NOVAK ON THE NON-MEETING
That flaming Trotskyite
Robert Novak shows that he can still be
a reporting force when he avoids the sort of knee-jerk
ideo-babbling that increasingly mars his output.
Seated next to Donald Rumsfeld last Tuesday as he drank coffee at the Pentagon with reporters in the Godfrey
Sperling group, I asked the secretary of defense to confirm or deny whether suicide hijacker Mohamed Atta met
an Iraqi secret service operative in Prague and then returned to the United States to die in the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks. ''I don't know whether he did or didn't,'' Rumsfeld replied.
In those eight words, the defense chief confirmed published reports that there is no evidence placing the presumed
leader of the terrorist attacks in the Czech capital--with or without Iraqi spymaster Ahmed al-Ani. His alleged
presence in Prague is the solitary piece of evidence that could link Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime to the
carnage at the World Trade Center.
Rumsfeld followed his terse response to my Atta question with an explanation of why it really doesn't matter.
A connection with the Sept. 11 attacks, he made clear, is not necessary to justify U.S. military action against Iraq
to remove Saddam from power. The cause for war is alleged development of weapons of mass destruction by the
Baghdad regime.
Why, then, do ardent attack-Iraq advocates outside the government--William Safire, Kenneth Adelman, James
Woolsey--cling to the reality of the imagined meeting in Prague? Because President Bush would be alone in the
world if he ordered the attack without an Iraqi connection to Sept. 11.
It is impossible to prove whether Atta was or was not in Prague in April 2001 as first claimed last October by
Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross, but these are the facts: Atta definitely did not travel under his own
name back and forth from the Czech Republic. The 9/11 terrorists always traveled in the open. For Atta to have
used an assumed name would be a radically different method of operation. The sole evidence for the Prague
meeting is the word of Czech officials, who are now divided and confused.
The CIA does not want to be dragged into public debate with New York Times columnist Safire, and its officials
insist that ''we don't have a dog in that fight.'' In truth, however, cool-headed analysts at Langley see no evidence
whatever of the Prague meeting and in their gut believe it did not take place.
...
Now we get to the supposed real reason to invade
Iraq.
...
Is there evidence of any other Iraqi connection to 9/11? ''I don't discuss intelligence information,'' Rumsfeld
replied. In fact, there is none.
Responding to my question whether it made any difference to U.S. policy on Iraq, he said, ''I don't know how to
answer it.'' He then depicted terrorist nations--''Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, I suppose North Korea''--working
together to develop weapons of mass destruction. This could mean the death of ''potentially hundreds of
thousands of people.''
Responding to another reporter's question, Rumsfeld said ''the nuclear weapon . . . is somewhat more difficult to
develop, maintain and use than, for example, biological weapons,'' adding, ''I would elevate the biological risk.''
Indeed, nobody in the U.S. government takes seriously statements by former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu on his recent visit to Washington that Iraq can deliver a nuclear bomb here in a suitcase.
Whether the Iraqis possess biological capability is unknown and debatable. Former UN arms inspector Scott
Ritter contends Iraq's biowar factories and their equipment were destroyed. Without ''acquisition of a large
amount of new technology,'' Ritter has said, ''I don't see Iraq being able to do high-quality production on a large
scale of bioweapons.'' While Ritter's detractors are many, his allegations never have been contradicted.
...
That's right. That old familiar "weapons of mass
destruction" refrain, although even Novak, an ardent supporter of the Bush Cabal, basically sneers at
what is offered as evidence:
- the Rumsfeld mantra "I don't discuss intelligence
information", i.e. "there's nothing there so I'll bluff
by attempting to sound grave and important"
- the assertion by an Israeli to the right of even
Sharon that Iraq has "suitcase nukes"
- the assertion by Rumsfeld that he "would elevate
the biological risk" - based solely on the "reasoning"
that nukes are more difficult to build - with Rumsfeld's
glib table-talk belied by the testimony of an inspector
who was actually in Iraq, i.e. an inspector Novak
says has been called many names but never contradicted
Come to think of it, by Rumsy's "reasoning" we should
be scared as hell of Sharon letting loose one hell of
a bio-weapon, seeing how the latter's already got a couple
hundred of those difficult to make nukes in his bag of tricks.
So what compelling reason is left to invade Iraq?
...
There is justifiable belief in the White House, the Pentagon and even the State Department that the world--not
to mention Iraq--will be better and safer without Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. But that does not justify to the
world the overthrowing of a government.
That is why ace reporter Bill Safire writes column after column insisting that the Prague meeting took place.
That is also why national security expert Ken Adelman insisted April 29 on CNN's ''Crossfire'' that Atta ''went
7,000 miles to meet with one of the Iraq intelligence officers in Prague.'' Even if it never happened, the meeting is
essential to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq.
So rent-boy Safire keeps churning out the agit-prop.
Would that he were even capable of once again thrilling
us with a phrase as lovely as "nattering nabobs of
negativism" rather than the the two-bit
hand-jobs
he's delivering these days.
posted by Steven Baum
5/15/2002 02:28:47 PM |
link
