Worked for the Wall Street Journal.
Pulitzer prize for one of his books.
The Way of the World has become rather controversial
Mohammed Ajmal Khan vs Mohammed Siddique Khan[]
Many people say that in Ron's book The One Percent Doctrine, he mixed up Mohammed Ajmal Khan and Mohammed Siddique Khan.
For example, 'Which Khan?', Mark Hosenball, Jun 21, 2006, Newsweek.
"He said that he checked with his U.S. sources—some of them from very high levels of the intelligence community—and they told him they knew the difference between Mohammed Siddique Khan, the London bomber, and Mohammed Ajmal Khan, the Kashmiri separatist. He said his sources still maintain that the London bomber was the focus of major U.S. intelligence attention as described in his book"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/52507/page/1
The newsweek story has its own sources, and none of them agree with Suskind's. Newsweek says it couldn't find any evidence to back up Suskind.
Suskind and Newsweek are both using anonymous sources for their claims.
so what?[]
"
Suskind's book and its inflammatory allegations about Mohammed Siddique Khan were heavily promoted early this week by The Times of London , the daily newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. But over the last two days, two of The Times' competitors, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph , have published stories questioning Suskind's claims and reporting assertions by British intelligence sources that Suskind had in fact confused the stories of two suspects named Khan.
. . .
Suskind's claims provoked a political uproar in London because they conflict with official stories U.K. authorities have told about their investigations into the July 7, 2005 London bombings. Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of M.I.5, Britain's counterintelligence agency (also known as the Security Service), told a parliamentary inquiry that her agency had no reason to regard Khan as a serious terrorist threat in the years and months before the subway bombings occurred."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/52507/page/1
Question - everyone is using anonymous sources. Why should we believe any of these people? Just because someone is a 'high level official' doesnt mean they know what is going on, does it? Was not Mark Felt wrong on mamy of his facts?
white house reaction[]
Fratto, wh spokesman, called his work 'gutter journalism'. Dont have a source at hand, too lazy to google it.
blog reactions to way of the world[]
- Pat Dollard
- very rude language
-- edit this page, add some more links.
It is strange the way replies are almost predictable on various blogs comment sections.
hesitant to 'dump tape'[]
CNN wolf blitzer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N__mjlovC5E
Blitzer: '. . . there's high interest on capital hill. . . will you cooperate, will you release the audio tapes, that you have, from your various sources, and help them get to the bottom of what's going on.'
Suskind: 'At this point, as a reporter for 25 years, I have never dumped tapes or notes to anybody. I am hesitant to do that.
If some [unintelligble] call, I'll deal with that at that moment'
. . .
Blitzer: '. . . Some of these people are now questioning your integrity. Your reliability as a journalist. But you say you have the audio tapes to prove what . . . you wrote in this book. . . . Isn't it. . . in your inclination to just go ahead and release these audio tapes and say 'You know what, here's, here's the evidence'"
Suskind: "I have worked with confidential sources on the record, off the record, for many many years and I have always hesitated and still hesitate
to ever dump tapes. I deal with many people in background information, all sorts of things. I simply don't want, and understandably as a reporter,
people to go ... into that closed room.
"
See Also[]
Ron's website: http://www.ronsuskind.com