link is here

This is a written statement from Rob Richer, posted on the website suskind response. Aug 8, 2008.

He is responding to Suskind's release of partial interview transcripts of their interviews for Suskind's book The Way of the World

authentic? Edit

See CIA Man: Web Site Statement on Suskind Book is Mine

Says Suskind did not have permission to tape their conversations Edit

"It is clear that he did record some of our conversations – but at no time did he inform me that he was doing so or seek my permission.I plan to consult counsel about the legality of his action. "

That's probably illegal.

Question: If Ron Suskind got permission to tape Richer, did he get the permission itself, on tape?

Question: Did Suskind get permission from any of his sources to tape the conversations ?

Reporter Jeff Stein says its legal to record convos in the DC Edit

"It is not illegal to tape a conversation without notifying the other party in the District of Columbia, where Suskind lives."[1], Jeff Stein, Aug 9 2008

Question: What if its over the telephone, and the other party is in a place where it is illegal?

Question: What about the ethics of it? If Suskinds whole book is about moral authority, wouldn't that merit following the spirit of the law, not just the letter?

Richer says nobody directed him to fabricate a document 'as outlined in Mr Suskind's book' Edit

"I stand by my earlier statement:"I never received direction from George Tenet or anyone else in my chain of command to fabricate a document from Habbush as outlined in Mr. Suskind's book." For the record, no one outside my chain of command directed me to do so either."

Says suskinds transcript is vague Edit

"In the edited transcript I am vague on the circumstances of whatever the issue was regarding Habbush. "

Question: In other words, Suskind thought they were talking about a forged letter, but Richer thought they were talking about something else?

Says a forgery order would not have been a 'non event' Edit

"I note from the edited transcripts posted by Mr. Suskind that I stated: "this was a non-event.” The fabrication of a letter as claimed by Mr. Suskind would have been much more than a "non-event." I also say that the project “died a natural death". An order such as the one outlined by Mr. Suskind would have been a huge event – and in my opinion illegal. An order to fabricate such a document would have been rejected out of hand and it is improbable to believe anyone would write such a request.


I would have had much clearer recollections of an issue or order of the sensational magnitude outlined by Mr. Suskind."

Question: What is meant by 'project'? What 'project' died a natural death? The project to use Habbush somehow against the insurgency? When did the project die? Why did the project die?

Question: When the Habbush Letter came out in Dec 2003, and then a few weeks later people started saying it was probably fake... did that influence the 'project'? How? Why?

says there was lots of non-creamy paper Edit

"During my time as a senior officer, I saw many documents from various offices of the White House regarding many topics. They were, in fact, on white paper."

So where did this 'cream' stuff come from in Suskinds book?

And, do we have any white house paper experts here? See Cream colored Whitehouse Stationery.

says actual concrete things that he did Edit

  • "I do speak to discussions regarding using Habbush, which were frequent during that period, but what I was talking about was the possibility of using him to tamp down the insurgency – not to influence western public opinion. "
  • "involved in many queries from elements of the Administration trying to document an Al-Qa'ida and Saddam government link"
  • "Many of such queries did originate from the staff of the Office of the Vice President"
  • Richer also says that al qaeda / saddam government links were never proven
  • also says, none of those facts are supporting of suskinds story about a forgery

Wow, compound sentence Edit

  • "I was asked to respond to documents regarding the potential use of Habbush upon his defection and during the difficult fall of 2003 when we were wrestling with a developing Iraqi insurgency and ways to combat it."

That is actually two statements

    • "I was asked to respond to documents regarding the potential use of Habbush upon his defection . . . "
    • "I was asked to respond to documents regarding the potential use of Habbush during the difficult fall of 2003 when we were wrestling with developing Iraqi insurgeny and ways to combat it."

OK Thank you junior high english teacher.

Question: What documents was Richer asked to respond to? Who wrote them? Who asked Richer to respond to them? Where are those documents? What was Richers answer to all these requests he got ? Who asked Richer to do all this?

Question: What possibly could Habbush have done to 'tamp down' the insurgency? What sort of things were discussed? By whom? When?

Question: What is meant by 'defection'... as of the fall 2003, had Habbush not defected yet? What was he waiting for? Did he ever 'defect'? Is this not in contradiction to Suskinds version of the story, where Habbush was whisked away out of the country back some time around the invasion, in March 2003, by the United States? Or can they whisk him away without him defecting? Can he defect without being whisked away? Or did he leave the country on his own? When did Habbush leave Iraq, exactly? Did he go back and forth? To Jordan? Where else?

Question: Richer does not mention the alleged 5 million dollars, the deck of cards Habbush was in, the state department reward of 1 million dollars, the iraqi government wanting him for whatnot, etc. So Richer was in all these discussions about what to 'do with' Habbush in 2003... does he have any thing to tell us about those various issues? Were they discussed in his discussions? Were these issues brought up in any of the documents he was asked to look at?

Question: If Habbush's contact was the British intelligence agent, what happened to that relationship? Was the US talking directly to Habbush then, and not via the British agent? In the fall of 2003? In March 2003? When in 2003?

Says he's retired, get off his lawn Edit

Richer claims he is not a contractor anymore, and left his 'last professional position with Total Intelligence Solutions' in Feb 2008. Therefore he has been under 'no pressure'.

Says he did not say the book was ok Edit

He says got the book 9pm the day before publication, "After reading the book, far from being comfortable, I told Mr. Suskind that many of the things he wrote about what I did and said were wrong."

This would seem to be in direct contradiction with Suskinds statements that Richer told Suskind he would tell reporters 'i have no comment' and 'ron suskind is a fine reporter'.

says that Nigel Inkster and Richard Dearlove had similar experience Edit

"I notice that Sir Richard Dearlove and Nigel Inkster, former senior British intelligence officials have released statements in the last 24 hours decrying Mr. Suskind’s efforts to manipulate and misrepresent their comments. My experience has been the same."

Question: Where did he see these statements? Does he have the links where they are posted? Does anyone? There is a 'guardian' website where Inkster responds... to Richard Norton-Taylor. Is that considered a 'statement'? Where is Richard Dearloves?

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found