Hugh Hewitt interviewed TIME Magazine's Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware, whose idea of a good way to cover Iraq is to embed/liaise with the al-Qeada affiliates and Ba'athist fascists of the so-called "insurgency." The transcripts are up, and Hewitt writes:
"Parts of this interview trouble me a great deal. Ware is quite obviously a courageous, battle-hardened and determined reporter, but his answers to a variety of questions leave me concerned that the pressure of his circumstances will impact his reporting, and may have already impacted the candor of his assessment of the jihadists and the "insurgents." His refusal to answer other questions of historical judgment and relevance - were the Soviets better off under Stalin or Khrushchev, for example - tell me he is aware of the deep problems with his analysis of Iraq under Saddam and post-Saddam, and that he refuses to engage in any conversation that will inevitably expose that analysis as indefensible.
But the major problem comes from the threat of distortion born of fear, the same problem that we learned plagued CNN under Saddam, but learned only after Saddam was toppled."
Commentary and key excerpts here, or go for the full transcript and MP3 file. Reading the interview, one cannot reasonably come to any other conclusion. He is shilling and soft-pedaling for fascists and terrorists, consciously telling less than the truth in order to preserve his ability to cover a war from the enemy's point of view.
Ware has a history here - and when you combine his self-censorship because the jihadis might read it with his frank acknowledgement of the role that the insurgents told him to his face they wished him to play, it's incredibly damning. Now contrast Ware's 2005 Tal Afar reports with the actions of and letter from its mayor recently. No doubt his unsubstantiated charges about US soldiers "manhandling" Iraqi women were also a great interview-smoother with his Islamofascist "contacts".
The operative word here is traitor. To his profession. To his country.