Posted 12/17/2003 by Pierre Legrand
Fisking Isikoff and Hosenball from MSNBC
Instapundit links to these two "journalists" from Newsweek and their pitiful attempt to debunk the Atta Iraqis links.
Instapundit.com:
Lets take a look at a bit of their article and try to understand exactly where they go wrong and perhaps why.
Dubious Link Between Atta and Saddam
Naturally these guys seem to only work with people in the US Intelligence services who will not stand behind their beliefs with their names. Maybe that's the way its done but then again this isn't a cricket game and you would think that they would want to lend weight to their statements by standing behind them. Instead we are treated to the very same sorts of information that cannot be checked for accuracy. Far be it for me to suggest that these two "Journalists" have a political motive behind their article but in these trying political times it would be nice to know they are serious by providing sources.

Italics added.
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.

I believe they forgot to tell the FBI because the FBI cannot account for a 6 week period of time from March to April. During that time Atta according the Czech Interior Minister had a visit with Iraqis Chief Spy Al-Ani. This was the last of a reported 4 visits to Prague, 2 of which the CIA admits to. And in regards to the FBI evidence, what is evident is that the FBI is conducting a spin to probably throw off both journalists who might hold their collective feet to the fire for failing to catch on to the plot and to throw off those still in the states planning other neat events. Why do I say that? Because after assuring us that they had the records to put Atta in certain places through April with car rental receipts and such we find out that indeed they could not have this information since he hadn't yet received his drivers license from Florida.

All these reports attributed to the FBI were, as it turns out, erroneous. There were no car rental records in Virginia, Florida, or anywhere else in April 2001 for Mohamed Atta, since he had not yet obtained his Florida license. His international license was at his father's home in Cairo, Egypt (where his roommate Marwan al-Shehhi picked it up in late April). Nor were there other records in the hands of the FBI that put Atta in the United States at the time. Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in June 2002, "It is possible that Atta traveled under an unknown alias" to "meet with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague." Clearly, it was not beyond the capabilities of the 9/11 hijackers to use aliases

The reference above being from a Edward Epstein article in Slate detailing his trip to the Czech republic to talk to those making the claims of the Atta meetings. He has a terrific set of articles on his site.EPSTEIN

Now of course none of this PROVES that Atta met with Al Ani but you have to wonder exactly what sort of proof the other side is gonna accept. Does anyone who has a reasonable view of this entire process actually believe that any Democrat is ever going to WANT to link Atta and the Iraqis? Does any reasonable person actually believe that they are being objective when they state without a doubt that there is no link? Do you get the impression that the Mainstream press might not be pressing too hard to find out what actually is the case in regards to this matter? Do you get the impression that they are a little to beholden to continuing to please their sources unamed though they might be? Might their sources be feeding them a load of hooey?

Explain to me why there cannot be a link between Saddam and Al Queda? Explain that to me again after explaining to me how the Soviet Union and the US became allies to defeat the Nazis? What was that about differing ideologies again? Tell me again how the Muslim world felt about the US going to war with Iraq in 91? Were they happy because we were taking down an infidel? Or did they react as if one of their own, even if he were somewhat at fault for attacking a fellow muslim country, was being attacked by the Crusaders?

In the end this memo highlighted by Con Coughlin might indeed be a fake. Indeed the Czech Intelligence could be wrong about Atta visiting Prague 4 times, that airliner found by Marines at Salmon Pak might indeed have been used by Saddam to train his operatives in Counter Terror, no doubt the Antrax sent to the Senate was made in a cardboard box in a pond by a lone crazed scientist pissed about something, Abu Nidal really did commit suicide by shooting himself 10 or 20 times, and so on. Really all this stuff could be true, but somehow its not reassuring that a group intent on throwing out the current occupant of the Whitehouse is so willing for that to happen that they can believe anything but a link between Atta and Saddam. Not only that but they are absolutely attempting to completely discredit the notion of a link which seems to me to be a bit dangerous, we distort reality at our peril. Hell they would rather for obvious reasons believe that Bush flew the jets into the World Trade Towers by radio control coached by those evil Neo Cons than to believe a very sensible possibility that Saddam never ended that war we were fighting, he just continued using unconventional means.

It pays to remember that many of the moonbats of the other side dont believe reality exists, they believe instead that reality is anything we make of it. Somehow I dont believe that sort of belief system is gonna impress the bad guys.