Condi admitted they did nothing about the Cole bombing?

[maggrwaggr]

I did hear that right. I just checked the transcript. All the right-wingers screaming for blood back then, and now they're admitting they did NADA about the Cole bombing, for fear a response would "embolden" the terrorists.

Well what about not responding at all? Perhaps THAT emboldened them.

WTF??? Is she admitting they did nothing because they needed a LIHOP situation to really do what they wanted?

Anybody else really bothered by this?

THOMPSON: The Cole _ why didn't the Bush administration respond to the Cole?

RICE: (snip) ..... just responding to another attack in an insufficient way we thought would actually probably embolden the terrorists. They had been emboldened by everything else that had been done to them. And that the best course was to look ahead to a more aggressive strategy against them.

I still believe to this day that the Al Qaida were prepared for a response to the Cole and that, as some of the intelligence suggested, bin Laden was intending to show that he yet survived another one, and that it might have been counterproductive.

THOMPSON: (snip) What if, in March of 2001, under your administration, Al Qaida had blown up another U.S. destroyer? What would you have done and what _ would that have been tit-for-tat?

RICE: I don't know what we would have done, but I do think that we were moving to a different concept that said that you had to hold at risk what they cared about, not just try and punish them, not just try to go after bin Laden.

{WHAT THE FUCK IS SHE TALKING ABOUT HERE?}

I would like to think that we might have come to an effective response. I think that in the context of war, when you're at war with somebody, it's not an issue of every battle or every skirmish; it's an issue of, can you do strategic damage to this organization? And we were thinking much more along the lines of strategic damage.

THOMPSON: (snip) But blowing up our destroyers is an act of war against us, is it not? I mean, how long would that have to go on before we would respond with an act of war?

RICE: We'd had several acts of war committed against us. And I think we believed that responding kind of tit-for-tat, probably with inadequate military options because, for all the plans that might have been looked at by the Pentagon or on the shelf, they were not connected to a political policy that was going to change the circumstances of Al Qaida and the Taliban and therefore the relationship to Pakistan.

Look, it can be debated as to whether or not one should have responded to the Cole. I think that we really believed that an inadequate response was simply going to embolden them. And I think you've heard that from Secretary Rumsfeld as well, and I believe we felt very strongly that way.


{{{We felt very strongly that we should do NOTHING? THIS STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN FOLKS.

Rummy: Hm, let's do nothing about the Cole, and perhaps the NEXT attack will be on American soil and we can finally get that Iraq invasion off the ground.

Sorry folks, but I smell a BIG DIRTY RAT here.}}}

[kentuck]

1. How many of our sailors were killed in the Cole ?

and we did nothing???

[talkingrain]

5. The Cole

was bombed during Clinton admin.

[maggrwaggr]

9. yes, but as Clarke reported, the report didn't come in until Bush

was in power, that Al Queda was responsible.

And when it did, Bush decided to do nothing. On purpose.

Read the transcript. Retaliation for the Cole was up to Bush, not Clinton.

[outinforce]

22. "But blowing up our destroyers is an act of war against us"

Why, if it blowing up one of our destroyers, and causing the deaths of some of our sailors, is an act of war, would any administration have NOT reacted -- even during a time of transition?

I'm sorry, but for me, this is really a non-starter.

If someone wants to argue that blowing up an American destroyer is an act of war (and I happen to think that it is), then any administration that is in poiwer when it happens has an obligation to seek to find out who committed and, when it dfinds out who has done it, initiate strong and precise action against the people who committed an act of war.

It appears to me as though the Clinton administration was mnore concerned about making the transition to power for an unelected president "easy" and "non-controversial" than it was about agressively responding to an act of war against the USA.

Had the Clinton administration, it seems to me, initiated strong and forceful action against al Queda (since it had the information indicating al Queda's role in the bombing of the Cole) in December, the Bush administration would have had no choice but to continue the strong and forceful reaction of the Clinton administration.

By doing nothing, and using the rather lame excuse that it wanted to make the transition process easy, the Clinton administration, it seems to me, suggests that it was more concerned about ensuring a smooth installation of a gang of unelected people than it was about the long-term interests of the USA.

[DoYouEverWonder]

29. According to Clarke the FBI and the CIA

refused to confirm it was al Qaeda until mid January.

I am sure that in the middle of the selection crisis, if Clinton even suggested to attack another country there would have been a military coup.

[outinforce]

33. Two Other Posts on This Thread Suggest Otherwise

Permit me, please, to point you to two other posts in this thread. Posts # 18 and 26.

Post #18: "Members of the Clinton Administration have clearly explained that they investigated the Cole bombing, learned in December that it was al Qaeda, and made military plans to respond to the Cole. They felt it was inappropriate to start a "crisis" in the last days of their term and handed the issue off to the incoming bushgang."


Post #26: "bush I went into Somalia in Dec 92 and left mess for Clinton."

I'm not even sure that I suggested that President Clinton should have invaded Yemen or any other country. I think I suggested that President Clinto should have taken some strong action -- since, as a member of the 9/11 committee stated, bombing a US Destroyer is an act of war.

My point was that President Clinton did nothing.

He was, it appears, more concerned with making sure that an unelected person had a smooth transition to power.

[maggrwaggr]

35. according to this post, and to Clarke, it wasn't until Bushco was in power

that they had confirmation that it was Al Queda.

"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 negotiations with the Taliban, 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)"

Post #25

[outinforce]

40. You Must Have Overlooked THIS from Post #25

I went to post 25, and I did indeed see the information you posted.

But I also saw this:

"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."

I think that pretty much affirms what I have been saying here, no?

[imax2268]

49. What about this...?

Ronald Reagan did not retaliate for the killing of 278 US Marines in Beirut...Where's the outrage...?

George H.W. Bush, did not retaliate when Libyan terrorists bombed Pan Am 103...Where's the outrage...?

The Repuglicans are making a big stink about this because they hate Clinton...pure and simple...

The FBI and the CIA did not get the info that Clinton wanted until Jan...by then BushCo was setting up his staff...

[leftofthedial]

18. In October 2000

Members of the Clinton Administration have clearly explained that they investigated the Cole bombing, learned in December that it was al Qaeda, and made military plans to respond to the Cole. They felt it was inappropriate to start a "crisis" in the last days of their term and handed the issue off to the incoming bushgang.

Right wingers have long criticized Clinton for not responding to the Cole, but it is the bushgang that decided specifically to do nothing.

Had the bombing taken place in the summer, Clinton would have responded.

[bobbieinok]

26. bush I went into Somalia in Dec 92 and left mess for Clinton

RW blame Clinton for Mogadishu (ap?)

Clinton never said it was bush I's fault/problem

and democrats never yelled forever about the nasty bush I' pardons

[NewYorkerfromMass]

24. and those honorable sailors were just as dead as when Bush took over

and their deaths begged for a response every bit as much as Kobar towers and WTC '93.
It's clear that Bush marginalized their deaths. Anyone ever hear from Cole victims' families?

[maggrwaggr]

32. good point. I'm sure the families would LOVE to know about this

they'd be fucking livid.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

36. I wonder if they've been 'compensated'. nt

[Catherine Vincent]

51. Duh!

[HFishbine]

31. Seventeen

17 service men and women killed in the attack on the Cole.

[Aidoneus]

47. How many Iraqis died from the genocidal sanctions the Cole was enforcing?

Yet they are just expected to do nothing..

[Veggie Meathead]

2. Until I saw your post I was under the impression that we had

garden variety liars in this administration. This convinces me that
there are lunatics as well. WE FELT STRONGLY THAT WE SHOULD DO NOTHING,indeed!

[Veggie Meathead]

3. Until I saw your post I was under the impression that we had

garden variety liars in this administration. This convinces me that
there are lunatics as well. WE FELT STRONGLY THAT WE SHOULD DO NOTHING,indeed!

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. They didn't want to go tit for tat

over every little bombing.

Well gee Condi, I suppose hitting the ignore button was supposed to make al Qaeda go away?

[maggrwaggr]

7. ah, I think it was the opposite

let's ignore them and see what they do next.

The Cole wasn't enough of an attack to alter the political landscape the way they wanted.

They needed a bigger attack.

Sorry, that's about the only conclusion I can draw from this.

We didn't hit them back for the Cole because we WANTED something else. What might that have been? An attack that would justify going to war with them, that's what.

The "flypaper" theory. They're still using it.

[9215]

14. delete please

.

[imax2268]

10. I posted

a few things on another site and a repug asked if I saw Kerrey leave right after he was finished with Condi...anyone see that...?

on the subject of lies...these people have been lying since day one...I don't believe anything they say...

[TOhioLiberal]

6. I saw that....

I am just shocked...I know the Clinton Administration didn't pursue it because they didn't what the new administration to 'inherit' a war. And Condisleeza thought that it would 'enbolden' the terrorists?
:wtf: these people are SICK!

Trekkerlass

[maggrwaggr]

8. But Clarke said Clinton didn't do anything because he was waiting

for the word from the CIA and the FBI that Al Queda was DEFINITELY behind the attack, even though they pretty much knew that it already was. And that that didn't come in from the CIA and the FBI until the transition, when Bush was in power.

[tabasco]

11. Yep, let's ignore it. That's a good plan to discourage the turrists

Brilliant minds at work. :kick:

[9215]

12. She pretty much says they were "waiting" for something bigger

to happen to justify a more "adequate" response.

Bush admins was wating for something bigger to happen to justify (to the people) going against Al Qaeda, but really they wanted to use this something bigger to conquer the Mid-East.

[maggrwaggr]

13. exactly. In the last few days it's become apparent that

LIHOP ain't a conspiracy theory.

They're letting it slip out.

And nobody seems to be noticing but us.

They need to be called on this big-time.

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. People are starting to notice

but most of them are still in the shock phase, of still not believe that their own leaders, the leaders of the greatest country in the world, could possibly be so evil.

Don't worry, the anger stage of grief is never far behind. I will cheer when these bastards leave power in disgrace.

[9215]

15. Important topic: FBI Deputy director John O'Neill ("The Man Who Knew")

was investigating the Cole bombing under Clinton and was virtually shunned by the Bush admin. He was "resignated" in July or so 2001 and, purportedly, died in the WTC. He and Clarke were good friends. There is a distinct pattern of the Bush admin marginalizing people who were serious about fighting terrorism.


"The Man Who Knew" is the title of a Frontline piece on O'Neill.



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"

[htuttle]

16. Yes, good thing they didn't 'embolden' the terrorists

Lord knows WHAT they would have done if they had been 'emboldened'...

:eyes:

[opihimoimoi]

19. Thats all BS. Condi is spinning. I feel they were flummoxed...

just plain confused. THEY didn't know what the hell to do. Just don't want to admit it.

[maggrwaggr]

21. who said "there are no accidents in politics"

or something to that affect.

If they chose to do nothing, there was a reason.

[supernova]

17. That struck me as odd too

The attach happened in October, I beleive, so the outgoing Clinton admin had 3 months to work on it.

The Yemeni gov't rounded up a bunch of people but I beleive the FBI agent who were sent to Yemen were recalled back home. They never met with the people who were rounded up.

So yeah, we sacrificed a ship and her crew.

[9215]

20. Right-Wing US Ambassador to Yemen obstructed Cole investigation

Much of the following was contained in Frontline's "The Man Who Knew".

http://insiders7.ezboard.com/fcpndhardcorefrm9.showMessage?topicID=355.topic
In October of 2000, after entering the Port of Aden off the coast of Yemen, the USS Cole was hit by suicide bomber. The blast killed 17 and injured 35 Americans. O'Neill was sent over to investigate, as head of the FBI team. Accompanying O'Neill to Yemen were over 100 FBI agents, laboratory experts and forensics specialists, as well as FBI Director Louis J. Freeh. From the earliest moments of the investigation, O'Neill was sure Bin Laden was responsible. However, from the start, his efforts to work the case were sabotaged by US ambassador to Yemen, Barbara Bodine. Bodine refused to cooperate in the investigation or to encourage Yemenis to cooperate. Despite repeated death threats against agents, she refused to allow them to carry the type of weapons O'Neill considered adequate. O'Neill reportedly called Louis Freeh in the middle of the night once expressing anxiety about the safety of his men. The clash between O'Neill and Bodine went steadily from bad to worse, peaking when Bodine publicly called O'Neill a liar. Incredibly, Bodine claimed that through her actions, she was merely trying to keep diplomatic relations running smoothly.
But a look at Ms. Bodine's history suggests a very different motivation. Throughout her career, Barbara Bodine has served primarily under rightwing old boys and in areas where the oil interests of said old boys are being furthered. Under Reagan, she served as Deputy Principle Officer in Baghdad, Iraq. Under Bush, Sr., she served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Kuwait and was there during the Gulf War. She has also worked for Bob Dole, and far more ominously, for Henry Kissinger. So, in 2000 we find her in Yemen, and though a Clinton appointee, impeding the Clinton administration's efforts to conduct an investigation of a crime of terrorism in which the chief suspect is the son of a Bush family business associate.
What makes Bodine's actions toward O'Neill particularly indefensible is that there is credible evidence that she herself was to blame, at least in part, for the Cole disaster. Kie Fallis, a Defense Intelligence Agency counterterrorism analyst, had issued a report before the disaster, warning of the danger of just such an attack in Yemen. As it turned out, the report was suppressed by senior DIA officials, and by Bodine and Gen. Anthony Zinn, who decided to allow the Cole to enter the Port under the lowest grade of security permitted in the Middle East - though they were both aware of the warning. Fallis quit in protest the day after the bombing.

More on O'Neil: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/talk/index3.html
And More on O'Neil....Newsweek: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=517359

[maggrwaggr]

23. WOW. It's really getting to the point where somebody could

make a serious, logical case for LIHOP.

We're not only connecting the dots, but more and more dots are falling into our laps.

WHY are we doing the job that's supposed to be the PRESS'?

[Junkdrawer]

37. “Tired of Swatting Flies”

Does anyone else here see the significance of that statement? Consider this:

You’re a bunch of old cold warriors. You’re used to seeing every reversal of US fortune abroad as a cleverly disguised attack from the USSR. The USSR is gone, but the attacks continue.

Your Pinko opponents see a shadowy network of fundamentalist Muslims called "al Qaeda". But you’re not so easily fooled. You see state sponsored terrorism coming from an Axis of Evil.

While the Pinkos want you follow international law and arrest the terrorists, you know that defeating the evil doers is the only option. And that means invasion and occupation.

So how can you convince the US public and your allies to see things your way? Simple: STOP SWATTING FLIES.

[Junkdrawer]

45. Kick

:kick:

[9215]

52. This makes for a great Clancyesque novel

IMO this scenario will eventually be seen for what it is by the Public.

I know alot of people don't agree with me, but I think that an added twist is that Al Qaeda is more closely networked to the intelligence community of the US. They have worked with the CIA supporting Halliburton and the Kosovo Liberation Army interests in the Balkans. Then there is the link between Islamic terrorism and Right-Wing terrorists in US and Europe. They are never caught and prosecuted; it's not economical to take your assets "off line".

[Aidoneus]

48. That might've led to an investigation of the ship's activities

enforcing the genocidal sanctions on Iraq, for instance:--that ship was party responsible for mass murder. Not that anybody cares, but the truth is unflattering.

[9215]

50. kick

[Minstrel Boy]

25. One of Bush's first measures regarding bin Laden was to discontinue

the deployment of the attack subs which Clinton had had stationed for more than two years within missile range of al Qaeda's Afghanistan bases. He did this even as he received confirmation that al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole bombing.

Some items from the timeline:

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. 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.

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)

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 negotiations with the Taliban, 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. Their assets are finally frozen by the US after 9/11 (see October 12, 2001). (Guardian, 10/13/01)
http://www.complete911timeline.org

[maggrwaggr]

34. wow. Good stuff, thanks

[opihimoimoi]

27. A very important kick

:kick:

[maggrwaggr]

28. kicking

:kick:

[arewethereyet]

38. I think Oct 2000 put it on Mr Clinton's watch

Bush not sworn in till Jan 2001. Clinton was the one who could not find the proof to chuck a few more cruise missles at asprin factories for it.

And according to Rice, Bush was not interested in a tit for tat pissing contest but rather a more comprehensive plan for addressing the problem.

[Junkdrawer]

39. Can you tell me what that plan would have been without a 9/11..

:shrug:

[arewethereyet]

41. from what I've read, much the same apart from Homeland Security

but perhaps less aggressive but thats a 'what-if' that is impossible to say.

[Junkdrawer]

42. See Post #37

[arewethereyet]

43. I did

made no sense to me at all. Sorry.

All the cold warriers are retired or dead.

[Junkdrawer]

44. I wish...

Rummy and Cheney are both old cold warriors. Look, I've never been one to say that BushCo wanted the WTC to fall, but I also don't put it past these creeps to use a "give them enough rope" policy.

[9215]

46. A more "comprehensive plan" justified by what?

According to Brezizinski nothing short of a "Pearl Harbor like attack" would be needed to rally public support for military adventurism.

[arewethereyet]

53. then why does the public support it ?

I think Breziznski may be mistaken.

[rasputin1952]

54. The Clinton admin tried to get bin-Laden...

Several things interfered with the plans, not the least of which were legalities involving several countries.

Point is, the first WTC bombers were caught and are now in prison...bin-Laden was forgotten right after 9-11, even though there were ample warnings to the incoming admin from the Clinton admin. The bush admin dropped the ball, they failed...just as bush has failed at everything else, he failed at this. He will continue to fail, he has no sense of reality.

Clinton may have made mistakes, but bush allowed those mistakes to become disasters. There is no other way to look at it.

:)