity of Hammett at his best.
I can’t believe that any editor worth his or her salt would fail to recognize the timeless value of “The Maltese Falcon”. I am admittedly prejudiced.

JONATHAN LETHEM, author, February 8, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: You state “my plan is to write a different book every time out.” Please define “different”. What are your goals when creating something new each time you write?
LETHEM: Well, of course this is a plan that is doomed to fail…I’ve discovered that like every writer, I’m helpless MYSELF and that means I find myself unconsciously or semi-consciously repeating motifs and themes and even using certain words or images recurrently in my work, no matter how much I think I’m starting fresh. But I’ve always admired artists who made a specific sport of trying to visit different kinds of genres or mediums or modes—not just ‘western’ or ‘detective’, but comedy/tragedy, epic and miniature, traditional/experimental—I think of Stanley Kubrik, for instance. The novelist Thomas Berger is a great example. Graham Greene, to a degree. Part of the pleasure is seeing how much of these artists remains the same no matter how much they try to change…
It may be simpler to mention that I’m easily bored, too. I hate feeling too complacent when I write. I like to be solving new problems.

BARBARA HOLLAND, author, March 9, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: What were your impressions of the future when you were young? The 1940s grew up in fear of global war, the 1950s grew up learning about “duck and cover” and of fear of the bomb, yet the generation of the 1990s (until September 11) did not face these almost universal fears. What is your recollection of how you felt: were world events too distant to you and of little concern, or were you and your friends aware and concerned?
HOLLAND: Sure we were aware. We lived in Washington , we waited for the bombs of WWII and the nuclear holocaust of the Cold War, but at least in our younger years, we weren’t so much concerned as fascinated. Made us feel important. We threw ourselves into war work, digging trenches in the lawn to trap the enemy infantry, and poisoning arrows to shoot them.

IAN McEWAN, author, March 29, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Where, if anywhere, would you like people to place your works, in the context of categories of great works? What do you think of how others are placing your works, or do you not care to think of such things?
McEWAN: I don’t care too much for this ranking business. I’m delighted when people respond with passion and ready intensity to my work. Literature is not as the economist would put it a positional good; in other words, there is infinite space for good literature.
CZIKOWSKY: What ideas do you have, that you may share with us, for future works you are planning to write?
McEWAN: I find it difficult to talk about unwritten works. It’s never useful to start putting words casually around the flimsiest of notions. I finished “Saturday” only in late November and I’m now in the rather pleasant stage of traveling, reading, and writing.

SUE MILLER, author, May 3, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: As someone interested in Sociology, it is noted that one of your critics views you as a type of Sociologist. Do you agree, and how do you wish your writings to be viewed?
MILLER: Well, I think that critic, Richard Bausch, said that. You might say that of many (most?) realistic novelists. And he went on to talk about why. If there’s another critic who used that as a pejorative, I’d react more negatively. But I tend to agree with Bausch, that novelists look at and use the culture around them constantly. I AM enormously interested in what it is to be American today (or sometimes an American, let’s say, in the fifties or sixties), in a family, in a particular geography within our boundaries, with a certain kind of work—all those things could involve a kind of observation similar to that of a Sociologist. But I think most Sociologists aren’t primarily interested in story telling, in trying to make the story utterly compelling, and that’s what I hope for. Basically, I would like to, by writing, be viewed as offering a convincing and fascinating alternate universe, one the reader believes in and lives in for a while.

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER, author, May 10, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Do you ever get writer’s block and, if so, do you have a method for overcoming it?
FOER: My father once told me the secret to getting a bee to stop following you around: stand still, close your eyes, and count to twenty. When you open your eyes, the bee will be gone. That’s been my experience with writer’s block. Of course there are times when it’s difficult. So I tend to stop where I am and go away from it. Sometimes for a few hours, sometimes for a few weeks. My goal in life isn’t to write as many pages as I can. So I’m not overly worried when I’m not producing.

TERRY McMILLAN, author, July 19, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Marilyn’s husband doesn’t do much (in “The Interruption of Everything”) to preserve the marriage, but do you think Marilyn, in retrospect, could have done anything to re-spark the marriage? I ask because this is such a widespread problem, and sometimes we like to think there is hope somewhere that both parties can wake up and say: let’s begin anew, if differently?
McMILLAN: From my observations over the years, women are the ones who do everything they possibly can to spark the marriage, which is one of the problems. We do everything. And men should be held just as accountable for keeping the spark alive in a marriage as women are. They rely on us to be good mothers, good wives, good lovers, good everything. But many of them don’t see their lack of creativity in helping to keep the love and energy and all of that stuff alive. I’m tired of men always blaming women. And even the question is there something Marilyn could have done…what about Leon? One of the reasons men use when they cheat they always use women as the excuse. They blame us. When in fact sometimes they don’t realize they haven’t done much to contribute to make the marriage better. Or that they aren’t exactly a thrill a minute themselves, but they expect us to be.

JAMES L. W. WEST, III, Pennsylvania State University English Professor, September 1, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: How would you assess the range of Mr. Fitzgerald’s writings: was he successfully able to vary his themes and genres, and how multifaceted do you find his messages?
WEST: F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote well in a variety of genres: novel, short fiction, personal essay, poetry, song lyrics, dialogue. Like most writers he repeats himself, but his comments about American life, about Europe, about fame and money are celebrity, are very fine. He also wrote well about memory, and about remorse and regret.

SALMAN RUSHDIE, author, September 13, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Let me ask the obvious question that maybe many are uncomfortable asking: how secure do you feel making your whereabouts knows when there may be (hopefully not) people out there trying to figure out how to collect five million dollars?
RUSHDIE: Do you need the money?
CZIKOWSKY: If there was particular messages or themes you would wish readers to absorb from reading your latest novel, would it include the need for better understanding among people of different cultures and religions, the need for outsiders to not disrupt toe slow path toward internal healing, or what is it you would like readers to take away and put into own lives and beliefs?
RUSHDIE: You know, I don’t like preachy books. I like books that take me into a world I like being in and tell me a story that holds my attention and make me care about the people I meet. As for “lessons”, I think those are best deduced by the reader and not dictated by the author.
CZIKOWSKY: What are you writing currently, and what future ideas do you have?
RUSHDIE: I have learned by embarrassing experience not to talk about unwritten books. I once made the mistake of saying I wouldn’t write about India again and now here is a big novel, a lot of which is about India.
So, as to future work you will have to wait and see, I’m afraid. (And so will I).

VALERIE HEMINGWAY, author and Ernest Hemingway’s daughter in law, September 15, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: You were more than Ernest Hemingway’s daughter in law, you were also his secretary. What state are his papers, meaning has most material of interest to scholars been published, or are there still hidden gems to be unearthed?
HEMINGWAY: The majority of the Ernest Hemingway papers are housed in the Hemingway archives at the JFK Library in Boston. Very few of these have been published but they are available for scholars (and others) to view upon request. I think there is a great deal of material there. There are still a couple of people who have private collections and most of the letters to Hemingway are in the collections of such universities as Princeton and Yale.
CZIKOWSKY: You describe your ex-husband as manic-depressive. Presumably this is an inherited trait, or would you disagree with that assessment? How similar or different was the depression between the two generations of Hemingways?
HEMINGWAY: I lived with Gregory Hemingway for more than twenty years and I learned a great deal about the manic depressive condition during that time. I do believe that it is an inherited trait. In the two years I was with Ernest and Mary, I was young and inexperienced, and unaware that Ernest’s depression was caused by a medical condition (as was Mary Hemingway). Much less was known about such things 45 years ago. Both father and won had compulsive personalities. Both were brilliant and when they enjoyed life, they did so with gusto. Both suffered from depressions. I would say that Greg’s condition was more acute and limiting than his father’s.
CZIKOWSKY: How do you believe Ernest Hemingway’s works will stand the test of time? There are some authors whose popularity wanes with time, yet I believe Ernest Hemingway, while writing period pieces, wrote with themes and sentiments that will continue to reach readers centuries from now. Which works in particular do you see being read far into the future?
HEMINGWAY: I’m inclined to think that Hemingway’s works will endure the test of time because he wrote of the condition of man. His observations on war are as fresh and pertinent today as they were when he wrote them. Even his journalism (which I reread recently before giving a talk in Toronto) stands up. It would be hard for me to choose.

DAVID BALDACCI, author, September 20, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: What attracted you to write for children? Did you find difficulties making an adjustment to writing for children? Did you find you had to rewrite more or less, or about the same, when writing a children’s novel?
BALDACCI: It was extraordinarily challenging. The idea for the books came from stories I gold my children. I’m heavily involved in literacy and the earlier you get someone reading the better. Writing a children’s book was an ideal way for me to approach that audience. All writing is labor intensive and writing for kids was no exception. There was a lot of rewriting.

DANA GIOIA, National Endowment for the Arts Chairman, September 20, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Do you prefer one type of writing, i.e. poetry, over other types? Which do you find easier to write, and which type do you find the most difficult or frustrating?
GIOIA: I find all writing difficult, except for letters, which I love to write. My old teacher Elizabeth Bishop was the same way. She and I used to joke about how much we hated writing poetry. It was so hard to get right. Letters one usually writes to friends who grant us every allowance of interest and affection.
I find essays very hard to write well. I work them over almost as much as poems. Short reviews are pretty easy, and they always come with deadlines.

DIANA GABALDON, September 20, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Not many people have explored, even in fiction, relationships and marriage of people from different generations. How did you come up with that concept?
GABALDON: You mean the notice of a 20th century person marrying one from the 18th. Well, it was all Claire’s fault.
“Outlander” was a perfectly straight forward historical novel, until I decided to introduce a female character (I had to have a lot of Scotsmen, you see, because of the kilt factor, but figured it would be good to have a female to play off these guys; then we could have sexual tension, and __that’s__always good), and made her an Englishwoman.
So, she walked into a cottage full of Scotsman, Dougal MacKenzie stood up and asked who she was…and she replied (without consulting me), “I’m Claire Elizabeth Beauchamp—and who the hell are you?”
To which__I__said—“Hey! You don’t sound__anything__like an 18th century person!” So I fought with her for several pages, trying to beat her into shape and make her talk appropriately—but she wasn’t having any. She just kept making smart-ass modern remarks about everything she saw,__and__she started telling the story herself.
So I said, “Fine. Nobody’s ever going to see this book’ it doesn’t matter__what__bizarre thing I do—go ahead and be modern; I’ll figure out later how you got there later.”
Live I said, it’s all__her__fault.
CZIKOWSKY: You worked for the University of Pennsylvania for awhile. How did you enjoy your time in Philadelphia, and did you experiences at Penn ever inspire anything you wrote?
GABALDON: Well, to be perfectly honest, we hated the place and couldn’t wait to get the heck out of Dodge and back to civilization in the West the minute my husband finished his MBA. However, we didn’t live there at one of the city’s most salubrious points---or ours. We were totally broke, living in student housing, about six blocks from MOVE headquarters, while the Mayor was bombing the place.
As to inspirational experiences…well, there__was__the time I left the windows open because of the heat, and a number of flies got in and laid eggs in the pans of bird parts I was processing—came back the next day to writhing pans of maggots.
Err…you__did__ask. On the other hand, the food was undeniably great, and I’d love to go back as a nonstudent with money, to enjoy the better aspects of the place.
CZIKOWSKY: It is exciting that “A Breath of Snow and Ashes” will be available at the book festival before it is being released elsewhere. What can you tell us, in advance, about the book and its plot?
GABALDON: I can’t detail everything, of course, because that would ruin the story, but for starters:
Well, there is a big, fat war coming along, of course, and people behave badly under those conditions. House-burning, murder, rape, assault, tar and feathers and that’s before the serious shooting starts.
And then there are the Cherokee Indians, who might fight for the Crown—or they might not, depending on what they think of either side. At the moment, they rather like Jamie, but if he goes on refusing the naked women the peace chief keeps leaving in his bed, that could change..
Then there’s the young soldier with an “M” branded on his face (for “Murderer”) and a bad case of hemorrhoids.
The myself of Young Ian (Jamie’s nephew) and just what did happen to his Mohawk wife and child.
A plague of amoebic dysentery, and some public health concerns about syphilis, which leads Claire to make Jamie take her to visit the local brothel (“If it’s the two of your,” the madam observes, “that’ll be a pound extra.”
Dr. Fentiman and his renowned collection of pickled deformities (Claire takes him a gouged-out eyeball, preserved in spirits of wine, as a token of goodwill).
Ten thousand pounds of French gold that seems to have been stolen by a wandering ghost.
A mysterious slave ship, reeking in the night, and a rendezvous at the dark of the moon.
A baby named “Rogerina” and what Brianne does about it.
An Irishman who comes and goes like a will-o-the-wisp, but is inclined to appear in the most inconvenient places.
And then, of course, there’s that sinister newspaper clipping that says the house on Fraser’s Ridge will be destroyed by fine in 1776, killing everyone. But will it? (As Jamie observes, “If ye ken the house is meant to burn down on a given day—why would ye stand in it?”)
Only time will tell.
CZIKOWSKY: I know a lot of teachers who used their teaching income as a safety net when attempting to become writers. Yet, I find many become so busy they need to make a commitment to one or the other. You made the jump to being a full time writer. How scary or secure did you find yourself when you made that decision.
GABALDON: Oh,pretty dang secure. I came from a__very__conservative (in all senses of the word) home—my father was fond of saying, “You’re such a poor judge of character, you’re bound to marry some bum—so get a good education so you can support your children!”—so the last thing I would have done was to quit a decent job to become a writer.
As it was, I didn’t tell my father what I was doing, until after the book has been sold (my excellent agent got me a three book contract, with what appeared at the time a staggering advance—and in fact, it__was__pretty good). I called Dad, of course, to tell him the news at this point, and we had a nice, mushy conversation—him saying how thrilled he was, and telling me how proud my mother (who had died when I was 19) would be, and so on. Anyway, we said we loved each other. Thirty seconds later, the phone rings—it’s Dad.
“Don’t quit your job!” be blurted, panic-stricken at the thought. So I didn’t—until I finished the manuscript of my second book (and was thus on the verge of collecting another advance for it). At this point, my university contract was came up for renewal, and I said to my husband, “Well, we won’t starve if I quit—and it__would__be nice to see what it’s like to sleep more than four hours at a stretch…”

R.L. STINE, author, September 21, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Where do you draw the line at scaring children? Also, isn’t there another line where some things as so extreme the children just yawn them off in disbelief? How do you find that perfect line where children are scared and entertained at the same time?
STINE: That’s the hard part. My aim is to never write anything too REAL in my scary books. The kids have to know it’s a FANTASY. The real world is a very scary place to kids now. I have to let ‘em know that my stories don’t take place in the real world.
CZIKOWSKY: “The Great Blueberry Barfoff” provided many people with Christmas gift ideas on what to give Gene Weingarten. Did you get mostly negative reaction over the name of the book, or do you think most people understood it?
STINE: So far, I think people get the joke about “Rotten School” and its basically gross, 10 year old boy humor. I’m having so much fun doing a funny series and trying to gross kids out in all new ways!

KARIN SLAUGHTER, author, September 21, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: How was growing up in Georgia? Did you find teachers encouraging of creative writing?
SLAUGHTER: Very much so. The South has a great history of writers. My ninth grade teacher, to whom my first book is dedicated, was a great influence on me.

SANDRA BROWN, author, September 22, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: How easy or difficult is it to enter the world of romance writing and getting published? Are there growing or decreasing opportunities in the field?
BROWN: Oh dear, I really don’t know much about that anymore, but I think one good way to acquaint oneself in that market is to join writers group and this is true not only for romance, but any general. They can be extremely beneficial.
In fact, very early in my career before I was published, I was encouraged to attend a workshop and it was there that I made contacts that later proved to be of tremendous value to me---I met agents, editors, and other writers---so friendships were formed and associations formed that are still important to me today, so that’s a very good way to not only get feedback on your work but also to kind of get a league of people with similar interests and ambitions and to kind of tap into the communication grapevine.
CZIKOWSKY: You became a writer because you had the time after losing your job. Another upcoming writer in these discussions left her job in order to write. I detect a pattern here. While you probably didn’t have a choice over losing your job, do you think you could have broken into the world of being published had you continued working full time at another job?
BROWN: Well, it certainly helped to have more time to which I could devote to writing. However, the job from which I was dismissed was part-time and my full-time job at that point in my life was being the mother of two toddlers. So I started writing when my family made great demands on my time. So I think what is very important is that if one is driven to write then it’s important to make time and it’s every day---if it’s two hours or 20 minutes…to set aside the time in which to do it.
CZIKOWSKY: I don’t expect you to give too many details, but would you please give us hints on what types of subject areas we may expect from your future works?
BROWN: Well, I can only talk about one book at a time. The next book is kind of in the film noir mode. It’s set in Savannah, a city which I’m very familiar with and which I love, but I haven’t set one of my mainstream novels there and this story just lent itself to that city.
It’s about a homicide detective who becomes involved with a district judge’s wife.
That’s all I’m prepared to say. Use your imagination.

WALTER MOSLEY, novelist, November 22, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: When you began writing, you stated it was difficult or risky for writers to place within their works political discussions. Now it seems many writers are challenging readers with political viewpoints. If you agree there has been greater acceptance and instances of political writings, what do you attribute this to?
MOSLEY: Hmm. That’s an interesting question. I think as a rule there still is reticence on behalf of publishers to deal with political work. It’s not that they won’t publish it, it’s just that they don’t invest very deeply in it. That being said, we live in very political times. Somebody has to address our wars, our plagues, and America’s deep disconnect with the rest of the world.

JOHN GROGAN, author, January 18, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Does a person who over waters a plant learn not to overfeed a dog (as in “Marley and Me”)? Dogs will eat until they burst, pause, and then eat some more.
GROGAN: We quickly learned Marley would eat anything and everything we put down for him. We followed our vet’s advice and he quickly grew into a magnificent specimen of a dog—98 pounds of rippled muscle. No brains, but that’s another story. As a breed, Labs are prone to obesity, but Marley remained thin in to old age. I think it was all the nervous energy he constantly burned.

MARGARET ATWOOD, author, February 14, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Did you find any inspiration or creative ideas for your own writing while teaching?
ATWOOD: I enjoyed teaching. I liked the students. Having to formulate my ideas about literature made them clearer. I did not particularly enjoy the bureaucratic aspects of the job. However, if you are teaching fervently, your energy and time are used up at a great rate. These days, I teach only in small amounts.

CHRIS BUCKLEY, author, February 27, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I recall your entering a hallway to give a speech when a woman (one of your fellow Republican politicians, in fact) came up to you and was quite upset. She stated she opened one of the books of yours they were selling in the hallway and the first thing she saw was a swear word. She expressed serious disappointment in the use of swear words. I recall you then turned to me, as I was behind you, and you told me ‘in a few minutes, that woman is going to be very disappointed.” I have read and appreciate your books, and I don’t care if there is profanity or not. Do you have a particular philosophy on the use of profanity?
BUCKLEY: I try to use less and less in my writing and certainly on my TV appearances, but there are times when only the F word will do.
P.S. Give my regards to the lady in the hallway and tell her to fuck off.

ANA MARIE COX, author, March 6, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Have you ever put your blackberry down, stepped away from it, and thought: what would life be like if I never had this thing? Surely you would have been able to survive. How do people get so addicted to one object?
COX: I wish I could better explain the addictive quality better—it’s not like they’re coated in nicotine. And some people are able to withstand the Berry’s charms with ease. My husband was given a Berry for his job and yet sort of just carries it around. Or doesn’t.
And, yes, I think about what my life would be like if I had never gotten it. Part of me thinks, Well, I couldn’t have written my novel. But then again, I might have written it faster.

PAUL STEWART, author, and CHRIS RIDDELL, illustrator, March 20, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Are there plans for future (“ Edge Chronicles”), and if so, how long will be willing to keep them coming
STEWART and RIDDELL: Yes, in Britain we are working on Chronicle nuber 9—Clash of the Sky Galleons. We will then finish with book 10, which will tie up all the loose threads. It’ll be a really big volume!

LISA SCOTTOLINE, author, March 31, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Would you please provide us all with some descriptions into how your life experiences have inspired your writings?
SCOTTOLINE: I think my life experiences have definitely informed by writing but it isn’t even so much as being a lawyer, by that I mean, all the emotions in my life, whether it’s grief or loss or joy or a feeling of accomplishment00those are the real core emotions that I draw upon to give emotional force to the characters’ life experiences.
For example, in “Dirty Blonde” I use that feeling you have when you sometimes take on more than you can chew you have to deal with it. The woman in “Dirty Blonde” makes her own problems to a very large extent. And since I’ve done that too, I draw on life experience which I think is more meaningful than the actual things I did as a lawyer per se.
For me, in writing what you hope is a page turner, the most important thing is the characterization, not only of the main character but everyone around her. And you really have to open your own heart to flesh out a main character that will feel realistic. And that what I do in “Dirty Blonde”, even though I haven’t, quite frankly, had the hyperactive sex life that this character has.
CZIKOWSKY: Are you as tough as your writing seem?
SCOTTOLINE: No. I’m the kind of person who has a hard time returning a sweater to a store. I don’t se the limits my characters do. In fact, I strive to be as strong as they seem.
CZIKOWSKY: Aren’t you ones of those Butcher Speakman (dormitory at the University of Pennsylvania) types? Did the Quad (dormitory) provide you any inspiration to write?
SCOTTOLINE: Yes, I am one of those Butcher Speakman types by which you’re referring to our crazy days at the University of Pennsylvania and, if you read me, you will see that almost all of my characters either have gone to Penn or Penn Law or wear Penn sweats. But, of course, no fiction will come close to life in the Quad.

MICHAEL FARQUHAR, Washington Post Staff Writer, March 31, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: What do you think of the writer (Clifford Irving) whoa attempted to write and sell an autobiography or Howard Hughes while Hughes was still alive? He actually was hoping Hughes would remain secluded, read the book and feel it was fine, and not say anything. It was not the best thought out plan as Hughes quickly pointed out that he didn’t write it Still, it was an unusual stab at deception.
FARQUHAR: It was a brilliant stab! Clifford Irving had the folks at McGraw-Hill and Time-Life convinced that he was working with Hughes and produced some brilliantly forged documents to prove it. Unfortunately, he didn’t count on Hughes emerging out of seclusion to denounce the book. But, incredibly enough, those wise editors believed that Hughes was only having second thoughts about his cooperation—not that the whole project was bogus. Irving certainly earned his place on the cover of Time as “Con Man of the Year”.
I have a whole chapter (in “A Treasury of Deception”) devoted to this great literary fraud.
CZIKOWSKY: It fascinates me that some recent authors have written purely speculative books on the life of Jesus. They even admit that it is purely their speculation. And readers are reading them and debating them as if they are non-fiction. Would this count as great deception, in your opinion?
FARQUHAR: Only in that people believe what they need to believe.

ROBERT PINSKY, poet, April 18, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: How is the Poet Laureate chosen? You are certainly the perfect choice. You served for three years. How does this position operate?
PINSKY: The person is appointed by the Librarian of Congress.
It should be an honor recognizing excellence as an artist. I sometimes worry that Rita Dove, Bob Hass, and I ruined the position by making it seem that the Laureate must be active and extroverted or public.
Shy people like Elizabeth Bishop, older people like Stanley Kunitz, private people like Louise Gluck, have brought honor to the post.
Such poets should not be excluded, or the position would be diminished.

CAROLYN SEE, author, May 23, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: How did the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 personally transform you?
SEE: The destruction of the towers were just another straw on the camel’s back for me. When I was 11, my dad left and a couple of weeks later the Bomb dropped. Lots later, when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, I wrote “Golden Days” out of combined irritation and terror. I imagine things will go like this!
CZIKOWSKY: Tell your critic that a memorable villain means there obviously was a good story that caused such a memorable reaction. Every great hero has overcome a great adversary, and often it is defeating a villain. Good villains in stories is something that is positive.
SEE: You are a nice person! Thank you for standing up for me. I appreciate it. And I send you a hug.

T.C. BOYLE, author, July 18, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: You’re T.C. Boyle? What a coincidence, that’s what my credit cards and passport say, also.
BOYLE: Dear Impersonator: Enjoy them. Unfortunately, I am bankrupt. I guess the creditors will be coming after you any minute now…BTW, a few years ago one of messagistas at tcboyle.com messaged as me for a while, just for the fun of it, but the fans saw through him/her.
CZIKOWSKY: May we now what you are working on that we may look forward to seeing in the future?
BOYLE: Right now, I have done a bunch of new stories and am about one-fifth of the way into another novel, this one a return to the twentieth century and one of the big egomaniacal figures of the age. Also, you might check out the current issue of McSweeney’s which contains the novella, “Wild Child”, which is written by Dana Halter, the heroine of “Talk Talk”.

ANDREW CLEMENTS, author, September 19, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Do you have ideas for novels for other age groups? If so, may I inquire what else you’d like to write? Or do you plan to devote your work towards middle school readers?
CLEMENTS: A book called “Things Not Seen” is a young adult novel that was published in 2002 and the companion book “Things Hoped For” was just released this month. I’m working on the third (and final) in this set called “Things That Are”. But you’re right to observe that the middle grades are where I spend more of my creative effort.

KATHY REICHS, author,, September 25, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: You work and write about a fascinating field. As a teacher in forensics, I know you keep up with the latest technology. What are some of the things being researched and developed that we may soon see added to make forensics yield even more information?
REICHS: That is such a broad question. I try to bring many fields into my novels, not just forensic anthropology. To keep up, I read the JFS, and attend meetings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. I have to. This year I am Vice President!

SPIDER ROBINSON, author, September 28, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I sent my question by telepathy. Did you get it?
ROBINSON: You know I did.
CZIKOWSKY: What are some of the major changes you have seem among science fiction fans over the past few decades? As science changes, is it reaching different types of audiences?
ROBINSON: First, we’ve all gotten a bit better looking. Unfortunately, we’ve also dwindled sharply in numbers; fantasy fans now outnumber us about four or five to one. Just as science is starting to fulfill its promise of a better tomorrow (witness this online chat), readers are for some reason becoming less and less interested in science, and in science fiction. I wish I knew why, or how to reverse it.

MARISHA PESSI, novelist, October 26, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: What were some of the inspirations for your characters and settings (in “Special Topics in Calamity Physics”)? How much of the emotion that you write with are from personal experiences and how much haven’t you experienced that you write about? What have you based any conjecture upon?
PESSI: Strangers that I encounter, that I observe in a waiting room or riding a bus, or have some sort of fleeting encounter with, whether it’s a professor I have in the case of Gareth, or a very shy person that I once observed in terms of Blue, these kinds of strangers inspire me to create characters rather than people in my own life. Not knowing them allows me to invent their histories, their joys, and sorrows.
At the same time, writing is a sort of acting exercise. You have to bring yourself and your own sensibility to your character, and yet you much diminish or augment certain aspects of yourself, see the world through their eyes, and judge the world according to their moral compass.
I took an acting class in New York called Stella Adler Studios, and one of the teachers was taught by Stella herself, who of course, taught Marlon Brando. And this teacher said that Brando would go to Central Park and would watch people for hours, and this is how he would create his characters, including Vito Corleone. And I started doing that after taking this class. It’s in tiny details, someone’s bitten fingernails or in the way they stoop as they walk, it’s in those details that human qualities are revealed. And I used that with my own characterizations.

CALVIN TRILLIN, author, January 11, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: It seems, for you it was love at first sight (with your wife Alice). What were Alice’s first impressions of you?
TRILLIN: She says she thought I was funny. In fact, she used to say I had never been funnier than I was that first night, so I peaked in December 9f 1963.

IVAN TOLSTOY, historian, January 29, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Did the CIA have any other known involvement in attempting to influence the Nobel Prize process (other than for Boris Pasternak)?
TOLSTOY: Not to my knowledge. It would be appropriate to note that the KGB tried to counteract the CIA’s efforts by pressuring the Swedish Academy into removing Pasternak’s name from the list of candidates, both through communiqués by the Soviet Embassy in Stockholm and through various influential European figures, by way of bribes or coercion. Final score: CIA 1, KGB 0.
CZIKOWSKY: What is the Nobel Prize process?
TOLSTOY: The only two bodies with the power to nominate a candidate for the Prize are a.) past laureates and b.) institutions that have been granted right a right. This is different from the nomination process for the Oscars or the Golden Globes. The nomination is an attempt to bring the Swedish Academy’s attention to a particular figure in contemporary literature. There have been many cases of the Nobel Prize awarded to non-nominated candidates, just as there have been many nominated candidates who never won the Prize, like Nabokov and Borges.
CZIKOWSKY: How did you find the information regarding the CIA?
TOLSTOY: It took nearly twenty years, during which I took countless interviews with Russian émigrés in the U.S. and in Western Europe and shifted through numerous public archives.

JOHN RIDLEY, author, March 20, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: How did you come up with Sothern Cross (in “The American Way”)?
RIDLEY: Well, somebody had to be the real bad guy in the story, and as the heroes were meant to be icons of parts of America, the concept of Southern Cross was easy to come by. The thing was, and early on in the story, I really wanted him to be heroic, not just a sniveling racist. That really played into how other characters saw him. A good man who had a real, real bad streak.

STEPHEN HUNTER, author, March 27, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: I noticed you used a truly heart-wrenching device (in “Point of Impact”): a dog dies. That gets readers really upset. What were your thoughts when you were writing and decided to have a dog killed?
HUNTER: Given when I had set up, the dog HAD to die. However, I was proud not to dramatize it, but merely to reveal that it had happened offscreen. Happy to say Antoine and Jonathan agreed with that take.

DAVID IGNATIUS, Washington Post columnist, April 13, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Is the British World War II incident (in “Body of Lies”) about masterpiece espionage a true story? If so, I am unfamiliar with it. What were some of the circumstances of this?
IGNATIUS: I did begin “Body of Lies” with an intelligence ploy that’s drawn from the history books. During World War II, the British mounted an operation that was described in the book “The Man Who Never Was”. They found a corpse in Britain, dressed it up in suitable officer’s dress and floated it ashore from a submarine in the Mediterranean so that it would land on the Spanish coast and be discovered by the Nazis. The corpse was carrying documents that indicated the Brits were planning to invade southern Europe not from Sicily (which everyone was expecting) but further east on the Greek coast. The Germans took the bait. In “Body of Lies”, I explore a similar (imaginary) deception by the CIA, intended to make al-Qaeda operatives believe that the agency has penetrated their organization. Does it succeed? I give the author’s answer: Read the book!

MICHAEL CHABON, author, May 15, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: I put your works into your own class, as it seems there is no one else like you approaching your creativity. How do you feel when people put your works into subjective categories? Do you care or has this ever upset you?
CHABON: Human beings have a gift for taxonomy; like all powerful gifts it is prone to abuse and as useful for destruction as for constructive analysis. Luckily the world keeps sneaking through the gaps among the pigeonholes.
CZIKOWSKY: What information are you willing to share on current and future writing projects you are doing or planning? We look forward to them and seek insights on what to expect.
CHABON: Right now I’m so lost on the book tour that I’m not really working much. I would like to get a new novel going. I would like it to be set in the present day and feel right now the urge to do something more mainstream than my recent work has been.

IAN McEWAN, author, June 5, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: How important to your book (“Chesil Beach”) is it that this is set in England? For instance, were French or American attitudes towards relationships so different in 1962 that this would have been a totally different book if it had been set in another country, such as France or America?
McEWAN: I think that “Chesil Beach” is without question an English novel. Its characters are inhibited by both their Englishness and their class and by the peculiar weight of history that some English people feel. But at the same time I’m sure this story could be told in a different way for every country in the world because it discusses the universal experience of first love.
CZIKOWSKY: May we readers learn some about what more to expect from you in the future? What other works are you working on, and what may you tell us about them?
McEWAN: I’ve just finished the libretto of an opera called “For You”, which will have its premiere in England in 2008 and I hope it will come to the States in 2009. As for fiction, I am still in the moping stage, reading and moping.

CHIMAMANDA NGOZI ADICHIE, author, June 19, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What are you currently writing and what has inspired your current work?
ADICHIE: I’m thinking of the next book which, if it happens, will be about Nigerians in America and my perception of Nigerians who have made America their home.

LISA SEE, author, June 26, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What are the goals of Tan Ze? Do you feel the character was developed as much as you wanted it to be, or do you agree with some critics who thought the character required more depth?
SEE: I think the best way to answer your question is to talk about the point of view in a novel. There were various ways I could have told the story of the three wives. I could have written a non-fiction book. I could have written a novel that followed the first, second, and third wives’ points of views and they could have been in a kind of dialogue with each other. I wanted to stay with one character and tell the story from Peony’s point of view, even though she’d have to be dead for two-thirds of the book. (That idea alone certainly posed some interesting writing challenges!) I was intrigued by the real life Chen Tong, who’s given name has been lost to history. (Tong means “same”, and she was given this name because she had the same name as her future mother-in-law.) I guess I wanted her to find and have her own voice, to be heard for who she really was, and for readers to see-through the eyes of one person, who I hope people will connect to and care about—what she went through to be heard, and finally for her to be truly honored for what she started when she began writing in the margins of the Peony Pavillion.
CZIKOWSKY: 17Tth century China is such an exotic time and place for American readers. What research did you do to capture that era.
SEE: I did a lot of reading about the time and place, and then about how women lived. I also read as much as I could that had been written by the women writers of that time. There were over a thousand women writers who were published in the Yangzi delta in the mid-17th century and a lot of their work is still available, even in English. Obviously, many of them wrote about their lives in the inner chambers and what they could see in their gardens—flowers and butterflies. But many of them ventured farther afield not only physically but with their thoughts too. Their worlds, ideas, and emotions are all woven to create a 17th century world. Finally, I went to Hangzghou. It’s a very modern city today, but the area around the lake still has many old remnants from the 17th century and even earlier. I also explored some of the water-towns nearby, which really haven’t changed at all. As I think about it, I do all kinds of things—look at paintings on silk, tableaus that are painted on ceramics, listen to traditional Chinese opera from that region.

COLIN THUBRON, author, July 10, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: If you could one, or perhaps just a few, of all the places you visited, which would you most wish to return to, and why?
THUBRON: I’d go back to the Taklamakan desert in northwest China: especially the southern route, through Hotan. It’s tough, but wonderfully unspoilt, and is the heartland of the indigenous Uighurs: a hospitable Moslem people, threatened with ethnic swamping under the Chinese.
CZIKOWSKY: You witnessed a part of the world when the people were fearful of SARS. Did you have any fear you might be at risk? Did you take any precautions?
THUBRON: About SARS: I never really felt myself at risk. There’s always an understandably panicky reaction to a disease with no known cure, but this one wasn’t easily transmitted, and in the northwest provinces of China where I mainly traveled it made no inroads at all. In the end, among all China’s millions, this much-feared plague killed only a few hundred (sadly, several of them doctors). It’s dangerous to be cavalier about it, of course, but even when I was interned for SARS on the edge of the Taklamakan desert, it was hard to feel threatened: the nearest identified case was a thousand miles away.

KAREN HOUPPERT, author, August 27, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: I see you wrote a book on military families (“Home Fires Burning”). Are you from a military family? What is your book about?
HOUPPERT: Yes, I’m an Air Force brat. And my book is about military wives whose husbands have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. I spent a year, checking in with them, to see how the war and their husbands’ absences effected their lives—and their kids’ lives.

DIANE ACKERMAN, author, September 17,2007
CZIKOWSKY: How did you research this book (“Zookeeper’s Wife”)? What records and survivors of this story remain?
ACKERMAN: I did a huge amount of reading! Wartime photographs and film footage were especially helpful. And, although Jan and Antonina are no longer alive, I was fortunate enough to interview their son, who went with me to their old home in the zoo. Some survivors of the war in Poland are still alive. And there are lots of archives, letters, diaries, sermons, memoirs, articles, and other writings and filmed testimonies of citizens of the Warsaw Ghetto. I must say, it was great fun studying Poland’s natural history and folklore, and even Nazism’s crazy origins and values. And, of course, many wonderful details loomed on my travels in Poland.

GARRISON KEILLOR, author, October 3, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: I’m originally from a small town. The same person who won the town’s Brad Pitt Look-a-Like contest also won the town’s Gilbert Godfrey Look-a-Like Contest, and a year later came in second in the town’s Martha Stewart Look-a-Like contest. What do you believe is the attraction of small town stories, even amongst big city people like big thriving metropolises like Arlington?
KEILLOR: It’s an old literary convention, the small town, Stories about cohesive society and family relationships tend to be set in small towns, and stories about estrangement and alienation are set in big cities. Doesn’t always make sense to me, but that’s how it is. People love small towns from a distance, or while visiting briefly; in fact, it’s a struggle to live there, to survive, and also to keep one’s spirit intact.
CZIKOWSKY: Why was there a six year gap in-between novels, and how long might it be before there is another novel?
KEILLOR: I was writing other stuff that didn’t work. And a political screed. But “Pontoon” was such a blast to write. I’m planning on writing three more short Lake Wobegon novels in the next three of four years, bam bam bam bam.

ROBERT PINSKY, poet, December 4, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What are the earliest examples of poetry in human history that have been found?
PINSKY: I’m not scholarly enough to know the answer—presumably something Sumerian or Babylonian, either that part of the world or something pre-Columbian? I feel like I’m flunking an exam.
One of the most interesting moments for me in school, in an Old English class, was learning that poetry preceded prose by centuries: people were composing poetry, reciting it, even writing it down, long before there was such a thing as prose.
(You see, I am trying to supply SOME kind of information, even when I can’t answer the main Q).

RICHARD BAUSCH, author, and MARIE ARANA, novelist, December 10, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What is your advice for handing or avoiding writer’s block? I know some have advised to just keep writing, even if it is nonsense, until something sense-ical emerges through the block. Is this good advice?
BAUSCH: Yeah. Lower your standards. Keep on going. That’s William Stafford’s advice. It works. I don’t get blocked that much. For me, it stopped being a problem back when I stopped trying to hit a homerun with every line. I’m just a story teller. I’m just telling a story. Just try to be clear.
CZIKOWSKY: When you start a novel, do you always know what the ending will be? I’ve had some novelists tell me different answers, and I was wondering how you put your novels together?
ARAN: Interesting question!
I was so surprised to hear John Irving tell me in an interview that he always writes his last sentence first. That seems to me like an impossible task, but he does it, and CANNOT begin until he has it down. Apparently, once he’s decided it’s just right, he never changes it. I, on the other hand, don’t know where I’m going. Oh, well, I do vaguely know whether it’s going to be a 1. wistful, 2. tragic, or 3. happy ending. But every day that I sit down to write, I’m just trying to find out where my bumptious, eccentric, and thoroughly unmanageable characters are going.
BAUSCH: It varies from book to book and story to story. Sometimes I write to find out what at the end is, knowing it, RE-write. Over and over.

ROSEMARY WELLS, children’s book author, December 11, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What is your writing process, if you have one? Do you form a story first and then seek things you think would appeal to children, or do you have a moral or message you wish to bring to children and find a story to shape it? How do you construct a children’s story?
WELLS: The story always comes first. The story comes to me from the air. This is my job. It is a writer’s job to have ideas and know how to construct a story from them.

JAMES FREY, author, May 20, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: If you are presenting a wider view of Los Angeles (in the book “Bright Shiny Morning”) than just the entertainment world, how much of a wider view are you presenting, since the description mentions modeling and the porn industry, which perhaps are sidelines to the entertainment world? I know you can not present the story of everyone in Los Angeles, but what about the city do you want the reader to learn?
FREY: The book takes on LA in many, many ways. Sections involving modeling and porn are very small, maybe 20 pages out of 500. I tried to write a book that structured, and built, in a new way, that presented huge amounts of information, and multiple narratives, in a very easy and accessible way.
CZIKOWSKY: How do you develop your characters? Do you know people who are like them, or do you research people of that character, or what do you do?
FREY: I try to write about universal issues, ideas, things that everyone feels in some way. I try to write about love and loss, pain, family, friends, God, ambition, the desire for a better life in some way. I believe if I can tap into those feelings, that the characters will form themselves in the stories.

MARY KARR, Washington Post columnist, June 17, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: You wrote vivid descriptions of the frightening world as seen from the eyes of a child. You wrote a great reflection of these sentiments. How painful or difficult was it writing these descriptions?
KARR: Writing the descriptions was a lot easier than living the events, I promise, but still hard. Some days after writing, I’d collapse in a heap and sleep as if I’d driven cross country, but I’d had a lot of therapy. My mother was sober then, my daddy passed away. It was a time of psychic peace, or I could never have done it. Thanks.
CZIKOWSKY: Do you have a preference for writing poetry or prose? What causes you to decide which to write?
KARR: It’s sad to say that I currently write the memoirs because they pay me. It’s otherwise too hard to do. If I were less venal, I wouldn’t write them. It’s a form I love to read but not write. I adore doing the columns for this paper—that feels like luck. The poetry is hard, but it’s more absorbing technically. I get wrapped up in the noise and the music, and in the writing process that can soften the discomfort of hard subject matter. Thanks.

JULIA GLASS, Washington Post magazine contributor, July 14, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: To what extent are your writings (in “Real Life”) based on your own life and actual people and events you have observed, how much is extended from such observations, and what degree is pure fiction from your imagination?
GLASS: I could write a long essay in answer to this question! I like to say that all my fiction is EMOTIONALLY autobiographical but most of my characters and the events in their loves are made up out of whole cloth (with help from my subconscious, no doubt), though I am well aware which characters have the most in common with me…and with my mother, who was a direct inspiration for an important character in my first novel. (She recognized herself right away.) That said the book coming out in October will be the closest to “literal” autobiography of any fiction I’ve written. Yet still I’ve invented a great deal of it. Otherwise I would have written a memoir—something I have never been tempted to do at book length.
CZIKOWSKY: What made you realize, after you had found yourself, that you hadn’t?
GLASS: Oh, that took another decade! And it was a gradual, painful process. I look at my kids and wish that I could “package” the scant wisdom it took me so long to accrue, but each of us has to go it alone, right?

JEANNE MARIE LASKAS, departing Washington Post magazine columnist, July 16, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: You used to run away a lot as a child. Please stop running away. Stay wish us, please!
LASKAS: HA!!!No, I swear those running days are over. Seriously, I got all the attention I need and more! Stopping the column is really a life affirming deal. (Is that corny?) Don’t we all have those times? You know, I think of it as a TV show that had its run. Better to stop it when it’s still strong. Or like a rock band that had its hits. I didn’t want to keep playing and have people say: she still singing that same stupid song? Better to move on to a new kind of music that challenges and matures. I think I’m really getting corny here with the metaphors. Sorry.

PAUL LEVITZ, DC Comics President, July 18, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Thank you for “The Legion of Superheroes”. Are you planning on writing anything else in the future and, if so, what?
LEVITZ: I have a Legion plot out to Jim Lee for a special book of his work that’s being produced next year, and I hope I’ll be able to do something more extended. Dan DiDio keeps talking to me about a Legion miniseries with Keith Griffen, and I would love to find the time.

KALEB NATION, Twilight Guy blogger, August 1, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How did you decide to begin your writings? Had you written things before?
NATION: I had been blogging for years before I started TwlightGuy, on my own site, www.KalebNation.com, so I was very accustomed to blogging before. I started my site when a.) I blogged about Twilight and got 600+ comments (my usual back then was…three) and b.) when the front of my website had more talk about going on about Stephenie Meyer than my own books, when I had never read a word of Twilight. That pretty much brought me to my senses that there was “something” about Stephanie that brought about an enormously devoted fan following, and I wanted to find out what was special about the Twilight books.

SANDRA TSING LOH, author, September 2, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Now that news of a politician firing a librarian over censorship has reemerged, what are your views on whether local governments should be able to ban books of their choosing from their libraries?
LOH: Wow. That’s a big question. Part of me is horrified that extraordinary works of literature have been censored in America, part of me is wary about things like “The Anarchist’s Cookbook” which instructs one on how to make bombs out of regular household materials.
I should mention that I’ve just come from Burning Man (which I went to because I thought it was an important event to see, as a writer, if I were to understand contemporary American culture) and…I honestly believe a bit of self-control in our society is a good thing, a web of rules keeps us from being howling animals!
That’s a short answer to a big question.

ARTHUR FROMMER, travel guidebook author, September 16, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Is there anywhere you haven’t traveled to that you wish to?
FROMMER: I so much regret not having gone to the Antarctic, but the thought of hazarding the Drake Passage and its seasickness-causing seas is too much for me to consider.

NICHOLAS SPARKS. Novelist. September 17, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How far ahead have you found that you begin thinking about a story before you begin writing the book? Are you able to give us some insights into some stories you are now thinking about?
SPARKS: Usually, I start thinking about my next novel soon after completing the latest, and it can take anywhere from a month to six month to come up with a story.
As for my next novel, I already have the idea and Disney just purchased it (though I’m not done writing it yet). It will star Miley Cyrus.
CZIKOWSKY: Were you involved in the screenplays of any of the movie adaptations of your books? How happy are you with their work?
SPARKS: I toss in my two cents worth, but I’ve been fortunate that I’ve liked the adaptations. The screenplays were all excellent.

ALEXANDER McCALL SMITH, novelist, September 19, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How much time do you spend as an attorney? When do you find time to write along with your legal work and teaching?
SMITH: I was a law professor rather than a practicing attorney. I used to write in my spare time, such as it was, before I became a full time writer.
CZIKOWSKY: I think Basic is a nice name. Nothing to be ashamed of.
SMITH: I like the name Basil too. Our cat is called Augustus Basil.

BRAD MElTZER, author, September 22, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What is the “Book of Lies” about? In DC, it is going to be hard to distinguish a book with that title from most of the other locally written books.
MELTZER: In chapter 4 of the Bible, Cain kills Abel. But the Bible is silent about the murder weapon that Cain used to kill his brother. And that weapon is lost to history.
In 1932, a man named Mitchell Siegel is killed in a robbery. In grief, his young son creates a bulletproof man called Superman. And that weapon is still lost to this day.
The question is: what do these two murders, thousands of years apart, have to do with each other? The answer is in “The Book of Lies”. (How’s that for stealing the back cover of the book?)

TERRY PRATCHETT, novelist. October 1, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Do you have a writing process? About how long do you think about your storyline before you put it down on paper? How much of writing is rewriting?
PRATCHETT: Good one. “Nation” was written in a very strange way. I was doing draft five of the first few chapters when I was on draft one of the editing. In a sense, it was written in a way more suitable to painting, in effect I was working on the whole thing all the time. Generally, I start writing when I have even the smallest idea of how a book is going to go, because the physical process of writing itself keeps the mind active and focused on the job at hand. Usually I write about five drafts, but that simply means there are five definite times when I go in a linear fashion from the beginning to the end of the book.

PHILIPPA GREGORY, novelist, October 8, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How did you develop your interest in British history and royalty? Was this an interest from childhood, did you study it is school, and when did you decide you wished to pursue it so thoroughly and so well?
GREGORY: Funnily enough, I am a republican (in the anti-monarchy sense) so I am not really interested in the royal family. I was not interested in history until I went to university, at the age of 21000and then I fell in love with it as the explanation of everything. Then I did my PhD in the eighteenth century and wrote my first novel “Wideacre”.

JOHN GROGAN, memoralist, October 22, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: “Marley and Me” is one of the greatest books I have ever read. I highly recommend it to others. Is there going to be a movie made of the book and, if so, have you been involved in the screenplay or providing any advice?
GROGAN: Yes, the movie comes out Christmas Day and stars Owen Wilson as me and Jennifer Aniston as my wife Jenny. They’re great together and delivered really strong performances. I acted as a consultant on the script, and am happy how it turned out. It captures the spirit of the book and faithfully reenacts most of the memorable scenes.

ANITA SHREVE, novelist, November 14, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Did you think you may be awakening people (in “Testimony”) to a potential growing issue and providing warning to an emerging kind of scandal?
SHREVE: I never write a novel with an agenda, but in this one I think I did have a message. I’m very concerned about underage drinking. By this, I mean thirteen and fourteen years olds and up. As a novelist, I remain interested in the notion of a single reckless act and its consequence.

JOE GARDEN, The Onion Feature Editor, and MEGAN GANZ, The Onion Assistant Editor, November 17, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Which story (in “The Onion”) generated the most cards and letters?
GARDEN: Oddly enough it was a trifle of an article. It was an editorial entitled “That Mary Kate Is Dragging Ashley Down”. We received hate mail about that for YEARS, but none seemed to be from anyone who understood that “The Onion” was satire.
GANZ: We also got a few letters about a column “Are Your Cats Old Enough TO Learn About Jesus: from a---and I use this term lovingly---a complete wack-job who wanted more information, as in her opinion her cats were mature enough to welcome the Lord into their hearts.
CZIKOWSKY: Has anyone ever tried to sue you for anything you published?
GANZ: We’ve gotten a few cease and desist letters in our day, but libel laws are such that we aren’t in any real danger. We’re obviously a satirical newspaper, not meant to be taken literally, and the 1st Amendment still exists for the time being.
We did get a letter from the White House telling us that we had to stop using the Presidential seal next to our weekly Presidential Address podcast but there are clear laws stating it is public property. So we had our lawyers send the White House a nice letter explaining that, and cc’ed the New York Times.
GARDEN: Things have come up before, but as we move on, we become more secure that the law is on our side. We’re not concerned.
CZIKOWSKY: Has there ever been a celebrity who sought to be satirized in “The Onion”?
GANZ: Not that I know of, but sometimes people are a lot cooler about getting made fun of than you might think. We published a magazine cover with Bill Nye the Science Guy’s face on it, with a headline reading “Crack Almost Killed Me”, and then we received an email from him saying, “Thank you for dealing compassionately about this matter” It made me think a lot more highly of him, for being able to take a joke/
GARDEN: Yea. No one really tried to get in “The Onion”, but once they’re there, they usually have a good sense of humor about it.

DEAN KOONTZ, novelist, December 1, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What did you teach when you taught and what did you think of your teaching experience?
KOONTZ: I worked in Saxton, Pennsylvania under Title Three of the Appalachian Poverty Program, tutoring disadvantaged kids. Then I worked in Mechanicsburg, Pa. teaching 9th and 10th grade English. I loved teaching, enjoyed the kids---some of whom still write to me even now that they’re 90 and in nursing homes---but I didn’t care for the bureaucracy of the educational system. Hated it. Quite. Became a writer.
CZIKOWSKY: How do you come up with your plots?
KOONTZ: Ideas come from many sources. “Life Expectancy” from a line in a song by Paul Simon. “One Door Away From Heaven” from my disgust with the utilitarian bioethics infecting our medical schools. “Your Heart Belongs to Me” popped into my head while I was in the middle of a phone conversation with a friend who was talking about transplant ethics and technology. He mentioned one curious fact, and I stopped listening to him for a minute because my brain spun up a novel idea from what he had said.
CZIKOWSKY: Your wife deserves credit for giving you five years to see if you could write I believe a lot of frustrated writers wish they had similar family support. Obviously, your wife recognized you had talent. How did you come to realize this gamble was worth it and how did her agreement to this come about?
KOONTZ: Gerda is a special human being. I was lucky to find her. Of course, the deal was that if I didn’t produce enough work to make a living in five years, she would not only stop supporting me but cut off my left hand. I was highly motivated.

MADAGASCAR

RICK WEISS, Washington Post Staff Writer, January 26, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I have long found Madagascar fascinating. Being isolated, didn’t many of its plants and animal species develop independently from the rest of the world? I have found one finds some of the most interesting products of nature in Madagascar. My questions: about how much of Madagascar has even been searched by scientists? Are the political leaders and population supportive of further research?
WEISS: It is very interesting to look online at some of the sites that show how pieces of the Earth’s crust moved around 100 million years ago or so. You can see Madagascar, all by itself, even back then. A big piece of crust scrapes by off its east coast and drifts northward for 50 million years or more and crashed into central Asia, to become the Indian subcontinent (and making the Himalaya in the process; a hell of a fender bender). Point is, yes, it’s been its own piece of turf for a long time, so evolution took its own course there and made all kinds of exotic plants and animals in the process. There are some fledgling efforts to conserve parts of the island for tourism and for general biodiversity preservation, but it is incredibly poverty-stricken and it’s not like the government has tight control over activities in the island’s hard-to-reach areas, so people are cutting down lots of trees for both survival and commerce and planting fields of crops just to get by.

MARRIAGE

ALEX KOTLOWITZ, author, November 15, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: About two decades ago, the number of teen births began an upwards growth in annual numbers. Now, those births are becoming teenagers. Why should we not expect them to view teenage motherhood as the norm to which they are accustomed?
KOTLOWITZ: One of the issues, of course, is the lack of role models. And that was clearly evident in one part of our filming (“Let’s Get Married”), when this young lay minister was counseling a young couple who had a child and was considering marriage. And as it runs out, this young lay minister, who was only 22, was in exactly the same situation. I thought that moment in the film spoke volumes to the lack of role models. But the encouraging news, at least on the teenage pregnancy front, is that the level of teenage pregnancy seems to have leveled off, if not declined, in the past ten years.

STEPHANIE COONTZ, author, June 28, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Stone Age marriages? How can you tell?
COONTZ: Of course we don’t know for sure, and it was very cheeky of me to wander into this territory. But I teach at The Evergreen State College, where we are always team-teaching in interdisciplinary courses, and I’ve worked with several anthropologists in the past so when I decided I had to answer some of the things I was hearing about why marriage was invented I took a deep breath and plunged in. I spent six months reviewing the archeology and anthropology and when I had some idea of what I wanted to say I sent it to four of the world’s top experts, who patiently corrected a lot of my mistakes. I don’t claim to be an expert, but I think I’ve summed up a good deal of the research and at least made a case for the idea of marriage was above all invented not so much for the benefit of individual men or women but in order to get in-laws. And by the way, if you get the book (“Marriage: A History”) or simply are leafing through it, check out the story of the invention of marriage as told by the Piegan or Blackfoot Indians. It is my new favorite myth about marriage.

RICHARD MORIN, Washington Post Polling Director, June 5, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts on the apparent disconnect between the number of African American males who feel marriage is important and between the reality that the marriage rate is relatively low?
MORIN: We asked Black men why they thought the marriage rate was so low. Here is what they said: 49 percent said a “big reason” was Black men don’t feel they can support a family. 42 percent said it was because Black men were less likely to value marriage.
44 percent said a big reason was because Black women are reluctant to marry men who have less education and lower incomes than they do.
70 percent said it was because too many young Black men are in prison or have been killed.

MARS

JOHN GROTZINGER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sedimentary Geologist, March 24, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I find it amazing how well life adapts to its environment. To what extent is water a sign of life? Do scientists believe it may be possible that life forms could exist that do not depend on water? When there is water, do most scientists agree that life would then exist within that water? What is the consensus of speculation on such issues?
GROTZINGER: I think the consensus is that it is very difficult to develop a strategy to try and explore for life as we don’t know it here on Earth. The scope is too large, the possibilities too numerous and the cost and efficiencies of such an exploration program would be prohibitive. Consequently as scientists our first approach for this search for life on other planets begins with a model that assume that life evolved on Mars, if it did, as it did do here on Earth. And this enables us to pursue such scientific exploration in the most cost effective manner.

GEORGE BUTLER, filmmaker, and STEVE SQUYRES, IMAX film lead scientist, January 26, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: What were your reactions while reviewing all the footage of Mars? What surprised you the most of what you saw?
BUTLER and SQUYRES: Just the clarity of the images was quite extraordinary and there had been a minor dispute earlier because people involved with the film did not believe IMAX images could be transmitted through space but it all worked out in the end. Very pleased with the images.

MEDIA

HOWARD KURTZ, Washington Post Staff Writer, March 29, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: With the proliferation of news sources, there are more people covering and reporting the news. Has this affected the quality of reporting? Has this opened the doors to journalists with various perspectives? Has this allowed less qualified reporters to enter the profession? Is there a tendency for reporters to follow each other’s lead on how stories are reported, or are there now more reporters searching for different angles to stories?
KURTZ: That is a whole lot of questions. The explosion of media outlets has essentially been a good thing by allowing more voice into the grand echo chamber that used to be controlled by a handful of big media corporations. The recent rise of web logs is a striking example of how one person with a modem and a bunch of opinions can influence the dialogue. I don’t see any decline in qualification for reporters at mainstream newspapers, but for the first time in history they now have competition from 100 different directions. What is more, people can now do their own “reporting” by reading transcripts and documents online rather than simply accepting a terse description by some newspaper or network.

VICTOR DAVID HANSON, author, September 11, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: One generation learned of Pearl Harbor on the radio. Another generation learned of the assassination of President Kennedy on television. This generation watched the collapse of the World Trade Towers on live television. How do you think this will affect us, especially since this is the first major national disaster, indeed our greatest national disaster, that was brought right before our eyes? Is this affecting many people far more differently than past national emergencies?
HANSON: I think that is an excellent point and a suggestion that it has affected us because of its intimacy right in our living rooms is correct. There is much talk that in a global age of communications we Americans have grown soft and cynical yet both our sorrow over 9/11 and our anger at the perpetrators seems to me, even after a year, to have increased rather than waned. So for all our affluence and undeniable license I think we still remain the grandchildren of Pearl Harbor and that bodes ill for our enemies.

BOB SCHIEFFER, Washington Correspondent, CBS News, January 24, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: What was it like working with Walter Cronkite? Do you have any particular memorable stories to mention about him?
SCHIEFFER: The great thing about Walter Cronkite is that he is exactly like he is on television. He is the most curious person I have ever known. Walter is my hero and I love him like I would love my own father, but he could drive you absolutely nuts on deadline. Like every good editor, he could always ask the one question that you had forgotten to ask.
Here are the kings of things that Walter would actually ask about 6:15, when the Evening News was about to go on the air: How long is Greenland? Do you happen to know how much oil there is in the world? Or maybe this one: In Poland, do they call him Father Christmas or Santa Claus?
CZIKOWSKY: Do you write your own questions, or do you have writers assisting you?
SCHIEFFER: We have a very small staff at “Face the Nation”. Basically, an Executive Producer and a Producer. They do a lot of research and the three of us write our questions. They give us an outline of what the interview will be like but rather than have specific questions, what I try to do is have a list of things I need to cover in the interview. The success of the interview is not the questions you have prepared beforehand but the follow-ups you ask during the interview itself. The most important thing is not so much the question, but to listen carefully to the answers you’re getting.
I always write the commentary at the end of the broadcast myself. I was hired at CBS basically as a writer and I still think of myself in that way.

TINA FEY, “Saturday Night Live” Head Writer, and ROSALIND WISEMAN, Co-Founder, Empower Women, June 4, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Do you have any comments on whether the empowerment of women is having greater success with young women (although not nearly enough amongst older people) yet, there are some young males who have grown up hearing the messages on TV programs and ads that “women can do anything” who are now beginning to feel that they, young men, are inferior? Now, we see fewer males going to college and young women are out-earning young men (which is fine for women, for a change). Shouldn’t the overall message be “anyone can be empowered and achieve if they try and work for it”?
FEY: I’d be curious to know if there’s some statistic that women are out-earning—if that’s true. I don’t think it’s the intent to make young men feel inferior.
WISEMAN: I’ve seen the college statistics, but I don’t understand why people want to see things in binaries. Why does women’s success mean men’s failure? Men and women will not be able to have successful relationships with each other if that’s the attitude taken—one person’s success does not equal another’s loss. And vice versa, with men as well.
I think that one thing that’s more difficult for young women is that they are very savvy consumers of the culture. They know they’re being manipulated to buy certain things, but it doesn’t stop them from being manipulated. So I think that you also see girls in a way struggling more and louder. They don’t suffer in silence as they used to. So as a result, you have girls that are outspoken but still suffering.
FEY: I agree. The image that I kind of fixate on is that you see the teenage girl with the tight baby-tee that says “Diva” on it—so you’re aware of this power but could probably be having better life experiences.

MICHAEL HARRISON, Editor, Talkers Magazine, July 1, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I have listened to many political and civic leaders get bashed to pieces when they go on some local talk radio shows where the host just attacks and attacks and doesn’t give them much of a chance to respond. Sometimes, I wonder why anyone would even accept an invitation to appear on such shows. If one is to go on such a show, would it be a good strategy to just “shove it in the face” of such a rude interviewers and get your message across, even if you have to talk over someone who doesn’t give you a chance to talk? I hate to suggest that someone be rude, but if someone is being rude to you (to get those high ratings), is it better to try and fight back, or is it best to just surrender and let listeners listen to their hero interviewers ramble on as usual?
HARRISON: Great question. I often wonder that myself. However, hope springs eternal in our hearts of those who wish to be on TV and radio to promote their product, cause, or just plain ego. That aside, many people have learned that if you don’t let the bashing of the host bother you, there are plenty of people who will see through the bombast and get your message. This is an acquired skill.

BERNARD SANDERS, Member of Congress, July 15, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Isn’t the fact that Time magazine puts a book written by the former head of CNN, now owned by Time Warner, on its cover just a small but glaring example of what happens when media becomes too concentrated? It reminds me of how many characters on ABC shows casually mention how much they enjoy going to Disneyland.
SANDERS: The question makes a very, very good point. And we’re seeing more of that concern as media conglomerates become more vertically integrated. But the more important issue, in terms of media consolidation, is the degree to which the corporate media “entertains us to death”, and deflects attention away from the most important issues facing the middle class of this country. When is the last time that the people of this country have seen on TV a program discussing why the U.S., for example, is the only country in the industrialized world not to have a national healthcare program guaranteeing healthcare to all of our citizens?
Where are the programs discussing the collapse of the middle class and the growing gap between the rich and poor? We have far more programming discussing gossip and the sex lives of movie stars than we have about the economic crisis facing millions of American workers.
That is one of the reasons I started my radio show. And why we have got to address this issue of corporate control of the media.

DEREK McGINTY, “USA Tonight” anchor, September 10, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts of switching from a national audience to a local audience, although perhaps being a more influential voice within an important D.C. area audience?
McGINTY: Well, I was never locked into being a network correspondent in terms of being a major national news guy. I’ve always wanted to have a job that I enjoyed, that allowed me some creativity and a chance to explore stories I care about. So while this show has a smaller audience than the network…the reality is…the network was probably never going to offer me an opportunity so much in line with what I like to do.

LEON HARRIS, news anchor, September 10, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: You have been doing a good job on CNN. What has made you decide to become a news anchor in Washington? Do you believe it will be more of a challenge, or that you will have an audience with more direct influence, or what?
HARRIS: (laughs) You already answered my question. A lot of it’s true. I think it’ll be, if not a bigger challenge, a different challenge. After 20 years in one place, that’s what I’m looking for. The Washington area has some of the most intelligent people in the country, newsmakers and there’s a lot of international news and events there and that’s a perfect mix for me.
Having that broad of a menu to choose from, that environment, makes it a perfect fit.

BOB LEVEY, Washington Post columnist, November 14, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I just read Bill O’Reilly’s new book. When he is not busy trying to reintroduce Red baiting into politics, I observe he is also busy stating he doesn’t seem to appreciate you as well as the rest of us do. Have you read what he said about you and do you have a response?
LEVEY: No and no.
Except to say if The Big O runs for President (which Newsday quoted him this week as thinking about), I may move to Lithuania.

CHARLES OSGOOD, “CBS News Sunday Morning” Anchor, January 26. 2004
CZIKOWSKY: If you were given full control of the program is there anything you would change? If so, what would that be?
OSGOOD: Well, first of all, I would not like to take control of the broadcast. The producers have been largely responsible for the quality and the success of the broadcast. And I trust their judgment more than I do my own.

DAN FROOMKIN, washingtonpost.com columnist, April 21, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Just a comment regarding an old story involving a journalist I knew. He once state he knows he is doing his best work when both sides hat what he writes. I corrected him: I believe a journalist writes his best when both sides like what he writes. To that end, Bob Woodward has reached that journalistic height.
FROOMKIN: Thanks. Good comment.

DAN CACCAVARO, “Express” Editor, August 4, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: There were discussions as to how your paper would affect circulation of the (Washington) Post, if any. Some theorized that some people would accept your free paper and decide they’ve read enough news to get by and would then not buy a paper. Others thought this would promote your paper and encourage people to buy the full paper. Bottom line: Have the circulation figures for the Post changed in the past year within your distribution area and, if so, do you think your paper had anything to do with it?
CACCAVARO: Good question. It’s still too early to answer it with any certainty. Our initial findings are that we’re not having much of a negative effect on Post readership and may even have a positive effect—whether it’s by steering people to the Post itself or to the web site. My general sense—speaking anecdotally—is that people get the purpose of the Express. If they were inclined to read the Post before we launched, they still read the Post now—maybe just not on the train. And then there are a lot of people who weren’t reading the Post before we launched who are now reading us. Hopefully some of them will notice our references to Post stories and decide to pick up the Post as well. But time will tell.

ROBERT GREENWALD, producer-director, August 25, 204
CZIKOWSKY: Rupert Murdoch is a leading publisher of tabloid journalism in Great Britain. There is nothing wrong with tat. What I find interesting is Americans take this tabloid journalism and filter it through outlets such as the Pittsburgh Tribune Review and the Washington Times and then the rest of the media flocks together and takes it for verified truth. Perhaps the fault is within our system of filtering hard facts versus tabloid gossip.
GREENWALD: That’s a very good and valid point and part of that, however, is by design and Fox News leads the way in confusing opinion and fact. The film demonstrates how Fox News by design turns fact into opinion and therefore removes any standard by which to look at and judge the news—a very troubling and dangerous trend for democracy.

JON LIEBERMAN, Former Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. Washington Bureau Chief, October 21, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: It is interesting that you were fired for taking a position to which the company eventually yielded. In many ways, you were ahead of the curve in advising your employer what should be done, and the employer realized this and choose a path similar to what you were recommending. Shouldn’t such an employer now agree that your advice had some basis and they should offer to take you back?
LIEBERMAN: I don’t think the company has any obligation to acknowledge what I did had an impact. If I did have an impact then for the sake of the viewers I’m glad.

GERALDINE FERRARO. Former Vice Presidential candidate, October 22. 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Have you considered returning to “Crossfire” or to some similar television venture? You are very articulate, composed (which is something lacking in today’s television), and exceptionally knowledgeable. I hope you return to televison analysis and debate.
FERRARO: Actually, I left “Crossfire” when I ran in the Democratic primary for the Senate in 1998. They had already moved on by the time I was available again (as you know I lost the primary) but Fox contacted me and asked if I would work as a “contributor”. So for the last several years I am the person on the left who allows the, to say they’re “fair and balanced”. It’s also a good arrangement since I work a full time job as a consultant and can pick and choose my appearances.

LINDA GARMON, producer/writer, November 9, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts of the level of “tabloid journalism” of which Rupert Murdoch’s British publications are accused, and what are the journalistic standards imposed on his American media?
GARMON: Don’t get me started! My thoughts about tabloid British journalism—and the British media—could fill hours of chat time. In brief, I believe that tabloid journalism hurts the role of the media in the short term. But in the long term, it might play a role. For example, in earlier periods of American history, tabloid journalism served the purpose of “teaching” immigrants English. The huge headlines and simple, sensational statements drew readers who were just learning our language. People will look back on this time in history and learn that the sensational coverage of this era played some kind of similar role Who knows. But in the short term, it debases the role of all media. All outlets scramble to get viewers and readers, and in the process, true reporting gets lost. Combine this trend with the acquisition of networks by big corporations with quarterly earnings reports, and you see the deterioration of the role of the press as the “fourth estate”. News organizations embedded in big American corporations seeking profits cannot take the time and gather the resources to do the reporting that’s necessary for the watchdog role of the press. Thankfully, PBS is protected from many of these forces, and that’s why, for example, you see such great pieces of reporting on Frontline, for example, which was hunting for Osama bin Laden long before 9/11.

FAWN GERMER, author, November 12, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I think Helen Thomas is a fantastic journalist. Did you interview her for your book? If so, did she provide any useful insight?
GERMER: I LOVE Helen Thomas. She was one of the first women to come on board when I wrote my first book, “Hard Won Wisdom”. I remember telling her that I kept getting into trouble and being told that I didn’t know my place. She said, “What is your place? It’s what YOU say it is, not what THEY say it is.”
Helen is so extraordinary. She really fought the battles so women journalists like me could have an easier time of it.

PAULA SPAN, Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism Faculty, January 25, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: I presume the industry does not release these figures, but do you have any sense of who is buying vanity books? Would it be safe to presume that, for the vast majority of vanity publications, the majority of sales are those made by the author?
SPAN: The majority of sales, we’re told, are to authors and their circules—friends, family, coworkers, perhaps neighbors and local residents who turn out for a signing if they can persuade a local bookstore to hold one. And this isn’t a bad way to start; lots of authors are local phenoms first, with regional followings. They get coverage in local papers, stage local events.
The problem with vanity or self-publishing is that it’s very difficult to get past your local contacts to reach a broader audience. Maybe you can spread the word in your own town, if you’re very entrepreneurial, or in a few adjoining towns. But how can you let readers, booksellers, and reviewers in Denver, Chapel Hill, or Tampa know that your self-published or vanity-published book exists? Not easy, even if you are very energetic.
One way I have heard that this can work is if someone had an active public speaking career. If you’re a dermatologist who addresses larger gatherings every month or two, and you want to take your self-publishes guide to skin care along and sell copies in the back of the auditorium, maybe you can sell enough to make back your investment.

BRANT HOUSTON, Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. Director, June 3, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Has there been a disintegration of the journalistic rule that, if a reporter did not directly observe something, that the reporter needs two separate sources to confirm a story? It seems now that anything from exaggerate and false reports from British tabloids, opinionated magazines, and the Internet has become fair game to be reported by mainstream newspapers. Am I observing this correctly?
HOUSTON: There has not been a disintegration of that rule among experienced investigative journalists. Trying to publish too quickly or underestimating the impact of a story can lead to errors as shown in the brief Newsweek article—which served as a grim reminder of the necessity of the rule.
CZIKOWSKY: During the Viet Nam War, the American public knew the body count on a daily basis. Today, hardly any one knows many were killed, especially the number of Iraqis and enemy combatants killed. Why do you think the news emphasis has shifted away from the death toll of war?
HOUSTON: The press is in one of its toughest struggles to get information about the war. The military has been much more successful in controlling that information and is applying lessons learned from Viet Nam. Adding to the difficulty of reporting independently is that journalists who venture out of the safe zones are specific targets themselves.

ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC News Correspondent, September 21, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Are there any things unique to Philadelphia you believe influenced you in your career, things that you might not have found in another city?
MITCHELL: Absolutely. If I had not encountered the former Police Chief and then Mayor Frank Rizzo, who was one of the first “tough guys” if not scoundrels, I probably would not be the journalist I am today. He challenged me in so many ways, but primarily because he was so popular with large parts of the public, especially the white ethnic wards, it forced me to be willing to take on the establishment.
Rizzo was also a very divisive figure, polarizing the city and it threw me into a very challenging environment. So I had to learn very early how to be independent and resist pressure and that was a very important lesson.
Philadelphia also offered a wealth of wonderful, engaged citizens, and terrific neighborhoods, so it was the perfect place to learn how to cover politics.

STEVE JONES, University of Illinois Communications Professor, January 17, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Is the Internet to blame for young people no longer reading a newspaper or even watching the evening news, or is this more a general cultural thing?
JONES: Sadly, it’s a more general cultural thing. Newspaper readership, particularly among young people, has been on the decline for quite some time. On the other hand, as research by my colleague Kevin Barnhurst has shown, young people are actually very connected to, and concerned about, politics and social issues, but often in ways that are not necessarily visible, and in ways that may not “count” to older generations. (Perhaps the most exaggerated example of this might be the phenomenon of the Daily Show).

W. JOSEPH CAMPBELL, American University Communication School Professor, July 29, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: How politicized was the media in 1897? Was newspaper coverage (not editorials) more biased, in your opinion, then? If so, how well did the public understand that papers were slanted to one opinion or another?
CAMPBELL: Thanks for a great question.
The American press was a very politicized in the late 19th century. And it’s interesting—like today, the press in 1897 was often assailed for what one critic called “lamentable lack of fairness in everything that touches upon political opinion.” Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? The news media these days often are criticized for their “lamentable lack of fairness” in political coverage.
People pretty clearly knew what they were buying, in terms of political orientation, in newspapers in 1897. And the press then was typically open about its political leaning. Some newspapers (including Hearst’s “Journal”) even tried to take credit for the outcomes of elections in the late 19th century. But quite often, election results did not correspond to the editorial positions of most newspapers, particularly in New York City. No major newspaper, save Hearst’s “Journal”, supported the winning candidate in New York’s 1897 mayoral election, for example. And that outcome prompted a good deal of commentary—and worry—about the declining power of the press.

LESLIE CLARKE, PBS Producer, July 27, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I don’t wish to put words in Mr. (Walter) Cronkite’s mouth, but I admired how Walter Cronkite seemed to understand that international strife will never end until we rise about nationalistic interests and view ourselves as one world. Would you please provide us with a better explanation of his views on this and how he came to this realization?
CLARKE: Actually, I think you do a very good job of paraphrasing what Mr. Cronkite has said repeatedly in public speeches and panel discussions for years. I don’t know how he came to these views. But I do know he is passionate on this subject and repeats his ideas whenever he can. I think probably the best expression of these ideas (although there are lots and lots of occasions) was a speech he gave at the University of Wisconsin Medical School on May 14, 2004 in which he said “Now there is something terribly flawed about us as human beings if we can’t come to an understanding that (war) is no solution at all…Even the matter of defense expenditures is immoral. To spend that much money not just in building more refined systems of murder, but how many more can we kill…is that a civilized consideration?”
CZIKOWSKY: CBS seems to have forgotten all about Dan Rather. What particularly upsets me about the incident that destroyed his career was that the essential facts were corroborated, but the fact there was a recreated document seems to have become larger news than the reality that the story got the essential facts correct. Considering it was not Dan Rather’s job to verify every document, some think he got a bad deal. Has Walter Cronkite expressed any views on the matter?
CLARKE: To the best of my knowledge, Walter Cronkite has not expressed any views on the subject. We weren’t specifically looking for this in our research—but I think we would have run across it in the big sweep we did for information on all of Cronkite’s career.
CZIKOWSKY: Please refresh my memory. Wasn’t the news broadcast at one time only for 15 minutes? When was the news expanded to a half hour and what led to the realization that people could use a little more than 15 minutes of news a day (minus commercials)?
CLARKE: Your memory is correct. Network news broadcasts used to be just 15 minutes—and they were ALL talk, just an occasional photograph. However, in the early 1960s—in September 1963 to be specific—CBS went to 30 minutes and NBC soon followed. Cronkite was one of the voices at CBS that persuaded network management to expand the broadcast. The addition of better video facilities helped too. With news film coming in from bureaus around the nation and the world, there was more need for longer time.
By the way, the first half-hour broadcast on any network---CBS—contained a special interview with President Kennedy—the last television interview he gave before his death.

CZIKOWSKY: Did Walter Cronkite know Chet Huntley and/or David Brinkley personally? If so, what was their relationship like?
CLARKE: I don’t know this definitely. But I’m sure that he did. Cronkite knew everybody. And he was and still is a very social man. He probably knew then and he probably liked them.

KATHY CRONKITE, journalist, July 27, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: What aspects about life and relationships do you wish to explore on your upcoming show “Dump’d”?
CRONKITE: Dump’d will be a website before it is on the air. It will address the needs , concerns, and feelings of those of us who are suddenly single, especially at midlife. Expert professionals will answer questions on finances and legal issues, but primarily we will offer support and common0sense wisdom to each other through blogs, forums, and articles.
CZIKOWSKY: Will you please tell us what attracted your father (Walter Cronkite) to the Connecticut River area and to boating?
CRONKITE: Dad had fond memories of boating with his father as a youngster, and it was a great family for us all. He spoke eloquently once, in an interview I did with him, about the challenge and thrill of having to work with nature to achieve one’s destination. Connecticut was great sailing, close to Manhattan, pretty, and lots of little harbors to stop into. Then it got too crowded.

ALICIA C. SHEPARD, author, October 27, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What led the Washington Post to stick with Woodward and Bernstein through the entire Watergate saga? Was there ever pressure from more senior writers to take over the story? What led to the story staying with Woodward and Bernstein?
SHEPARD: Initially the more senior reporters at the Post, especially those familiar with Washington politics, didn’t think much of the story. I found a quote from William Grieder who was a reporter at the Post at the time, who said if he’d gotten the same information he would have shrugged his shoulders and said “politics as usual”.
Woodward had only been at the Post for nine months when the break-in occurred on June 17, 1972 and he was hungry and extremely hardworking, and a natural to put on initially. He worked so hard at the time that the Post practically had to beg him to take time off, so it was natural to keep him on the story.
Bernstein was another story. He wasn’t happy at the Post, was looking for other jobs, and they weren’t happy with him. But there was one editor there who saw past Bernstein’s foibles, and that was Barry Sussman. Carl was a reported with a lot of raw talent and a terrific investigator and a terrific writer. But he wasn’t considered reliable. Carl and Bob were paired together by Sussman, who instinctively knew they together could do something neither one of them could do individually. Today, Sussman doesn’t speak to either man, which seems sad.

SALLY KOSLOW, former McCall’s Magazine Editor-in-Chief, May 1, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What do you see as the future of magazine publishing? Are young people more oriented towards reading on the Internet and becoming less apt to purchase reading material?
KOSLOW: Yes, young people are definitely oriented toward reading on the Internet but that doesn’t mean they have abandoned mags. If the Internet had been invented first and then someone came up with the great idea of a magazine, people would flock to this new medium that can be held and torn apart! But readers are definitely pickier about what they read.

GENE WEINGARTEN, Washington Post Staff Writer, August 21, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: I was once quoted in the press as stating I thought someone, at age 67, was “too old” for the position he was seeking. What was wrong with the quote was: the reporter never interviewed me. Plus, that is not what I felt, especially since I am one who heralds that there was someone at age 90 still working on the job. I called the newspaper, and the editor stated to me “the writer only has to presume to know what you would have said in the situation.”
Years later, the editor was on a panel with two other newspaper editors. I asked them this scenario, and the other two editors insisted that such a thing could never happen. The editor who did it sat there quietly and never said a word.
I guess the story is: most editors are ethical, but there are some out there who aren’t. I have learned to not always trust that quotes in newspapers are what they claim to be.
WEINBARTEN: Uh. Wowm.
This is rather startling. I’d say it sounds like the editor was kidding, but apparently not.
As an editor, I once told someone complaining about an error is a story that “clearly, this was no error. It has been published, so it is an established fact.” There was dead silence on the other end of the line, until I burst out laughing.
We corrected the error.

TOM SHALES, Washington Post Staff Writer, September 1, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Were you familiar with the group Viewers for Quality Television? It was an interesting group, founded by a woman who first wanted to save one show, and then she started a newsletter where people would join and decide upon letter writing campaigns to shave shows they thought were quality that were being canceled. I believe networks stated they helped save “Cagney and Lacey”, “China Beach”, and “Quantum Leap”. Was this a good idea, and if so, can we ever go back to such a thing, or has the Internet made it impossible for a real grassroots group to not be overtaken by a group with an agenda?
SHALES: Good question re: Viewers for Quality Television. They started out with good intentions but I fear became a little too integrated into the system—they seemed to become less adversarial the more the network executives co-opted them by pretending to listen to their concerns (or maybe they weren’t always pretending, to give them the benefit of the doubt.) But when Viewers for Quality TV decided to start giving out awards, I thought “Aw-oh. If they cared so much about TV, they wouldn’t want to increase the population of awards shows—not even by one.” Now they are extinct. I don’t think a consensus could be reached any more about what’s Quality Television…

TOM SHALES, Washington Post TV Critic, September 19, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Why do TV networks show us different versions of the same theme over and over? All networks once had to have Westerns (I know, I’m dating myself), all networks had to have crime lab shows, and this season all networks have to have shows about geeks. What happened to variety? Are Americans incapable of absorbing multiple themes of TV series?
SHALES: Ah yes, the year of the geek! Also the slacker/ f we combine these two words into one, we would be able to label this trend—the Gleeker? The answer to sameness in TV is always the same: Whatever worked last year or before will be imitated to death this year. Fred Allen said—AGES ago (I was of course a mere fetus at the time)- “Imitation is the sincerest form of television”. Now I can’t see exactly which the geek or slacker shows were hits last year—hmmm—maybe it’s something the TV folk got out of the movies?

HOWARD KURZ. Washington Post columnist, October 22, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: The Washington Post book review of your latest book seemed to fault you for not having enough footnotes. Yet, when you mention conversations with people, aren’t they from direct interviews and thus they do not require attribution as the source is obvious? Or, if I have this wrong, what is the explanation for the claim that your book has few sources (and one could argue quality is better than quantity, anyway)?
KURZ: There were dozens of footnotes; I footnoted every scrap of information that I got from somewhere else. But you’re right, the bluk of the book is based on my own reporting, interviews, and time spent observing the process at NBC, CBSm and ABC (plus Comedy Central!).
CZIKOWSKY: Isn’t a problem with cable news that it is not around-the-clock news reporting, but around-the-clock recycled news? Why hasn’t someone created a cable news station that allows for longer insights into major stories, i.e. focus on the major issues with discussions from an array of experts and a look at the events behind the story? I know it would not get the ratings, but it would serve a market for those who want to know more about our news in-depth.
KURZ: I’ve often wondered why there aren’t more 5 minute of 8 minute stories on cable news, given the luxury of time that they enjoy, rather than the 2 minute pieces we see on the broadcast networks. Part of the answer is that longer stories take more time and money to develop, and part is that producers feel they have to keep things moving quickly and that the audience doesn’t have the attention span for longer pieces. I wonder, though, whether that’s true.

MICHEL MARTIN, National Public Radio show host, October 29, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: My observation with radio is that most stories are not dealt with in-depth. Did you feel as a print journalist you were able to go into stories at their proper depth, or did you find the reality of daily reporting making that difficult? Do you find a hour long radio show provides you the opportunity to go into the proper depth of what you are discussing?
MARTIN: Interesting question. I don’t know any reporter who ever feels he or she was enough time or spade to tell it all. I guess that’s why so many of colleagues turn to writing boos, and not to be greedy, but, who am I kidding? I would like another hour? Hear that, NPR?

BOB WOODWARD, Washington Post Assistant Managing Director and JEFF LEEN, Washington Post Investigative Reporter, November 20, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What are the parameters of what this investigative team will have? What is the focus of this team?
WOODWARD and LEEN: We can investigate subjects on a local, national, and international level. We are only limited by the quality of information and the knowledge of our sources, whether they are willing to be named or request anonymity. We still believe the “follow the money” is central tenet of investigative reporting.

ROY HARRIS, JR., CFO Magazine Senior Editor, April 8, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: When you state that no Pulitzer Prize award is given if the prize awarding board can’t reach a majority, it made me wonder: how many ballots do they use in their voting/ Do they deliberate like a jury and keep re-voting, or do they vote a set number of times?
HARRIS: It’s a secret body, and we don’t know what goes on in the World Room of Columbia’s Journalism Building. But I’d think that is the members didn’t majority vote, they’d do everything they could to win a majority—and give up only, like a jury, they were “hung”.
CZIKOWSKY: How often are Pulitzer Prizes taken back, and for what reasons have people been stripped of Pulitzer Prizes?
HARRIS: It’s extremely rare. Besides Janet Cooke, the debate about Walter Duranty’s coverage of the Stalin years is the other case of prize-debunking that’s discussed. There’s discussion of that on the Pulitzer site, as well.

TUCKER CARLSON, MSNBC Senior Campaign Correspondent, October 22, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: If anyone has been fair and balanced this campaign, it has been your friend Willie Geist. What did you teach Willie Geist and what did you learn from him?
CARLSON: I wish I could take credit for Willie, but he was born that way. One of the very best people in television, not that it’s a long list. He’s every bit as witty and decent as he seems on the air. Twenty years from now, when a lot of the current blowhards in cable news have joined Morton Downey, Jr. in the Museum of the Once Popular, Willie will be bigger than ever. He’s the real thing.

MICHAEL WOLFF, Vanity Fair Media Columnist, December 4, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Have you seen “Outfoxed”? If so, what did you think about the part where former staff people stated they were directed to put political slants on how they reported the news? Do you find this credible? I know the British press is different, but didn’t Mr. Murdoch have a more open political slant with his British press holdings and to what degree do you believe Rupert Murdoch is attempting to slant American public opinion?
WOLFF: It’s entirely credible and I’m sure it happened exactly that way.

DANIEL GROSS, Slate Moneybox Columnist, December 11, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Do you think the future of newspapers is their online versions? How do you judge (at the risk of an appearance of conflict of interest) washingtonpost.com and its online newspaper? Personally, I find The Post far ahead of most other newspapers in developing an online site.
GROSS: So, while I work for the Washington Post Company (my salary comes from Newsweek and Slate), I don’t work directly for the Washington Post. So no big conflict of interest. And it’s how I read the Post (it’s not on the newsstand where I live). I think it’s very good. The New York Times has been doing an excellent job, and so has the WSJ, except you have to pay for that.
That said, in answer to your question, I think it’s likely that, 30 years from now, newspapers in their current form may not be with us. However, for the near future, I think the newspapers’ future will be in a combination of print and online When things are going well in the economy at large, newspapers have proven they can be profitable businesses, and the revenues from online only aren’t good enough to support the newsgathering and all the other resources that make the online publications great.
CZIKOWSKY: How would you compare the situation with the Tribune to the situation with the New York Times? I know the Times has its troubles but---or am I wrong---there seems to be a family ownership that has kept the paper in check and is fighting to see that the Times survives?
GROSS: The situation with the Times is very different than that with the Tribune. For one, the level of debt at the Times Co. is much more manageable---it’s a challenge for the Times to manage, but nothing on the scale of what was piled on the Tribune.
Family ownership at publicly held companies (the washingtonpost.com falls into this category) can be a double-edged sword at times. On the one hand, it encourages long-term thinking, preservation of capital, and guards against things like the Zell takeover. On the other hand, it sometimes means there are other interests at work. Take, for example, the New York Times and its dividend.
Right now, the Time’s main operating businesses---the New York Times and the Boston Globe---don’t seem to be making money. About.com seems to be generating some cash. And it has some valuable assets---its building, a chunk of the Boston Red Sox---but it can only monetize those by selling. In an environment where cash is king and access to credit is difficult, you would think a company in the Times’ situation would be doing everything it can to preserve capital. Eliminating your dividend would seem to be a no-brainer.
And yet in recent years, the Times increased its dividend---only to cut it sharply (but not to eliminate it). One of the reasons, of course, is that there are a few generations of Sulzbergers who depend on the Times Co.’s dividends to support themselves in comfort. So there are times when family control can influence corporate policies in ways that are not always optimal.
On the whole, however, in this climate, companies are frequently off under family control than under the control of highly indebted private equity types.

LISA De MORAES, Washington post Staff Writer, December 12, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I think having Leno on at 10 is fine. What I am wondering about is the continuing trend of fewer TV series---dramas, comedies, etc and an increase in mostly unscripted reality, game, and now interview shows. Do you think we may reach a point where audiences will finally say “enough”, give us something with a plot and requiring some thought process to watch? Or is this the financial reality that we will be watching low production cost TV from now on?
De MORAES: I think cable networks will see opportunity in NBC’s retreat from drama series at 10 p.m.---and scripted programming in a lot of other of its primetime timeslots (can you say “two hour” Celebrity Apprentice?) I’m guessing you’re going to see more 10 p.m. scripted series on cable going forward. Don’t assume NBC’s effort to put lipstick on its primetime pig is an indictment of the entire broadcast industry. CBS, for instance, is hanging in there in this tough economy000mostly because its execs know how to develop scripted series Americans actually want to watch000in marked contrast to NBC. And some of the networks actually make money with “Rerun Theatre” on Saturdays so it’s not a given they might turn that back over to local stations. All that said, a lot is riding on the Screen Actors Guild. If they vote to strike---vote results announced January 23---what’s left of the broadcast TV business when a strike is over would be hellbent on coming up with strike-proof schedules. Leno is perfectly capable of, and will to, go ahead with his show during a strike.

MEXICO

RENEE DOWNING, “Tucson Weekly” columnist, May 2, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Is there anything we can do to improve the Mexican economy, especially in oil exploration, and then seeing that the profits are better shared with the population, so that Mexicans can improve their lives, or perhaps part of our profit share could be used towards immigrant programs?
DOWNING: I read recently that the oil industry has been a disaster for every third world country that’s developed it. It employs very few people and the money from it flows to the rich people who invested in it to begin with. And they never seem to want to share. The ruling class of Mexico is extremely corrupt and arrogant, and about as likely to share the wealth with their poor as the Iraqis or the Libyans.

JIM KOLBE, Member of Congress, October 15, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Mexico is an oil producing nation. Yet, many of its people live in poverty. Should the United States be actively assisting Mexico, both in increasing oil production, and in helping its citizens improve their lives?
KOLBE: Mexico’s problem is two fold. They have a highly inefficient, patronage laden, corrupt oil producing national company---Pemex. While the number of workers have been reduced in the last few years, it is still a very inefficient operation. More importantly, their Constitution prohibits any foreign investment in oil production. Therefore, there is little way for foreign companies to get involved in improving their efficiency.

CAROLS dE ICAZA, Ambassador of Mexico to the United States, January 12, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Mexico has a relatively less wealthy economy, which is why Mexican employees go to the United States for higher wages. At the same time, Mexico is rich in resources such as oil and agriculture, many of which are supported by American investments. If we in America could provide greater investment in Mexico under a condition that employees are paid more decent wages, and if we could assist in the expansion of the Mexican economy, especially in oil (rather than buying so much from the Middle East), both countries gain. What is preventing this from happening?
DE ICAZA: That is not happening because we do not have an institutionalized dialogue on immigration issues between our countries. Until there is a comprehensive reform in the U.S., it will be very difficult to have an objective debate on this important issue.

JORGE DE LOS SANTOS, adviser to Presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, June 26, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: To what degree is voter fraud a problem in Mexico, and what is being done about it?
DE LOS SANTOS: According to a recent article in the Washington Post, the PAN and PRI in particular are using coercive tactics in this election. The PRD was shown to be the least, if at all coercive. The study was conducted primarily by Alianza Civica, a nonpartisan citizens’ group that receives financial support from the United Nations. We are formally protesting these tactics with the Mexican Institute for Federal Elections.

ARMANDO DAVID, Tu Rock Es Votar Co-Founder, June 29, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: What has been voter participation among young people in recent Mexican elections? Has there been any trend, i.e. Mexican youth becoming more (or less) interested in politics?
DAVID: 30% of young voters voted last election. We represent 45% of total voters: 35 million…and only 30% voted. That is terrible.

MIDDLE EAST

WARREN BASS, Council of Foreign Relations Terrorism Program Director, April 12, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Might it be possible that a coalition government with both Israeli and Palestinian input could someday government the disputed lands?
BASS: It’s not unthinkable; it’s called a “bi-national” state and it’s had some prominent advocates over the years. In the 1940s, the brilliant Israeli philosopher Martin Buber pushed strongly for it; today the Palestinian intellectual-activist Edward Said has backed it as an alternative to Oslo.
I just think it’s a dream, unfortunately. There are two very angry nationalisms between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to get them to rule together as if it’s Canada

LAURA BLUMENFELD, Washington Post Reporter, April 15, 2002
CZIKOWKSY: The ability to forgive is a powerful message, especially when it is hard to understand why someone would commit such an atrocity (when her father was shot by a PLO member). Yet, your personal story can carry an important symbol for the entire Middle East: Violence creates more violence, and the cycle continues for generations. Do you agree, or are you seeking a different message?
BLUMENFELD: Revenge doesn’t have to be about destroying your enemy, it can be about transforming him. When the gunman pulled the trigger and shot my father he was denying my father’s humanity. My revenge was restoring my father’s humanity. My goal was outsized and naïve and most of all elusive. I wanted the gunman to realize he was wrong.

DAOUD KUTTAB, Al Quds University Institute of Modern Media Director, August 7, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Have Palestinians and Israelis thought about slowly integrating a joint governance of government services? Over time, cooperative arrangements could lead to mutual respect. This has to be much better than killing each other.
KUTTAB: God bless you, many have been calling for this, but Israel wants to be a Jewish state and at the same time they want to keep a proud people under occupation. It has to make a choice.

DANIEL PIPES. Middle East Forum Director, September 11, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Israel is the only democratic government in the Middle East. What in Islamic countries is preventing the acceptance of democratic political values?
PIPES: The Muslim world has had a difficult time in the last two centuries coping with modernity, including democracy. There is nothing contrary to democracy in Islam, but there is a great deal of historical evolution ahead before the Muslim world becomes democratic.

ANTHONY SHADID, Washington Post Foreign Correspondent, February 24, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Today’s Washington Post has an article on how much of the world views President Bush more harshly than Saddam Hussein. Obviously, we have failed to convince the world about the need to invade Iraq. How will the United States be able to instill confidence that it is working to improve lives in the Middle East, the Balkans, Korea, etc. when our image is so low? How can the United States build its international image?
SHADID: In my conversations, it’s remarkable to the extent that the Palestinian conflict plays a role in shaping opinions. Even the most pro-American elements in places like Egypt and Jordan treat that conflict as a domestic issue. One intellectual remarked to me that it’s become a metaphor for the helplessness that many feel across the Arab world. My sense is that the end to that conflict would go gar in dissipating resentment of the United States. Obviously, that’s easier said than done. But to a greater degree than even Iraq, that remains the most pressing concern.

CARY BYKER, Senior Producer, May 15, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I envision Abraham looking over his descendants and, like a family leader, telling all his children and children’s children “quit your bickering”. It is sad, because much of the fighting is over whose flag gets to fly over pieces of land. Surely the lives of all would be better without all this fighting. Why can’t all sides decide that disputed lands be jointly governed? Fly both an Israeli and a Palestinian flag, and you can determine whether you prefer your public services be done by Israeli or Palestinian public managers (or, as should increase over time, by joint administrators)? Maybe the establishment of a Palestinian state and the achievement of a secure Israel will produce this peace. What are your thoughts on how peace will finally be achieved?
BYKER: One of the interesting things about the third episode (“Kingdom of David”) is that it helps us see the birth of terrorism as a political tool. And one of the reasons peace is clearly so difficult to achieve in the Middle East is that each side believes that it is doing God’s will. And when you believe that you’re doing God’s will, it’s very hard to be convinced that you should compromise.

DAVID LEWIS, “Frontline/World” Producer, May 23, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Hezbollah has its own perfume and key chains? Do they also have their own web site and do they take Visa? Do they ship into the United States, and dare a customer open the package? Isn’t it unusual for terrorist groups to engage in commercialization?
LEWIS: Hezbollah has their own (mediocre) web site, www.hizbollah.org. There are many Hezbollah souvenirs. I’m not sure if those are produced by Hezbollah or if it’s independent businessmen making this happen. They do sell some very tacky goods made by their former fighters, such as carvings of Arabic sayings, baskets made by former fighters, etc. And the sermons and speeches of leaders are certainly sold in many forms. No idea about the Visa card. But Visa is more accepted in Lebanon than Amex.
Since I left Lebanon, Hezbollah has put out a video game where players get to target Israeli solders and shoot them. Lovely.

HENRY SIEGMAN, Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, June 4, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Israel was once ready to give Palestinians 90% of the land they wanted, and Arafat rejected the agreement. What factions of Palestinians are prone to accept the current agreement, which are going to oppose, and will the opposition weaken or strengthen in time, in your opinion?
SIEGMAN: The Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas have declared themselves entirely satisfied with a Palestinian state adjoining the pre-1967 borders of Israel. They have declared their formal acceptance of the legitimacy and permanence of Israel within those borders. They are prepared for minor territorial adjustments in order to deal with the problem of Israeli settlements, but not at the cost of the 20% of Palestine that would constitute their state. Pre-1967 Israel had 400% more territory than the Palestinians-that is to say, Israel had sovereignty over 80% of Palestine. Palestinians believe that the little that has left them should not be shrunk any further.
CZIKOWSKY: What assurances are there that Saudi Arabia will carry forth their agreements? How much can they assure the world that they themselves will not be pressured by or even overthrown by internal groups that support terrorism? How strong an ally to the United States is Saudi Arabia?
SIEGMAN: While there are unprecedented tensions between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, the alliance between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia continues and remains important to both parties. There is no more reason to doubt the sincerity of Crown Prince Abdullah’s declaration last year that Saudi Arabia would establish normal relations with Israel if it concluded a peace agreement with the Palestinians than there is to doubt the sincerity of Sharon’s declarations.

JAMES ZOGBY, Arab American Institute Representative, June 4, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: In your polling of Arabs, doesn’t a majority prefer peace? What do most Arabs see as a long term solution to resolving conflicts within the Middle East?
ZOGBY: Our polling shows that most Arabs in fact want an end to conflict and the ability the control their own lives and live in peace. That has not been possible for over 100 years. Imperialism and colonialism have taken a terrible toll and the legacy of that toll is still with us. Just as I advised that people read Arab history to understand the forces that have shaped the contemporary Arab world, I also suggest that they read contemporary Arab writers to see how Arabs are reacting to their current dilemmas. Part of the problem that we have here in America is that all too often, we accept the Israeli narrative of history as the only history and others interpretations of Arab history and thought instead of seeing through the eyes of the Arab people themselves.

JAMES A. PHILLIPS, Heritage Foundation Research Fellow, June 6, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Do you have an evaluation as to whether the agreement regarding Israel and Palestine will hold? What dangers do you foresee, and what steps do you argue should be taken to overcome these dangers?
PHILLIPS: I do not expect P.M. Abbas to have the power to halt Palestinian terrorism, even assuming he is willing to pay the political price with his own people to do so. According to U.S. officials, Abbas commands the loyalty of only about 400 Palestinian security officials out of more than 30,000 and most of the rest are loyal to Yasser Arafat, who already is nipping at Abbas’ heels, berating him for failing to get more Israeli concessions at the summit.
CZIKOWSKY: The opposition to Israel is not a unified movement. While agreements can be made with some principal opponents, there are still factions out there bent on terrorism and the destruction of Israel? What, if anything, can be done to minimize the opposition of such extremists?
PHILLIPS: Most extremists have closed minds and will not drop terrorism against Israel regardless of what Israel does. They do not want peace, but the destruction of Israel. The trick is to convince those Palestinians that would support them that they and their children would be better off with a negotiated peace than with an endless jihad. They must be persuaded that “half a loaf is better than none”.
This will take a long time—probably more than a generation. Education is important. The Palestinian Authority must stop spoonfeeding hate propaganda to kids in school. And the Palestinians must see concrete political and economic improvement in their daily lives.

CHRIS TOENSING, Executive Director, Middle East Research and Information Project, June 11, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I overhear concern in the media that the suicide bombing will delay the peace process. My question is: why should it? This attack was a tragedy. Yet, it should have been expected. In fact, I presume militants would renew resume their efforts at terrorism in order to disrupt the peace process. In simplistic terms, isn’t the best thing to do is for the peace process to ignore the cries of these sad, crazy militants?
TOENSING: I agree with your sentiment here. But one of the parties keeping the cycle of violence going is the interlocutor in the putative negotiations—the Sharon government.

ROB SOBHANI, Adjunct Professor of Government, Georgetown University, June 26, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: If Hamas agrees to a ceasefire, is it more likely because they are considering the prospects of peace, or because they are taking the time to rest and prepare for future attacks?
SOBHANI: I think that the new Palestinian PM has made it clear to Hamas and others that violence must end if Palestinians are to have their own state. Whether Hamas sees it this way is still not clear.

JANINE ZACHARIA, Jerusalem Post Washington Correspondent, August 21, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: The fact that Israel killed Ismail Abu Shanab and went into high alert indicates they know to expect retaliation. Do they believe the risk of retaliation is worth the attack? When does this cycle of violence end?
ZACHARIA: Israel believes that these groups will attack civilians whether or not they carry out targeted killings.

SAMER SHEHATA, Assistant Professor, Georgetown Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, December 17, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Have you overheard comments, not from government officials, but from people you meet in the streets and offices in Cairo regarding the fall and capture of Saddam Hussein? If so, what have been their reactions? Further, how do they view the U.S. presence in Iraq?
SHEHATA: Almost universally, everyone in Egypt was against the U.S. war and is against U.S. occupation of Iraq. On Monday, the picture of Saddam’s capture was all over the Egyptian press. Many are speaking about it and their views vary from those who believe in conspiracy theories and that the image of the man who was captured is not Saddam Hussein to those who fully support his capture to others who, while not supporting Saddam, felt outrage and dismay by his capture by the Americans and the images that were shown. Some have expressed delight that Saddam is no longer ruling Iraq.

FAWAZ A. GERGES, Chair, International Affairs and Middle Eastern Studies, Sarah Lawrence College, March 22, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: When the Israeli government kills someone like Sheik Ahmed Yassin, does anyone consider how they expect the Palestinians will react? What reaction do they expect?
GERGES: If history serves as a guide, the reaction of Palestinians will be bloody indeed. For example, in March 1996, Israel assassinated Hamas’ chief bomb maker, Yahya Ayyash, who was held responsible for the death of dozens of Israelis. Initially, Israeli security services boasted about the success of their assassination operation, yet Hamas subsequently retaliated with a wave of suicide bombings, which killed 62 Israelis and injured many others, and terrorized Israeli society.
If Hamas retaliated so brutally to avenge the killing of one of its famous engineers, one can imagine the extent and nature of its response to the assassination of its spiritual leader. Hamas’ officials have already promised to avenge his death by killing hundreds of Israelis. It remains to be seen if Hamas can still deliver on its threats/ But the writing is one the wall. Ariel Sharon knows full well that Hamas will retaliate and blood will be shed on both sides. Both sides will be worse off.

ALI ABUNIMAH, Electronicintifada.net co-founder, April 15, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts on the disputed lands being jointly administered by Israeli and Palestinian authority with administration working jointly or separately, where appropriate?
ABUNIMAH: I would favor that as long as it is applied to the whole country. If the Palestinians are prepared to administer Bethlehem or Ramallah or Gaza jointly with Israel, then in all fairness Israel ought to be prepared to jointly administer Tel Aviv, Petah Tikva, Herzliya, and Mevasseret Zion with the Palestinians. Sounds fair to me!

JUAN COLE, University of Michigan Professor, August 16, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Iraq and Arabia have a long history of distrusting the presence of foreigners. Is it more the fear of a parliamentary system of government being associated with foreigners that is the objection, or is there resistance to any type of democracy?
COLE: The Middle East has a long experience of parliamentary governance by now. The Tunisian parliament dates back to the early 1860s, and Egypt first had a consultative body in 1866. By 1881, the Egyptian parliament was relatively freely elected, and was demanding control over the Egyptian budget. The demand alarmed the French and the British, to whom the pliant Egyptian executive owed huge sums of money. Although it was a complex situation, these fears of Egyptian democracy were among the factors that led the British to invade Egypt in 1882 and to re-install the authoritarian Ottoman viceroy on the throne.
Likewise, Iran developed a lively parliamentary life in the 1940s, but the U.S. C.I.A. overthrew the democratic government of Iran in 1953, making the Shah an absolute dictator.
The various Middle Eastern experiments with parliamentary governance have been either undermined by Western intervention, or become associated with big landlord oppression and overthrown by populist forces, or undermined by ethnic conflict exacerbated by foreign interference (Lebanon, where Israel and Syria fought out a proxy war).

STEVEN A. COOK, Council on Foreign Relations Fellow, February 8, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: What would happen, in your opinion, if HAMAS or the Islamic Jihad was to attack and Israel did not retaliate? Would HAMAS or the Islamic Jihad sense that as a sign of weakness and attack more, or might they then feel there is less of a reason to retaliate for the lack of a retaliatory attack on them, and thus they would be less apt to attack?
COOK: Israel has, in the past, demonstrated that it is willing to take a blow when the PA (Palestinian Authority) is attempting to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the
West Bank and Gaza Strip. This was certainly the case in the mid-1990s under Prime Ministers Rabin and Peres. Sharon looks at security quite differently, but it is significant that Israel’s Defense Minister and the Army Chief of Staff have indicated that they are willing to pull Israeli forces out of populated areas as long as the PA is attempting to undermine HAMAS and Islamic Jihad. This makes it seem like Israel would hold off on retaliating in the face of new violence, BUT not for long. Israel would never abrogate its responsibility to defend its citizens and the political pressure to retaliate would be tremendous.

STEVE COLL, Washington Post Associate Editor, May 31, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Is it safe to presume that Osama Bin Laden never expects to see his goals within his lifetime? If so, we should deduce he is prepared to fight until the end, whether it comes naturally or from martyrdom?
COLL: Just reading all of what he has said and written over the years, my sense is that he does hope to see some of his goals within his lifetime, in that his goal is to light the fire, awaken the ummah, or the community of Islamic believers, and get them started on the path to liberation. He sees himself as having helped destroy one infidel superpower (the Soviets) and as on the path to destroying a second (that would be us). It’s the process of defeating his enemies that seems to interest him most, not the prospects of governing in a pure Islamic society. Its’ remarkable, really, how little he talks about the establishment and management of Islamic governments and how much he seems interested in sustained revolt and conflict.

MICHAEL B. OREN, author, January 23, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Has there been much contact from the West—the British, the French, and Americans—with people in the Middle East that was not designed to change their thinking? Doesn’t this breed resentment that Westerners insist their cultural ways are superior to those in the Middle East? Have efforts at offering cooperation proven more effective?
OREN: Paradoxically, the West has probably aroused more resentment in the Middle East, not by telling Middle Easterners what to do, but by supporting the status quo in the region, particularly in supporting autocratic regimes that suppress their peoples.
CZIKOWSKY: What role, if any, did Christian missionaries play in the attitudes of Muslims in the Middle East?
OREN: The major role of missionaries in the Middle East was not to explain Christianity, but to impart American ideas. Embarking for the Middle East in the middle of the 19th century, missionaries discovered that few people were interested in converting to their brand of Protestant Christianity. Instead, they devoted their energies to building elementary and secondary schools. They constructed the area’s first modern universities, including the American University of Beirut and Robert College in Istanbul, and instilled in their students the idea of American-style patriotism and civic values. The graduates of these institutions later became pioneers in the Middle Eastern nationalist movement, which in the following century threw off the yoke of European rule. Today, nearly 200 years later, this legacy is being challenged by religious extremists who reject this nationalism and the American ideas that helped inspire it.

KHALID AL-DAKHIL, King Saud University Sociology Assistant Professor, February 5, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: There has been some discussion that some of the anti-Israel sentiment expressed by some Wahabbists seemed to be traceable back to anti-Jewish propaganda spread in the Middle East by Nazis and by Christian missionaries. Have you seen any evidence that such links in fact exist?
AK-DAKHIL: Now, this is farfetched. No need to go back to the Nazis to be anti-Israel. The state of Israel is the reason and the source of this. Its expansionist, and ruthless policies, and its refusal to reach a reasonable settlement with the Palestinians is very disturbing for the people of the Arab world, not only the Wahhabis. The plight of the Palestinians which is running now for more than half a century is caused mainly by the state of Israel. You don’t need to fall back to such a racist ideology, to see what is wrong with the state of Israel.

BENNY MORRIS, Israeli historian, March 12, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: This may be a naive question, yet when you mentioned the purchase of land: what is Israel says to the Arabs, you’re right, this is your land, we’ll buy it from you, and Israel provides some purchase price, perhaps in goods and services to Arab residents, and then land then belongs to Israel? I know may Arabs won’t buy that, but maybe a lot will?
MORRIS: The question—at least as it relates to the past—is one of depth of national commitment. The fact is that from 1881 to 1947 (and again, in various places, in the West Bank, after 1967) Arabs sold land to Jews on a massive scale. Jews did not, would not, sell land to Arabs. And this says something about Palestinian Arab ‘nationalism’, at least at the time.

AARON DAVID MILLER, Woodrow Wilson International Center Public Policy Scholar, April 30, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Isn’t it difficult to state that anyone represents the “Palestinian” side, or even that any one party fully represents the “Israeli” side? One can negotiate peace with certain elements of each side, yet as long as there are elements that refuse to agree to terms, isn’t it going to be impossible for any agreements that is agreed to only by partial elements of each side to remain effective?
MILLER: I think the answer is yes, but the question is to what degree do their respective national politics respect whatever agreement the two sides work out. You’re always going to have elements that remain dissatisfied, but will the centers of each society agree? I think there is a basis on which that can happen.
CZIKOWSKY: What do you see would get a negotiated settlement that would accept enough of the center that the fringes would be marginalized enough to no longer effectively disrupt any agreement? What actions could be taken that would allow that to happen?
MILLER: The fact is, when all is said and done, Arab-Israeli peace ageements, when they came, resulted from leadership—Arab leadership, Anwar Sadat and King Hussein, Israeli leadership Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin, and U.S leadership, Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, James Baker. If I had to define one missing ingredient it would be that.

ROBIN WRIGHT, Washington Post Diplomatic Correspondent, March 6,2006
CZIKOWSKY: I too am hopeful for peace in the Middle East. I see a growing understanding of the need for peace and acceptance of compromises that could be approved by all but extremists, especially among the young. Is the key to hope that the voice of the extremists diminishes and it time they become ineffective? If so, how can that be achieved, especially when they often respond by violence that only keeps the situations in conflict?
WRIGHT: Thanks for your good question. During travels for my book, “Dreans and Shadows: The Future of the Middle East”, I was constantly struck by the number of people who have no sympathy or empathy for the extremists because they have provided nothing to solve the basic problems of everyday life—from health care to education. These are the issues that people in the Middle East want addressed. At the same time, youth is a huge dynamic in the region, with up to 70% of the population in some countries under 30 years ago. They will increasingly define the political agenda over the next decade and potentially the political systems down the road. And they are quite restless because youth of the Middle East face higher unemployment—roughly 1 in 3 in several countries—than in any other part of the world. That provides a well from which from which the militant movement may be able to draw.
CZIKOWSKY: What effects do you see the Internet having on the Middle East? How is the speed of communications helping in the transmission of ideas and political statements, and what benefits and detriments is this posing for our policymakers?
WRIGHT: An important question. The Internet and other information technology has helped people in the region gain access to information outside of state-controlled media. Wael Ababas is one of the more than 1,000 Egyptian bloggers who have begun holding the government to account. He posted a cell phone video of an Egyptian detainee being sodomized with a broomstick on his blog, which created an uproar and forced the government to prosecute two policemen. New groups are using the Internet to publicize vote rigging. Along with the youth vote, information is among the catalysts of change in the region. I was struck by the fact that even in Syria now there are Internet cafes—even though the government blocks some dissident websites.

MILITARY ISSUES

LORA LUMPE, Foreign Policy in Focus Analyst. May 20, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: What is the degree to which foreign trainees learn about covert operations? If we were to end or restrict this training, what affect might this have on reducing torture and abuses when these students return and then inflict them on their own civilians?
LUMPE: The U.S. military teaches over 4,000 different subjects to foreign militaries. Some of these are quite benign---like English and combat medicine---but interrogation techniques, commando skills, and counterinsurgency doctrine are also taught. In my view, we should not be providing lethal military training to any foreign militaries that have a record of severe human rights abuse. This year the U.S. government is seeking to provide such training to at least 51 militaries that It (the State Department) has identified as having a ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ human rights record. For such countries, in my view, we should be providing training in the Laws of War and human rights legal obligations.

RICK YOUNG, “Frontline” Producer, May 24, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Many of these situations are a complete mess, In Liberia, the situation has been so confusing that it has been reported that fighters will switch sides depending on whether it is daytime or nighttime. What can outsiders do to best minimize this chaos? Will cutting the supply of arms into such volatile regions help, and, if so, how can that be accomplished?
YOUNG: Cutting arms supplies is a start. Right now Sierra Leone has the largest U.N. peacekeeping mission in the world---more than 17,000 U.S. troops are in a country the size of South Carolina and there’s an opportunity for peace. They just had elections very recently and all of these are hopeful signs. But one of the ironic tragedies of Sierra Leone is that it is both the poorest and least developed country in the world---largely because of the last decade’s civil war---and at the same time one of the richest countries in natural resources---in this case diamonds. And as long as there are natural resources to fight over and the government is not sable and in control the prospects for war and further bloodshed remain. All of that is enflamed by a constant infusion of more arms and that’s why stopped the arms and cutting illegal shipments to the region is critical.

CAROL D’ESTE, author, May 30, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Have you joined in the speculations of possibilities if the Normandy invasion had been delayed? Eisenhower’s advisors were so split on what to invade. What do you think was the ultimate reason Eisenhower chose when to invade?
D’ESTE: This entire question is thoroughly discussed in the book (“Eisenhower”).
The decision to launch the invasion was solely predicted on the weather and the fact that they had a very narrow window to time in which to launch the invasion. There were very limited options. The ultimate decision to invade on June 6th was the weather. It was actually scheduled on June 5th and they couldn’t bring it off. Eisenhower’s decision was one of the most courageous and difficult made by a military commander in a time of war.

JAMES BRADY, author, September 19, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Over the years, Parade magazine has featured some great stories on military heroes: people who usually did what was needed under the pressure of the times. What are the factors you see that create a great soldier?
BRADY: One hero I always think about was my own company commander in Korea, Captain John Chafee who later became Governor of Rhode Island, Secretary of the Navy, and a U.S. Senator. The reason I admire Chafee so much is that he was a rich young man and a star of the wresting team at Yale who dropped out to join the Marines as a boot, the lowest rank of course, in 1941, when Pearl Harbor was attacked. Chafee fought throughout the Pacific War and after graduation went to Harvard Law School. Then when Korea came along, poor Chafee by now a married man with a child on the way, was called back into the Marine Corps and ended up fighting yet another war. He never complained. He never pulled a string or used his connections. He just did his job as an officer and a gentleman. I think of John Chafee as a great American and a wonderful Marine.

TRACY WOOD, former United Press International Vietnam War Reporter, and ANNE MERICK, former ABC News Vietnam War Reporter, September 25, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Looking back, what lessons should we learn from the Vietnam War? Did we enter the war with a firm objective and were we ignorant of how to combat the enemy? Did we lack an exit strategy? To me, it is a shame that so many veterans have been ignored of a war they bravely fought when it was the errors of our leaders that created the public dissatisfaction with that war.
WOOD: In terms of today, where we are right at this minute, the critical lesson is why exactly are you going to go to war and what are you going to do when you get there. Vietnam was a war where they kept “winging” their policy, meaning it wasn’t thought out---they couldn’t get out and they couldn’t stay in because they had no policy. Today there’s sort of the same parallels you see from a distance. The U.S. went in Afghanistan in a hurry but now we don’t know what to do now that we’re there. We don’t know whether to help them rebuild the country or whether we should get our or whether we should put more troops in so that the country is more secure. We have no policy in Afghanistan right now. And now we’re talking about Iraq and we’re talking about taking out Saddam Hussein but I don’t have a clear sense of what we do next. Do we keep U.S. troops there to keep the peace? Or do we just go in to strike Saddam and get out right away. There are the parallels and policies that need to be thought out.
MERICK: I believe we should give serious consideration to the question of nation building following any military involvement.
CZIKOWSKY: How did you both wind up in Vietnam? Is this an assignment you asked for? If so, what was your motivation to go there?
MERICK: Yes, I asked to go to Vietnam/ It was a major story of the time and every journalist wants to cover a major story. Just like 9/11 was a major story in this country.
WOOD: No, I had no expectation I was ever going to go to Vietnam. I was working for one of the wires in New York and studying Chinese and expecting to go to China/ Nobody was going to go to Vietnam because the war was winding down (March 1972). And then the North Vietnamese launched their Easter Offensive and they had to send somebody quick and I was the next to go to Asia, so two weeks later I ended up in Vietnam.
The foreign editor at my news organization didn’t want to send a woman because he felt that women shouldn’t cover war. At that point I knew I had to absolutely go.

RICK ATKINSON, author, October 8, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: World War II veterans are getting old, and their stories are being lost. Are there places that are collecting and accepting the remembrances of these veterans?
ATKINSON: Yes, that’s a good question and it’s an important issue. The U.S. Army’s Military History Institute, which is located at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa. has been gathering thousands of individuals reminiscences from World War II veterans for more than a decade now. The other services, as well as the Library of Congress, have similar programs, though not as ambitious.
CZIKOWSKY: Are there lessons from fighting in North Africa in World War II that should be noted in preparing to fight in Iraq today?
ATKINSON: I think there are a number of lessons germane to both today’s military and to today’s confrontation with Iraq. President Roosevelt’s most important ambition a year after Pearl Harbor was to maintain the best coalition possible, because he recognized in modern war, the best “team” wins. In his private New Year’s Even toast at the White House on December 31. 1942, Roosevelt lifted a glass of champagne first “to the United States of America” and then to “the united nations”, meaning the 26 countries that then comprised the Allies.

DAVID KAY, Former United Nations Weapons Inspector: December 16, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: How accurate are inspections capabilities? How possible is it that weapons of mass destruction can exist and remain kept without detection?
KAY: Good question. Chemical and biological programs can easily be embedded in peaceful activities. The same plant that makes pesticides can with very little new effort produce nerve agent and then switched back to pesticide production. Our inspection technologies continue to lag. This is the reason that defectors and interviews are so important to unmasking these programs. Nuclear programs are harder to hide, but it is not impossible.

CHRIS HEDGES, journalist, New York Times
CZIKOWSKY: What do you suggest are the spiritual and emotional costs of war? Similarly, what are the spiritual and emotional costs of negotiated peace?
HEDGES: The spiritual and emotional costs of war are terrible, for war in its essence is about betrayal. It is the betrayal of the young by the old, betrayal of soldiers by politicians, and betrayal of idealists by cynical and powerful interests that think only in terms of profit. War is in the end death. This is what war is and when you embrace it too long it destroys you. The ancient Greeks and Romans knew that war was a god. The god of war began by calling for the destruction of the other but war always, when pushed to end, (read the Iliad) ended in self-destruction.
But pacifism, like cynicism, can be a way to avoid the ethics of responsibility. This is the hard part. I am not a pacifist. I supported the intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia. We failed as a nation by not stopping the genocide in Rwanda- for if the Holocaust taught us anything it must be that when you have the capacity to stop genocide and you do not you too have blood on your hands. So I am all for peace, but not for pacifism.

LEE FEINSTEIN, Director for Strategic Policy, Council on Foreign Relations, February 5, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Why do we seem to be militarily prepared to go to war with Iraq, who is unable to use its weapons without being devastated, when there is North Korea which we know has weapons and a desire to someday overrun South Korea? I know different situations require different responses. Please explain why we need these different responses.
FEINSTEIN: Secretary of State Madeleine Albright used to answer these kinds of questions by saying “we don’t have a cookie cutter foreign policy”. And she was right. Different circumstances require different approaches, as Powell has said in this instance. In the case of North Korea, however, the Administration seems to be betting that time is on its side and that this crisis can wait until after the showdown with Iraq. But the odds on that bet are getting longer each day, however, as the North edges closer to restarting its nuclear capability.

MARC SIEGEL, Professor of Medicine, New York University, February 13, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: How are soldiers treated for prewar stress? Is there any danger in overmedicating our troops?
SIEGEL: You’re right. The use of anxiolytics (Valium, etc.) could make a solder groggy when he/she might be going into combat, which is problematic. Therefore, the treatment is not likely to be medicine but emotional support. I realize the military may be short on emotional support. This area obviously needs work in the military

MICHAEL LARIS, Washington Post Staff Writer, February 18, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Isn’t it so ironic that while we fought against racism in World War II, we practiced it here at home? Did you learn more about the feelings of African-Americans who wished to join their fellow soldiers in that war, but were so denied?
LARIS: One of the stunning things about doing the research was digging through the old Black papers, which were filled with terrible stories of lynchings and wonderful stories of courage in the face of incredible slights. One of the important themes in the papers was this idea that achieving equality, or moving toward it, in the military would bring about change in the rest of society. Once World War II started, the notion was described in shorthand as Double V, victory abroad and at home.

ANTHONY SWOFFORD, author, March 21, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Every Marine I’ve met has a strong tendency towards punctuality. You were late for this. Shall I presume you have a legitimate excuse for being tardy?
SWOFFORD: Sir, I do have a legitimate excuse for my tardiness. I’ve done fifty push-ups, as well, and forty bends-and-thrusts. Punishment enough?
CZIKOWSKY: In the military, one is trained to kill when so ordered. In battle, some freeze. There have been studies that find some never fire their weapons. Others seem to snap. What mental conditioning did you undergo to fit into that requirement? How did you find your fellow soldiers do with this mental training?
SWOFFORD: The mental training is an extension of the practical training…they are intertwined. Because you know how to use your weapon, you are capable of dealing with the other end, the mental end. Also, it’s necessary to demonize the foe.
CZIKOWSKY: It is the duty of a soldier to disobey an unjust order. How well do the Marines train you to understand that?
SWOFFORD: The Marine Corps stressed from early on that unjust orders should be disobeyed, and indeed, that the Marine should suffer punishment and even death before obeying an unjust order.

GWEN IFILL, Moderator, “Washington Week” TV show, March 27, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: It has been written more eloquently by others such as Chris Hedges, yet there have been fears expressed that the media presentation of the war with Iraq may be deluding the public and making us insensitive to the death and destruction that is happening, yet not being shown. Is this something you fear as well?
IFILL: I do worry about becoming desensitized in the face of so much information, so much horror. But as long as we have human beings covering (and reading) the news, I think it is ultimately not going to happen.

LISA DE MORAES: Washington Post Television Columnist, March 27, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: What do you think of television views seeing the ultimate reality TV show: the war in Iraq? I believe most of us believe the war won’t be over until we see Jeff Probst extinguish Saddam Hussein’s torch. Author Chris Hedges raises an interesting point: he fears viewers are becoming desensitized towards war. It comes across like a video game. We don’t see the horror of war. Do you thoughts on how television is presenting the war, and how viewers are taking war coverage?
DE MORAES: I agree with concerns that it comes across like a video game which is why I think it is important for TV to show the pictures of the dead soldiers. People need to see how horrible it is, not just the gadgets and the awesome snaps of bombing at night.

DANA PRIEST, Washington Post Staff Writer, May 14, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: The internal debates between the Defense and State Departments are out in the open. Yet, it appears to be the Defense Department whose views are prevailing within the Bush Administration, or am I wrong on this? How far can Secretary Powell be pushed, or is he fighting back, or does it appear he continues to go along as a “good soldier”? Is it good to have a military run by civilians and a State Department run by military people when the advice from experts in both departments is so varied, or is this leading to clashes that are only confusing our policy decision makers?
PRIEST: On the first part: Yes, it does appear Rumsfeld prevails within the Administration, big time. Powell, as far as I can tell, still believes in being a team player. As to the second part—yes it is god to have civilians run DOD (that is enshrined in laws and the democratic tradition of civilian control of the military). Having State run by former military is indeed a quirk. But it is one that reflects that the four stars at DOD (of which Powell was one once) gained a sophisticated view of the world after the Cold War ended and really came to appreciate multilateralism—or at least regional approaches to conflict prevention—much more so than Cold Warriors who sat out the 1990s—that would be Rumsfeld.

GWEN IFILL, “Washington Week” moderator, May 29, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Has any news reporting organization attempted to connect the degree to which our foreign policy is influenced by economic interests? I am not one of those who believe oil is the only issue driving how we respond. At the same time, we can’t deny that our national economic interests are not considered in how we prioritize which countries receive our attention. For instance, our support of attempts to replace the government in Venezuela was a short few day story and has been since ignored. Yet, when one considers the countries where we have supported regime changes-Venezuela and Iraq and now possibly Iran-one can’t wonder why these countries get attention while other brutal regimes (and I don’t deny that Iraq and Iran are brutal regimes) elsewhere in the world receive less attention from our government.
IFILL: One can wonder, indeed. And we can cover it all, which we try to.

DANA PRIEST, Washington Post Staff Writer, June 25, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: From an American perspective, little attention has been focused on Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. These are nations with struggling economies, poor human rights records, and are impacted by regional instability. What is the latest status of these countries and should the United States be paying greater attention to these countries?
PRIEST: The United States is paying greater attention to these countries, largely in the field of counterterrorism, which means increased funds for intelligence and military equipment and training, particularly to Uzbekistan. The programs, I believe, are still quite small in Turkmenistan, which has a dictatorship with no minimal freedoms. Others are thinking about non-military aid, but the trickle of assistance is still quite small.

MEL GOODMAN, Center for International Policy Senior Fellow, September 11, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: As a general, but important, philosophy for how we handle international relations, wouldn’t it be better for our international standing if we diverted more of our military spending to direct economic development assistance that directly assists the people of other countries? I know these general discussions are usually dismissed for being too simplistic. Yet, I believe we would improve our standing, lessen the fears of those that fear us, reduce the threat of terrorism in the long run, and improve our own economic standing if we would become the humanitarian assistance country, rather than just the country that can impose its military will on most others. Is this a good general direction to move, or am I being naïve?
GOODMAN: I totally agree with you so perhaps we are both naïve. Military power is a blunt instrument and until we address root causes of terrorism, we will continue to make the mistakes that the Israelis, for example, continue to make. Irresponsible use of military power, whether on the West Bank or Baghdad, will create a better terrain for terrorism. We have totally underfunded the foreign economic aid and assistance programs for this country…plus the Department of State and the Agency for International Development…and devoted far too much to Defense and Intelligence. And we are now paying a terrible price for these decisions.

JIM LAYCHAK, Pentagon Memorial Fund, October 3, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: It is nice a tribute is being developed. What was the process that allowed this to happen, and how did each of you become involved in the creation of this tribute?
LAYCHAK: The Department of Defense through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ran a design competition process that began in November 2001. I, along with 11 other family members, were asked to participate as a kind of focus group or steering committee to that process. That’s how it started.

STEPHEN IVES, filmmaker, November 11, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: How would you compare and contrast today’s war reporters from those from previous times? Do you see war reporting as a progressively improved learning experience for the occupation, or does it seem to be radically redefined with each war, or perhaps some combination of both?
IVES: What you see when you look at war reporting over the last one hundred years is a set of common themes which recur again and again. Ultimately, war correspondents reflect the existing attitudes and ethos of the culture which they are a part. Technology has often played a dramatic role in changing the way wars are covered. For example, Edward R. Murrow’s revolutionary use of radio during Word War II, the impact of television in Viet Nam and now satellite technology in Iraq. But ultimately, reporters are struggling to do the same job—somehow transmit the reality of war in a way that is still palatable to the American public.
CZIKOWSKY: What do you believe were some of the great embarrassing secrets that governments kept from war correspondents in history? It seems to me that, after every war, much about each war is discovered years later. Do you believe reporters are getting better at getting at the truth of the story today, or, as war has become so much more complex, is it now more difficult to learn what is happening on battlefields?
IVES: In World War I censorship was near total and although reporters were only miles from the front, the real horror was never reported. And this is not a trend that has disappeared. One of the big stories in the first Gulf War was the story of the incubator babies. The idea that retreating Iraqi troops had raided Kuwaiti nurseries, carted off the incubators and left the babies to die on the cold floor. This was a news story that obsessed the media and was played over and over again. It turned out to have been completely unsubstantiated and the first Bush Administration helped disseminate the story by hiring Hill and Knowlton, a Washington based PR firm to disseminate the story by producing a phony witness who testified in front of Congress that turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United Nations. The press only broke that story years after the war.

SHARON WEINBERGER, Defense Daily Writer, March 29, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I presume much of the information regarding the isomer bomb is theoretical. Is that correct? Assuming an isomer bomb can be built, how much damage would there be over how large a range of land? How could, if at all, someone under attack from an isomer bomb protect oneself?
WEINBERGER: Yes, the isomer bomb is a theoretical concept. Assuming it worked (and that’s really a huge assumption) how much damage it would do would depend, like all weapons, on how big the yield was and how the bomb was designed. The more isomer material you put in. the more yield you would get, presumably But then there are lots of intervening question-how much isomer would you “burn” in an explosion. What is the efficiency of the energy release? How much radioactive isomer material would be released? There are all important questions. I suppose if you take Darpa’s two kiloton hand grenade as a serious concept, then you can a visual idea of the destruction. The 1945 bomb dropped over Hiroshima was about 14 Kilotons—so the hand grenade is about one-seventh of that. Although keep in mind, the hand grenade has provided a great many chuckles, laughs, and jokes at the nuclear weapons labs. As to how to protect yourself from an isomer bomb—I’ve never really thought of that one. I strongly suggest writing to Darpa’s very helpful public affairs office with that question, and let me know what you find out.
CZIKOWSKY: If an isomer bomb could be built, what is the level of difficulty for someone else, perhaps China or North Korea or Iran, to potentially figure out how to then also build one?
WEINBERGER: Well, first, there is a huge dispute over whether an isomer bomb could be built. There are simply so many basic science questions, let along engineering challenges that make this end product unlikely, I would argue. It is also very, very, very expensive. One former senior Pentagon official said something like: by all means, we should encourage North Korea and Iran to spend all their money on isomer bombs—better than nuclear weapons, which they really could build. He was being sarcastic, but his point is well taken. What on earthy would North Korea do with a $38 billion bomb that is constantly decaying and shielded with heavy amounts of protective material? How would they deliver it? Where would they store it? And that assumes it triggers. That assumes you can get a chain reaction. That assumes you learn how to mass produce it. I’m not too worried about a North Korean isomer bomb. And although I have a great deal of respect for Tony Tether, I really am not worked about his isomer suicide bombers. That’s a little bit silly.

DAVID LIPSKY, author, May 11, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What do you think of “The Lords of Discipline” which was a (fictitious?) tale about hazing and driving away supposedly “undesirables” from a military school? Did you witness hints of hazing or plans to convince disliked students to leave West Point?
LIPSKY: I think “Lords of Discipline” was a good movie and a much better book. I liked Pat Conroy’s “My Losing Season” last year too-he went to Citadel and obviously had a mixed experience, both good and bad, things he hated, things he loved and misses. Some of it—I’m sure you had the same sense reading “Lords”—had the ring of stuff that must have, in at least a partial sense, happened. But of course Conroy’s a good enough writer so he could make even fictional things have that sense of truth.
I didn’t witness hazing at West Point; Gen. Douglas MacArthur, when he was Superintendent of USMA in the early part of the last century, had tried to get rid of it; other Supes tried to do away with it periodically.
General John Abizaid, who was Commandant when I arrived in 1998 and is now the head of Centcom down in Florida, really began to enforce the no-hazing policy in the mid-90s, and now it’s gone. A thing of the past. I have seen some Plebes who miss it—what they saw as a big test—go up to upperclassmen and say, essentially, “Please haze me.” They especially wanted to be ordered to do a “White Tornado”, which is where you eat all the condiments on your mess hall table.
I did see George Rash took a lot of “why don’t you leave” questions, especially during his first two years. What’s funny, and fair-minded, about the cadets at West Point, is that when they saw George live through it and improve, they began, almost against their will, to root for him. By the last year—it was a real fun thing to write about—most of his classmates were cheering him on. They’d say “George is the biggest miracle we’ve witnessed here.”

TOM MALINOWSKY, Human Rights Watch Advocacy Director, May 12, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I have heard of an interrogation description where a person withholding information is given heroin for a week. Then the heroin is replaced with sodium pentothal. Is this a good interrogation technique, and is it permitted or does it violate Human Rights Watch standards?
MALINOWSKY: I’ve talked to many people with experience conducting these kinds of interrogations, and none would say this kind of treatment works. The prisoner would say anything to get relief, but not necessarily the truth. And any hope of establishing the right kind of rapport with the subject would be lost.
As for whether it’s right or legal, the answer is obviously not. And again, all we have to do is imagine how we would feel if this were done to an American held prisoner overseas. Our military relies on the Geneva Conventions to protect its own, which is why within government it is often the uniformed military leadership that is most insistent on upholding these standards.

HANIS KARPINSKI, 800th Military Police Brigade Commander, May 14, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: It is the duty of a soldier to disobey an illegal order. Are Reservists provided the proper instruction to recognize when an illegal order has been given, in your opinion?
KARPINSKI: Yes. The soldiers are all trained and knowledgeable about the appropriate way to follow orders and in certain circumstance what to do if they believe an order is wrong. These soldiers (in the Iraq prison abuses) from their statements that have been published are saying the orders were correct and they did not follow the orders blindly. They questioned the people who were issuing the orders and they were reassured and convinced somehow that these were the right things to do.

GUY WOMACK, lawyer, May 14, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: It is the duty of a soldier to disobey an illegal order. How does a soldier distinguish between an order that is legal or illegal?
WOMACK: That’s the most important question in the case and the way I answer it is that it’s based on common sense and experience. In this particular case (Guy Womack’s client) Spec. Graner had been at Abu Grahib Prison and had witnessed the methods used by intel officers both military, other government, and civilian contract employees and the things that he did are in accordance with what he saw there.
If a soldier is asked to do something that he believes to be illegal, he should seek to clarify the order to make sure he understands it and if it is illegal, he must refuse to obey the order. Based on what he had seen at Abu Ghraid, Spec. Graner did not believe this to be an illegal order.

ELIZABETH HILLMAN, Rutgers Law School Assistant Professor, May 19, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: If soldiers thought they were following legitimate orders from those in command, what are their duties to obey or disobey an order that is in fact illegal? What are the responsibilities of those who issue illegal orders, and do you think we have a system willing to discover who might have issued illegal orders?
HILLMAN: Soldiers must obey orders unless they know them to be illegal…so it’s a judgment call that’s difficult to make, especially for those of low rank and little experience.
Those of higher rank appear to have been under great pressure to produce results from the interrogations—those officers are in a different situation, since they ought to be in a position to question the legality of directives more rigorously than those will less experience, education, and training.

WINSLOW T. WHEELER, Center for Defense Information Senior Fellow, August 23, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Shouldn’t much blame historically be placed on the Defense Department and our political system? The Defense Department long ago realized the way to increasing funding is to split operations across Congressional districts. The Defense Department was not designed for efficiency; it was designed for political expediency.
WHEELER: Yes. DoD is heavily involved in the pork process.

JOHN HUTSON, Former Judge Advocate General, August 25, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: General Karpinski earlier seemed to state she had been out of the loop and was unaware of prison abuses. Now it is being alleged she knew or should have known. What do you think?
HUTSON: Respectfully, and without knowing all the facts, I think she was as derelict in the execution of responsibilities as any officer could possibly be.
CZIKOWSKY: Does the military adequately conduct background checks on its personnel? I ask because there have been press reports of at least two people alleged to have abused prisoners in Iraq who were charged to have previously been abusive prison guards in America, including one incident where a prisoner died in Connecticut. If the military didn’t check, why didn’t they? If they did check, were they seeking abusive prison guards?
HUTSON: The background checks for enlistment are fairly cursory. For security clearances (Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, that sort of thing) it’s much more indepth. I believe that the abuses we have seen require that we re-evaluate how we are recruiting soldiers.

RENAE MERLE, Washington Post Staff Writer, November 16, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: How is it that a person in charge of procurement (Darleen Druyun) should operate without supervision? Were her decisions checked or audited by any supervisor or third party or independent source? How long was she able to award contracts improperly before anyone noticed something was amiss?
MERLE: Druyun was supervised by a political appointee, the Air Force acquisition chief. But there has been a lot of turnover in that position and it can take awhile to get someone confirmed by Congress, so there were stretches when there was no one filling the acquisition chief position and Druyun was basically running the office herself. The other thing to remember is that it would take some time for any acquisition chief to get familiar with the hundreds of programs the Air Force was managing. They would have to depend on Druyun’s judgment and advice for guidance.

STEVE COLL, Washington Post Associate Editor, February 8, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Of lessons some analysts and reporters have noticed is that Osama bin Laden is very good at telling people what he is going to do before he does it. He does not give the details of when and where his followers will strike, but he does like to warn a particular (to him) aggressor, and he always then strikes somewhere against that aggressor within a few days of such a warning. Assuming you accept this premise, do you believe Osama bin Laden would provide any warning if he possessed a nuclear weapon, or do you believe he would strike without warning?
COLL: Interesting. He presumably does this to prove to his followers that he’s the Man, the Conjurer. He might wish to ensure credit to himself if he was aware of another big attack of any kind. Of course, it might be that the next big attack, whatever it’s character, will be carried out independently, even if it is inspired by bin Laden in some way. That’s been the prevailing pattern.
CZIKOWSKY: Your article did an excellent job on describing some of the potential dangers that an enemy without borders and without a government could make an attack resulting in enormous loss of life. The question now is: how can we best monitor these hard to define organizations of terrorist groups and what should we be doing to best detect when and if these dangerous weapons are smuggled into our country?
COLL: A lot of what we’re doing to protect borders and cities from radioactive material isn’t publicly disclosed, but you get the impression that they’re working on it and have made some progress. There was a great anecdote published in the Washington Post some time back about a guy who had a heart procedure, a routine checkup that involved injecting him with some radioactive material. As he was driving back to his office, he was pulled over by very anxious Secret Service types. He had beeped their equipment, apparently. So that’s reassuring, I suppose.

RANEY ARONSON, PBS Producer, March 2, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: With body armor, we have fewer casualties, but more survivors who have serious injuries, including limb losses. The good news is we have less deaths, but then we have more survivors with nightmares. Does the military have enough psychologists, psychiatrists, and counselors available to dealt with this surge of soldiers needing assistance? What more, if anything, should the military be doing?
ARONSON: Such a great question—and you’re absolutely right—advances in body armor has saved lives but brought home soldiers with injuries that are very difficult to deal with. There are places that do have incredible therapy for folks who have come home injured. One of those institutions is Walter Reed in Washington, D.C. But there is much more that could be done—and the Army is the first to say that they could use more help. I interviewed a high ranking Army psychiatrist who said over and over again that she really wishes more mental health professionals would join the Army to help our soldiers.

VIVECA NOVAK, Time Magazine Washington Correspondent, May 9, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Did anyone in the military or government ever say anything to the affect of: if we treat people like this, I certainly hope an enemy never treats out captured soldiers like this? Isn’t one point of showing restraint to our prisoners is to set an example to the rest of the world how we, especially that of a democracy seeking to show others how good democracy is, expect all people to be treated?
NOVAK: You’re correct—that’s what the Geneva Conventions are all about. The primary reason to be part of them, in the view of many, is to ensure that our solders are humanely treated if and when they are taken prisoner.

WILLIAM ARKIN, author, May 19, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: If a country such as North Korea is led to fear a preemptive strike, what is to stop such a country feeling justified to make a pre-preemptive strike on Japan or Guan or somewhere else?
ARKIN: I’m not sure that North Korea or Iran, largely isolated and cut off from an open and frank dialog with the U.S. doesn’t already believe the worst, expect the worst. That to some degree drives their policy. We should not be blind then to the impact what it is they believe about us, and the impact of our specific actions. To merely interpret their actions as aggressive without trying to understand where they originate is counterproductive.
CZIKOWSKY: How certain are we that this order won’t instead mean that countries seeking to develop nuclear weapons will only hide it better?
ARKING: Countries that are developing nuclear weapons already practice as much “operational security” as they can. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are all cases in point. But in the case of Iraq, we also made many assumptions that proved wrong. I wouldn’t want to see another preemptive U.S. strike based on the same groupthink and poor intelligence. So the bet thing is to take advantage of military preparedness (and war plans) and a clear declaratory policy to try to convince other countries that they should understand the implications of taken actions that would threaten the U.S. or its allies.

DON EDWARDS, Retired Army Major General, June 14, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Karl Rove will never let a draft happen. At least the Bush Administration learned one lesson from the Viet Nam War: do not stir people’s opposition to the war by forcing people’s children to die in the war that they don’t understand. Yet, will there soon be no option left? Colin Powell has indicated we are losing the war in Iraq and the Generals state we don’t have enough troops. Again, how far away are we from having no option but to institute a draft?
EDWARDS: There will not be a draft and you have discussed the reasons. The reality is we are stretching our Soldiers and Marines painfully.

JULIETTE KAYYEM, Harvard University Kennedy School of Government Lecturer, July 11, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: How does our behavior serve as an example to how we hope other countries will detain their detainees? Do we have a responsibility to lead by exaple on how we hope others will behave? Shouldn’t we be concerned that others may feel that they need not follow usually guidelines when detaining Americans?
KAYYEM: I recognize your argument and it is one I tried to address. You are right to be concerned that how we treat others, we will also be treated; that when we abrogate the rules, nothing stops others from doing the same. But, regarding this issue, I think we have overstated the impact of our detention and interrogation policies on the world. Sure, they have not done us any good. But, I believe that tings have gotten so bad—Iraq, terror threats, an unknowable al Qaeda—not because we have violated some norms (but due to complicated, and in my opinion, bad policy decisions). So, in the end, I don’t like what our lack of politics has turned us into (including our military).

JOSH WHITE, Washington Post Staff Writer, August 3, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: I don’t know why brutal interrogation tactics are used. Not only do they makes others in the world lose respect for us, but it is my understanding that most experts agree that there is very little value of information derived from such tactics. Are you aware of anyone in the military who claims otherwise: that (disregarding their legality and impropriety) that these tactics are useful in obtaining any good information? If not, why are they being used?
WHITE: This is certainly a matter of intense debate, and there are policymakers who believed that giving this latitude to interrogators was important and necessary. A report on the detention operations in Iraq in late 2003, by retired Col. Stuart Herrington, made exactly this pint, that treating detainees badly doesn’t yield the best information. Sometimes people will say whatever it takes to get out of abusive or painful interrogations. When these cases were unfolding in Iraq, there was intense pressure from senior officials to get intelligence about Saddam Hussein and about the insurgency. It’s unclear whether these tactics yielded better information.

COLBY BUZZELL, U.S. Army Specialist, March 15, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: One soldier I know described the war as hours of extreme boredom interrupted by occasional moments filled with extreme intensity. It is hard to imagine the confusion of so many life and death decisions happening all around you simultaneously. How would you describe war?
BUZZELL: War is mostly boring.

P.W. SINGER, The Brookings Institution Senior Fellow, June 12, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: How are children recruited to serve in militaries? Are they forced into it? Do parents object? Have you interviewed a child recruiter, and what are their thoughts as they recruit children?
SINGER: Children are recruited through all sorts of means. Some are abducted. Typically, recruiting parties from rebel groups of the like are given conscription targets that change according to need and objective. Some, like the Tamil Tigers, even use sophisticated computerized population databases to direct recruiting efforts, so they target the communities that have the most children. All children are not automatically taken, but only those who meet certain criterion. Those judged too small are often killed in order to intimidate both the local populace and the new recruits. Once caught, children have no choice; usually they must comply with their captors or die.
To maximize efficiency, both state armies and rebel groups target the places that they know children will be both vulnerable and in the greatest number. The most frequent targets are secondary schools, marketplaces, and refugee camps. Sudan is an example of where this happened. In many ways, these tactics echo the naval press gangs of the Napoleonic era that used to sweep through a harbor looking for able bodied men to serve. Now, it’s children. Another difference is that abductions are not just about building out one’s force, but are also instruments of war. Abduction raids often like to rape and looting rampages.
Some children choose to join an armed group of their own volition. However, to describe this choice as “voluntary” is misleading. Leaving aside that they are not yet of the age considered able to make mature decisions, many are driven into conflict by pressures beyond their control, usually economic in nature. Hunger and poverty are endemic in conflict zones and children, particularly those orphaned or disengaged from civil society, may volunteer to join any group that guarantees regular meals. The same factors may also drive parents to offer their children for combat service.
Structural conditions may also oblige children to join armed organizations. If surrounded by violence and chaos, they may decide they are safer with guns in their hands. Revenge can also be a particularly powerful impetus to join. Lastly, some groups may take deliberate advantage of adolescence, a stage in life where identity is still defining. Through propaganda or media distortion, violence may be glorified or fictions created to induce children to self-identity with an organization. This took place in places ranging from Rwanda to Palestine.
CS recruiters do so not merely because they are evil or mean spirited, but usually for a thought our reason. They view children as assets. They see children as cheaper and easier to recruit (they will also fight for causes that adults can’t be convinced to, such as for a warlord), easier to force to follow your orders, and less costly to lose. Indeed, in may places (Congo and Myanmar for example) our research came across recruiters who preferred children as fighters because they would follow orders that adults wouldn’t.

EDWIDGE DANTICAT, author, September 25, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts on how a country should lead by example and not torture? Granted, even if an enemy does not respect a country’s policies that they will not torture when such an enemy tortures and ills captives, it is till best overall for our captives if we are human when we capture their fighters. Shouldn’t we be leading by example to help reduce the use of torture by others?
DANTICAT: That is certainly a crucial side to this, especially as there are so many U.S. citizens vulnerable to capture in Iraq and other places. Senator McCain, who probably knows more about torture than any of us, has been very eloquent on this point, I think. At least previously.

KAI BIRD, The Nation Contributing Editor, September 26, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Have you ever spoken with people who were considering what should happen should Germany or Japan developed the atom bomb first? I have heard some who argued there were suggestions that we would have given up half the country and made the Mississippi River our military fighting line. Have you ever heard what military planners were thinking?
BIRD: Well, the answer is no. Good question, though. What a terrible prospect, but you’d think there would be some contingency planning for it. But I’ve never seen anything in the archives about this.

DANA PRIEST, Washington Post Staff Writer, October 12, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: We on the state level know that our National Guard has been stretched too thinly: if there should be a major disaster in Pennsylvania, too many of our troops are overseas for an adequate response. I also read about the Generals who criticize that there are not enough troops in Iraq to achieve our military objectives and how we’ve already lost parts of the country, perhaps permanently. Now that Iran and North Korea see we are stretched, they appear to be more likely to act in defiance of any American threats. So, what are the plans, if any, to deal with the lack of troops?