Dubious Link Between Atta and Saddam (forged document)

Status
Not open for further replies.

w4rma

member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
724
Location
United States of America
A document tying the Iraqi leader with the 9/11 terrorist is probably fake.
…
WEB EXCLUSIVE
Newsweek
Updated: 5:53 p.m. ET Dec. 17, 2003


Dec. 17 - A widely publicized Iraqi document that purports to show that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta visited Baghdad in the summer of 2001 is probably a fabrication that is contradicted by U.S. law-enforcement records showing Atta was staying at cheap motels and apartments in the United States when the trip presumably would have taken place, according to U.S. law enforcement officials and FBI documents.

The new document, supposedly written by the chief of the Iraqi intelligence service, was trumpeted by the Sunday Telegraph of London earlier this week in a front-page story that broke hours before the dramatic capture of Saddam Hussein. TERRORIST BEHIND SEPTEMBER 11 STRIKE WAS TRAINED BY SADDAM, ran the headline on the story written by Con Coughlin, a Telegraph correspondent and the author of the book "Saddam: The Secret Life."

Coughlin's account was picked up by newspapers around the world and was cited the next day by New York Times columnist William Safire. But U.S. officials and a leading Iraqi document expert tell NEWSWEEK that the document is most likely a forgery—part of a thriving new trade in dubious Iraqi documents that has cropped up in the wake of the collapse of Saddam's regime.

"It's a lucrative business," says Hassan Mneimneh, codirector of an Iraqi exile research group reviewing millions of captured Iraqi government documents. "There's an active document trade taking place … You have fraudulent documents that are being fabricated and sold" for hundreds of dollars a piece.

Mneimneh said he hadn't seen the Telegraph document that purports to place Atta in Baghdad. But he, along with senior U.S. law-enforcement and intelligence officials, said the claims of an Atta trip to Iraq in the months before the September 11 attacks were highly implausible—and contradicted by a wealth of information that has been collected about Atta's movements during the period he was plotting the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The Telegraph story was apparently written with a political purpose: to bolster Bush administration claims of a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime. The paper described a "handwritten memo" that was supposedly sent to Saddam Hussein by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, chief of Iraqi intelligence at the time. It describes a three-day "work program" that Atta had undertaken in Baghdad under the tutelage of notorious Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, who lived in the Iraqi capital until his death under suspicious circumstances in August 2002.

"Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian national, came with Abu Ammer [who is unidentified] and we hosted him in Abu Nidal's house at Al-Dora under our direct supervision," the document states. "We arranged a work program for him for three days with a team dedicated to working with him ... He displayed extraordinary effort and showed a firm commitment to lead the team which will be responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy."

The document, which according to Coughlin was supplied by Iraq's interim government, doesn't say exactly when Atta was supposed to have actually flown to Baghdad. But the memo is dated July 1, 2001, and Coughlin himself places the trip as the summer of 2001.

The problem with this, say U.S. law enforcement officials, is that the FBI has compiled a highly detailed time line for Atta's movements throughout the spring and summer of 2001 based on a mountain of documentary evidence, including airline records, ATM withdrawals and hotel receipts. Those records show Atta crisscrossing the United States during this period—making only one overseas trip, an 11-day visit to Spain that didn't begin until six days after the date of the Iraqi memo.

One FBI document, labeled "Law Enforcement Sensitive," states that during the summer of 2001, Atta "conducted extensive travel" that included visits in Florida, Boston, New York, New Jersey and Las Vegas. Indeed, this and other FBI documents show that during the last few days in June—when the presumed Iraq trip would appear to have occurred—almost all of Atta's movements are accounted for: On June 27, 2001, Atta flew from Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., to Boston. On the morning of June 28, he traveled from Boston to San Francisco (flying first class) where he switched planes and landed in Las Vegas that afternoon at 2:41 p.m. That afternoon, he rented a Chevrolet Malibu from an Alamo rental-car office, set up an account at an Internet café called the Cyber Zone and checked into the EconoLodge motel on Las Vegas Boulevard, a cheap motel in a neighborhood of seedy strip joints that is located barely two blocks from the local FBI office.

The FBI records show Atta logged onto his Cyber Zone Internet account five times over the next two days and then checked out of the EconoLodge at 3:30 a.m. on the morning of July 1. He then returned his rental car and boarded a flight to Denver at 5:59 a.m., landing in Boston later that day. A week later, on July 7, Atta boarded a flight from Boston to Zurich—the first leg on his trip to Spain. He returned to the United States on July 19, 2001.

Much about Atta's movements is still unknown—and most likely will remain so. FBI officials believe, for example, that Atta flew to Las Vegas as part of a series of trips he took that summer to test security at U.S. airports in preparation for the September 11 attacks. But it is just a theory. The visit to Spain is believed to have been for a meeting with Ramzi bin al-Shibh, one of the planners of the September 11 attacks, who also was in Spain during the same time.

While all of Atta's movements cannot be accounted for, enough is known to make it "highly unlikely" that the September 11 ringleader could have flown off to Baghdad for a three-day work program with Iraqi intelligence, a FBI official told NEWSWEEK. For similar reasons, the bureau has long since discounted claims by Czech intelligence—and widely promoted by some Iraq hawks in the Bush administration—that Atta had flown to Prague to meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent around April 8, 2001.

FBI records show Atta and fellow hijacker Marwan Al-Shehhi checking out of the Diplomat Inn in Virginia Beach, Va., and writing a check for cash for $8,000 for a SunTrust account in that city on April 4, 2001. For the rest of that week, Atta's cell phone was used to make repeated calls to Florida. On April 11, Atta rented an apartment in Coral Springs, Fla. While acknowledging that a few days are unaccounted for, the FBI has found no evidence that Atta departed the country overseas during this period, an official said.

Mneimneh, the Iraqi document expert, says that there are other reasons to discount the handwritten memo touted by the Telegraph. The document includes another sensational second item: how Iraqi intelligence, helped by a "small team from the Al Qaeda organization," arranged for a shipment from Niger to reach Iraq by way of Libya and Syria. Although the shipment is unspecified, the reference to Niger was immediately suggestive of Bush administration assertions earlier this year that Iraq sought to import yellowcake uranium from that African nation—claims that also have been widely discredited as being based on other forged documents that apparently came from the Niger Embassy in Rome.

Mneimneh says the wording of the document makes him highly suspicious: Iraqi intelligence officials were notoriously conservative and rarely—if ever—put incriminating information in writing. The reference to the Iraqi intelligence working with a "small team from the Al Qaeda organization" is "too explicit," he says.

Ironically, even the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi, which has been vocal in claiming ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, was dismissive of the new Telegraph story. "The memo is clearly nonsense," an INC spokesman told NEWSWEEK.

Contacted by Newsweek, The Sunday Telegraph's Con Coughlin acknowledged that he could not prove the authenticity of the document. He said that while he got the memo about Mohammed Atta and Baghdad from a "senior" member of the Iraqi Governing Council who insisted it was "genuine," he and his newspaper had "no way of verifying it. It's our job as journalists to air these things and see what happens," he said.
…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646

related:
UK paper says it has proof that Atta trained in Iraq
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54583
 
It's good to see......

"...the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi, which has been vocal in claiming ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime..."
************************************************************

that the Iraqis themselves recognize the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam.:D
 
Islamic terrorist savages are Islamic terrorist savages are Islamic terrorist savages. I really don't care what the connections among their assorted groups are, might be, might have been, could have been, should have been, or would have been but for the high price of ping-pong balls in Pakistan.

I just want them put down like rabid dogs.
 
I love this line

"The Telegraph story was apparently written with a political purpose: to bolster Bush administration claims of a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime."

Notice that this line is never corroborated, it is left out there like, well, a false memo. :cool:
 
Islamic terrorist savages are Islamic terrorist savages are Islamic terrorist savages. I really don't care what the connections among their assorted groups are, might be, might have been, could have been, should have been, or would have been but for the high price of ping-pong balls in Pakistan.

Thankfully, Joe Voter agrees.
 
Notice that this line is never corroborated, it is left out there like, well, a false memo.

I'll second that.

Islamic terrorist savages are Islamic terrorist savages are Islamic terrorist savages. I really don't care what the connections among their assorted groups are, might be, might have been, could have been, should have been, or would have been but for the high price of ping-pong balls in Pakistan. I just want them put down like rabid dogs.

And, I'll third that :D

And it turns out the market for ping-pong balls in Pakistan are plummetting.
 
I agree, agricola. I don't either. Unfortunately, it seems alot of folks on the far right will believe anything, as long as it bolsters the Republican leadership and/or demonizes Democrats. :confused:
 
While you will believe and disseminate widely anything as long as it supports Democrats and demonizes Bush.
 
I am extremely logical about what I believe and what I don't, buzz_knox. Partially because of years of studying and working in science and technology which require good logic facilities.
 
Why exactly would the telegraph care to support Bush??????????
Hollinger directors face further probes

Investigators at Conrad Black's Hollinger publishing empire are looking into investments linked to company directors Henry Kissinger and Richard Perle, including a venture capital fund and a British technology company.

Daily Telegraph owner Hollinger put £8m into UK firm Cambridge Display Technology, in which the former US Defence Policy Board chairman Mr Perle has a stake, the Wall Street Journal said today.

The company also invested £1.5m in Trireme Associates, the partner of venture capital fund Trireme Partners, which is co- managed by Mr Perle.

Mr Kissinger - an adviser to President Nixon and the US secretary of state from 1973 to 1977 - served as a board member of Trireme.
…
http://media.guardian.co.uk/city/story/0,7497,1099928,00.html
 
A document tying the Iraqi leader with the 9/11 terrorist is probably fake.

This is old news. It goes in the "urban myth" pile along with these gems:

1) They found Al Qaeda training bases in Iraq

2) Saddam's agent met with the 9/11 organizers


The sad part is, even after Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld all made public statements acknowledging no credible evidence has ever been found linking Iraq to 9/11, most people still believe it happened.

And the reason is (aside from the fact most people are sheep), Bush is still saying Iraq was behind 9/11 in his ads. How? Well..... he says things like: "Terrorists attcked us on 9/11, and now we have taken the war on terror to them." Then he claims that the Iraq war is part of the war on terror. Bingo: he still links 9/11 to Iraq and people still believe it.


Bahhhhhhhhh........................
 
Islamic terrorist savages are Islamic terrorist savages are Islamic terrorist savages.

Which is being extended into the administrations position: All Arabs are alike, all Islamics are terrorists.

They couldn't get the people behind 9/11 who still continue to go after us (OBL and Al Qaeda) but they beat the hell out of a different Arab and he was a bad guy too. So, that's just as good and will help us win the WOT and make Americans safer.

God help us all.:barf:
 
Which is being extended into the administrations position: All Arabs are alike, all Islamics are terrorists.

Any evidence for that hysterical, hyperbolic position? :rolleyes:
 
why should he have to provide evidence? I dont recall you accepting the falsehood of this, or many other, pro-Bush/Blair stories - so for you to demand proofs strikes me as more than a bit hypocritical.

I guess one should ask why, if all this is so justifiable, have the two main administrations pushing this been caught out lying so many times?
 
Thanks for clearing that up for us bountyhunter! I had always thought that Saddam WAS a terrorist and supported terrorists. I guess I was wrong.:rolleyes:

w4rma, you never did see many conservatives accept this memo at face value. Most conservatives, myself included, are waiting for verification of its authenticity. Most conservatives that commented on the memo included a phrase something along the line of "if verified". And you NEVER saw the administration claim this memo as proof of a connection.

That's more than I can say about Howard Dean's "most interesting theory" about President Bush being warned about 9-11! What side of the political spectrum will believe "anything"? What about "Baghdad" Jim McDermott and his claim that President Bush had Saddam for some time? Or Ms. Albrights asking if President Bush may be holding onto Osama for a future time?
 
I am extremely logical about what I believe and what I don't, buzz_knox. Partially because of years of studying and working in science and technology which require good logic facilities.
Oddly enough, that's an illogical statement. Working in a field where logic is used doesn't necessarily make your arguments or beliefs logical. They are logical or illogical independent of your career.
 
Partially because of years of studying and working in science and technology which require good logic facilities.

You realize, of course, that it was the U.S. Government that refuted this document, right?
 
Im striving to stay nuetral on this memo. One thing though is that I think claims that Atta was in the U.S. at certain times has also been used to say that the meetings in Europe couldnt have taken place. What I have read is that the person claimed that some agency had credit records or driving records or something that placed him in the U.S. at that time. According to the editorial though those documents do not exist. That European intelligence agency still stands by their assertion that Atta was there. I think we need more time before we can completely dismiss this memo.

Dont we also have the problem of career cia, state and fbi possibly doing everything they can to cover their asses because of all the dots they failed to connect over the years leading to 9-11? I'm leary of anything coming out from unamed sources right now because of that.

Mark
 
illogical statement......

"I am extremely logical about what I believe and what I don't, buzz_knox. Partially because of years of studying and working in science and technology which require good logic facilities."
************************************************************

I have worked with a Human Physiology PhD who believed in his heart that non-venomous snakes could become venemous, a PhD Microbiologist who could not accept the concept of organic evolution, and an Astronomy PhD who adhered strictly to the idea of special creation, and none of their positions could be correlated by logic.:D

Education in or daily application of 'logic' is not proof against partisan political belief.


What w4rma has is a good case of political partisanship;) .

Just like the rest of us around here:D .

And, Agricola is not necessarily 'right'...he merely believes it so as a result accepting the account of various media sources...which do in fact lie deeply & often:scrutiny: .
 
why should he have to provide evidence? I dont recall you accepting the falsehood of this, or many other, pro-Bush/Blair stories - so for you to demand proofs strikes me as more than a bit hypocritical.

:confused:

Actually, I didn't say I did or didn't think this story was true, merely that Al-Qaeda/Baathist Iraqi cooperation was possible in theory.

Quoting myself (I love doing this...):

Actually, I have no idea if the article is true or not.

But to know that you'd actually have to have read the topic you linked to above. ;)
 
Any evidence for that hysterical, hyperbolic position?

My statement that the thinking "all Arabs are alike" underlines the administration is easily proven. All evidence points up the fact that Bush's original mission was to get Saddam Hussein. period. If everybody would wake up and smell the coffee on that one, it would clear things up quickly.

The war in Iraq was a done deal (according to people inside the admin) at least 18 months before it was launched. Some say it was a done deal before GWB raised his right hand at the inauguration. He saw (and sees) Saddam as unfinished business who should have been killed in 1991. period.

The problemn with the Bush administration is that they are taking a genuine threat (the terrorists threat of Al Qaeda) and trying to use it as a net to throw over the whole middle east so they can have a blank check to do whatever they want. And he does it with the subtlety of a sledge hammer. His speech aboard the Vincenze, referring to the "victory" in Iraq:

"On 9/11 terrorists attacked us, and now we have taken the war to them."

NO! Terrorists (Al Qaeda) did indeed attack us on 9/11. And, the use of troops in Afghanistan to try to apprehend OBL was definitely a (failed) attempt to get those responsible, but at least it was a bona fide attempt.

The war in Iraq is and was NOT a strike back at the terrorists who are at war with us and as long as Bush keeps saying it I'm going to keep saying it's a lie! There isn't a shred of evidence linking Hussein to Al Qaeda or 9/11 and our own CIA has admitted it, and finally Bush admitted it too. But, he keeps using the BIG BRUSH of the WOT to whitewash his war in Iraq and saying that anybody who attacks his policies are siding with those who perpetrated 9/11... and that is a giant crock of BS!

The point is, all Arabs are not alike, all Arab countries are not alike, and all BAD Arabs are not terrorists. Some of them are just murdering thugs who pose no threat to the US and just want to be rich and act like a big shot in their neighborhood (and that is Saddam Hussein).
 
merely that Al-Qaeda/Baathist Iraqi cooperation was possible in theory.

It's even more possible now that saddam is captured. Al Qaeda/Hussein alliances did not exist for a simple reason: Hussein hated OBl and Al Qaeda because OBL has stated that:

1) Hussein is a liar who is not a Muslim and uses religion to get fools to follow him (a true statement).

2) He (OBL) planned to creat Islamic uprisings in Iraq and saudi Arabia to overthrow the "false" governments and replace them with Islamic ones.

Surprise, surpise..... Saddam took that last one personally and decided not to throw support behind OBL and Al Qaeda.

Now that Saddam is gone, the Baath party is no longer primarily directed at re-instating Saddam in power, just at driving out the US. On that point, ALL Islamic party objectives align and we could well see alliances between former enemies to try to achieve that end.
 
bountyhunter,

Although I support the war in Iraq, you make some legitimate points.

Nonetheless, those points don't prove that the administration thinks all Arabs are alike. All you've done is make a decent argument that the administration has treated one Arab like a terrorist where the evidence is lacking that he was involved in 9/11.

Fact is, the administration is on civil (perhaps even friendly) terms with some Arabs. Until you show how Bush thinks those Arabs are just like OBL, you haven't begun to prove he has a monolithic attitude about Arabs.

But why bother? You've got some legitimate points, but you're chasing after the red herring of proving your hasty absolute statement. Absolute statements typically are as difficult to prove as negative assertions.

You're legitimate points do not depend on you proving that red herring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top