Posted on 11/22/2005 2:38:16 AM PST by The Raven
PRAGUE--On Oct. 27, 2001, the New York Times reported (erroneously) that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta "flew to the Czech Republic on April 8 and met with [an] Iraqi intelligence officer," helping to give credence to the so-called Prague connection. It subsequently cast doubt on it, editorializing in November 2005 that the alleged meeting between the hijacker and the Iraqi was part of President Bush and his team's "rewriting of history" based on nothing more than a false tale "from an unreliable drunk." But was the putative Prague connection solely an invention of the Bush administration--or was it the product of an incomplete intelligence operation?
-snip
Less than a week after Mr. Ruzek shared the BIS's confidential information with American intelligence, it was leaked. The Associated Press reported, "A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States has received information from a foreign intelligence service that Mohamed Atta, a hijacker aboard one of the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center, met earlier this year in Europe with an Iraqi intelligence agent." CBS named al-Ani as the person meeting with Atta in Prague.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
I cannot think of a reason. Saddam Hussein was the world's ultimate master of that particular thing and he lived in their own backyard. This strikes me as more than adequate justification for the entire Iraq operation and people should be talking about it more than they are.
Iran?
bump for later reply
And if it is true that the CIA and Executive branch are at odds, would the CIA produce evidence supporting the President's position for the Iraqi war?
Vaclav Havel, former President of the Czech Republic, still stands by the story. Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague.
Timothy McVeigh was seen in the company oif Iraqi agents just before OKC bombings. No story?
The question of whether or not Hussein had 1000 tons of anthrax powder is simply the wrong question. The right questions are, did the guy have the motive, the technical resources, the financial wherewithal, the facilities, and the intel apparatus to play that sort of game, and the answers to all of those questions are obvious.
The first case of anthrax after 9-11 (Bob Stevens) showed up within miles of where several hijackers stayed JUST BEFORE 9/11, a very unlikely coincidence considering that they could have stayed anywhere in the country.
The last previous case of anthrax in a human in the United States prior to 9-11 had been about 30 years prior to that.
There are other coincidences. For instance, the wife of the editor of the sun (where Stevens worked) also had contact with the hijackers in that she rented them the place they stayed.
Atta and the hijackers flew planes out of an airport in the vicinity and asked about crop dusters on more than one occasion. Indeed, Atta sought a loan to try and modify a crop duster.
Atta and several of the hijackers in this group also sought medical aid just prior to 9/11 for skin lesions that the doctors who saw them now say looked like anthrax lesions.
Basically, you either believe in the laws of probability or you don't. Anybody claiming that all these things were coincidences is either totally in denial or does not believe in modern mathematics and probability theory.
While the anthrax in question originally came from a US strain, it isn't too surprising that Iraq might have that strain since that strain was mailed to laboratories around the world years earlier.
Basically, the anthrax attack which followed 9/11 had Saddam Hussein's fingerprints all over it. It was particalized so finely it went right through envelop paper and yet was not weaponized (not hardened against antibiotics). It was basically a warning, saying as much as:
"Hey, fools, some of my friends just knocked your two towers down and if you try to do anything about it, this is what could happen. F*** you, and have a nice day!!"
There is no way an American who had had anything to do with that would not be behind bars by now. In fact the one American they originally suspected told investigators that if he'd had anything to do with that stuff, he would either have anthrax or have the antibodies from the preventive medicine in his blood and offered to take a blood test on the spot. That of course was unanswerable.
The basic American notion of a presumption of innocence is not meaningful or useful in cases like that of Saddam Hussein. Even the Japanese had the decency to have their own markings on their aircraft at Pearl Harbor; Nobody had to guess who did it. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, is like the kid in school who was always standing around snickering when things went bad, but who could never be shown to have had a hand in anything directly. At some point, guys would start to kick that guy's ass periodically on general principles. Likewise, in the case of Saddam Hussein, the reasonable assumption is that he's guilty unless he somehow or other manages to prove himself innocent and, obviously, that did not happen.
At the time, the US military was in such disarray from the eight years of the Clinton regime that there was nothing we could do about it. Even such basic items as machinegun barrels, which we should have warehouses full of, were simply not there. Nonetheless, nobody should think they would get away with such a thing and, apparently, Hussein and his baathists didn't.
Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" documents some of this:
'Cheney?s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, quickly questions the wisdom of mentioning state sponsorship. Tenet, sensitive to the politics of Capitol Hill and the news media, terminates any discussion of state sponsorship with the clear statement:
"I'm not going to talk about a state sponsor."'Vice President Cheney further drives the point home:
"It's good that we don't, because we're not ready to do anything about it."
Even simple things like body armor, ammunition, and machinegun barrels which we should have warehouses full of simply weren't there, i.e. they'd been sold off at 40 cents on the dollar for DNC money. A friend of mine called up one of the nation's premier barrel makers about a barrel for a target rifle in early 02 and was told that they were working 24/7 making machinegun barrels and didn't have time for any sort of civilian firearm business.
Now, a president in W's position taking over after the 8 years of total mismanagement and abuse of this perverted Klintler administration had about two choices after 9/11: He could do what he actually did, or he could do what many Americans probably have done, which would be to nuke Mecca, Medina, Rihyad, Falluja, and every other den of slammite terrorism on the planet and ban the practice of I-slam throughout the world.
A reasonable person would probably like to at least try what W. has first.
Of course Ted Kenndy, Joe Biden, fill in the blank RAT politician must think that Atta went to Prague to sample the beer.
These guys did not take plane rides without a purpose.
Just to add one more factor to the probability equation, we now know that both the FBI and CIA had factions within which were politicized. In other words there were those within the agencies who seem to have had a desire to protect Iraq from blame.
The "investigation" was a sham.
bump for later
Re post #7: precisely
Bump for detailed reading later.
And welcome to FR.
This is a fascinating read; thank you for posting it.
The left loves to point to the Atta in Prague was debunked to claim that Saddam didn't have a relationship with Al Qaeda. Unfortunately for them, there are so many other instances of Iraqi agents meeting with Al Qaeda, that whether Atta ever met with Iraqis is irrelevant.
Of course, it would be best if Republicans would actually USE some of the other information that has been gathered of Iraqis meeting with Al Qaeda in at least semi-official capacities.
Congressional Republicans are either too lazy to use the information or they fear re-election if they are too hawkish and believe (incorrectly I feel) that trying to garner support for the war will not stand them in good stead and their re-election is more assured if they take a more moderate position.
Regardless, there were many other instances of Iraqis meeting with AQ:
Bin Laden met Iraqi Agent.
September 28, 2001. The Miami Herald.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/534617/posts
Intercepted call links Saddam to AQ.
February 7, 2002. The Telegraph
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/837605/posts
Osama met with Saddam in Iraq.
March 23, 2002. The Times of India
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/746741/posts
More evidence. Newspaper finds documents in Baghdad which directly prove the links between OBL and Saddam. The paperwork details meetings and when and where they occurred. Also found documents that Russia passed on to Iraq detailing private conversations between Blair and Italy's Berlusconi.
April 27, 2003. The Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml
Memo shows Iraq contacted OBL.
September 12, 2003. The Washington Times.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030912-012437-3992r.htm
Iraq and terrorism - no doubt about it. Specific names of Al Qaeda terrorists working in and with Iraq
September 19, 2003. National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp
Richard Miniter details the names and specific connections including the Iraqi who was involved in the first WTC bombing and lived in Iraq.
September 25, 2003. Richard Minister
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/989201/posts
Osama's Best Friend: The Further Connections Between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
November 3, 2003. The Weekly Standard
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts
The Terrorist behind 9/11 was trained by Saddam
December 14, 2003. The Telegraph.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1146356/posts?page=1
That and more here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327993/posts
The sticky thing is that I believe that Able Danger's timeline permits and supports Atta in Prague. In so doing it would legitimize the war in light of 9/11 and the Anthrax attack. We all know that the left desperately cannot allow that to happen. You would expect Leftist operatives in the CIA/DIA/Pentagon would go to lengths to discredit Able danger.
We all know that hasn't happened Þ.
The anthrax itself was probably obtained from CAMR in Great Britain. Once they obtained it, the weaponization itself was probably done by the Iraqis with assistance from their friends in the Russian biodefense community.
I've always felt that the 9/11 hijackers got the anthrax from Iraq and made arrangements for the letters to be mailed after 9/11.
German investigators link Iraq to anthrax attack.
October 26, 2001. Anova.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/780782/posts
Hijacker given anthrax by Iraq
October 27, 2001. The Times.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/557446/posts
Saddam behind anthrax attacks?
January 1, 2004. Accuracy in Media.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1052221/posts?page=33
4:
Information about Shakir, the Iraqi who met with AQ at a pre-9/11 planning meeting. Also information about the Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the bomb of the first WTC bombing.
August 2, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/357lnryy.asp?pg=2
/11 Hijacker sought treatment for red hands (anthrax).
October 11, 2001. Palm Beach Post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/546116/posts
Tabloid Editor rented apartment to two 9/11 hijackers. The tabloid lost a worker to anthrax.
October 15, 2001. Miami Herald.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/548061/posts
Hijackers linked to anthrax.
October 15, 2001. St. Petersburg Times.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/101501/Worldandnation/Hijackers_linked_to_t.shtml
9/11 Hijackers treated for anthrax.
March 23, 2002. The New York Times.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/652000/posts
Remember Anthrax?
April 20, 2002. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/669487/posts
9/24/01. ABC.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/531023/posts
Hijacker treated for anthrax.
May 9, 2002. The Wall Street Journal.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/682921/posts
Atta tried to buy a cropduster.
June 6, 2002. ABC.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/695924/posts
Analysis of anthrax letters.
June 19, 2002. Instapundit.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/703075/posts?page=44#44
The silica used in the anthrax attacks traced to Iraq.
October 28, 2002. The Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A28334-2002Oct27¬Found=true
Evidence Iraq behind anthrax attacks.
January 1, 2004. Accuracy in Media
http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html
The impression I've had is that the Iraqi anthrax program was ahead of anything Russians ever had.
Didn't the Czech ambassador affirm this under oath before a UN committee? I tend to believe this intelligence because the Czech Republic does not have a dog in this fight.
Good post. It's interesting that the anthrax attacks have been all but forgotten. I always like to bring up this subject when someone says "there are no links between Iraq and 9-11".
Atta regularly went to Prague.
This issue of whether he met with an Iraqi agent on April 8 never mentions the fact the Atta travelled to Prague and flew out and in of its airport dozens of times.
And why has the issue of Iraq's ties to the anthrax attacks not been front and centre in the WMD debate when it looks like there is a lot of evidence there.
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.