Question About Cardinal of the Kremlin......(With Spoilers)

Jdieselboy.TakeThisOut@aol.com (Liszt) wrote:

 >Just before the botched cutout transfer from pg. 163 (paperback)"[The
 >dry cleaners guy] had been part of this line of cutouts for six
 >months, and though he didn't know it, his work along this line would
 >soon be ended......Soon thereafter the man at the baths would seek
 >another job, and this link of nameless agents would be disolved...and
 >untraceable even to the Second Directorate".
 >
 >This is written as a bit of information about what is to follow, but
 >later on it is clear that the line will in fact be traced, and that
 >the bath attendent and dry cleaner will be prosecuted, so that
 >paragraph makes no sense. Is this an error or is there something I
 >simply may have overlooked?

What you are missing is that regular changes in the "rat line"
are needed to reduce the likelihood of such discovery, however
much they cannot prevent immediate danger to the individuals
currently involved in the event of discovery while the current
set of cutouts is active.

The most that anyone in the current rat line could give the KGB
was that they had been active for a limited period - up to six
months, say. The could not tell the KGB that the Cardinal had
been active for decades. The KGB would have had to find that out
from the Cardinal himself.

If the brush pass isn't seen, and the rat line was changed on
schedule, all of those cutouts would have been out of danger -
absent giving themselves away somewhere along the line. And even
then, it would have been meaningless except for the first person
in the line, the bath attendant, who could have told enough to ID
the Cardinal.

 >Thanks to anyone who can clear up this inconsistency.

Hope this helped.
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question About Cardinal of the Kremlin......(With Spoilers) 

Ogden Johnson III wrote:
 > Jdieselboy DeleteThis @aol.com (Liszt) wrote:
 >
  > >Just before the botched cutout transfer from pg. 163
(paperback)"[The
  > >dry cleaners guy] had been part of this line of cutouts for six
  > >months, and though he didn't know it, his work along this line would
  > >soon be ended......Soon thereafter the man at the baths would seek
  > >another job, and this link of nameless agents would be
disolved...and
  > >untraceable even to the Second Directorate".
  > >
  > >This is written as a bit of information about what is to follow, but
  > >later on it is clear that the line will in fact be traced, and that
  > >the bath attendent and dry cleaner will be prosecuted, so that
  > >paragraph makes no sense. Is this an error or is there something I
  > >simply may have overlooked?
 >
 > What you are missing is that regular changes in the "rat line"
 > are needed to reduce the likelihood of such discovery, however
 > much they cannot prevent immediate danger to the individuals
 > currently involved in the event of discovery while the current
 > set of cutouts is active.
 >
 > The most that anyone in the current rat line could give the KGB
 > was that they had been active for a limited period - up to six
 > months, say. The could not tell the KGB that the Cardinal had
 > been active for decades. The KGB would have had to find that out
 > from the Cardinal himself.
 >
 > If the brush pass isn't seen, and the rat line was changed on
 > schedule, all of those cutouts would have been out of danger -
 > absent giving themselves away somewhere along the line. And even
 > then, it would have been meaningless except for the first person
 > in the line, the bath attendant, who could have told enough to ID
 > the Cardinal.
 >
  > >Thanks to anyone who can clear up this inconsistency.
 >
 > Hope this helped.
 > --
 > OJ III
 > [Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
 > Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]


I see my error now, thank you both. The line "though he didn't know
it, his work along this line would soon be ended" made me think that
Clancy was foretelling that the line would soon end due to an agent
being caught, rather than a description of protocol.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question About Cardinal of the Kremlin......(With Spoilers) 

Ogden Johnson III wrote:
 > Jdieselboy DeleteThis @aol.com (Liszt) wrote:
 >
  > >Just before the botched cutout transfer from pg. 163
(paperback)"[The
  > >dry cleaners guy] had been part of this line of cutouts for six
  > >months, and though he didn't know it, his work along this line would
  > >soon be ended......Soon thereafter the man at the baths would seek
  > >another job, and this link of nameless agents would be
disolved...and
  > >untraceable even to the Second Directorate".
  > >
  > >This is written as a bit of information about what is to follow, but
  > >later on it is clear that the line will in fact be traced, and that
  > >the bath attendent and dry cleaner will be prosecuted, so that
  > >paragraph makes no sense. Is this an error or is there something I
  > >simply may have overlooked?
 >
 > What you are missing is that regular changes in the "rat line"
 > are needed to reduce the likelihood of such discovery, however
 > much they cannot prevent immediate danger to the individuals
 > currently involved in the event of discovery while the current
 > set of cutouts is active.
 >
 > The most that anyone in the current rat line could give the KGB
 > was that they had been active for a limited period - up to six
 > months, say. The could not tell the KGB that the Cardinal had
 > been active for decades. The KGB would have had to find that out
 > from the Cardinal himself.
 >
 > If the brush pass isn't seen, and the rat line was changed on
 > schedule, all of those cutouts would have been out of danger -
 > absent giving themselves away somewhere along the line. And even
 > then, it would have been meaningless except for the first person
 > in the line, the bath attendant, who could have told enough to ID
 > the Cardinal.
 >
  > >Thanks to anyone who can clear up this inconsistency.
 >
 > Hope this helped.
 > --
 > OJ III
 > [Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
 > Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]


I see my error now, thank you both. The line "though he didn't know
it, his work along this line would soon be ended" made me think that
Clancy was foretelling that the line would soon end due to an agent
being caught, rather than a description of protocol.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question About Cardinal of the Kremlin......(With Spoilers)