At least his nose doesn’t have to grow [url=http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/122004/pressroom.html]It
[quote=“xp+10K”]This is also from the website for The Center for Cooperative Research:
[quote]Responding to the report, Gabriela Bartikova, spokeswoman for the Czech Minister of Interior, says that the Czech intelligence agency still believes that Mohammed Atta and al-Ani, the consul and second secretary of the Iraqi embassy met in April 2001. She says,
[quote=“wolf_reinhold”]At least his nose doesn’t have to grow [url=http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/122004/pressroom.html]It
[quote=“spook”] “Czech President Vaclav Havel denied there was any evidence to confirm reports that Mohammed Atta, a leader of the 9/11 attacks, had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, in Prague in April, 2001, five months before the attacks.”
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States (9-11 Commission)
At the top of the same page:
[quote]Statement of Judith S. Yaphe to the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
July 9, 2003[/quote]
Ms. (maybe Dr.?) Yaphe is speaking as a witness before the 9-11 Commission. She is apparently an expert on Middle East affairs. However, the events in question took place in Europe, and Ms./Dr. Yaphe is not on a par with the Czech Minister of the Interior in terms of knowledge of what was observed by Czech counterintelligence agents at the time(s) in question. Neither is President Havel, for that matter, notwithstanding that by all accounts he is a good and brilliant man, and a fine writer.
Personally, I wasn’t in the Czech Republic either at the time, and I’ve never been in the Czech Republic, so I’m not anywhere near 100% sure what happened (I write this in the near-certainty, given my experiences, that it will be ignored–I’m writing it “for the Universe,” so to speak). But it’s A’s word against B’s, X’s against Y’s, etc. I’m sticking to my original opinion. Be happy to change it if someone shows me convincing evidence.
I should add that the topic of the thread is “Dick Cheney’s Lies About Iraq.” I’m not saying that to be a member of the “topic police.” I’m saying it to point out that, given that the Minister of the Interior re-affirmed that such a meeting took place, even if Cheney turns out to be wrong on the issue, I don’t see how anyone can be even marginally certain that Cheney is lying about it, if one defines lying as intentional falsehood.
What we seem to be doing here is on the order of children arguing about whether a certain cloud is a dog or a funny face, or on the order of Plato’s cave-dwellers trying to identify shadows on the wall. So from where we sit now, one would have to have god-like powers to make a determination about whether someone made a deliberately false statement.
Dang, and I had my portable, segmented, aluminum ten-foot pole with me, took it out of its leather carrying case, assembled it, and was all set not to touch this *@&^\@%. What the hell happened?
What exactly was observed by Czech cointel agents at the time(s) in question? You might want to look into exactly what was ‘observed’ and by whom.