This is rather an unusual step for a journalist to take. I don't know why its unusual, but he says it's unusual.
Apparently he did it because two of his primary sources for his theory that the Habbush Letter was created by the CIA on orders from the whitehouse, said that his book was all wrong about them.
So he is trying to get people to believe him.
He posted it to his website. http://www.ronsuskind.com/thewayoftheworld/transcripts/
The interview is rather confusing to me, as a reader. It starts out not talking about the Habbush Letter, or Memo, or any other words like that. It says instead, 'Habbush.... part two'. What was part one? It also has lots of uses of the word 'it' without clarity as to what 'it' is referring to. I a not sure, reading the transcript, whether they are talking about an order from the whitehouse, the letter itself, the plan to make a letter, or whatever.
On the other hand, Suskind says this:
Ron: The intent--the basic raison d'etre of this product is to get, is to create, here's a letter with what's in it. Okay, here's what we want on the letter, we want it to be released as essentially a representation of something Habbush says. That's all it says, that's the one paragraph. And then you pass it to whomever to do it. To get it done.
The phrase 'a representation of something Habbush says' would seem to indicate some type of fakery of forgery would be involved, in some way. Now, the thing is, that Richer does not object to Ron saying this. But, did Richer understand Suskind as Suskind intended here? Was Richer not listening closely, or did he not understand what Suskind was asking? Or did he aagree with Suskind's language?
Did Richer understand Suskind to mean 'a fake letter would be created', or was he thinking of something else? These are the sorts of questions raised by the suskind response website, and its apparent 'rebuttal' of the interview transcript, in the 'Statement from Rob Richer'. See Statement_from_Rob_Richer,_August_8,_2008