Posted on 05/27/2004 6:25:41 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
Question:
In its "Our Con man In Iraq" cover story of May 31,2004, Newsweek claims Ahmad Chalabi "hyped a story "about a secret meeting in Prague between Muhammad Atta and a high-level Iraqi intelligence officer, Al Ani. Newsweek then states, as proof of its con man case: "After months of investigation, the CIA and FBI determined that the meeting had never taken place."
Is it fact or fiction that the CIA and FBI made such a determination?
Answer:
It is fiction that the FBI and CIA "determined that the meeting had never taken place." In fact, The CIA determined, it was possible the meeting took place, according to George Tenet sworn testimony before a Joint Committee of Congress (June 18, 2002) He stated: “Atta allegedly traveled outside the US in early April 2001 to meet with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague, we are still working to confirm or deny this allegation. It is possible that Atta traveled under an unknown alias since we have been unable to establish that Atta left the US or entered Europe in April 2001 under his true name or any known aliases.” Although the FBI could not find any evidence that Atta was in Prague at the time of the alleged meeting-- April 8,2001, it also could not find any evidence that precluded Atta from being in Prague on that date, or, for that matter, his whereabouts. All it determined was that Atta checked out of the Diplomat Inn in Virginia Beach on April 4, 2001 and, that same day, withdrew $8,000 in cash from his SunTrust account. Atta was not seen again in America until April 11, 2001. The FBI also could not account for why he withdrew the money.
Czech intelligence-- not Chalibi-- had informed the FBI and CIA that Atta had been identified by an eye witness meeting al-Ani. What Czech intelligence determined, to date, is:
1. Atta made 2 prior trips to the Czech Republic in 2000 at a time he was engaged in the 9-11 plot.
2. In applying for his visa (BONN200005260024) Atta identified himself as a" Hamburg student." 3. Al-Ani had an observed meeting on the outskirts of Prague on April 8th. The person with whom al-Atta met was identified by the observer (after 9-11) as Atta. 4. A surreptitious search of the Iraq Embassy (presumably conducted after the defeat of Iraq) showed, according to a Czech official, that Al-Ani had scheduled a meeting on April 8,2001 with a"Hamburg student" on his appointment calendar.
Tenet summed up the true status of the case in his appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Feb 24, 2004:
SEN. LEVIN: Was the intelligence Committee's assessment -- what is the Intelligence Committee's assessment of whether or not 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with Ahmed al-Ani, an alleged Iraq intelligence officer in Iraq in April of 2001. What is your assessment?
MR. TENET: Sir, I know you have a paper up here that outlines all that for you. It's a classified paper. My recollection is we can't prove that one way or another.
ping
Interesting. If it says that the meeting is considered neither confirmed nor denied, I wonder what in the document needs to be classified.
Thanks for the ping.
The Czechs stand 100% behind their information. I do not understand why the CIA and especially George W Bush do not trump this evidence. Bush is getting slammed daily without response that there was no Saddam connection to 9-11. Al-Ani proves the falsity of that claim. Why the silence?
My previous post on why the disputed Prague meeting doesn't matter
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Account Links 9/11 to '93 WTC Attack
The Baluch Connection: Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tied to Baghdad?
A simple one word answer: Lawyers.
"The administration does not want the victims of Sept. 11 interfering with its foreign policy," says Peter M. Leitner, director of the Washington Center for Peace and Justice (WCPJ). Leitner says the Bush administration may be concerned that if other victims of the Sept. 11 attacks also filed lawsuits and won civil-damage awards it would reduce Iraqi resources that the administration wants to use to rebuild the country. Leitner and others say this explains Bush's reticence at this time to report the convincing evidence linking Saddam and al-Qaeda that has been collected by U.S. investigators and private organizations seeking damages. "The [Bush] administration is intentionally changing the topic," claims Leitner, and sidestepping the issue that "Iraq has been in a proxy war against the U.S. for years and has used al-Qaeda in that war against the United States."
I don't buy that argument. Timing appears to be the determining factor since unless it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt the RATmedia would begin immediately to clamor that it is a lie.
It is unlikely that the Administration will be speaking of this until Summer to reduce the RATmedia's chance of dismissing it. There will be too many stories coming out then for it to concentrate on undermining this true connection.
The Czechs stand 100% behind their information.
That's what I understand.
For what it's worth they have a VERY good intelligence service.
The biggest B.S. in the Newsweek piece is trying to frame this as "Chalabi" information.
I've followed the story closely. The information came from the Czechs, with Czech officials...using their own names...saying it probably occured.
The fact that the "Chalabi" ruse is being thrown out means the disinformation forces are playing on constructed liberal-left bugaboos to dissuade further examination from the fact.
It's not just the doubt, it's the lie. Bad, or almost as bad as NYTimes' James Risen creating or relaying the blatant lie that Vaclav Havel "quietly" or otherwise told Bush the meeting did not take place.
Troubling indeed. Is the Newsweek piece written by Isikoff? He's the usual sucker for this disinformation.
...Powell also faults the neocons in the Bush administration who swallowed Chalabi's phony stories and pushed them into speeches by the president and vice president. With his clever sense for bureaucratic gamesmanship, Chalabi fed the neocons' hunger for raw intelligence. If the CIA and other spy services weren't going to come up with the goods on Saddam, then Chalabi would. He found a receptive audience in the office of the vice president and at the Pentagon. I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the veep's chief of staff, and Wolfowitz were eagerly looking for links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. With his media friends, Chalabi hyped a story, often cited by the neocons, about a secret meeting in Prague between Muhammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, and a high-level Iraqi intelligence officer. (After months of investigation, the CIA and FBI determined that the meeting had never taken place.)
First we have the "neocon" cabal nonsense, which is gaining traction by the way in an environment when the DNC is defining Iraq as something that occured only in Bush's mind since 2000, and Bush's PR incompetents have no interest in challenging - they seem satisfied with the new "it's the war on terrorism" pat line.
Second, we now get the "neocon" and Chalabi story lines melded into the czech-atta story, which indicates there is a faction very concerned about investigation into this matter, and believes the disinformation is best connected to lefty rather than righty talking points. Careers on the line? CYA for goofups? Foreign intel penetration?
Very interesting. Will Cheney step up to bat?
I think it's this simple -
They had a local Arab student on payroll. He saw Al-Ani meet an Arab fellow on the April date in some Prague public location.
After 9/11 Atta's pic was broadcast. The student said that was the guy. Atta is distinctive looking, so not surprising.
Czech's said it was probably Atta. Ever since factions in our govt. have strained not just to have reasonable doubt, but to quash this sighting. I think it has to do with Iraq more than Atta. Right after 9/11 Bush stepped up talking about Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, keeping Hussein in power involved a lot of money and the interests of several important foreign nations who struggled for two years to keep Hussein in power, while trying not to seem so. An Iraqi link, however tenuous, to 9/11 would hurt these interests.
Or it's some other motive altogether.
Methods and sources.
Is there even a single article connecting Chalabi to the al-Ani story that is dated before the current spate of anti-Chalabi info/disinfo? I recall nothing, and a brief search shows nothing.
Now, it wouldn't surprise me if Chalabi had pushed the al-Ani story, since it fits well into his world view, but in fact I don't know of any example of him explicitly promoting the story.
I've looked, I can find nothing on the web indicating Chalabi ever mentioned it, or was concerned with it.
Now, it wouldn't surprise me if Chalabi had pushed the al-Ani story, since it fits well into his world view, but in fact I don't know of any example of him explicitly promoting the story.
I suppose he could have mentioned it, or pushed it, but he seemed to have plenty he worked on to forward his position. I'd bet he'd see this matter as a side-show from his vantage point.
Very interesting Newsweek made this weird connection. Maybe, like with Risen and Havel, another example of a faction going too far in its spin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.