Atta In Prague - Even Less Likely

In a bit of Sen. Carl Levin inspired push-back, the CIA has announced that:

George J. Tenet, the departing director of central intelligence, has told Congress that the C.I.A. is "increasingly skeptical" that a Sept. 11 hijacker, Mohamed Atta, met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001, an assessment very different in tone from continuing assertions by Vice President Dick Cheney that such a meeting might have taken place.

In a letter, sent to Congress on July 1, Mr. Tenet said Mr. Atta "would have been unlikely to undertake the substantial risk of contacting any Iraqi official" at such a date, when the Sept. 11 plot was well under way.

The statement, the most complete public assessment by the agency on the issue, was sent to the Senate Armed Services Committee in response to a question posed by the committee's ranking Democrat, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, at a hearing on March 9. It was made public by Senator Levin on Thursday, as Mr. Tenet bid farewell to his colleagues at a ceremony at the agency's headquarters. He leaves his post this weekend...

Here is Carl Levin's statement and the CIA report.

UPDATE: Steven Hayes pushes back. And I am thrilled to see him quoting John Kerry's Senate speech in October 2002.

Comments

[HH]

And Stephen Hayes pushes back...

[Forbes]

Presumably Mohammed Atta is dead, but George Tenent and the CIA can answer for his motivations and risk taking? The CIA finds these dots, and then suggests, based on mind reading, that there are no connections. Consider me unconvinced.

[IceCold]

Speculation and best guess are vital parts of the intel business -- though the SSCI seems to have decided to pretend otherwise in their overall Iraq report -- but such things of course derive credibility from the basis on which they're made. Without the full reasoning behind George's skepticism on the matter, it's just impossible to evaluate it.

As to Atta "not risking" such a trip in April, didn't al-Shehi or another pilot/leader make an unexplained multi-week trip to Egypt in May? Without knowing what's behind the CIA's statement, it's hard to see the excessive risk in an April trip to Prague.

I'd like to see the CIA's best guess/analysis on the "Hamburg student" entry in the Iraqi intel officer's appointment book for that April day. It doesn't prove anything -- but it's sort of a gigantic, neon-lit sore thumb that's got to be dealt with before any judgement seems reliable.

I'm also intrigued by Atta's two undisputed -- and weird -- trips to Prague, especially the one where he spent 6 hours in the transit lounge (apparently most of that time out of surveillance camera view) because he lacked a visa.

Someone with the discipline and energy to follow things closely (Hayes? Epstein?) has noted some interesting timing coincidences between the various Prague trips, known or alleged, and turning points in the 9/11 preparations and finances.

Only thing we can say for sure is that, for very different reasons, neither I nor Carl Levn will be the ones getting to the bottom of this in the end ....

[Forbes]

It'll be interesting to see what the response out of Prague is. Every time someone in the US said there was no April meeting, their government has turned around and repeated their assertions regarding the meeting. As I understand it, an Intelligence operative observed the meeting, and the CIA's answer is that they can't independently confirm it. No kidding. Though it strikes me that the CIA has relied on thinner intel, and from foreign services. In this instance it seems especially self-defeating, in light od Atta's prior trips to Prague.