HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
By Bill Blum
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
--- Begin Message ---
Hello, is there anyone out there who's not yet totally cynical about US
foreign policy and the propaganda that accompanies it? For months we've been
told that Mohamed Atta, the alleged ringleader of the September 11 attacks,
had met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in April, with all the ominous
implication of Iraqi involvement in the attack that this story carried, along
with the implied threat of US retaliation against Iraq. Well, in case you
missed it, the NY Times reported on page B6 of its October 20, 2001 issue
that Czech "officials said they had been asked by Washington to comb their
records to determine whether Mr. Atta met with an Iraqi diplomat or agent
here. They said they had told the United States they found no evidence of any
such meeting. ... Petr Necas, chairman of the parliamentary defense
committee, said, 'I haven't seen any direct evidence that Mr. Atta met any
Iraqi agent'."
Well, that would seem to have put an end to that. All the American
officials who have been hungering for a chance to further devastate the
people of Iraq would have to find another pretext.
Then, on October 27, the Times reported that: "Speaking at a news
conference in Prague, the Czech interior minister, Stanislav Gross, said that
Mr. Atta met Mr. Ani, an Iraqi diplomat identified by Czech authorities as an
intelligence officer, in early April."
What's going on here?
Said the Times: "Mr. Gross and other Czech officials suggested earlier
this month that while there was evidence that Mr. Atta had visited Prague,
there was none he had actually met with Iraqi agents. It was unclear what
prompted them to revise their conclusions, although it seemed possible that
American officials, concerned about the political implications of Iraqi
involvement in terror attacks, had put pressure on the Czechs to keep quiet."
Part of the second sentence indicates that the Times writer was a bit
confused inasmuch as it's been US officials trumpeting alleged Iraqi
involvement, but that's neither here nor there. What's important is the
claim that the first announcement by the Czech government may have induced US
officials to put pressure on the Czechs to revise that claim. If the NY
Times can express such unusual cynicism about US foreign policy, who are we
to not have our doubts?
--- End Message ---
