Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (9979)	11/12/2001 7:12:51 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Prague Connection By WILLIAM SAFIRE SAN DIEGO -- The undisputed fact connecting Iraq's Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks is this: Mohamed Atta, who died at the controls of an airliner-missile, flew from Florida to Prague to meet on April 8 of this year with Ahmed al-Ani, the Iraqi consul. Al-Ani was known to the B.I.S., the Czech counterintelligence service, as a "case officer" of Iraqi intelligence working under diplomatic cover. "A case officer is not merely an agent," notes Edward Jay Epstein, the espionage analyst and my fellow Angletonian. "An agent executes assignments, but a case officer serves as the intermediary between an agent and the state intelligence service controlling that agent." Saddam has long been infuriated by the ability of Radio Free Europe to foment dissent inside Iraq. Wiretaps of Saddam's Prague consulate led the B.I.S. to suspect al-Ani of enlisting agents to blow up R.F.E.'s Prague headquarters. Al-Ani usually met agents at his consular office, where he could plausibly appear to be issuing them visas. But in Atta's case, the case officer took pains to avoid showing any direct link to Iraq. Why did the case officer meet Atta away from the Iraqi consulate? Surely the Iraqi, under round-the-clock surveillance, knew the B.I.S. would follow him. Epstein has a "false flag" theory: "A remote location in Prague, not connected to Iraq, would allow al-Ani to misidentify himself to Atta. Such an alias, or false flag, could both aid the recruitment by appealing to Atta's ideological interest and conceal Iraq's involvement. False flags are a common tool of recruitment by intelligence services." Perhaps Saddam, hardly a devout Muslim, did not want to show his hand to bin Laden's mid-level religious fanatics. The B.I.S. followed al- Ani to a clandestine meeting at a hotel with Atta, who had just come to the city. After that meeting, the Czechs shadowed Atta to the airport for his flight to the U.S. Why didn't the B.I.S. inform the U.S. about Atta at that time? Here was a suspected plot against a large U.S.-financed facility; within two weeks, the Czechs declared his case officer, al-Ani, persona non grata and shipped him back to Baghdad. Were the C.I.A. and F.B.I. kept in the dark about his agent flying back and forth to America under his own name of Atta, or were our counterspies informed but did nothing? Last week, the Czech prime minister, Milos Zeman, confirmed to CNN that al-Ani and Atta met in Prague (which Czech officials had at first denied). But Zeman was eager to dissociate that meeting from planning to destroy New York's twin towers: "Atta contacted some Iraq agent [sic] . . . to prepare a terrorist attack on just the building of Radio Free Europe." Really? How does the Czech prime minister know what the Iraqi spymaster and Atta discussed? He could know only if the meeting were bugged or if al-Ani talked before being thrown out of Prague. Was the C.I.A. or F.B.I. informed about the U.S. interest in why al-Ani was ejected, and what travelers to America had recently been in secret contact with him? After all, Atta had flown from Virginia Beach, Fla., the day before and returned the following day. That shows urgency: one does not back and forth across the Atlantic within 72 hours to meet secretly with a known Iraqi intelligence officer for no reason. We since have learned that Atta, who had made at least one earlier trip to Prague, returned to the U.S. to open a bank account at the Sun Bank in Florida and received $100,000 to finance his mission through an Arab emirate money changer. But before that money to finance his Sept. 11 attack could pass, Atta apparently needed to stop in Prague first, where Iraq's al-Ani was running agents. The Prague connection links Saddam and bin Laden at the agent level. Now here is an unpublished report that suggests Saddam helps the terrorist leader on a personal level: In mid-May, two of Saddam's secret service agents arrived at the clinic of Dr. Mohammed Khayal, Baghdad's leading kidney specialist. The doctor hurriedly packed a bag and was escorted to a government car. Three days later, he was returned, and the building was soon abuzz with the word that Saddam's Dr. Khayal had been to Afghanistan where his patient was Osama bin Laden.

To: unclewest who wrote (9979)	11/12/2001 8:59:29 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Criticizing any past Democratic foreign policies is OTB here, West. However, as you have mentioned, all past Republican policies are fair game. BTW, no personal attacks on posters who are perceived to be of the same political persuasion as our moderator are allowed. However, attacks by these people on people not of the same political persuasion are fine. See this one on me as an example. Message 16619146 If I had posted a "Rant" like this, I would have been banned from this thread.

To: unclewest who wrote (9979)	11/12/2001 9:01:58 AM
From: Poet	Respond to of 281500

i don't know if it is meaningful but it seems to me Poet has made the most posts about clinton. I think Faultline is well-advised to have made presidential editorializing OT here. This isn't a sandbox.

To: unclewest who wrote (9979)	11/12/2001 11:09:33 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

edited after i saw...Please do not editorialize on Clinton. Clinton is off limits. is that really true? Actually, I interpreted it differently. As an attempt to keep the focus of the thread on issues of foreign policy, FL hopes to keep down the static devoted to personal attacks on Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, etc. I think it's wise because I had already worked up replies to the attacks on Clinton that would have taken us very, very far astray. I have no doubt the replies to those replies and in turn further replies to . . . etc. would have led the thread off on a very long dead end. John