Iraq and al Qaeda: Simply Put: We may not have been lied to

T_J, got any sources to back up your claim that Czech cabinet officials are sticking by the story?

Cuz here is an article from less than 10 days ago, I hope that is close enough to "NOW" for you..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10734-2003Sep14.html

"An FBI investigation concluded that Atta was apparently in Florida at the time of the alleged meeting, and the CIA has always doubted it took place. Czech authorities, who first mentioned the alleged meeting in October 2001 to U.S. officials, have since said they no longer are certain the individual in the video of the supposed meeting was Atta. Meanwhile, in July, the U.S. military captured the Iraqi intelligence officer who was supposed to have met Atta and has not obtained confirmation from him."


DEBUNKED

 

Anyone have any links for either of these points? And yes, i read plenty about Salman Pak before we attacked, but I've read very little afterwards. I still don't see why a big abandoned jet: (1) really helps people train for terror attacks more than a good flight simulator, (2) couldn't just be an abandoned jet. But anyway, what was found there? And where's an article about Hijazi, post capture?

I am HONORED by my new title, by the way. It just goes to show that hard work and persistence can truly pay off. Once again, I have demonstrated the American Way of achievement and elevation.

 

OK TJ, a few problems I see in response to the info posted here about the Havel and others is that actual names are attached to the stories repudiating the claim and here we only have "Czech officials at the Cabinet level." If it were cabinet members wouldn't the story say "Cabinet members?' The way this reads, the infomation could be coming from a clerk who processes the mail for a cabinet member. Find some names and I'll reconsider.

A second problem is the last sentence... "Al-Ani has been captured in Iraq, and the public deserves to know what he's telling U.S. officials about that meeting." Well, if what's he's saying supports the administration's position, don't you think they would make that known, even if it were in a general way so as not to compromise "intelligence sources and methods?" I do agree we need to know what he's telling US officials, but what if it doesn't confirm the story? Again, find me some more info on this and I'll take the post more seriously.

Third, even if the meeting did take place, wanting to take out a transmitter that broadcast anti-Saddam programs is not quite the same as 9-11.

Interesting how this smoking gun generated a lot of play on the far right, but never made it into any of the administration's formal appeals for war. Suspicion is that the "informants" who came up with these stories were linked to Chalabi and were subsequently dismissed by the serious intelligence officials. Of course, this facility was known and visible through satellites, but caused no concern prior to 9-11. One nice touch the Chalabi informants came up with is that the trainees participated in "groups of five." In short, while the facility does exist, its use as a training camp for terrorists is, at best, unsubstantiated. (It should also be noted that little has been said of this place since the Chalabi folks brought it to the attention of the administration. Do you really think if this was a true story that the administration would have not used it to justify the war?)

That's true, but in the same sense that we can't be sure I'll divorce my wife and shack up with Jennifer Garner. (I know somebody who knows her, so there is a link, just a real sketchy one and lots would have to happen before we bedded down together.)

So they should have given us even more lies and unsubstantiated rumors?

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...,2367692.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

"At that same Senate hearing, Vincent Cannistraro, formerly the CIA's director of counter-terrorism operations and analysis, testified: "There was no substantive intelligence information linking Saddam to international terrorism before the war. Now we've created the conditions that have made Iraq the place to come to attack Americans."

So, Wolfowitz and the administration might prove to be right after all. Not about Iraq's ties with Bin Laden before the invasion. Nor about the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction the president used to scare up support for war. But by turning its claim that Iraq is the "central front" in the war on terrorism into a self-fulfilling prophecy."

------------

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney's "willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding."

In particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim. Woolsey did not find any evidence to confirm the report, officials said, and President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January.

But Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying

: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

Multiple intelligence officials said that the Prague meeting, purported to be between Atta and senior Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was dismissed almost immediately after it was reported by Czech officials in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and has since been discredited further.

The CIA reported to Congress last year that it could not substantiate the claim, while American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time, the officials said yesterday. Indeed, two intelligence officials said yesterday that Ani himself, now in US custody, has also refuted the report. The Czech government has also distanced itself from its original claim.

A senior defense official with access to high-level intelligence reports expressed confusion yesterday over the vice president's decision to reair charges that have been dropped by almost everyone else. "There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this," the official said, speaking on condition he not be named.


A BUNCH OF LYING LIARS

 

We can argue semantics all we want, but it boils down to this: six months ago, the Bush Administration said Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Now, they said he was never involved.

What's to argue? He lied (or, at best, used rumor and unconfirmed information) to sell a war that nobody wanted.

 

Yeah, Czech President has retracted it, the Czech intel agency has retracted, it, but Czech Finance Minister Bohuslav Sobotka has yet to issue a statement..but you don't see the liberal media talking about THAT curious fact!

 

That's it? This...the highlighted portion of your post, is , it is assumed, the crux of your argument? That's it hasn't been disproved That there might have been a connection!?!? That's the best you have on this?

You know what, T_J, I concede the point...in fact, I'll concede any point where your thrust is that we can't prove a negative, as it's damned near impossible. Hell, I'll go you one better....I'll bet that we can't prove that * MacBeth spins globe randomly and points....near Riga...Latvia* ...Latvia wasn't involved in 9-11. You wanna take that bet? I challenge you, T_J, to prove that Latvia was in no way connected to 9-11.

So, if you can't, I assume you're all for revving up the engines for Operation Freedom Latvia?

 

TJ, quit while you're ahead, I'm having real trouble finding a suitable "triple exposure" graphic on google image search.....

 

Oh, the irony.

 

I think I'm going to print this and send it to Jon Stewart. This is like four episodes worth of material.

 

Aww, come on, T_J, you're not even trying. Put your heart into it, this wasn't up to your usual standards. No one actually expects any substance out of you anymore, so no worries there, but come on, this post didn't even have any ALL CAPS....no declarations of victory...oh, wait .."You lost MacBeth." Phew..Okay, all's not lost. If we had seen an entire T_J post absent and ALL CAPS and without his usual declarations of victory, I'd have looked outsode to see if there was fire and brimstone in the air...


In all seriousness, now that I no longer actually look to T_J's rants as substantive debate, and therefore get somewhat frustrated with their complete lack of coherent basis,or take his constant insults as anything more than blather, knowing as we now do of his proclivity for running to mommy when the going gets tough back, he is among my favority posters to read, or to see others react to...He provides me with several good, genuine laughs with almost all of his political posts. Keep em coming, T_J, you're priceless.