Dubious Link Between Atta and Saddam
What is notable about this story is:
1. The writers had never seen the memo or even a copy of it.
2. The writers allege that Atta was accounted for "most of the time" during the three-day period when he was supposed to have been in Iraq. But this is based on a reconstruction of travels from tickets, phone calls, motel receipts all in his own name. The problem with this is that anyone could have been travelling as Atta to provide him cover. We know that he had several false identities. He could have fairly easily travelled to Iraq surreptitiously while someone else created a legend for him in Las Vegas.
3. To reach the conclusion that the memo is not authentic, and Atta did not travel to Baghdad in May or June 2001, you have to assume that Atta did not make use of any of his tradecraft, that he was operating is "stupid" mode. And for the first time, too, since he was not operating in "stupid" mode during his travels to the Czech Republic in 2000 and 2001.
In short, the Issikoff article does nothing to cast doubt on the al-Tikriti memo and in fact adds to its credibility.
This memo needs to be authenticated or debunked conclusively by scientific methods of analysis once and for all. And not by the likes of Michael Issikoff.
Thanks. This was exactly the one I had in mind.
Funny how all these bogus "debunkings" seem to involve Isikoff eh?
1. The writers had never seen the memo or even a copy of it.
It's not only that the writers hadn't seen the memo - it's weirder than that: the "leading Iraqi document expert" (Hassan Mneimneh) they cite as saying the document is "probably a forgery" hadn't even seen it. His expertise, bizarrely, is brought into the article to dismiss it for "other reasons", which are all fallacious if you ask me (mostly versions of "lots of other documents are forged" and "it's just too convenient!"). Like I said, it's as if they're trying to fan the flames of a conspiracy/coverup theory....
2. The writers allege that Atta was accounted for "most of the time" during the three-day period when he was supposed to have been in Iraq. But this is based on a reconstruction of travels from tickets, phone calls, motel receipts all in his own name. The problem with this is that anyone could have been travelling as Atta to provide him cover. We know that he had several false identities. He could have fairly easily travelled to Iraq surreptitiously while someone else created a legend for him in Las Vegas.
True, that. I always wonder if our FBI is really so incompetent as to think that Terrorist A can't possibly hand his ATM card + PIN, and cell phone, to Terrorist B.
But one more thing deserves mention: this "most of the time" when they (think they) can account for Atta's movements, is, in Isikoff/Hosenball's words, "when the trip presumably would have taken place". Presumably?? Later on in the article they give the only details we're going to get: they think they have Atta pinned down in the U.S. "during the last few days in June—when the presumed Iraq trip would appear to have occurred". Reading further this means: from June 27th to July 1st (the date of the memo) and some time beyond (which is irrelevant to the memo).
But who ever said that the trip was namely between June 27th and July 1st? All the article says is "The document... doesn't say exactly when Atta was supposed to have actually flown to Baghdad" and "Coughlin himself places the trip as the summer of 2001".
Since when does "summer of 2001" necessarily mean "June 27 - July 1, 2001"??? Why couldn't Atta's alleged trip to Baghdad have been before June 27th? Isikoff doesn't say and doesn't seem all that curious.
In short, they pretend the trip could have only occurred between June 27 and July 1, they say we know where Atta was during this time, so they dismiss the possibility of the trip. The ineptitude of the logic here is breathtaking, unless they're (a) being used to funnel disinformation or (b) intentionally trying to make it *appear* as if they're funneling disinformation, for who knows what reason... :-)
In short, the Issikoff article does nothing to cast doubt on the al-Tikriti memo and in fact adds to its credibility.
I'll agree that it does nothing to cast doubt on it. It adds to its credibility only in the sense that the attempted debunking is so obviously inept and laughable. There may be some other explanation for this that doesn't involve the memo being genuine, but it would have to be a highly strange one, IMHO.
This memo needs to be authenticated or debunked conclusively by scientific methods of analysis once and for all. And not by the likes of Michael Issikoff.
I'll second that. By this point, if I see an Isikoff article saying "our FBI sources say the sky is blue", I'm double-checking.