Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why didn't Bush follow up on the USS Cole bombing ??

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-04 04:31 PM
Original message
Why didn't Bush follow up on the USS Cole bombing ??
I keep hearing rightwingers say it happened on CLinton's watch and he had no obligation to follow up ? Oh really? And Clinton had no obligation to follow up with bombings on Saddam when he tried to assassinate GHWB?

As I recall, it happened late in the Clinton term, like October or November? The Clinton folks explained that they did not wish a mess on the table that would require new players when Dubya took over. Whether that is a rational explanation or not, why didn't Dubya follow up? Did he do anything to catch those responsible? Didn't he have an obligation to do so, even if Clinton did not? This argument has always puzzled me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madmax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-04 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good Point
Happened October 12, 2000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-04 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. Great catch
Really, why didn't dubya think to follow up on it?

I guess just because he didn't really give a shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-04 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. In addition to the rest of what we know now
our candidates should definately bring this up. He dropped the ball on terrorism with his damn Star Wars agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cheapbeemr Donating Member (564 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-04 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. It was within a week of the inauguration, that Bush.......
Edited on Sat Jan-31-04 05:11 PM by cheapbeemr
was told by the CIA and FBI and Al Qaeda was behind the Cole attack.

In response, he dismantled the military effort assembled to get Bin Laden (cruise missle subs, AC-130's, Special Ops) took away the Predator drone surveillance of Bin Laden. On March 9th, the Russian government handed over very extensive intel on Osama, including his current physical location. According to Jane's Intelligence Digest, the administration made 'the policital decision not to act.' After a summer where George Tenet was going nuts with worry about a pending attack, Condi Rice and the administration had no orders with the NSC to put a priority on translating transmissions from Al Qaeda. And so the warnings of the attack sat untranslated until afterwards.

Obviously, it's all Clinton's fault.

And isn't it curious that the Patriot act was already written for the most part, while Ashcroft was kept off commercial flights that summer - to keep him safe for its implementation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katie Donating Member (591 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. cheapbeemr
Regarding bush removing the Predator drone surveillence of Bin Laden, I remember reading about it on MSNBC and CNN, and bookmarking them, but now they are gone. Would you happen to have a link for that? Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-04 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. I can answer that with one acronym:
LIHOP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-04 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. Some relevant info from Paul Thompson's timeline:
Edited on Sat Jan-31-04 06:07 PM by Minstrel Boy
Late 1998-January 2001: The US permanently stations two submarines in the Indian Ocean, ready to hit al-Qaeda with cruise missiles on short notice. Six to ten hours advance warning is now needed to review the decision, program the cruise missiles and have them reach their target. On at least three occasions, spies in Afghanistan report bin Laden's location with information suggesting he would remain there for some time. Each time, Clinton approves the strike. Each time, CIA Director Tenet says the information is not reliable enough and the attack cannot go forward. (Washington Post, 12/19/01, New York Times, 12/30/01) The submarines are removed shortly after President Bush takes office.

December 20, 2000: Counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke submits a plan to "roll back" al-Qaeda in response to the USS Cole bombing. The main component is a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" for bin Laden there. However, since there are only a few weeks left before the Bush administration takes over, it is decided to defer the decision to the new administration. However, one month later, the plan is rejected and no action is taken.

January 25, 2001: Richard Clarke, National Security Council Chief of Counterterrorism and holdover from the Clinton administration, submits a proposal to the new administration for an attack on al-Qaeda in revenge of the USS Cole bombing. In the wake of that bombing, Bush stated on the campaign trail: "I hope that we can gather enough intelligence to figure out who did the act and take the necessary action ... there must be a consequence." According to the Washington Post: "Clarke argued that the camps were can't-miss targets, and they mattered. The facilities amounted to conveyor belts for al-Qaeda's human capital, with raw recruits arriving and trained fighters departing – either for front lines against the Northern Alliance, the Afghan rebel coalition, or against American interests somewhere else. The US government had whole libraries of images filmed over Tarnak Qila and its sister camp, Garmabat Ghar, 19 miles farther west. Why watch al-Qaeda train several thousand men a year and then chase them around the world when they left?" (Washington Post, 1/20/02) Clarke also warns that al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the US are a "major threat." Two days later, the US confirms the link between al-Qaeda and the USS Cole bombing. (PBS Frontline 10/3/02) No retaliation is taken on these camps until after 9/11. (Washington Post, 1/20/02)

Late January 2001 (B): Even as US intelligence is given conclusive evidence that al-Qaeda is behind the USS Cole bombing (see January 25, 2001), the new Bush administration discontinues the covert deployment of cruise missile submarines and gunships on six-hour alert near Afghanistan's borders that had begun under President Clinton (see Late 1998-January 2001). The standby force gave Clinton the option of an immediate strike against targets in al-Qaeda's top leadership. The discontinuation makes a possible assassination of bin Laden much more difficult. (Washington Post, 1/20/02)

February 9, 2001: Vice President Cheney is briefed that it has been conclusively proven bin Laden was behind the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole (see October 12, 2000). Bush has been in office a matter of days, when secret pipeline negotiations with the Taliban have begun. The new administration has already twice threatened the Taliban that the US would hold the Taliban responsible for any al-Qaeda attack. But, fearful of ending those negotiations, the US does not retaliate against either the Taliban or known bin Laden bases in Afghanistan in the manner Clinton did in 1998. (Washington Post, 1/20/02)

March 8, 2001: The United Nations and the European Union direct their members to freeze the assets of some al-Qaeda leaders, including Sa'd Al-Sharif, bin Laden's brother-in-law and the head of his finances, but the US does not do so (see UN list). Their assets are finally frozen by the US after 9/11 (see October 12, 2001). (Guardian, 10/13/01)

http://www.complete911timeline.org

And let's not forget how John O'Neil and his FBI team were stymied in their investigation by the US embassy in Yemen.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-04 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
7.  John ONeill
Edited on Sat Jan-31-04 06:28 PM by buycitgo
As O'Neill and his team probed deeper into the Cole bombing, his investigation was abruptly thwarted by, of all people, the United States ambassador to Yemen, Barbara Bodine. In the official version reported in the American press almost a year later, O'Neill's team was booted out of Yemen in November, 2000, because Bodine objected to O'Neill's “heavy-handed style.” Another State Department source at the time confirmed that Bodine refused to allow O'Neill and his team to return to continue their investigation because his team was “too large” and many of the agents carried “heavy weapons” - automatics - that she found objectionable.

This account of how a local ambassador was able to thwart the single most important investigation to America's national security just because she didn't like the lead investigator's manners is impossible to swallow. What's more incredible is that the FBI allegedly wasn't allowed to return to Yemen to continue their investigation until Bodine left her ambassadorship in August 2001. Keep that date in mind, August 2001. A lot of people seemed to retire right around then. But I'll get to that later.

Bodine is an interesting character herself. She had served as the State Department's Political-Military officer for the Arabian Peninsula, as Deputy Principal Officer in the embassy in Baghdad and then moved to Deputy Chief of Mission in Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion and occupation in 1990. She was one of the last Americans to leave Kuwait. In 1997 Bodine, after serving as the State Department's associate director in counter-terrorism, was appointed ambassador to Yemen, birthplace of bin Laden.

Clearly Bodine wasn't your typical rich-donor ambassador. Yet just as clearly, she couldn't have stopped O'Neill's, and the FBI's, investigation, all on her own. The move must have been blessed by then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and/or others at her level. The coincidences in Bodine's timing should alone raise eyebrows: the FBI's lead al Qaeda expert barred from investigating the terrorists' attack from November 2000 until August 2001 - that is, until the next attack. If it's not strange, it is at the very least infuriating as hell that the investigation was thwarted due to bad manners. It's possible that information from the Cole investigation could have led to information about the 9/11 plans. Why wasn't this ever mentioned in press accounts? Why don't they care enough to push it further? I WANNA KNOW!


http://www.exile.ru/150/150010101.html

this is a take you won't find most places, including the laughable soap opera that PBS did on ONeill, concentrating more on his lifestyle/pecadilloes/contretemps-with-FBI superiors than it should have on just HOW much he knew about connections that the mainstream media would not have anyone know about
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-04 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. here lies the key, perhaps?
ONeill is quoted in that french book as saying this:

"All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia."

this is also from the above-linked article, which, it looks like, uses lots of material from the Brisard book, so take it for what it's worth, seeing as how that work has been alternately savaged or ignored in the mainstream media.

that tends to make me think it's at the very least on the right track.

Ask Jim Hatfield

oops
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-04 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
9. Why did Bush think it was none of his business ??
Just flat out forgot about it.....was busy negotiating with the Taliban for a pipeline...If that doesn't raise a red flag, what does it take? Why haven't the media pursued it??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-04 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. Here is the answer
according to the "Man Who Knew". As mentioned above O'Neill was sent to Yemen by Clinton to investigate the bombing. He was outspoken about the Saudi role.

“The main obstacles to investigating Islamic terrorism were U.S. corporate oil interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” - ex-FBI Deputy Director John P. O’Neill - late July 2001 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4321860-103677,00.html) statement made to French authors Jean Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquié, authors of "Forbidden Truth"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-04 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
11. Read this Wm Pitt essay, 'Hell to Pay'. This opened me to outrage.
Hell To Pay
January 11, 2002
by William Rivers Pitt

"Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." - Samuel Johnson

Some time just before January 7th, 2001, an asteroid capable of pulverizing a good-sized nation flashed through the void, passing perilously close to Earth. Had it struck our planet, the impact would have had global consequences. The energy of the strike would have been equivalent to the explosion of a number of large atomic weapons. From the media perspective, it would have been the biggest story since the extinction of the dinosaurs.

At some point in the next six months, a small, darkened corner of George W. Bush's consciousness will wish the thing had hit us. The apocalypse he and his fundamentalist buddies have been waiting for would have been at hand, and a number of potentially calamitous questions about to be put to his administration would have been avoided.

Sadly for him, the planet spins on. Beneath the unpierced stratosphere, the electronic beams of news agencies like CNN and the Associated Press have begun to spread like a widow's web from city to city and house to house. Carried on this invisible wind are rumors of doom, negligence and greed. Each and every one of these rumors lead inexorably back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, which will soon be issuing significant numbers of visitor passes to lawyers if the pattern holds much longer.

Whichever part of the nation that never heard of the energy giant Enron Corporation has recently been introduced to the company in odious context. The story thus far is nothing less than astounding: Enron, a company valued in the billions on Wall Street, suddenly filed for the largest bankruptcy claim in the history of the known universe. 4,000 employees were abruptly shown the door after having been barred from dumping the company stock, meant to fund their retirement, while it was worth something. Meanwhile, Enron executives in the know were able to dump the stock, back when it was the gold standard on the Street, for a cool $1 billion.

Apparently, Enron was ailing for quite a long time. The aforementioned executives were able to maintain the mirage of financial viability by stuffing the debt into what are called 'off-balance-sheet partnerships.' In essence, each of the executives built personal banking bunkers and hid what has been revealed to be staggering Enron debts within them, keeping fact that the company was hemorrhaging money off the publicly displayed balance sheets. This maintained the company's credit rating, and allowed it to continue doing business.

This went on for four years, which means several things. It means most of the Enron executives were aware of and/or actively participating in this highly criminal and irresponsible activity. It means the stockholders, including 4,000 loyal Enron employees, were lied to. It probably means that the executives knew the stock value was doomed when they bailed out and cashed in several months ago. It means they let their employees lose the retirement funds they believed were growing within their Enron stock portfolios. It means a lot of people got screwed by a pack of sharp operators who didn't give a damn about anyone but themselves.

All this could simply be chalked up as yet another story of corporate greed run amok, until the umbilical political and financial connections between Bush and Enron are illuminated. Enron's capo, Kenneth Lay, was perhaps the best financial friend George W. Bush has ever known. Lay and a number of Enron employees essentially bankrolled Bush's 2000 Presidential campaign, going so far as to lend Bush an Enron corporate jet for trips between whistle stops. Before Bush got White House stars in his eyes, he worked very closely with Enron on energy policy in Texas.

This close connection led to the Bush administration's hiring of a number of influential individuals within Enron's orbit for important government positions:

- Thomas E. White, Bush's Secretary of the Army, was once Vice-Chairman of Enron Energy Service, and held millions in Enron stock;

- Presidential Advisor Karl Rove owned as much as $250,000 in Enron stock;

- Economic adviser Larry Lindsay leapt straight from Enron to his current White House job;

- Federal Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick did the same;

- SEC Chairman Harvey Pitts was hand-picked by Kenneth Lay for the position, due to his notorious aversion to governmental regulation of any kind.

There are some thirty one Bush administration officials who had a line item for Enron in their stock portfolio, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It is fair to say that the woebegone corporation held, and continues to hold, enormous influence over the day-to-day machinations of Federal government policy. One wonders if Bush's recent gutting of the Clean Air Act, a decision designed to improve the fortunes of companies like Enron, was the brainchild of people with deep connections to the energy industry.

The trail of influence left by Enron leads also to the scabrous heart ventricles of Vice President Dick Cheney, who admitted recently to six separate meetings with Enron executives while formulating the Bush administration's energy policy. Cheney, a former executive of the Halliburton Petroleum interest, was in charge of creating this policy. For reasons soon to be exposed by subpoena, Cheney refused to detail the specifics of the creation of this policy, which included the multiple Enron meetings.

The General Accounting Office was preparing to sue Cheney to reveal this information when the September 11th attacks took place. Those subpoenas may be dusted off and mailed within a month. In the meantime, the Justice Department is preparing a criminal investigation into the collapse of Enron. The Democratically-controlled Senate is planning hearings on the matter as well. Columnist Robert Scheer has referred to the Bush administration's involvement in the Enron debacle as "Whitewater in spades." One wonders if "Watergate" would be a more appropriate comparison.

Bush's own dealings within the energy industry carry a disturbingly familiar echo to the Enron situation: once upon a time, he was a high-ranking officer of a petroleum interest called Harken Oil. On June 22, 1990, Bush sold his Harken stock and made $848,560, earning him a 200% profit. One week later, Harken announced a $23.2 million loss in quarterly earnings and its stock dropped sharply, losing 60 percent of its value over the next six months. Bush made a bundle while the other investors lost millions. Harken was Enron in miniature, and might have served as a warning to the American people if the press had chosen to pay any attention to it during the 2000 Presidential campaign.

There is a school of thought, espoused primarily by Republicans, that any investigation into potentially dishonorable or illegal actions by the Bush administration is tantamount to treason. We are at war, undeclared though it may be, and Bush must be free to prosecute this war vigorously, so as to defend our freedom and bring the murderers of American civilians to justice. If reports recently aired on CNN have any credence, however, Bush and his people may well have to answer for actions that make the Enron catastrophe look like a jaywalking offense, actions that led directly to the incredible carnage in New York and Washington, D.C.

In 1998, during the Clinton administration, the U.S.-based energy concern Unocal canceled plans to exploit massive natural gas deposits in Turkmenistan. They had planned to run a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, where the natural gas could have been processed for Asian and Western energy markets. The idea was scuttled after Clinton ordered the cruise missile bombing of Afghanistan in response to a terrorist attack upon U.S. embassies in Africa which were planned and executed by Osama bin Laden. The pipeline would have had to pass through Afghanistan, and Unocal was given the message in Technicolor by Clinton's people that Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was not to be given any sort of financial boon.

Apparently, the Bush administration found no moral dilemma in dealing with the Taliban to get to the gas. Immediately upon their arrival in Washington, a vigorous courtship of the Taliban was undertaken by Bush's people. In fact, if former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler is to be believed, the Bush administration had a vested interest in strengthening and stabilizing the Taliban regime, because a stable regime would compel investors to revive the Turkmenistan natural gas pipeline deal. The Taliban, demon of the moment, was the Bush administration's idea of a 'stable' government. Stable enough, anyway, to see the pipeline through.

The connections between Bush and the Taliban became so close that the Taliban went so far as to hire an expert on U.S. public relations named Laila Helms, so as to smooth the way between the two regimes. Meetings between the two nations continued at a high level, the last of which occurred in August, scant weeks before the September 11th attacks. All of these actions were taken to exploit the vast energy reserves in Turkmenistan for the benefit of American energy corporations.

The cozy relationship between Bush and the Taliban frustrated the investigative efforts of former Deputy Director of the FBI John O'Neill. O'Neill was the FBI's chief bin Laden hunter, in charge of the investigations into the bin Laden-connected bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, the destruction of an American troop barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the African embassy bombings in 1998, and the attack upon the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.

O'Neill quit the FBI in protest two weeks before the destruction of the World Trade Center towers. He did so because his investigation was hindered by the Bush administration's connections to the Taliban, and by the interests of American petroleum companies. O'Neill was quoted in this book as stating, "The main obstacles to investigating Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests, and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it." After leaving the FBI, O'Neill took a position as head of security for the World Trade Center. He died on September 11th, 2001, trying to save people trapped by the attack, when the towers came down on top of him. The irony in this, simply, is horrifying.

In essence, the Federal agent who knew more about bin Laden than any living American was kept from investigating terrorist threats against this country. He was hindered because the Bush administration was desperate to cultivate the favor of the Taliban, who held terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden in great esteem, so as to gain access to lucrative natural gas deposits in Turkmenistan.

If these allegations prove true, Bush and his friends allowed this affinity to hamstring investigations that could have thwarted bin Laden's September plans. If these allegations prove true, everything since September 11th has been a massive cover-up operation in which American soldiers and thousands of Afghan civilians have died. If these allegations prove true, the Bush administration has the blood of thousands of American civilians on its hands.

If these allegations carry even the faintest whiff of credibility, George W. Bush and members of his administration stand in taint of high treason and murder.

On November 7th, 2000, a clear majority of Americans came to the conclusion that George W. Bush was unfit to govern this nation. For a variety of dark and controversial reasons, that conclusion was thrown over. Sometime soon, if the media's electronic web continues to carry these sordid stories of corruption, greed and death, the American people will come to fully understand the consequences of that failed election.

It is one thing to coddle and court a corrupt energy company for political and financial gain. It is quite another to coddle and court a murderous terrorist-supporting regime, hindering anti-terrorism investigations in the process, for the purpose of exploiting valuable natural resources. The former cost a number of people their retirement funds. The latter has cost thousands of people their lives. One is criminal. The other is abominable. George W. Bush is deeply implicated in both. There will be hell to pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phoebe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-04 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. wish could find it - but remember reading that many of the military
votes were held in mail bags on the USS Cole and a couple of other ships of the same class. Don't know if you remember the big stink about military votes at that particular time. Found a quote by Bush made around election time that set alarm bells off in my head re the election tied to the Cole but damned if I can find it..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Bone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
13. Because Haliburton was the contractor for the servicing of the Cole?
I read it somewhere. Haliburton had the contract to refuel the Cole and indeed all the Navy ships that would refuel in that spot. So Haliburton was the employer of record for the sucide bombers in the dinghy who the Cole mistakenly thought were there to service the ship.

Making more sense now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
14. it took the navy over 2 yrs
to close the book on the Cole bombing. i read a long article on the bombing and the lessons learned. it wasn`t the presidents fault ,it was the navy`s under estimating the enemy. unfortunately the same thing that happened to the Cole could happen in any port in the usa. we haven`t given the coast guard and navy all the stuff they need.the whitehouse is more interested in raising money and fighting an illegal war than securing our ports.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Yet Cheney was briefed on Feb 9, 2001
that it has been conclusively proven bin Laden was behind the Cole attack, according to The Washington Post of Jan 20, 2002.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katie Donating Member (591 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Kentuck Thanks for asking this question
Wish more people would. Ever ask it of a republican? I have and they look like they are going to stroke out.

They brag so much about bush's great "love" for the military, yet if thats so why didnt he follow up on it? I have yet to get an answer as to why bush didnt follow up on the USS cole.

Bush also totally ignored the Hart/Rudman report, and removed the Predator drone survellience of Bin Laden. Why?


Republicans also love to talk about the 18 dead in Somalia, yet they have no answer for the 243 dead marines killed by terrorists in Beirut in 1983 under Reagan. His response? Nothing, we got out of Beirut quickly.

They also never talk about the fact those responsible for the WTC 1993 bombing, are sitting in jail in NYC & plots to bomb tunnels & other landmarks in NYC were uncovered & stopped. You never hear about that.

Please keep asking about why bush didnt follow up on the USS cole, we all should.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
x-g.o.p.er Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 04:36 AM
Response to Original message
18. I do believe the USS Cole mastermind is dead
That the guy who masterminded the Cole bombing is dead. Blew himself up so he wouldn't be captured. Here's the link:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/02/13/yemen.alqaeda/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
x-g.o.p.er Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 04:38 AM
Response to Original message
19. Another one arrested
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC