August 8, 2008
Statement
from Rob Richer
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.
Mr. Suskind has now released an edited transcript of an apparent conversation between us that he alleges supports one of the central themes in his book.It does not.
As to the substance of the edited transcripts presented by Mr. Suskind: I had
many discussions with senior Agency leadership regarding what I saw as the
fixation, by some parts of the Administration, on a purported Al-Qa'ida and
Saddam link.I also had internal
discussions during the fall of 2003 regarding the possibility of using Habbush
in some way to minimize the impact of the growing Iraqi insurgency. Many
of the questions from "downtown" did raise eyebrows and on more than
one occasion I was directed to do things which we considered a waste of time.
It is important to note, however,
in the transcript just released, I make no mention of having received an order to fabricate the
letter as claimed by Mr. Suskind in his book.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.
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. In the edited transcript I am
vague on the circumstances of whatever the issue was regarding Habbush. I
would have had much clearer recollections of an issue or order of the
sensational magnitude outlined by Mr. Suskind.
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. 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. I was also involved in many queries from elements of the
Administration trying to document an Al-Qa'ida and Saddam government link;
proof of which was never found. Many of such queries did originate from
the staff of the Office of the Vice President.None of this, however, substantiates Mr. Suskind’s explosive allegation.
For the record, I am not a government contractor and left my last professional
position with Total Intelligence Solutions in February 2008. Thus,
contrary to Mr. Suskind's comments, I've been under no pressure to change my
position on what is in the book.
On his website today Mr. Suskind
says Rob Richer received a copy of The
Way of the World on Monday night, August 4, the day before publication.
On Tuesday, he said he had read key portions of the book and was comfortable
with what they contained. Once again he misleads.When I
heard that his book was coming out and some of what he was asserting I called
him and demanded a copy.He had his
assistant deliver one to me at 9 PM
on August 4.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.
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.
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.
I stand by my earlier statement and my absolute belief that the charges outlined in Mr. Suskind's book regarding Agency involvement in forging documents are not true.
###