http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/printedition/chi-0406250034jun25,1,2148961.story?coll=chi-printtempo-hedthis is great, isn't it. they NEVER change, do they.
the article leaves an interesting contradiction, quoting some spokesliar as saying Rumsfeld dropped the investigation very quickly.
well...HERE/s how quickly he dropped it:
Three days after Hersh's spy sub report, on May 28, 1975, Cheney met with White House counsel Philip W. Buchen and Levi -- who had left his position as president of the University of Chicago to become Ford's attorney general. Levi questioned the wisdom and feasibility of any legal action, Cheney told Rumsfeld in a memo the next day. Levi felt there should be no FBI investigation unless they really intended to prosecute Hersh. A prosecution would likely fail, and could expose other facets of America's espionage program, Levi argued in that meeting and a subsequent memo to Ford. In a later memo, Cheney told Rumsfeld that they had considered five options: investigating Hersh and his government sources; obtaining a search warrant "to go after Hersh and remaining material"; seeking a quick indictment of those who disclosed classified secrets; "quietly" informing The New York Times that the government could prosecute but wouldn't if the Times stopped leaking classified information; or doing nothing.
Rumsfeld responded with a May 30 cable to Cheney from Brussels, where he was visiting NATO officials with Ford. Rumsfeld wrote: "There is a desire to have the FBI investigation begin soon." Assuming no adverse impact on "the program" -- presumably the submarine operations -- "I will assume that the FBI investigation will begin," Rumsfeld wrote.
Cheney wrote to Rumsfeld, "re: Your latest, directing immediate initiation of an FBI investigation." Top administration officials "are conducting internal reviews designed to identify all potential sources of information contained in ," Cheney wrote. "The results will be provided to the Justice Department for any investigation undertaken by the FBI."sounds to me like they just kept on going, and the article gives NO DATE as to when they gave up the investigation. why don't they include that information?
this is really disgusting.....thirty YEARS of the same crap
here's the best part:
Di Rita said no one at the Pentagon harbored any animus against Hersh for the 1975 story. "That's not the way people are around here," Di Rita said. "They're much too busy."yeah, sure, just as they harbor no ill will for his Abu Ghraib stories, or his Yellowcake story.
and isn't it interesting who the other major player in this Plumberesque story is?