Replies

"if it is now known that Atta had entered the Unied States in 2000 on false documents, there is no reason to hold to the truly dumb position that he didn't go to Prague in 2001 just because he didn't check out with the INS"

One thing that amazes me in such discussions is the frequent assumption that we actually can know and have records of all such comings and goings, when basic spy and terror tradecraft can arrange all sorts of false identities, passports, modes of transit, etc. The only thing that would be an ironclad 'alibi' against Atta being in Prague for such a meeting would be.... something that's truly an 'alibi' such as the most tangible proof that he was actually doing something very specific here in the USA on the same date and time..... but these claims that "oh, we don't have proof that he left the USA at that time" are just so stupid, it's mind-boggling.

Time mag, Sept 24, 2001, Special Edition, page 43

Sen Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate intell committee, says there is "some evidence" that Saddam was involved, evidence that is "credible enough that you can't take Iraq off the list."

I have always wondered what that evidence was.

One of the truly infantile arguments I have heard put forward in all seriousness is that Atta must have been in the United States during the time of the April "Prague meeting" between the Iraqi state intelligence station chief and the "student from Hamburg", is that his cell phone was used in the US during that time.

Oh. Well I guess that surely means he must have been here, live and in person, because he wouldn't, couldn't, have possibly left his phone with an accomplice. Could he?