Posted on 07/08/2004 8:14:00 PM PDT by Shermy
WASHINGTON, July 8 - George J. Tenet, the departing director of central intelligence, has told Congress that the C.I.A. is "increasingly skeptical" that a Sept. 11 hijacker, Mohamed Atta, met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001, an assessment very different in tone from continuing assertions by Vice President Dick Cheney that such a meeting might have taken place.
In a letter, sent to Congress on July 1, Mr. Tenet said Mr. Atta "would have been unlikely to undertake the substantial risk of contacting any Iraqi official" at such a date, when the Sept. 11 plot was well under way.
The statement, the most complete public assessment by the agency on the issue, was sent to the Senate Armed Services Committee in response to a question posed by the committee's ranking Democrat, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, at a hearing on March 9. It was made public by Senator Levin on Thursday, as Mr. Tenet bid farewell to his colleagues at a ceremony at the agency's headquarters. He leaves his post this weekend.
Within the Bush administration, Mr. Cheney has been the most vigorous proponent of the theory that Iraq and Al Qaeda had a cooperative relationship before the Sept. 11 attacks. He has cited the assertion that Mr. Atta met with Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer, just five months before the attacks as possible evidence of such cooperation.
A staff report released June 16 by the presidential commission investigating the attacks concluded that there was no evidence of such a collaborative relationship. But in a television interview the next day, Mr. Cheney argued that the report of the meeting, from the Czech intelligence service, had "never been proven - it's never been refuted."
Mr. Tenet's statement began, "Although we cannot rule it out, we are increasingly skeptical that such a meeting occurred.''
A spokesman for Mr. Cheney, Kevin Kellems, said the vice president had learned about Mr. Tenet's response on Thursday. Mr. Kellems noted that Mr. Tenet had told Congress on Feb. 24, in reference to a possible meeting between Mr. Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer, "We can't prove that one way or another.''
Mr. Kellems said Mr. Cheney's public statements had "reflected the evolving judgment of the intelligence community, as briefed to him by the Central Intelligence Agency.''
The C.I.A. has long expressed skepticism about the idea that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated to carry out the Sept. 11 attacks. In Congressional testimony in March, Mr. Tenet said he had privately intervened on several occasions to correct public misstatements on intelligence by Mr. Cheney and others, including a claim by the vice president in January that trailers found in Iraq were still believed to be biological weapons factories.
In his June 17 interview, on CNBC, Mr. Cheney described himself as a skeptic about the idea of a meeting. But he did not mention the idea that intelligence officials believed such a meeting would have been unlikely.
"We have never been able to prove that there was a connection there on 9/11," Mr. Cheney said at the time. "The one thing we had is the Iraq - the Czech intelligence service report saying that Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official at the embassy on April 9, 2001. That's never been proven - it's never been refuted."
Mr. Tenet's statement was written after the Sept. 11 commission published its staff report, which said there was no evidence that such a meeting had taken place, and pointed to other evidence, including Mr. Atta's cellphone records, to cast doubt on the idea that any meeting had occurred.
In a written statement on Thursday, Senator Levin, a leading critic of the administration's pre-war intelligence, said the C.I.A. statement "demonstrates that it was the administration, not the C.I.A, that exaggerated the relations between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda." Senator Levin and other Democrats plan to reiterate that theme on Friday, when the Senate Intelligence Committee issues a report on prewar intelligence that will include sharp criticism of the C.I.A. but will sidestep the question of how the Bush administration used that intelligence to make the case for war.
Mr. Tenet's farewell on Thursday, at a bittersweet ceremony at C.I.A. headquarters, came seven years to the week after he took over as director of central intelligence. Mr. Tenet, 51, has been a hero to many intelligence officials, who credit him with restoring budgets and morale, but he leaves as his and other intelligence-gathering agencies are facing more criticism than at any time in nearly three decades.
The retirement ceremony was closed to journalists but a transcript of Mr. Tenet's remarks released by the agency included a pre-emptive defense against the critics.
"In the end, the American people will weigh and assess our record where intelligence has done well and where we have fallen short," Mr. Tenet said. "And, aware of the difficulties and limitations we face, they will honor and recognize your service. My only wish is that those whose job it is to help us do better show the same balance and care in recognizing how far we have come, in how bold you have been, in what the full balance sheet says."
Mr. Tenet and his top deputy, John McLaughlin, used their remarks both to call attention to what they regard as the agency's recent successes, including progress in winnowing the ranks of Al Qaeda's senior leadership since the Sept. 11 attacks, and to underscore the magnitude of the challenges at hand.
Mr. McLaughlin is to take over as acting director on Sunday, the day Mr. Tenet's resignation takes effect. President Bush appears to be moving toward appointing a permanent successor this summer, and Mr. Tenet offered a strong endorsement of his deputy, whom he called "a brilliant, caring leader."
Sunday is the seventh anniversary of Mr. Tenet's swearing in, a tenure second in length only to that of Allen Dulles, who held the job under Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy. Mr. Tenet has said he is stepping down for personal reasons, and in particular to spend more time with his family, including his only son, who will be a high school senior next year and who was in second grade when his father began work at the C.I.A. in 1995, as deputy director.
With bureaucrats like Tenent America dosen't need enemies.
Ping.
Spinning against Cheney. Note this is the first time the CIA said such. Before they were fifty-fifty. Now they are "increasingly skeptical" I guess since the 9/11 report came out...no other reason why they change I can figure.
Cheney's people mention the February 24 Tenet statement, but the press has played to now as if the CIA doubted it, and rarely recorded Cheney's reticence, affirming his as certainly believing the story.
Good-bye snub to Cheney?
Sounds like a sour-grapes parting gift, to me.
Watch for a book deal from Simon & Shyster...
Tenet is a clintonoid liar.
He lied about this from the get-go, and he has been vociferously lying about it ever since. He obviously has an agenda going here.
atta,tenet,moron
The NYTimes spin is immense for the close reader:
In his June 17 interview, on CNBC, Mr. Cheney described himself as a skeptic about the idea of a meeting. But he did not mention the idea that intelligence officials believed such a meeting would have been unlikely.
This is spun as if it were some fault of Cheney to mention something else in an interview -and Cheney's comments might be reflective of that intelligence.
On the bright side his spokesman is ready with comments, ie Tenet's own statements back in February, which is a rare occurence for his PR team - to be prepared. However the spin is ongoing, and explanations to difficult I think. The Prague meeting is a minor event or non-event in the total view, but it has been successfully nursed into a "Cheney Lied" truism.
BTW, I don't buy for a minute Tenet's new spin without any reason given why his view is changing as late as 2004. But the Admin will probably bury it hoping it goes away. They have that little insertion by the 9/11 Commission to contend with.
We have BOTH.
Mr. Tenet's statement was written after the Sept. 11 commission published its staff report, which said there was no evidence that such a meeting had taken place, and pointed to other evidence, including Mr. Atta's cellphone records, to cast doubt on the idea that any meeting had occurred.So on the eve of his retirement, and "after" the commission made it's unfounded conclusion beyond what the CIA concluded, Tenet decides to use the words "increasingly skeptical".
Actually, I'm now more suspicious that the meeting did occur.
Unlikely? Why "unlikely"? What "risk"?
Remember, we're talking months prior to 9/11 here. The only "risk" accrues to al-Ani and Iraq, not to Atta. The only "risk" being that we would find out about such a meeting, assume there was an Iraq connection...and whack Saddam.
Well, we whacked him anyway...
At any rate, Tenet's reasoning is a bucket without a bottom. It won't hold water...
Ergo, the only reason for making the statement, therefore, is to mislead the media (and embarrass Cheney).
With respect to Mr. Tenet's staement that Mr. Atta "would have been unlikely to undertake the substantial risk of contacting any Iraqi official" at such a date, when the Sept. 11 plot was well under way, Mr. Valentine says:
"Although we cannot rule it out, we are increasingly skeptical that George Tenet has a freaking clue.''
Well, that's a good form of (a priori, notice) reasoning based on which to just flat-out ignore eyewitness testimony, corroborating circumstantial evidence (the "Hamburg student" notebook entry), and a gap in his known schedule.
Look, this type of thing from the CIA has only two real explanations. 1) They're flat-out idiots. 2) They have some hidden agenda.
Because it's so moronic on the face of it.
Mr. Tenet's statement began, "Although we cannot rule it out, we are increasingly skeptical that such a meeting occurred.''
Well, that and a dollar won't get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's. Please someone explain to me why I should give a rat's ass about the unfounded "skepticism" of unnamed CIA people for unknown reasons?
Also notice Headline Dishonesty (a regular feature of our fourth estate). Here Mr. Tenet says FLAT-OUT that he cannot disprove it. The most he says against it is "we are skeptical" (again, based on seemingly nothing but amateur psychoanalysis of what, they think, Atta "would have" done).
Somehow in the headline this all becomes transmogrified into 'Disputes'.
In his June 17 interview, on CNBC, Mr. Cheney described himself as a skeptic about the idea of a meeting. But he did not mention the idea that intelligence officials believed such a meeting would have been unlikely.
I guess not. Neither did he mention the idea that, oh for example, Al Gore believed such a meeting would have been unlikely.
Why, was he required to? Why exactly?
and pointed to other evidence, including Mr. Atta's cellphone records, to cast doubt on the idea that any meeting had occurred.
Actually the 9/11 Commision ('s "Staff") did something much more irresponsible than that. They pointed to Atta's cellphone records (ever handed your cell phone to another human?) and then out of clear blue sky proclaimed that they "concluded" the meeting did not exist.
"Concluded"!
Other parts of the report got more publicity, but this was really the most irresponsible piece.
Senator Levin, a leading critic of the administration's pre-war intelligence, said the C.I.A. statement "demonstrates that it was the administration, not the C.I.A, that exaggerated the relations between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda." Senator Levin and other Democrats plan to reiterate that theme on Friday,
Of course they do.. of course they do. Keep your eye on that ball. This is all about politics and elections and beating those darn Republicans.
Whether a 9/11 attacker met with the Iraqis - who cares if it's actually TRUE or not. Use it! spin it! deny it!
It's a political football now, for Levin to kick around. Godspeed Senator Levin and congratulations on the great patriotic job that you are doing to honor the memory of the 3000+ killed by a conspiracy involving Atta, and pals, and perhaps the Iraqi consul in Prague (not that (D)s care; if it involved anyone Iraqi, THEY DON'T WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT).
Tenet has become harder to understand than Greenspam.
It's part of an orchestrated campaign against Cheney. Also, it might be a cover up operation. Jan Kavan, the Czech foreign minister at the time, suggested that american intelligence was informed of the meeting before 9/11 and the Americans might fear the information because they failed to act (though even the czechs might not have know it was Atta until after his pic was broadcat post-9/11.)
This will be fodder for the Anti-Cheney faction in our services. Cheney's hope might rest in a complete discussion of all the events, or the Czechs speaking up again.
Cheney himself was 50-50 skeptical, but that's rarely reported.
He didn't have a problem going to cropduster firms and asking how much "poisons" the planes could hold. Among many other things that even amazed the 9/11 commission.
The statement is an absurdity gussied up to sound true. This is the best Tenet can do to counter his prior statements? What, the "CIA" just thought this up in the past few months?
Galling.
---Unlikely? Why "unlikely"? What "risk"?
That's exactly what I would like to understand. What is the "unlikely" based upon? That Atta left his cell phone which wouldn't function in Europe behind? That the friends who used his credit cards wouldn't have used the phone he left behind? That he didn't use his own passport when these guys were swimming in phoney ID's? I wish the CIA would at least attempt a serious argument for their position.
Well said.
"Please someone explain to me why I should give a rat's ass about the unfounded "skepticism" of unnamed CIA people for unknown reasons?"
and why is it "increasing?" and since when, say, after the 9/11 commission report?
" and pointed to other evidence, including Mr. Atta's cellphone records, to cast doubt on the idea that any meeting had occurred."
You're exactly right. They concluded that. This journalist intentionally spins the Commission's unfounded report as "casting doubt", as if they gave a softer assessment, congruent with Tenet's here. The journalist thus avoids the risk of the average reader questioning that the Commission said something different than what Tenet says here.
I'm impressed with the weasel-ness of Tenet's "increasingly skeptical" spin. Fair enough to be skeptical. But what exactly happened since all this info was known back in early 2002 that makes him "increasingly" skeptical? Nothing I've read about, and Tenet offers nothing here.
Another result of a relentless liberal socialist communist protecting press bias.
As you say it's always there if you read carefully. This media simply assemble another lie to make further use of one already fabricated.
Atta's unimportant meeting probably took place, it's just lucky for the Rats nobody got pictures of them in bed together, no matter. What does matter is that Iraq and Saddam were major supporters of anti-American terrorists of several persuasions, and Saddam was a terrorist himself head of state or not. Tenent can stand on his head and juggle eggs and it won't change that.
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.