Posted on 08/03/2002 7:02:39 AM PDT by Pokey78
PRAGUE
Mohamed Atta, the leader of the September 11 hijackers, visited Prague twice in the fifteen months before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, in June 2000 and April 2001, and met with an Iraqi agent at least once during the second visit. Czech officials say they have a photograph of the meeting. Atta, who was not previously known to Czech authorities, turned up in routine surveillance by Czech counterintelligence officials of Ahmed al-Ani, a consul at the Iraqi embassy here. Whether Atta and al-Ani discussed plans for September 11 is unknown. But this is known: Iraq had targeted an American institution located in Prague, the headquarters of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Before he was expelled from the Czech Republic last year, al-Ani was spotted--and photographed by RFE/RL officials--lingering outside the headquarters just off Wenceslas Square. Since September 11, the building has been guarded by Czech soldiers.
The story of Atta's contact with an Iraqi agent has been disputed by some American and European officials. Time, the Washington Post, and Newsweek, plus other publications, have raised doubts about it. But last week Martin Palous, the Czech ambassador to the United States, gave me the same account of Atta's time in Prague as other Czech officials had given to New York Times columnist William Safire, who first wrote about the Atta visit last November. Palous was home in Prague for consultations and a vacation. Both Czech prime minister Milos Zeman and interior minister Stanislav Gross have also publicly confirmed the meeting between Atta and al-Ani.
The meeting has political and international importance. A connection between Iraq and Atta, an al Qaeda operative under Osama bin Laden, bolsters the case for military action by the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. President Bush has repeatedly said he intends to depose Saddam--without saying when. But some European leaders and American politicians have insisted a link to September 11 is needed to justify an attack on Iraq. While the meeting might not tie Saddam directly to those attacks, it does link Iraq to the al Qaeda terrorist network, to whom Iraqi agents might secretly have slipped biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons to be used against America. Atta was living in Florida and plotting the September 11 hijackings at the time he made his two trips to Prague.
At the very least, al-Ani's presence outside RFE/RL's headquarters and an Iraqi message saying RFE/RL broadcasts into Iraq must be stopped implicate Iraq in a scheme to disable an American facility. The Iraqi message was intercepted shortly after RFE/RL began broadcasting into Iraq in October 1998. For eight hours daily, the broadcasts criticize Saddam's dictatorship and urge the adoption of democracy. (RFE/RL broadcasts to 34 countries, 18 of them predominantly Muslim.) From time to time, Egyptians and Yemenis have been seen outside the headquarters in Prague, appearing to check it out. Al-Ani, a top agent of Iraqi intelligence, was spotted only once. Saddam's first step, according to an informed source, was to send a special operative to Prague with $500,000 to be used to halt the broadcasts into Iraq. The operative is said to have embezzled the money. Then al-Ani took over the job, but he was deported. The broadcasts, known as Radio Free Iraq, continue.
The security of the RFE/RL headquarters became an issue in Washington last May when First Lady Laura Bush was planning a trip to Prague. Despite the threat of terrorism, she visited the headquarters, entering by the back door as a decoy car went to the front door. The building, a symbol of America, is now regarded as one of the four most prominent targets for terrorists in Europe. The other three are the U.S. embassies in London and Paris and Ramstein Air Base in Germany.
Czech officials have expressed alarm about an attack and proposed to relocate RFE/RL miles outside Prague at an abandoned Soviet military base. Thomas Dine, the head of RFE/RL, has noisily refused to move and, in a newspaper interview, accused the Czech government of having "capitulated to terrorism." There is suspicion, however, that the government's real motive is to regain the valuable property in downtown Prague, which is rented to RFE/RL for $1 a year.
But Time, the Washington Post, and Newsweek gasped, Heavens, no.
BLAAAA!
Sorry, I gotta go with the Czech ambassador to the U.S., the Czech prime minister, and the Czech interior ministor--not with Strobe Talbott, Howie Kurtz and Eleanor Clift.
Czechmate: Do Saddam Now.
The number of individuals who travelled to Longboat Key in the days before Bush's visit, not officially connected with his visit, could number only in the thousands, pehaps only hundreds. Of those hundreds of few thousand, the odds that Mohammed Atta is one of them is, at a minimum, hundreds of thousands to one against. That's without considering whether Atta would be there shortly before 9/11 for no reason.
Atta was peripatetic, but never without purpose. If he traveled it was to meet with someone connected with his mission. You must also believe he went to Prague for the accordion music and beer.
Some people have obviously never traveled to the Keys and are thus unfamiliar with the limited access, as well as the geography, not realizing just how small Longboat Key is.
One doesn't breathe this oxygen frivolously or for free.
Atta's appearance at Shuckums in Hollywood, FL on the night of September 7 was reported by at least three witnesses and featured in every newspaper in America.
The Longboat Key story, I repeat, is garbage. I don't believe one word of it.
Or both?
I think we don't know whether he's bluffing or not, but we don't have any reason for optimism: technically, he could do it, and he has every motivation to do it, and it's in his character to do it. And, yes, we are stalling until we feel the short-term risk/long-term risk tradeoff of engaging Saddam shifts as a result of our civil defense preparations.
Looking back to the end of Gulf War is instructive. Saddam set the largest blaze in the history of the world, even after he had already lost Kuwait and was beating a retreat. Why? Well, obviously in a part because he's a bloodthirsty megalomaniac driven by anger and the lust for vengeance. But that's just the psychological level. The question has deeper, more important aspects. He's also a pragmatist and a survivor. Why, then, risk such a willful affront, that could only increase the chance that we would drive to Baghdad and terminate him with extreme prejudice? The answer to that question is that he knew we weren't going to do that. Why? Because he had loaded al-Husseini missiles with anthrax and was quite prepared to slaughter the civilian population of Israel if we pushed it to the brink, and we knew it. That wasn't publicized at the time, and it is only referred to today obliquely, because it's embarassing to admit that we can be pushed around by a two-bit thug. Nevertheless, that is the bottom line on the denoument to the Gulf War, unpalatable as it may be.
But there is another aspect again. That act of defiance was a warning and was therefore functional in the larger context of Saddam's approach to the use of violence. Today, contemplating what he will do if we try to remove him from power, in the light of his newly advertised military capabilities (the "human missiles crossing continents and cities" and, of course, his "special weapons"), our policymakers know that he is capable of anything, when pushed to the brink, and they must calculate accordingly. This is how thugs think, how they get to the top, and how they stay there. It's nothing new in human affairs, but this is the first time in history such an unmitigated thug has acquired weapons of mass destruction. We are about to find out what that means.
Are you talking about capabilities or intentions? Methinks you're stretching the threat a bit.
Capabilities. See Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction (PBS Frontline): Extensive BW program: Iraq had an extensive BW program from 1973 until at least 1991. In mid-1995, Iraq admitted that it had weaponized BW agents, but claimed that the entire BW program had been in "obliterated" in 1991 and that all BW weapons had been destroyed and all bulk BW agents had been deactivated. The Commission found, however, that the evidence produced in support of this claim was not credible, and that Iraq "retained suitable growth media, BW facilities, production equipment, teams of expert personnel, and the essential technical knowledge" after 1991. Bulk production: In July, 1995, Iraq acknowledged that between 1988 and 1991, it had produced two BW agents in bulk: botulinum toxin and Bacillus anthracis spores (anthrax). Iraq reported 19,180 liters of botulinum toxin (10-20 fold concentrated) and 8445 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores (10 fold concentrated). UNSCOM found, however, that "bulk warfare agent production appears to be considerably understated," given the resources available to Iraq's BW program, including growth media and fermenter capacity. The Commission said that the production rate of Botulinum toxin could be as much as double the stated amount, and 3 times greater than that stated for Bacillus anthracis spores. Iraq claimed that it unilaterally destroyed more than 7500 liters of the Botulinum toxin and 3412 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores in 1991; UNSCOM noted that there was not evidence to support quantities claimed to be destroyed. The report concludes "the Commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed... and that a BW capability does not exist in Iraq." Iraq also claims to have produced lesser quantities of clostridium perfringens spores, ricin, and wheat cover smut. BW Warheads: Iraq claimed to have produced 25 Al-Hussein missile warheads and filled them with BW agents. The Commission found that there was no credible evidence to show that only 25 missiles were produced and filled. Iraq declared that the 25 missiles were unilaterally destroyed; the Commission found enough physical evidence to account for the declared quantities of BW warheads, but the location of the remnants were inconsistent with Iraq's story. BW bombs: Iraq declared that 200 R-400 aerial bombs were manufactured for BW purposes, but acknowledged that the numbers of bombs filled with particular agents (100 with botulinum toxin, 50 with bacillus anthracis spores, and 7 with aflatoxin) were "guesses." UNSCOM did find evidence of the destruction of some BW bombs at the site declared by Iraq, but found that the remnants account for less than one third of the bombs Iraq claims to have destroyed. In addition, UNSCOM found evidence of R-400A bombs carrying BW at an airfield where no BW weapons were declared.
See also Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East (Monterey Institute of International Studies):
Also, see Pentagon Shifts Anthrax Vaccine to Civilian Uses (New York Times):
- May retain stockpile of biological weapon (BW) munitions, including over 150 R-400 aerial bombs, and 25 or more special chemical/biological Al-Hussein ballistic missile warheads.
- May retain biological weapon sprayers for Mirage F-1 aircraft.
- May retain mobile production facility with capacity to produce "dry" biological agents (i.e., with long shelf life and optimized for dissemination).
- Has not accounted for 17 metric tonnes of BW growth media.
- May possess smallpox virus; tested camelpox prior to Gulf War.
- Maintains technical expertise and equipment to resume production of Bacillus anthracis spores (anthrax), botulinum toxin, aflatoxin, and Clostridium perfringens (gas gangrene).
- Prepared BW munitions for missile and aircraft delivery in 1990-1991 Gulf War; this included loading al-Hussein ballistic missile warheads and R-400 aerial bombs with Bacillis anthracis.
- Conducted research on BW dissemination using unmanned aerial vehicles.
- Repeatedly violated its obligations under UNSC Resolution 687, which mandates destruction of Iraq's biological weapon capabilities.
- Ratified the BTWC on 4/18/91, as required by the Gulf War cease-fire agreement.
During the Persian Gulf war, intelligence officials argued that Saddam Hussein would not use his stockpile of anthrax and other chemicals unless he and his regime were clearly threatened. The administration's recent statements about the need for "regime change" in Iraq, its inclusion of Baghdad in the "axis of evil," and President Bush's articulation of a pre-emption doctrine that would justify American military action against any hostile nation that makes unconventional weapons, however, have increased the threat that Mr. Hussein might use his large arsenal, some officials say.Think through the implications of the bolded statement above.
Not necessarily. Atta seems to have been under instructions from his handlers to make himself visible. Cf. his ranting at the Ag Dept office. This could have just been another piece of that particular puzzle.
The number of Czechs who insist the meeting took place well outnumber the one guy who denied it. And the one guy who denied it simultaneously admitted that the April 8 Atta trip to Prague did in fact happen. As eno_ put it eloquently earlier in the thread,
I didn't know you were such a Washington Post and Mike Isikoff fan, plummz.
Oh, that article in the world-famous Longboat Observer? I appreciate you reminding me about that particular article. I noticed that Hopsicker is quite vague about dates and times, and doesn't quote from it. Reading the Observer piece, I can see why. This is from the Longboat Observer article:
Based on this information, either
1) The Atta appearance took place three weeks earlier than Hopsicker wants us to believe it did. This pretty much wipes out Hopsicker's inflammatory Bush/Atta headline. "Atta was in same town as Bush three weeks before" just doesn't have the same zip. Especially when it's in an area (Sarasota/Venice) where Atta lived for almost the entire latter half of the year 2000, and where he presumably had many contacts. As I wrote in another thread, based on Atta's travels in calendar 2001, he "intersected" with many millions of people. Or, the other possibility is
2) Atta was at this hotel bar on the night of September 7. This is problematic in that it directly contradicts the hundreds of accounts that Atta and Al-Shehhi were at Shuckums in Hollywood the same night. The several witnesses at Shuckums were very precise with details (as the Longboat people were not). Given the 5-and-a-half-hour travel time between Longboat and Hollywood as mentioned by glorygirl elsewhere in this thread, it is impossible for them to have done both the same night:
The other thing is, Hopsicker's "exclusive interview" with Darlene Sievers (as the Observer calls her) or Sieverts (as Hopsicker calls her) directly contradicts her own account in the Observer, quoted above. To the Observer, Sievers/Sieverts insists that Atta was there "three weeks before September 11th." But to Hopsicker, she changes her story so that it now agrees with that of Boyal and Bean. Now, she says, Atta was there September 7th.
I repeat my opinion from above, and amplify it. The Hopsicker story is garbage. It is garbage.
Hey, wait a minute. I know who the terrorist mastermind was. On October 10, 2000, while Atta and Al-Shehhi were living nearby, Vice President Gore spent the day largely out of public view here at Longboat Key. .
Hey, making up stuff on the fly is fun!
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.