In his recent review of Craig Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud in The New York Times Book Review, Bush-backer Jonathan Tepperman ignored the book's most dramatic episode. Odd? Not really, Tepperman insists. In the letters column of today's Book Review, Tepperman defends the omission:
I chose not to mention Unger's account of the emergency evacuation of Saudi royals from American soil following Sept. 11 not because of any political agenda, but because he provides no proof that there was anything untoward about the White House's helping prominent Saudis leave the country during a dangerous time.
Yeah, golly, without proof that it was "untoward," why would anyone find that suspicious and feel it was worth writing about?