[r_u_sirius]

This story was debunked months ago. Atta was in the US at the time he was supposed to be meeting the guy in Prague.

The FBI has his hotel and car rental receipts.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp?0cv=CB10

[rwfromkansas]

None of the stories tonight mentioned that.

[monkeyshine]

You better double check that. I've seen stories that debunk the debunking. Czech officials have come out to say they were mistaken about being mistaken about reporting that Atta was in prague.

[jimbo123]

The liberals are neglecting to report that both the Czech Foreign Minister and Czech Prime minister reported there were TWO meetings in Prague. The first meeting was in June 2000 and the 2nd one supposedly in April 2001, but that second date is questionable. No one has attempted to debunk the first meeting date, only the 2nd.

[grapeape]

As I remembered, the Iraqi intelligence official met with "one of" the hijackers. I think that the press assumed it was atta. I can't be sure now.

Thanks for the clarification however!!!

[Cicero]

George Tenet has repeatedly denied this story, but the Czechs have refused to go along with him. Frankly I wouldn't trust George Tenet any further than I could kick him.

[cyncooper]

No, this story wasn't "debunked" months ago. And what an atrocious hodgepodge of an article that link leads to. I usually have a little respect for Weisskopf, at least.

Anyway, here is something from the Weekly Standard that was just published:

The War Against Bush

Excerpt:

But there are times Atta may have been abroad that are not accounted for in these documents and receipts. And assessments of the reliability of the witness vary, with some high-ranking Czech officials insisting to this day that the meeting took place. It's fair to say the alleged Atta meeting was disputed, but it's hardly accurate to imply that officials were unanimous in their belief that it didn't happen.

Might I point out the above says exactly what I and others have said? Nothing more and nothing less. There's been no proof of the meeting, but no debunking.

[cyncooper]

Whew, my mistake--Weisskopf wasn't associated with that shameful mishmash. I see Spikey Isikoff was, though, and that Evan Thomas.

Ack

[piasa]

An Isikoff opinion piece- and that's what it is- what a surprise. You'll have to do better than that- I don't see where this editorial debunks anything, much less the Prague meeting. Do you have the wrong link?

As for the content of the piece, it's a joke. Subtract all of the unnamed unsourced quotes and "facts" and there is precious little left. One named source, and a ton of BS. The named source is a person who RESIGNED from... guess what, folks... the STATE DEPARTMENT.

Was the resignation of Thielman, shall we say, disciplinary, or was he just a disgruntled liberal, or someone who has some concerns about how well he wrote his own CYA notes before 911?