There are two questions here: 1) What is the truth? and 2) Why the authors apparently do not feel their readers are owed some reconciliation of what the authors write and what the official record says? I have not read much of the book yet and rather doubt that I will. I have, however, been faxed a few pages of the book that concern Vince Foster and will describe three clear contradictions re Foster from just one page of The System.
One theme of the book apparently is the media's failure properly to present the "benevolent" Clinton Health Plan and the undeserved success of the cunning right-wing attack on it (an attack that the media did not rebut as it should have, the authors apparently say). Bear in mind that these authors are critiquing the media's failure to report accurately on the Clinton Health Plan in their book. Is it any more than ironic that in doing so they, wittingly or unwittingly, foul up the "facts" of Foster's death? Having decided between themselves to bring in Foster and Foster's death on several occasions, why didn't they do an accurate job? Why did they keep silent about the discrepancies between what they report and what the official record says?
Bear in mind that I have some serious bones to pick with the official reports and with the official underlying investigative record of the Foster death. My point here is that these authors, like Stewart, have (for whatever reason) appear to have fouled up their facts in reporting on the Foster death and did not even both to tell their readers that they were reporting information that, officially at least, clearly was not true.
On Page 260, The System says "[Foster] had been shot in the temple." This is am amazing statement for several reasons. First, the authors go directly against the Fiske Report (page 33) in which Fiske emphasized that Foster died of a gunshot to his soft palate (that is, Foster "ate" the gun). Did they do so unknowingly? If so, it is an amazing slip -- there was a large amount of publicity in the mainstream press on this point (see below).
Note that the Fiske Report on Foster's death completely denigrates the statements of the two Fairfaix County EMS personnel (George Gonzalez and Richard Arthur) who reported seeing a wound on the side of Foster's head, a wound that appeared to be more like a wound from a .22 caliber gun than the official Army Colt .38 Special "death gun" according to Arthur. These two were among the first medically trained personnel to reach the body, when, shall we say, "things" were still in a state of flux, in my humble opinion....
Fiske says this wound did not exist (the EMS guys saw something that just wasn't there) and cites Dr. Beyer's autopsy report (no mention of such a wound) in support of the Fiske Report:
Two members of the Fairfax County EMS, George Gonzalez and Richard Arthur, have expressed doubts about whether Foster's death was the result of a suicide. In large measure, these doubts were caused by observations of what they believed to be bullet wounds on Foster's face. Gonzalez believed he saw a bullet hole in the upper right portion of Foster's forehead [that is, near the temple]. Arthur believed he saw a bullet wound in the right side of Foster's neck [I believe Arthur's FBI interview states the wound he saw was at the midpoint of the right jawline]. These wounds did not exist. The autopsy results, the photographs taken at the crime scene [after some "doctoring," in my humble opinion], and the observations made by Park Police investigators conclusively show that there were no such wounds. [Page 33 of the Fiske Report]I would love to ask Johnson and Broder what their source was for the "shot in the temple" statement in their book. Remember that where Foster officially shot himself is not a subtle "Foster Fact," but a major one, even in the mainstream media coverage: A) Foster killed himself where his body was found in Fort Marcy Park, B) He was clinically depressed prior to killing himself, and C) He shot himself in the mouth. That's the top three.
Re C) -- many of you probably remember the big point made of the shot in the mouth at various times in the mainstream media coverage of the Foster death. For example, see the "60 Minutes" segment aired last October 8 which covered this point in detail and rather graphically, even showing a video clip from the movie "A Few Good Men" in which a Marine Officer shoots himself in the mouth, to illustrate how Foster did it and where he got the idea. Mike Wallace even told his viewers that Foster had seen the movie shortly before he killed himself and appears to have learned how to shoot himself in the mouth from watching this movie. No kidding -- take a look at a video tape of the show.
Mike Wallace told his viewers that Chris Ruddy simply "got it wrong." Will Mike also tell Johnson and Broder that they, too, "got it wrong?" Will Broder and Johnson explain to Mike Wallace how he, Wallace, just "got it wrong?" A lot of the mainstream media response to the Foster death reminds me of "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" in the sense that they cannot even consistently convey incorrect information.
So, it seems to me that either the Johnson and Broder were incredibly sloppy themselves about their fact checking (and in a book that chides the media for making mistakes, to boot!) or something else is going on here. I know two folks who attended the kick-off press conference for The System at the National Press Club late yesterday. I do not know the details yet, but they were apparently shouted down when they asked about some of the discrepancices described in this post.
Also on page 260: "A pistol was clutched in his right hand." Now, we could argue about "clutched," but it is clear (officially at least) that the death weapon was a revolver, not a pistol. Well, as good liberals, maybe Johnson and Broder aren't that famliar with firearms. No one expects authors to be expert on everything. . . But if they were unsure of their "expertise" why didn't they just say "hand gun?"
I wonder where they got the "pistol" information. By the way, one of the first EMS people to arrive at the death scene made a big deal of precisely this point in his FBI interview (especially in the handwritten FBI itnerview notes): he saw a pistol in Foster's hand, not a revolver (there is no doubt that the gun that was officially in Foster's hand at the time was a black/dark-colored Army Colt .38 Revolver).
This individual indicated that he had been in the army, knew the difference between a revolver and a pistol and that he was "100% sure" that the weapon he saw in Foster's hand was a pistol, not a revolver. The Fiske Report, of course, indicates that the official death weapon was a revovler: the dark-colored Army Colt .38 Special that appears throughout the Senate record. Are Johnson and Broder telling us Fiske screwed this up as well? Do they have their facts wrong or are they conspiracy kooks? Is there a third choice?
Also on page 260: "Foster had left his White House office, seemingly in good spirits, and immediately after having been congratulated for successfully shepherding two widely praised presidential nominations through the difficult confirmation process -- the new Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg [her husband taught me corporate tax at Stanford Law], and the FBI's new director, Louis J. Freeh. . ."
The problem with this statement, of course, is that the Fiske Report makes a big deal (Page 10) about Foster's lack of involvement with the Freeh nomination, citing this lack of involvement as an indication of Foster's depression and psychological isolation from his work in the Counsel's office. Why did Johnson and Broder get this wrong as well?
Bear in mind that I am citing three discrepancies in what The System tells us about Vince Foster and what the offiical record tells us about Vince Foster -- all on one page of the book! Given the authors chose to write about Vince Foster in the book and given that, overall, the book indicates that they clearly adhere to the "official line" (see A, B, and C above) re Foster's death, why do they have so many of their facts wrong? Is it sloppiness or is something else going on here? If it is sloppiness, might it be some indication that the rest of the facts in the book should be exmained with a grain of salt?
Warm regards and in haste,
Hugh Sprunt