Question:
Vice President
Cheney ignited a firestorm in the press (and perhaps
the White House) by asserting that one of the most vexing
allegations about 9-11, the putative liaison between
hijacker Mohammed Atta and Iraqi official al-Ani, still
is unresolved. Asked about the issue on Meet The Press
( September 14, 2003), Cheney answered:“The Czechs
alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in
Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five
months before the attack, but we’ve never been
able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms
of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t
know.”
The Washington Post ( September 29, 2003) denounced
the Vice President for suggesting that the putative
meeting was still an open issue, arguing “that
the Czech government distanced itself from its initial
assertion.” And that “American investigators
determined Atta was probably in the United States at
the time of the meeting.”
Who is right? Vice President Cheney or the Washington
Post?
Answer:
Cheney is
right in saying that it remains an open case. The Washington
Post story is wrong in saying that it is a closed case.
Both the Washington Post story’s claims--
the Czech government had distanced itself from its initial
assertion and that US intelligence had determined Atta
was in the US at the time of the Prague meeting--
are false.
1) The Czech government has not distanced itself.
The Czech officials were involved in the case:
Interior Minister Stanislav Gross, the intelligence
chief, Jiri Ruzek, who reports to Gross, have reaffirmed
the validity of the intelligence of the meeting–
and expulsion– after news reports called it into
question. On May 3rd, 2002, referring to a story in
Newsweek, Interior Minister Stanislav Gross stated "I
believe the counterintelligence services more than journalists.
I draw on the Security Information Service [BIS] information
and I see no reason why I should not believe it."
Minister Gross further explained that he had consulted
with BIS chief Jiri Ruzek on May 2nd in order to find
out whether the Czech intelligence service had any new
information that would cast doubt on the meeting. "The
answer was that they did not. Therefore, I consider
the matter closed.”
2) As for the US
intelligence claim, it is untrue that the CIA, FBI or
any other US intelligence agency established that Atta
was in the US at the time of the Prague meeting. What
the CIA found, and its director George Tenet testified
to before a Joint Committee of Congress (June 18, 2002):
“Atta allegedly traveled outside the US in early
April 2001 to meet with an Iraqi intelligence officer
in Prague, we are still working to confirm or deny this
allegation. It is possible that Atta traveled under
an unknown alias since we have been unable to establish
that Atta left the US or entered Europe in April 2001
under his true name or any known aliases.”
If there existed
any information that established Atta was in the US
at the time of the meeting, Tenet could not have testified
that US was “still working to confirm or deny
this allegation.”
In fact, the misreporting about Atta being in the US
at the time of the alleged meeting proceeds from an
erroneous story (uncorrected) in the New York Times
on October 26, 2001. The story attributed to "federal
law enforcement officials" stated: "On April
2 [Atta] was in Virginia Beach. He flew to the Czech
Republic on April 8 . . . by April 11, Mr. Atta was
back in Florida, renting a car."
In fact, there
were no such car rental records. Nor could there be
such records in April 2001. Atta did not obtain his
driver’s license, or even apply for it, until
May 2, 2001.
It may have
been a case of mistaken identity– Atta is a common
name– but there is no record of the hijacker Atta
being in Virginia Beach in April 2001. Nevertheless,
uncorrected, the error became part of the clip file
and was recycled by other journals into “contradictory
evidence.” Newsweek, for example, (June 6 ,2002)
stated that at time of the alleged Prague meeting. “Atta
was traveling at the time between Florida and Virginia
Beach, Va. (The bureau had his rental car and hotel
receipts.)" and USA Today (August 29,2002) reported
falsely “records revealed that Atta was in Virginia
Beach during the time he supposedly met the Iraqi in
Prague."
If any such “records”
existed, CIA Director Tenet could not have testified
under oath to Congress that it was possible Atta was
in Prague. If he did, the records would have demonstrated
he had testified falsely. But of course, no such records
existed (other than in erroneous news stories.)
To be sure, no airplane or
other records have been found showing Atta was in Prague
during April 2001. So, as Tenet pointed out, if he was
in Prague at that time, he must have traveled there
under an alias. Since the hijackers used false identities,
such a possibility cannot be dismissed.
Cheney statement
“We just don’t know,” as unsettling
as it may be, is accurate.
|