This is a review of the book, in the new york times, aug 27 2008. mark danner. link is here

The review talks about all the usual stuff, including the Habbush Letter. Plus

  • talks about the rather disturbing accounts of uranium being smuggled through georgia, three times, even after the russians said they had fixed the problem. its the only review i remember reading that talks about this.

considering it could lead to a nuclear terrorist incident that would make 9/11 look like a sunday tea party, youd wonder why more people havent been talking about this part of the book - especially since large parts of georgia now seem to have been in war for a week or two, which always brings chaos and lawlessness and opportunities for criminals to do things undetected and unpunished.

does not go into detail about any of the denials Edit

" Despite White House and C.I.A. denials, Mr. Suskind’s case, if not definitive, seems strong". This is the only sentence dealing with the issues surrounding the denials, by Tenet, The whitehouse, the CIA, and by Suskind's two primary sources for the habbush letter story : rob richer and john maguire.

Question: Why does the reviewer not go into more detail about the denials? Why does the reviewer think that Suskinds case 'seems strong'?