When Byron called a few months ago and told me he was writing this story I was in the middle of one of several eye surgeries for torn retinas that I endured this summer. In fact, one each in June, July, August and September. Therefore, to be fully cooperative, I offered him my complete manuscript and he accepted. I didn't feel at the time that I could effectively spend the hours that would have been required responding to all of his questions. He quoted from my manuscript where it served his purpose, but ignored the bulk of it.
For starters, it seems interesting to me that Byron chose not to inform the readers that I had served for twelve years on the Board of Directors of TAS. He did mention the seemingly heroic efforts of Terry Eastland, successor to Ron Burr as publisher, in poring over American Express records in an internal probe of how money had been spent in our efforts. What he failed to mention was that they were my American Express Records, and without them to validate a lot of vital information we could have been subject to more than a little embarrasment. The truth is, I used my own documents to guide Terry Eastland's efforts. I might add that I also successfully used them during a federal investigation lasting more than a year that caused me to appear twice before a federal grand jury in Fort Smith Arkansas. Byron did note that Bob Tyrrell and others at the magazine were spared that honor out of a supposed respect for the first ammendment. Finally, Byron follows the Salon Magazine formula used in reporting that same story endlessly. He makes mention of James Ring Adams, a fine writer for TAS at the time, who wrote most of the magazines Whitewater stories. He failed to mention, however, that Jim Adams had credited my work and that of Steve Boynton in his efforts at finding and understanding those stories.
Lastly, David Brock was a determining factor in what was published in TAS during much of the period covered by the "Arkansas Project." He held sway over both Burr and Wlady, publisher and editor respectively. In 1994 Brock had an article published in Forbes Media Critic in which he declaired certain reporting about the Clintons to be off limits. That included a lot of the reporting that went unwritten at TAS. In effect, Brock was criticising his own employer on the pages of another magazine. We all know what subsequently happened to Brock.
If you've read my earlier posts, you'll note that I'm starting to have a little indigestion over Byron York. It would seem that he is perhaps following two different models at the same time--Brock's and Salon's. Imagine if a shameless shill like Joe Conason starting writing anti-Clinton articles in New Republic, while simultaneously serving up Clinton puff pieces in Salon. Wouldn't readers of either publication start to get a little suspicious? That's sort of the way I'm reading York's article--with much caution. As you pointed out, it's curious how some things DIDN'T get mentioned in the article, leaving the reader with a very slanted view of events. Maybe York is trying to have 'crossover appeal', playing to a new audience and all. Maybe it was the editors over at Atlantic Monthly who were 'guiding' him? Anyway, I thought he took more than a few cheap shots at RET. And RET deserved better than that.
I sincerely wish you better health with your eyes. Be encouraged.