In his review of my book, "Uncovering Clinton," published in Tuesday's Salon, Joe Conason takes me to task for allegedly neglecting to mention, or glossing over, matters he believes important to a proper understanding of the Paula Jones lawsuit and the events that led to the president's impeachment. I suppose I shouldn't blame Conason for not reading my book with the same care that I took in writing it. Still, I feel compelled to correct the record on several points.

1) Conason writes that "amazingly" my book "never mentions" Paula Jones' move to increase her settlement demands to $2 million. Actually, it does: On Page 380, I discuss the circumstances that surrounded the $2 million proposal in late November 1997 and how it effectively torpedoed a resolution of the case at that juncture.

2) Conason chides me for quoting "not a single line" of Linda Tripp's grand jury testimony describing what she perceived to be Kathleen Willey's romantic fascination with President Clinton. Actually, in chapter seven, on Page 137, I describe how Tripp made precisely these same claims to me in a meeting at her home in April 1997 -- more than a year before her grand jury testimony. ("This woman [Willey] had been pursuing the president ever since she got to the White House. She consulted Tripp about ways to get his attention, about what outfits she should wear in his presence.") For what it is worth, in the same chapter, I also include new material about the origins of Tripp's hostility to Willey as well as Tripp's parting comment to the former White House volunteer, clearly heard by the secretary to then-White House counsel Lloyd Cutler: "I will get you if it's the last thing I do. "

3) Conason claims that I dubbed Sidney Blumenthal's public description of his grand jury interrogation by Ken Starr's prosecutors "largely fiction." Actually, I called Blumenthal's account "misleading" (see Page 389). It unquestionably was. On the steps of the U.S. courthouse, on Feb. 26, 1998, Blumenthal dramatically claimed that he had been "forced to answer questions" about his conversations with a long list of news organizations that he said included the New York Times, CNN, Time magazine and many others he identified by name. The transcript of that session showed that Blumenthal himself had injected the names of specific news organizations into the testimony, not Starr's prosecutors. Conason claims the accusation that Blumenthal misrepresented his grand jury testimony "emanated from Starr's office." Actually, the accusation was made by the grand jury foreperson who later complained to Blumenthal about his "inaccurate representation" of events. Conason says my account of this incident shows that the prosecutors were my "sources." Actually, I derived my account from a less glamorous method of journalistic inquiry: I consulted the public record.

-- Michael Isikoff

JOE CONASON RESPONDS ...

Like his book, Michael Isikoff's letter ably presents some facts, conveniently avoids others and persistently omits crucial context.

1) On Page 380, he does finally mention the Jones lawyers' decision to raise the settlement ante to more than $2 million. But that fine-print reference is buried in the endnotes, far from the main text. Although I wish I had noticed it there, the galley index provided by his publisher contained no reference to that endnote in the section on the Jones case, which is why I missed it.

2) Isikoff doesn't deny his complete omission of Linda Tripp's grand jury testimony about Kathleen Willey. Even if he now believes that Tripp was out to "get" Willey, that doesn't explain his decision to ignore sworn statements from his most important source, in which she cast doubt on Willey's story.

3) As for Isikoff on Sidney Blumenthal's testimony, let's all consult the public record for context and specifics. The grand jury minutes indisputably show that Blumenthal was interrogated at length by Ken Starr's deputies about his contacts with the news media (Pages 46-55). Certain questions and answers in the published transcript are blacked out, so none of us really knows which media contacts Blumenthal was asked to reveal -- although the name of one Time magazine correspondent slipped through unredacted. In the particular exchange cited as deceptive by Isikoff, it is clear that the prosecutors asked Blumenthal several times whether he had transmitted derogatory material about Starr's office "to any member of the news media."

In any case, just before publication of his book, Isikoff toned down his own characterization of Blumenthal's famous speech on the courthouse steps. In galleys, Isikoff labeled it "largely fiction"; in the final version, he softened this to "misleading." Now the indignant author seems to have forgotten making that change. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So a group of Republicans worked to spread the word about Bill Clinton's misdeeds. So what? I can't recall Joe ever pointing a damning finger at Eleanor Clift, Ed Downie, Geraldo, Time or Jack Nelson for their shameless Clinton boosterism. Nor can I recall him commenting on the relentless stream of anti-Starr leaks that clearly have poured from his beloved White House. Is Conason really that naive -- or arrogant -- as to presume that only those people who agree with his politics be able to promote those politics? Kind of reminds me of the thankfully deceased Chicago 7 attorney Kuntzler who, after being asked about human rights abuses in one of his favorite communist countries (North Vietnam, perhaps), remarked: "It's my policy not to comment publicly on negative aspects of Marxist countries." Heaven forbid, the truth might crop up.

-- David Wrone
Clayton, Mo.

Next page | The only counselor I needed was my husband