Epstein got it from Kavan (the horse’s mouth), the head of Czech intelligence. Epstein even cites tapes at the Prague airport, and a visa number.
If you have more information than the 9/11 commission, then by all means, expose the truth to the world
There may indeed be more information than the Commission has. UPI just reported the Colonel Shakir info, which the staff didn’t have. And (get this) the staff statements were never approved by the Commission (according to Safire)!! What kind of amateur hour operation are they running up there?
1) “Actually Bush said he had never claimed there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda relating to 9/11. He did not say there was no link. Those two statements are completely consistent with Cheney citing the Prague meeting as possible, but non-dispositive.”
Perhaps you may have misread my post. My point was that Bush said that there was no evidence linking Iraq to the attacks of 9/11. In fact, I explicitly said the word “imply” such as to avoid the predictable response of what was actually said.
2) “And yes, we did use force against Hussein in 1991. It was called the Gulf War. I’m rather sure it was in the newspapers at the time.”
I see. So you are saying that Saddam at one point in the past (you don’t say when) claimed that if he is attacked, he will attack the United States. He is attacked, then is subjected to inspections, waits a decade for some reason, and then decides to combine forces with bin Laden in an attack on the United States. Is that your theory? Sounds interesting. Any evidence to support your ideas?
3) “And what exactly is your explanation for the fact that the 9/11 staff statements relate the travels of the 9/11 hijackers, but don’t mention the two unexplained trips to Prague by Atta in 2000? They were short of paper?”
4) “And how do you explain the fact that the 9/11 staff statements shoot down the Prague meeting by citing non-dispositie phone records, without pointing out that the equally non-dispositive al Ani calendar supports the Czech contentions? An oversight, perhaps?”
I do not know why they excluded those things because I have not read the report. However, I find it odd that neither the administration nor any other prominent conservative groups to my knowledge share your accusations towards the commission. Isn’t that a little strange?
5) “The telephone comment I made was equally applied to the press and the American public, and not just you.”
Actually Bush said he had never claimed there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda relating to 9/11. He did not say there was no link. Those two statements are completely consistent with Cheney citing the Prague meeting as possible, but non-dispositive.
And yes, we did use force against Hussein in 1991. It was called the Gulf War. I’m rather sure it was in the newspapers at the time.
And what exactly is your explanation for the fact that online payday loans in NM the 9/11 staff statements relate the travels of the 9/11 hijackers, but don’t mention the two unexplained trips to Prague by Atta in 2000? They were short of paper? And how do you explain the fact that the 9/11 staff statements shoot down the Prague meeting by citing non-dispositie phone records, without pointing out that the equally non-dispositive al Ani calendar supports the Czech contentions? An oversight, perhaps?
Richard Henry Morgan – 6/
Your claimed ability to deduce what Hussein would or would not do is not very convincing. By your logic, he should never had gone into Kuwait. Nor would he have tried to assassinate George Sr. But he did. Nor is the historical animosity all that convincing, inasmuch as al Qaeda operative Zaqari was allowed to operate in Iraq and, as Richrad Clarke asserts, the Iraqis and al Qaeda had a joint venture going in the Sudan pharmaceutical plant. Deducing what Hussein would or would not do by reference to first principles simply does hold up under the pressure of contrary facts. The ties of the other countries to al Qaeda may have been stronger, but their animosity to the US was less than that of Iraq.
