Newsweek: 9/11: A Special White House Slide Show

[Rose Siding]

Newsweek
Updated: 5:56 p.m. ET Jan. 2, 2006
Jan. 9, 2006 issue - Why did some administration officials—including Vice President Dick Cheney—still lend credit to disputed reports of an April 2001 Prague meeting between 9/11 leader Muhammad Atta and an Iraqi spy even after the 9/11 Commission concluded the encounter probably didn't occur? Administration critics have long suspected that a secret briefing on an alleged Iraq-Qaeda connection, prepared by the Pentagon in 2002, helped keep the tale alive.

NEWSWEEK has obtained declassified copies of slides made for the briefing. There are three sets: a version for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, one for the then CIA Director George Tenet and one shown at a White House session attended by the then deputy national-security adviser Stephen Hadley and Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Cheney's chief of staff at the time. The White House materials include a slide, not part of the other briefings, devoted to the alleged Atta meeting. (Rumsfeld and Tenet were told there was "one indication of Iraqi involvement with Al Qaeda specifically related to 9/11.") The White House slide, dated September 2002, cites publicized allegations from a post-9/11 Czech intel report that Atta met the April before 9/11 with Iraqi spy Ahmed al-Ani, and asserts the United States had "no other" intel contradicting the report. The slide offers purported details about Atta's activities in Prague (including two earlier, confirmed visits). It says that during one visit al-Ani ordered an Iraqi intelligence officer to "issue funds to Atta." The slide also includes previous unpublished allegations that Atta met the Iraqi Embassy charge d'affaires and that "several workers at Prague airport identified Atta following 9/11 and remember him traveling with his brother Farhan Atta."

Four former senior intel officials who monitored investigations into Atta's alleged Iraqi contacts say they never heard the airport anecdote. One official (all asked not to be named while discussing intel issues) says intel analysts had "rejected" the anecdote about al-Ani's giving Atta money. Former Pentagon policy chief Douglas Feith says he was told (and other officials confirmed) that the slide was prepared from reports obtained through normal intel channels. He told NEWSWEEK the briefing's principal author told him she didn't get satisfactory answers questioning analysts about why they had "downplayed" raw intel regarding dealings between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. In June 2004, the 9/11 Commission staff said it did "not believe" the April 2001 meeting had occurred. The next day, Cheney said that while the report of Atta's Prague visit had "never been proven, it's never been refuted." Cheney's office didn't respond to queries about the Pentagon briefing.
—Mark Hosenball

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663343/site/newsweek/

[aquart]

1. I'm completely confused.

Will someone please explain this to me? (I have a cold and I'm sodden and pathetic which may or may not account for the confusion.)

[Rose Siding]

2. Looks to me like Feith's shop, in this instance, was fixing intel rpts

And Cheney looks like an idiot if he took all his info about the Prague meeting from this flimsy source.

I'm always hopeful after a story like this, that a fuller one is on the way.

[daleo]

3. Well, I think it is a little pro-Bush spin

The way I read it, the slides shown to Bush (i.e. the White House) include this Al Queda - Iraq connection, and the others don't. That gives Bush cover for propagating the "attack Iraq to get Bin Laden" lie. Presumably the blame for this is being shifted to the Pentagon.

I don't know if the story is actually true. It may be that Bush was given bad info (by this theory he is just a figurehead anyway), or the whole thing may be spin to protect Bush. That's how I see it, but I hope others can shed some light too.

[notadmblnd]

4. yeah, that's the the ticket.. they fooled him

.... fool me once.. you can't get fooled again. F'n incompetent boob!

[MADem]

5. I can smell the bullshit from here!!!

I used to prepare those fucking godawful Power Point presentations that went to high levels of gubmint, stuck in what seemed like the bowels of hell till midnight or later, changing "the" to "a" and fiddling with the language until I thought jumping out the window might be a better option. They are vetted TO DEATH. It is an agonizing process.

Here is the essential problem, as I see it. A report is headed over from the Five Sided Pork Palace TO THE WHITE HOUSE. And the goddamn SECDEF, who runs the outfit, does not PERSONALLY CHECK OUT what the BoyKing is gonna view???? BULLSHIT!!! Of COURSE he does!!!! It's coming out of HIS SHOP!! HE is responsible, and you DO NOT DELEGATE when it comes to Presidential material, especially of that magnitude of import.

Is Rummy, or his factotums, trying to suggest that his subordinates WITHHELD info from him? Come ON!! That does not pass the smell test! Heads would roll!

Or is the actual way this thing went down something like this?

THREE copies of this presentation were made at DoD, stuffed in a folder, and routed in the following order--1-Rummy; 2-Tenet; 3-Monkey. Rummy gets the folder, reads the thing, signs off on it, pulls out his copy to file, and sends it on to Tenet.

Tenet gets the folder, signs off on it....and before sending it to the BoyKing, ADDS A PAGE??????????

Then it gets to Monkey and his crew, with the extra info that Rummy NEVER SAW??? And prior to sending it on, Tenet doesn't make a copy of that extra page for himself?? For HIS records? To say nothing of providing a courtesy copy back to DoD, which is customary when you change someone's work? Why wouldn't he do that? It makes no SENSE!!

OR--and this is a frightening possibility...could the briefing have arrived at the White House as first prepared, no extra page, with the sign-off signatures of Rummy and Tenet on it, and SOMEONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE ADDED A PAGE? If so, WHO????

It is simply inconceivable that neither Tenet nor Rummy would have not retained any addenda to that report, had they been the ones that prepared it--correspondence control at those levels is positively anal.


So, one, or both of them are either LYING, and they destroyed the page or made sure it got "lost," or someone WAY closer to the Monkey than DoD or CIA prepped and inserted that page AFTER Rummy and Tenet inked off their chop on the document.

You can bet at least twenty people pawed that report before it even hit Rummy's desk. And probably half that number at least before Georgie T got his paws on it. These people know what was in it at those points in time. Someone needs to find them, and ASK them.

Someone skilled in forensic document review might be able to detect a difference in the way the extra page is laid out, both graphically and in terms of structure and language--and that might at least suggest to them that it was prepared somewhere OTHER than DoD.

Very odd, that....VERY ODD.

[LynnTheDem]

6. IT NEVER HAPPENED...and BUSH KNEW THAT.

NO TIES between Iraq-Hussein-911-al Qaeda. NOTHING.


Central to the Saddam - al Qaeda bushCartel BULLSHIT claim is the assertion that Czech authorities had evidence of a meeting between one of the September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001.

Both Czech President Vaclav Havel and Czech intelligence say it NEVER HAPPENED;
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/2155.html

More than that, so do the FBI and CIA say it NEVER HAPPENED;

Only one problem with that story, the FBI pointed out. Atta was traveling at the time between Florida and Virginia Beach, Va. (The bureau had his rental car and hotel receipts)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060203A.shtml

IT NEVER HAPPENED AND BUSH & his Cartel KNEW IT.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."
-Rumsfeld, Monday, October 4, 2004
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,10975887-1702,00.html

BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link
US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

Sky News (London): "One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?"

Bush: "I can't make that claim.'
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

Sept 17, 2003- Bush: No evidence Saddam Hussein involved in Nine-Eleven attacks
http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1447698

Sept 16, 2003- Rice: U.S. Never Said Saddam Was Behind 9/11
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/983821/posts

Sept 16, 2003- Rumsfeld sees no link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm

Aug 6, 2003- Wolfowitz: Iraq Was Not Involved In 9-11 Terrorist Attacks, No Ties To Al-Qaeda
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4372.htm

UN Panel Reports No al-Qaida-Iraq Ties
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/breaking_news/6176302.htm

Leaked Report Rejects Link Claims
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2727471.stm

Newly Declassified Intelligence Documents on Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., today released documents recently declassified at his request that illustrate that some claims of a cooperative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda made by top administration officials in support of the Iraq war were contrary to what U.S. intelligence officials believed to be true.
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=236440

Sources: U.S. distorted Saddam-al Qaeda link - Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league.
https://registration.dfw.com/reg/login.do?url=http://www.dfw.com%2Fmld%2Fdfw%2Fnews%2F8094015.htm

Spanish intelligence service says no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda: report
Spain's counter-espionage service believes there is no link between toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the extremist Al Qaeda network, national media has reported. - The head of the National Intelligence Centre, Jorge Dezcaller, added that Al Qaeda had even accused Saddam of not respecting the principles of Islam,
http://www.thedailystar.net/2003/09/06/

The Next Debate: Al Qaeda Link
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60616FE3A580C738EDDAE0894DB404482

Brent Scowcroft, one of the Republican Party’s most respected foreign policy advisors;

"Don't Attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts. There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

Allies Find No Links Between Iraq, Al Qaeda

"What I'm asked is if I've seen any evidence of that. (Iraq links to al Qaeda) And the answer is: I haven't.” -British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who supports U.S. invasion & occupation of Iraq.
http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-noqaeda4nov04,0,4538810.story

British Intelligence agencies, MI6 and MI5

A dossier prepared by the two agencies “showed no discernible links between Iraq and al-Qaida,”
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=375403

Richard Kerr, a former deputy CIA director who lead an internal review of the CIA's prewar intelligence;

“the CIA has not found any proof of operational ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime.”
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?pid=800

The White House’s own publication, A Decade of Defiance and Deception, makes no mention of Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

The 2002 congressional joint intelligence committee’s report on the Sept. 11 attacks revealed that the Bush administration had no evidence to support its claim that Saddam’s government was supporting al-Qaeda.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030723-064812-9491r

No proof links Iraq, al-Qaida, Colin Powell says
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3909150

According to a "top secret British document", quoted by the BBC "there is nothing but enmity between Iraq and Al Qaeda." The BBC said the leak came from intelligence officials upset that their work was being used to justify war." (quoted in Daily News, New York, 6 February 2003).
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html

Iraq-al Qaeda links weak, say former Bush officials

Three former Bush administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues have told National Journal that the prewar evidence tying al Qaeda to Iraq was tenuous, exaggerated, and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0803/080803nj2.htm

Split at C.I.A. and F.B.I. On Iraqi Ties to Al Qaeda

"…analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said."

and…

"At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden|s network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D1EF83E5C0C718CDDAB0894DB404482

This is consistent with what they were saying back in October 2002.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A14056-2002Oct24

"There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."
-Richard Clarke, former terrorism chief under bush.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

Iraq-al Qaeda ties have not been found

Bush administration hyped sketchy and false evidence to push for war
The Bush administration’s claim that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda — one of the administration’s central arguments for a pre-emptive war — appears to have been based on even less solid intelligence than the administration’s claims that Iraq had hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons.

Nearly a year after U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq, no evidence has turned up to verify allegations of Saddam’s links with al Qaeda, and several key parts of the administration’s case have either proved false or seem increasingly doubtful.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/2004/03/04/news/nation/8101079.htm

Iraq and al Qaeda: What Evidence?
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=23816

bush's own hand-picked Republican weapons hunter ISG, Dr. David Kay;

David Kay was on the ground for months investigating the activities of Hussein's regime. He concluded "But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all."

He called a speech where Cheney made the claim there was a link, as being "evidence free."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/06/16/bush_backs_cheney_on_assertion_linking_hussein_al_qaeda/

Israeli intelligence (the Moussad)

“According to Israeli intelligence, Palestinians are still not connected to the global terror network, and neither is Iraq.”
http://www.haaretz.com /

bush's second and final hand-picked Republican weapons hunter ISG, Dr. Charles Dueffler;

Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq, no capability since 1991, no evidence of ties to al Qaeda, no serious threat;
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/06/1096949583023.html?from=storylhs

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/

OFFICIAL VERDICT: WHITE HOUSE MISLED WORLD OVER SADDAM-AL QAEDA TIES (no, actually, only AMERICANS were ever dumb enough to think Iraq did 911)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0617-03.htm

No evidence of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties: 9/11 commission
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/cheney.911

"CIA Review Finds No Evidence Saddam Had Ties to Islamic Terrorists"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1005-01.htm

NO TIES. NONE. AND BUSH & CHENEY ALWAYS KNEW THERE WERE NO TIES.

[MADem]

8. Of course there were no ties...BUT WHO WROTE THAT PAGE?????

THAT is the thousand dollar question of the week. It is ENORMOUSLY important that we find out who did it.

If we find out who ginned up that piece of crap, we start to cut near the heart of the bastards that spun up this stupid mistake of an invasion...we will know exactly who was persuading--or helping--the BoyKing to game the American people while he wiped his ass on our Constitution. Sure, we all have ideas as to who is responsible, but finding out WHICH OFFICE wrote that little one page story is IMPORTANT. That is a head-roller if I ever saw one!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. Who was fixing the intelligence? The NeoCon, Pentagon-based,....

...Feith-led OSP is a sure bet. They were heavily involved in reviewing and "fixing the intelligence" that was used to convince Congress that invading Iraq was a correct action.

IMHO, it is extremely doubtful that Rumsfeld formed the OSP on his own.

[MADem]

12. In which case, he was bullshitting his boss (or his boss is bs'ing us)

Feith is at OSD, and OSP is a clear subset of DoD, charged with a coordination role vis a vis intel, but it is NOT an entity unto itself...so he was either lying to Donnie Rummy, or Donnie Rummy is lying about what was in that briefing. Or, the page was inserted LATER, by someone else--or later, by Feith or one of his crew.

How that page got in the WH briefing, but was not in the files at OSD or CIA, is really KEY here.

I mean, we all KNOW that the books were cooked, the intelligence was gamed, but this is the first instance that I know of where there are THREE copies of a single, signed-off-on, report, and 'one of these things is not like the others' (to use a Sesame Street phrase).

I think if you pull that string, you will find a very large lizard at the other end of it.

[Mugsy]

7. Can't prove a negative.

(When I clicked this link, based upon the Subject/Title, I thought Newsweek had created a new "9/11 slideshow".)

Anyway, at the end, it says Cheney continues to suggest the meeting *did* happen only because no one ever proved it *didn't*.

Cheney is also insisting President Bush's dog Barney told Dubya that Saddam still had Weapons of Mass Destruction. And while the 9/11 Commision has declared any such encounter to be "doubtful and highly dubious", Cheney still insists it happened on the grounds "no one can prove it didn't".

[LynnTheDem]

9. The FBI were following Atta at the time of the supposed meeting...

following him...IN AMERICA.

Atta was not in Prague. He was in FLORIDA.

The meeting did not happen.

[MADem]

10. That is well established

But still, the unanswered question is WHO PREPARED THAT PAGE? Answer that question, and you have found the crack in the dam, as it were. That is a root of the whole conspiracy. Someone had to sit their ass down, fire up the PowerPoint, and CREATE THAT PAGE for insertion into this bullshit presentation. WHO did it??? Which agency? We sort of learn from this article that DoD AND CIA are claiming they don't have it in their files....so WHO added it to the dossier???

The story here is not where Atta was, the story is WHO CREATED the bullshit story? Who, and WHY?

If they are hoping to shield Monkey by claiming he was somehow "duped" by subordinate evildoers who will take the fall for him (and get pardoned, maybe?) that still doesn't fly with me. If you are a commander, as the commander in chief is, you have authority, responsibility and ABSOLUTE ACCOUNTABILITY. Ignorance of the actions of your subordinates is NOT an excuse. Your people screw up, you take the fall.

[Straight Shooter]

13. Doesn't matter. The meeting was debunked long before the invasion.

I seem to recall a flap about this meeting, and it was clear to anyone who bothered researching it even a little bit, that the meeting never took place.

Remember Cheney's interview where he categorically denied that he said the meeting definitely took place, and the interviewer then played a clip which showed Cheney's own mouth forming the words that the meeting did take place?

Who is pulling Newsweek's strings now? And why are they printing this now? Is it to divert attention from Abramoff, because surely the word will spread with more interest that Atta was 1 degree of separation from Abramoff, partying on his cruise liner.

Newsweak. Bah.