it's a long article which i know many of you will decline to read or will dismiss out of hand due to its source, but here's a key excerpt for those of you who continue to peddle to story that the Czechs from Havel on down have disavowed the iRaqi/Atta connection: http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200406030932.asp -- For the Record Czech authorities have defended their story despite the American media's valiant efforts to discredit it. On October 21, 2002, the New York Times reported on its front page that "The Czech president, Vaclav Havel, has quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports that Mohamed Atta, the leader in the Sept. 11 attacks, met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague just months before the attacks on New York and Washington, according to Czech officials." Havel quickly spurned the Times's creative writing. Within hours, his spokesman, Ladislav Spacek, dubbed the Times story "a fabrication." He added, "Nothing like this has occurred." That same day, Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross reasserted his government's finding, complete with unique spellings of the names of two key characters: "In this moment we can confirm that during the next stay of Mr. Muhammad Atta in the Czech Republic, there was the contact with the official of the Iraqi intelligence, Mr. Al Ani, Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir, who was on the 22nd April 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities which were not compatible with the diplomatic status." Two days later, America's so-called "Paper of Record" retreated. On October 23, 2002, it quoted Spacek, Havel's spokesman. "The president did not call the White House about this. The president never spoke about Atta, not with Bush, not with anyone else." Hynek Kmonicek booted Al-Ani from Prague. He was then the Czech Republic's deputy foreign minister, and today is its United Nations ambassador. As Kmonicek tersely insisted in the Prague Post in June 2002: "The meeting took place."
So Havel has retracted his retraction. Unfortunately, that's not the only retraction: Or maybe you'll believe this man: "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," George W. Bush, September 2003. Ohhh, but no "cabinet level official" in Prague has said so yet.....ohhhhhh!! ohhhh! ohhhh.
you reference is from Oct 22, 2002, the next day, the times retreated, and havel's spokesman set the record straight:
That's a different story, with different sources. To date, the UPI story has not been retracted to my knowledge. But anyway, how do you get around this: "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," George W. Bush, September 2003. No means no, basso.
Since our own U.S. intel agencies can verify through credit card records, travel records etc. that he was in the U.S. at the time of the alleged meeting, then it doesn't really matter how many times various Czechs flip flop. Unless Atta can be two places at once. If that was the case then Al-Qaeda has some technology that is far beyond anything we have, and we are some real trouble.
That was good. Actually I wouldn't always believe them. I believe them in this case because they state what kind of records they have to back up their claims and none of them come from Chalabi, or his cronies.
actually, they can't. if you'd read the article you'd know that the supposed claims he was in fla. at the time of the czech meeting have been proven false, but nice try. you really should stay more au courrant.
Maybe Stephen Hayes and the NRO intel office, along with their legions of operatives and contacts in the Mideast and beyond, will replace George Tenet? I know one opera aficionado who would support the move.
True, if he lies and deceives so much, why should we believe him on this. I think I'm going to believe, on this statement, he is lying until GWB can show hard evidence otherwise. And I'm not talking about evidence from that shady CIA organization either.
