Posted on 06/16/2004 7:20:03 PM PDT by Shermy
WASHINGTON, June 16 - A report of a clandestine meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer first surfaced shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. And even though serious doubt was cast on the report, it was repeatedly cited by some Bush administration officials and others as evidence of a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
But on Wednesday, the Sept. 11 commission said its investigation had found that the meeting never took place.
In its report on the Sept. 11 plot, the commission staff disclosed for the first time F.B.I. evidence that strongly suggested that Mr. Atta was in the United States at the time of the supposed Prague meeting.
The report cited a photograph taken by a bank surveillance camera in Virginia showing Mr. Atta withdrawing money on April 4, 2001, a few days before the supposed Prague meeting on April 9, and records showing his cell phone was used on April 6, 9, 10 and 11 in Florida.
The supposed meeting in Prague by Mr. Atta, who flew one of the hijacked jets on Sept. 11, was a centerpiece of early efforts by the Bush administration and its conservative allies to link Iraq with the attacks as the administration sought to justify a war to topple Saddam Hussein.
The Sept. 11 commission report also forcefully dismissed the broader notion that there was a terrorist alliance between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
The report said there might have been contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda after Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan in 1996, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
In effect, the commission report endorsed the views of officials at the C.I.A. and F.B.I., who have long been dismissive of a supposed Prague meeting and of the administration's broader assertions concerning an Iraq-Qaeda alliance.
The panel's findings effectively rebuke the Pentagon's civilian leadership, which set up a small intelligence unit after the Sept. 11 attacks to hunt for links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. This team briefed senior policy makers at the Pentagon and the White House, saying that the C.I.A. had ignored evidence of such connections.
The C.I.A.'s evidence of contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraqi dates to the early 1990's, when Mr. bin Laden was living in Sudan. The debate within the government was over their meaning.
The C.I.A. concluded that the contacts never translated into joint operational activity on terrorist plots; the Pentagon believed the C.I.A. was understating the likelihood of a deeper relationship.
The staff report cited evidence that Mr. bin Laden explored the possibility of cooperation with Iraq in the early and mid-1990's, despite a deep antipathy for Saddam Hussein's secular regime.
The report said Sudanese officials, who at the time had close ties with Iraq, tried to persuade Mr. bin Laden to end his support for anti-Hussein Islamic militants operating in the Kurdish-controlled region of northern Iraq, and sought to arrange contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence.
A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly visited Sudan three times and met Mr. bin Laden there in 1994. Mr. bin Laden reportedly requested space in Iraq to establish terrorist training camps as well as assistance in acquiring weapons, "but Iraq apparently never responded," the commission report stated.
The staff report added that two senior Qaeda operatives, previously identified as Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, "adamantly denied that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq."
Soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, Czech officials said they had received reports that Mr. Atta had met in April 2001 with Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer stationed in Prague.
But the C.I.A. and F.B.I., and some top Czech officials, quickly began to cast doubt on the story, and Czech security officials were never able to corroborate the initial report, which was based on a single source. That source made the report after the Sept. 11 attacks, when Mr. Atta's photograph was published worldwide, and after it had already been reported that Czech border records showed Mr. Atta had visited Prague a year earlier, in 2000.
The evidence concerning Mr. Atta's whereabouts in Virginia and Florida in early April 2001, at the time of the purported Prague meeting, severely weakens the case for it.
The staff report's findings on the Prague meeting were also based in part on reporting from unidentified detainees in United States custody. One is Mr. Ani, who was captured and taken into American custody after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Under questioning, he has denied that the meeting ever happened, American officials have said.
Quote from two of the anthrax letters: "THIS IS NEXT"
Similar wording?
Ends up the guy he visited was also Roma.
BTW, it was fairly easy to get a visa to Eastbloc at the time. (Circa 1966/68) Just about once a month a 2-day tourgroup made up mostly of 3rd Division soldiers traveled to Bratislava. You could also visit places in what is now Slovenia.
The Eastbloc emphasis in those days was in not letting people out while, simultaneously, earning hard currency.
You are quite correct. The Tribune story is very misleading - it implies they have ATM pictures of Atta in Florida around April 9. In fact the only picture they have is of Atta withdrawing $8,000 cash in Virginia on April 4. If anything, that would indicate he needed cash for a trip he was about to take.
This whole Atta-Prague business continues to amaze.
There's been more disinformation about this incident put out by the media than just about anything else I can think of. You never even hear any of them mention that there are at least two or three other clearly documented and proven trips to Prague by Atta, yet the tenor of the reports try to give the impression that he never went there. It seems deliberate to me.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040620/nysu011a_1.html
Newsweek has also learned that Czech investigators and U.S. intelligence
have now obtained corroborated evidence which they believe shows that the
Iraqi spy who allegedly met Atta was away from Prague on that day.
So Newsweek have a new spin out. They now say Al-Ani was out of town on April 9!!!!
Kind of strange that the Czechs would expel him a few weeks afterwards! For attending a non-existing meeting with a Hamburg student that was deemed a threat to Radio Free Europe.
So why did they expel him exactly? And why has it taken two and half years for them to tell us that Al-Ani wasn't even in Prague on April 9?
Incredible!!!
Will Isikoff dare put his name on this peice of disinfo? They made up the Vaclav Havel story...
And notice the political spin...what do these "staffers" know different than George Tenet, whom they don't mention, but said the same thing as Cheney?
Where there's smoke there's fire, and someone is worried about this story for sure...
Assume its true - did they meet on another day? Did Atta meet Hijazi? I want to hear from the czechs.
Notice the apparent confusion over the dates as well. The new Newsweek story says April 9. But the meeting was apparently April 8, right?
The Slate article says April 8. I'll check more.
Ive seen both the 8th and ninth.
Interestingly, EJE reports that ATta met on the outskirts of Prague. So...Al ani or whomever could be described being "out of town"
BTW, why don't they tell us where he was?
The meeting was scheduled for April 8 according to a calendar which was recently found, but he was actually eyewitnessed on April 9. He could have gotten there on either day.
I'm sure who's feeding Michael Isikoff this latest round of garbage about Al-Ani, but my first guess would be it's just another nameless, faceless, disgruntled left-wing bureaucrat in the State Department.
Should read NOT sure.
Richard Clark?
Bingo. lots of them work in Europe now....but not back in 2001.
Fortunately the American people seem to be smarter, than the media gives them credit for.
I just found and posted this:
Americans Disagree With 9/11 Commission on Al Qaeda Iraq Link (69% think there WAS link)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157076/posts
(CPOD) Jun. 20, 2004 – Many Americans believe al-Qaeda may have worked alongside the regime of Saddam Hussein, according to a poll by Harris Interactive. 69 per cent of respondents believe the deposed Iraqi leader supported the terrorist network, while 22 per cent disagree.
On Jun. 16, the federal commission that is currently investigating the events of 9/11 stated that there had been "no collaborative relationship" between the deposed Iraqi regime and the terrorist network in the planning and carrying out of the 9/11 attacks. Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, killing more than 3,000 people.
On Jun. 17, U.S. president George W. Bush said that his administration "never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda." Vice-president Dick Cheney declared that the commission "did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda in other areas, in other ways" aside from the 9/11 attacks, and stated that the evidence of a link "is overwhelming."
Polling Data
Do you believe that Saddam Hussein was supporting the terrorist organization al-Qaeda, which attacked the United States on September 11, 2001?
Believe he was 69%
Do not believe he was 22%
Not sure 9%
How did the US get hold of Mr. Al-Ani's diary?
Hmmmm..."operatives"....in the plural.
Trick question. Careful pollees will cautiously answer "yes". The results will be spun to allege that pollees thought Hussein was directly connected to 9/11. Not unlike the Pew results sometime back similarly spun.
By the way, what is "supporting" - Hussein said he supported the facts.
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.