Matching Grant Challenge
BruceMatch
We’re slowly making headway in our annual fund drive, but not nearly fast enough to meet our make-or-break goal.  On the bright side, a generous CounterPuncher has stepped forward with a pledge to match every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, he will give CounterPunch a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate.
 unnamed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

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 […]

Atta, the Times and the Iraqi Agent

by William Blum

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?