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?
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).
Big Time.
The New York Times makes me ill. Thinking they're so clever, trying to paint a picture of conflict where none exists.
As to Tenet's statement, I'll wait to see the whole thing. I am dismayed but not surprised at the machinations and spinning--all coming from the left, as usual.
They are beneath contempt, but must be countered.
Spinsanity.com (or is it .orgh ?) has a piece about the Iraqi-Atta connection.