Oh no, not again.

Edward Jay Epstein is flogging his Atta-in-Prague theory once again, albeit this time with a question mark. Good for him for adding the correct punctuation. Yet he still thinks he can impress us by using words like "Jiri Ruzek" and "Jan Kavan."

Those familiar with the career of Jan Kavan know he's not exactly the most reliable character. Neither are his henchmen. It's enough to bring up the ugliest of cases, that of his aide, Karel Srba, for instance, convicted of conspiring to murder a Czech journalist.

The Final Word (written by a man who's well-acquainted with the Prague political scene) also pipes in with a few skeptical words. I also don't think there's much to go on here. The evidence is no less flimsy than it was before.

At this point, I wonder if the least reliable character in Epstein's story isn't Epstein himself. He's carved out a niche as the guy with the Atta-in-Prague theory, and considering he's got a book deal pending, I doubt any amount of evidence to the contrary is going to get in his way.

Snippets from the recent WSJ article linked to above:

- "Though no one has been allowed to interview him, [Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmad al-Ani] told the CIA that he was not anywhere near Prague at the time of the meeting."

Huh? What, he just shouted out to a passing CIA officer, as he was being led down the prison in leg-irons, "Hey, I wasn't in Prague in April 2001...!" (Or does Epstein simply mean that he hasn't had a chance to interview him?)

Keep in mind, his sources for this story do not appear to include anybody at the CIA. In fact, his sources complain that they haven't been given much information by the CIA. So which is it -- are they knowledgable sources, or are they being kept in the dark? You can't have it both ways.

- "Prime Minister Milos Zeeman..."

Zeeman? Stop, just stop...