Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LA TIMES: White House says Mohammed Atta met Iraqi agent
LA Times ^ | Aug 2, 2002 | Bob Drogin, Paul Richter and Doyle McManus

Posted on 08/02/2002 6:11:03 AM PDT by Frank_Discussion

Despite deep doubts by the CIA and FBI, the White House is now backing claims that suspected Sept. 11 skyjacker Mohammed Atta secretly met five months earlier with an Iraqi agent in Prague, Czech Republic, a possible indication that Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the terror attacks.

(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: atta; cia; iraq
I sure hope this gets backed up, because it sounds like the other shoe to be dropped.

At the end of the article:

"The Iraqi government yesterday invited the chief U.N. weapons inspector to Baghdad for discussion, hinting that inspections could be renewed nearly four years after inspectors left ahead of allied airstrikes..."

This makes it sound like the inspectors left so we could start bombing. I thought the inspectors were kicked out be Saddam?

1 posted on 08/02/2002 6:11:04 AM PDT by Frank_Discussion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
There are reports the attack won't happen this year and there are reports it might. Who knows?
2 posted on 08/02/2002 6:14:15 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
Atta Iraqi agent Prague
3 posted on 08/02/2002 6:15:30 AM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
WASHINGTON — Despite deep doubts by the CIA and FBI, the White House is now backing claims...

"deep doubts" is an interesting way to say "the white house is full of it."

Why can't reporters either write without such gratuitous modifiers, or quote someone specifically? Especially to say that an organization has deep doubts....that makes no sense. Like General Motors has "deep doubts" about Toyota's line of small pickups.

4 posted on 08/02/2002 6:25:10 AM PDT by sam_paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
No, they weren't.

This was around Clintons impeachment, so, he had to have a good "excuse" to bomb Iraq.
5 posted on 08/02/2002 6:26:19 AM PDT by Guillermo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
Despite deep doubts by the CIA and FBI, the White House is now backing claims that suspected Sept. 11 skyjacker Mohammed Atta secretly met five months earlier with an Iraqi agent in Prague, Czech Republic, a possible indication that Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the terror attacks.

So lemme get this straight. The Clinton Administration lobbed cruise missiles into Sudan, a country that represented no real threat to the United States at the time, on the flimsiest of evidence cobbled together by White House staffers, but the LA Slimes condemned anyone who questioned the Clintonista's motives. Now that we are looking to take out a thug nation that is clearly buildings WMDs, all of a sudden the Slimes is saying "whoa, there, let's make sure we have ironclad evidence!"

Telling...

6 posted on 08/02/2002 6:30:20 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
"WASHINGTON — Despite deep doubts by the CIA and FBI, the White House is now backing claims..."

This is the way a liberal newspaper spins/distorts it's news. Sneaky, isn't it?
7 posted on 08/02/2002 6:56:26 AM PDT by HarryH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
The reports that atta met with iraquis in prague are from
the czech government, which has never backed off these
reports-- when doubts surfaced in the media high ranking
czech ministers went on the record confirming their
original account.If the FBI has deep doubts, I'd like
to know what they're based on. Plenty of people have
deep doubts about the FBI.
8 posted on 08/02/2002 7:16:44 AM PDT by Linda Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
Notice Drudge's link goes to the Seattle-PI reprint of this article.

Is he ticked at the LA Times or just sticking it to them for us. Maybe some papers pay him to run their stories and the LA Times isn't one of them.

9 posted on 08/02/2002 7:17:43 AM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big ern
Make that the Seattle Times.
10 posted on 08/02/2002 7:18:19 AM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: big ern
yikes. it's going off...
11 posted on 08/02/2002 7:20:43 AM PDT by epluribus_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
The next shoe to drop will be evidence that the Anthrax agent used last Fall was of Iraqi origin. I'm confident that Atta was an agent of Saddam and that the Iraqis did provide a few vials of anthrax for what they hoped would be an effective terror attack.

To acknowledge either or both of these facts while we were still concentrating on Afghanistan would have diverted attantion from the matter then at hand.

That it is being slowly reintroduced now seems to me a sign that we are approaching a ready status to clean Iraq's clock and have begun the process of pissing off the American public to the point where annihilation of the Iraqis is demanded. At least I hope so.

An example to the Islamic world of what happens when you screw with America must be made and Iraq is as good a place as any to start.

12 posted on 08/02/2002 7:27:23 AM PDT by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: katana
attention
13 posted on 08/02/2002 7:28:52 AM PDT by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I've said it before and I'll say it again: We are STILL at war with Iraq. By the accord that ended the hostilities, weapons inspectors had to be allowed into Iraq with unfettered access at any time. They are not. We are at war and Clinton should have resumed hostilities as soon as the inspectors were kicked out.
14 posted on 08/02/2002 7:29:49 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion; Nogbad; Mitchell; The Great Satan; okie01; Shermy; Poohbah; section9
Finally acknowledging that the Atta-Al-Ani meetings happened is a major and necessary step before a war.

That's a guarantee. We will get more confirmation of the meeting, probably with actual records, including the reported videotape.
15 posted on 08/02/2002 7:32:21 AM PDT by denydenydeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
I hope the "official" and his associates start talking soon. If the adminstration is waiting until the public is prepared and pissed enough to support an invasion, I think they're missing some signals. I think we're all ready to deal with Saddam.

The issues are probably more complex than simple public support, something more strategic.
16 posted on 08/02/2002 7:41:03 AM PDT by Frank_Discussion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
This makes it sound like the inspectors left so we could start bombing. I thought the inspectors were kicked out be Saddam?

Ah......the subtle spin of LA Slime propaganda.

17 posted on 08/02/2002 8:16:32 AM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big ern
Notice Drudge's link goes to the Seattle-PI reprint of this article.

Here's why he does that: http://www.latimes.com/services/site/registration/view.reg?temp=rc-restricted

18 posted on 08/02/2002 8:17:02 AM PDT by Types_with_Fist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz; The Great Satan; piasa; FITZ; dennisw; harpseal; Squantos; wardaddy
Memo From White House to FBI:

The Sheeple are now ready to be brought back to war against Iraq mode.

You may drop the bogus "lone white male domestic scientist" anthrax origin investigation.

Nice work, prepare for new instructions.

19 posted on 08/02/2002 8:26:25 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
If they make the 9/11-Iraq link Bush is already authorized by Congress to use miliary force against them. If not, he needs Congressional approval which he'd get easily....even from the Senate.
20 posted on 08/02/2002 8:34:53 AM PDT by NeoCaveman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
If they make the 9/11-Iraq link Bush is already authorized by Congress to use miliary force against them. If not, he needs Congressional approval which he'd get easily....even from the Senate.

Well, actually no. If Bush goes to the Senate, he has to go to Robert Byrd. Which means that the whole damn war will have to be run out of West Virginia. When we open up new bomb and airplane factories in WV, you know a deal has been struck.^_^

But seriously, the White House has known about the April, 2001 meeting for some time. They just kept it in their pocket for use at an opportune time.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

21 posted on 08/02/2002 8:44:41 AM PDT by section9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: section9
But seriously, the White House has known about the April, 2001 meeting for some time. They just kept it in their pocket for use at an opportune time.

No doubt about it.

22 posted on 08/02/2002 8:46:54 AM PDT by NeoCaveman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
I saw this item and I have long considered the timing and location of the anthrax attacks to implicate Al Qaeda,. That along with the stories about a mysteious sore that could have been anthrax on one of the hijackers. Did Atta meet with Iraqi intel? My guess is yes. Does the opposition have a significant quantity of bio-agents to wreck havoc here again I guess yes. Is it just a question of time until those agents are used anyway? I also guess yes.

In short it is finally time to bring the sheeple into the war. Is it a necessary war. Again teh answer is yes but I do think the govt. should have been more up front about it.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

23 posted on 08/02/2002 9:10:44 AM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Ugh.
24 posted on 08/02/2002 9:17:58 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
old news. I think I first saw this posted and substantiated on FR almost six months ago.
25 posted on 08/02/2002 10:03:10 AM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
Czech Official Affirms Atta Met Iraqi Agent

Mr. Atta Goes to Prague

26 posted on 08/02/2002 10:03:55 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
"This makes it sound like the inspectors left so we could start bombing. I thought the inspectors were kicked out be Saddam?"

They weren't kicked out. They were told to leave, because Hussein had hamstrung their inspection efforts -- refusing access to various sites.

However, they had been sitting on their hands in a Baghdad hotel for several months under these very conditions. But they weren't told to leave, and the bombing didn't start, until the House was preparing to meet in special session in order to consider articles of impeachment.

It was probably just a coincidence...

27 posted on 08/02/2002 11:03:54 AM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy; Mitchell
FYI, there are new reports that the WNV outbreak in Louisiana is especially severe. There is some surprise among authorities that as many as 58 people have been infected by the virus and four have already died.

They is also some talk about advising everybody not to go outside without a.) mosquito repellant and b.) long-sleeve shirts and long pants.

WNV Mark 2.0?

28 posted on 08/02/2002 11:12:19 AM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
Hey Bones!

Yeah, it's old. But my point (which I suppose I didn't make) is that it's being reiterated. Another tick of the countdown clock.
29 posted on 08/02/2002 11:21:51 AM PDT by Frank_Discussion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Mmmm... donuts...
30 posted on 08/02/2002 11:23:43 AM PDT by Frank_Discussion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: section9
"But seriously, the White House has known about the April, 2001 meeting for some time. They just kept it in their pocket for use at an opportune time."

That's my impression.
31 posted on 08/02/2002 11:24:44 AM PDT by Frank_Discussion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Yep
32 posted on 08/02/2002 11:26:09 AM PDT by Betty Jo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
It should be noted that this is the first time an American official has confirmed this information, even anonymously. All the previous confirmations have come from Czech officials.
33 posted on 08/02/2002 11:42:55 AM PDT by denydenydeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
Oooh... That I did NOT know. It seems that Sgt. Schultz has fallen alseep at his post.
34 posted on 08/02/2002 11:51:31 AM PDT by Frank_Discussion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: section9
But seriously, the White House has known about the April, 2001 meeting for some time.

Obviously. The POTUS needs to know whether Saddam did 9-11 or not. He doesn't get his intelligence by reading Newsweek -- his sources are little better than that. Bush has known the answer to this question, "yes" or "no," since last September. And, if you have been playing close attention to the words and actions of Bush and Cheney since that time, it's been pretty obvious that the answer wasn't "no."

35 posted on 08/02/2002 11:56:30 AM PDT by The Great Satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: okie01
WNV Mark 2.0?

I was just wondering the same thing.

They is also some talk about advising everybody not to go outside without a.) mosquito repellant and b.) long-sleeve shirts and long pants.

Not a bad idea in Louisiana in any case, LOL. Those mosquitos on the bayou are really something.

36 posted on 08/02/2002 12:26:26 PM PDT by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Now that we are looking to take out a thug nation that is clearly buildings WMDs, all of a sudden the Slimes is saying "whoa, there, let's make sure we have ironclad evidence!"

Folks are willing to bomb Saddam without any evidence, yet Saudi Arabia has killed a couple thousand Americans and holds telethons for the Palestinians who then in turn kill Americans in Israel.

The logic to bomb Iraq because we don't like Saddam because he may prove to be a future danger to us would be akin to Afghanistan having bombed us last year because they feared we were going to bomb them in the future.

Talk about what's really telling. W seems hellbent on going after his daddy's enemy no matter the consequences.

37 posted on 08/02/2002 1:09:30 PM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Why can't reporters either write without such gratuitous modifiers, or quote someone specifically?

because if they quoted someone specifically, we would all know that they were interviewing the janitorial crew at the cia. everyone has an opinion, but those in the know typically keep their mouths shut when national security is at stake.

the lat has a paper to run and needs to make money. if they held to high ethical standards, then they would report the truth, which does not sell very well to the mass market.

38 posted on 08/02/2002 1:18:27 PM PDT by mlocher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

bttt
39 posted on 08/02/2002 1:54:42 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
They weren't kicked out but weren't allowed to see or do anything right before the airstrikes began.
40 posted on 08/02/2002 2:29:13 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
McVeigh
+ Nichols
+ Padilla
+ the OKC Motel
+ Atta
+ Prague
+ Anthrax
= Causus Belli for the war with Iraq.
41 posted on 08/02/2002 5:23:00 PM PDT by hc87
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hc87
Causus Belli for the war with Iraq

Good list. Plus, the U.S. has been fighting a low-level war with Iraq for years, with our bombing them every few weeks, and Iraq trying without success to shoot down our planes. Letting this drag on is extremely dangerous; even if Sadaam were an entirely different kind of ruler, fighting such a war and never winning is bad news for America.

Plus, all three axis of evil countries treat their own people with creulty many Americans can barely imagine, and Iraq is the one least likely to collapse from within. While we have to act in our own interest, the horrible current treatment of the Iraqi people can and should be a factor.

Check this out, good if from an unlikely source:

The Case for War

42 posted on 08/02/2002 6:15:48 PM PDT by Steve Eisenberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
And now, I see your point. You're right. But, the legitimacy of the LA Times lacks profoundly. Months ago, this information was released. Only after the explosion at Hebrew University does the LATimes release this info?

The media looks lame. Free Republic gets info out faster than any print outfit.

43 posted on 08/02/2002 6:22:26 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Steve Eisenberg
Check this out, good if from an unlikely source: The Case for War

Agreed, good article. Not that the American people need it, but most of the items on my original list will be linked to Iraq in the buildup to war, if for no other reason than to give us diplomatic cover to remove Saddam.

Considering that the US has a live Nichols and Padilla, the Prague report, the report on anthrax symptoms in at least one of the 9/11 hijackers and an Iraqi bio-weapons industry, it will be interesting to see how the story is played out (come the last week of October or so).

I also wonder how willing the government is to play "Let's Make a Deal" with Nichols to get the entire story. I wonder if they would be willing to quietly let him walk in a few years?

44 posted on 08/02/2002 6:57:38 PM PDT by hc87
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
If the adminstration is waiting until the public is prepared and pissed enough to support an invasion, I think they're missing some signals

The problem is that Clinton really depleated our military supplies. We were very low on Cruse missles and smart bombs. Clinton just about used up our supply attacking Milosevic. We used up the rest in Afganistan. We are out of the needed high tech weapons. With much of our military manufacturing companies merged, down sized and, or out of business, it takes quite a while to replenish the stocks.

It will be a few more months before we have enough stuff to win easily with superior technology.

Thus we have to keep Sadam on the burner to maintain political support for the war, but not really go to war until we have enough smart bombs and missiles on hand to do the job.

45 posted on 08/02/2002 10:05:17 PM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson