posted on October 12, 2007 12:19:38 PM new
By Richard Newcomb | October 12, 2007 - 11:17 ET
On this day in the year 2000, the guided missile destroyer USS Cole was attacked by Islamic terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden\'s al-Quaeda group. Today is the seventh anniversary of that attack. Seventeen American sailors were killed and thirty-eight injured in the attack which severely damaged the ship. Yet not a single major media organ has reported this so far.
Attacking a warship has been long viewed as an act of war. The most recent example occured in 1968 when North Korea attacked the USS Pueblo. To our national shame, the Pueblo is still in the hands of that country. A rather more forceful response occurred in 1941, when Japan attacked the US Pacific Fleet at anchor in Pearl Harbor.
However, then-President Bill Clinton did not respond to the attack on the Cole, emboldening the Islamists who viewed the United States as a paper tiger. The attack on the Cole was one of a series of attacks on Americans throughout the decade of the 1990s to which the United States failed to respond. This eventually led to al-Quaeda and its allies decided to attack the Twin Towers in 2001. Unfortunately for them, President George W. Bush took a different view, correctly deciding to respond with military force. Since 2001, there have been no further successful atttacks on American soil, though we remain engaged in a military offensive against the Islamic terrorists.
However, despite the significance of today\'s date, not a single major media organ has chosen to cover it. Why? CNN felt that news about Britney Spears\' thoughts on her children were important enough to put on their front page, but there is no mention of the attack on the Cole. MSNBC has former Vice-President Al Gore\'s Nobel Peace Prize plastered all over the front page, but there is no mention of the anniversary of the attack on the Cole. The New York Times similarly has no mention of this attack anywhere on their front page.
What happened to remembering cowardly attacks on Americans and avenging them? The attack on the Maine sparked a war with Spain. The attack on Pearl Harbor sparked US involvement in World War II- a war that ended with the unconditional surrender of our opponents. Yet not a single media organ seems to care that Americans were attacked and killed. Does our media not care? They are assiduous in reporting deaths of Muslims at the hands of Americans- even when those deaths did not occur, or when those killed were actually terrorists (see Haditha). Yet the anniversary of an unprovoked attack on a US warship that resulted in the deaths of American military personnel does not even warrant a mention on the anniversary. I can only gather that to the US media, Muslim terrorist lives are more important than American military lives. Cross-posted on StoneHeads.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on October 12, 2007 12:39:26 PM new
FindArticles > Chicago Sun-Times > Oct 13, 2001 > Article > Print friendly
Navy marks anniversary of USS Cole
With a promise never to forget, the Navy dedicated a monument Friday in Norfolk, Va., to the 17 sailors killed in the bombing of the USS Cole exactly one year ago. "Today, we honor 17 American heroes at this beautiful site that will forever carry their names," Rear Adm. John B. Foley III, commander of the Atlantic Fleet's surface forces, told about 1,000 Cole crew members and relatives who gathered at the Norfolk Naval Station. The monument, a 10-foot monolith encircled by 17 granite slabs, was placed on a site overlooking Willoughby Bay--where ships leaving and returning from sea pass by. U.S. officials believe Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network is behind both the bombing of the Norfolk-based destroyer in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000, and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Fishing boat lifted
The Navy lifted the Japanese fishing vessel sunk by a U.S. submarine eight months ago and began moving it to shallow water on Friday. Once the 190-foot vessel is in shallower waters, Navy divers will enter the wreck and try to remove the bodies of the nine Japanese men and teen-age boys who went down with the ship. A heavy- duty ship began lifting the Ehime Maru in the middle of the night from its resting place 2,000 feet down, said Lt. Victor Lopez, a Pacific Fleet spokesman. Then the lifted vessel began its 15-mile journey to 115-foot waters, a trip that was expected to take three or four days.
Hispanics celebrated
Surrounded by Latin musicians, President Bush celebrated Hispanic Heritage Month by creating a commission to give him ideas for improving academic achievement by Hispanic Americans. The 25-member commission, Bush said Friday, will "open new doors of opportunity for Hispanic boys and girls all across America." Cuban-American singer Gloria Estefan played master of ceremonies in the White House East Room. With a stageful of singers, she performed "The Last Goodbye," penned in honor of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks. "Mi Casa Blanca es su Casa Blanca"--my White House is your White House, Bush told his audience before welcoming 18 Hispanic dignitaries, including ambassadors, administration officials and pro baseball stars.
Catholic truces voided
Cease-fires in Northern Ireland called by two outlawed anti- Catholic groups no longer exist, Britain said Friday in a move that could stoke more Protestant violence. The announcement by Northern Ireland Secretary John Reid opened up the prospect of punishment against leaders of the Ulster Defense Association and Loyalist Volunteer Force.
Copyright The Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.
posted on October 13, 2007 12:52:02 PM new
RICHARD BEN-VENISTE, FMR. 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER: Good seeing you.
BLITZER: All right. You, in your questioning in your investigation, when you were a member of this commission, specifically asked President Bush about efforts after he was inaugurated on January 20, 2001, until 9/11, eight months later, what he and his administration were doing to kill bin Laden, because by then it was certified, it was authorized. It was, in fact, confirmed that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole in December of 2000.
BEN-VENISTE: It’s true, Wolf, we had the opportunity to interview President Bush, along with the vice president, and we spent a few hours doing that in the Oval Office. And one of the questions we had and I specifically had was why President Bush did not respond to the Cole attack. And what he told me was that he did not want to launch a cruise missile attack against bin Laden for fear of missing him and bombing the rubble (ph).
And then I asked him, "Well, what about the Taliban?" The United States had warned the Taliban, indeed threatened the Taliban on at least three occasions, all of which is set out in our 9/11 Commission final report, that if bin Laden, who had refuge in Afghanistan, were to strike against U.S. interests then we would respond against the Taliban.
BLITZER: Now, that was warnings during the Clinton administration…
BEN-VENISTE: That’s correct.
BLITZER: … the final years of the Clinton administration.
BEN-VENISTE: That’s correct.
BLITZER: So you the asked the president in the Oval Office — and the vice president — why didn’t you go after the Taliban in those eight months before 9/11 after he was president. What did he say?
BEN-VENISTE: Well, now that it was established that al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole bombing and the president was briefed in January of 2001, soon after he took office, by George Tenet, head of the CIA, telling him of the finding that al Qaeda was responsible, and I said, "Well, why wouldn’t you go after the Taliban in order to get them to kick bin Laden out of Afghanistan?"
Maybe, just maybe, who knows — we don’t know the answer to that question — but maybe that could have affected the 9/11 plot.
BLITZER: What did he say?
BEN-VENISTE: He said that no one had told him that we had made that threat. And I found that very discouraging and surprising.
BLITZER: Now, I read this report, the 9/11 Commission report. This is a big, thick book. I don’t see anything and I don’t remember seeing anything about this exchange that you had with the president in this report.
BEN-VENISTE: Well, I had hoped that we had — we would have made both the Clinton interview and the Bush interview a part of our report, but that was not to be. I was outvoted on that question.
BLITZER: Why?
BEN-VENISTE: I didn’t have the votes.
BLITZER: Well, was — were the Republican members trying to protect the president and the vice president? Is that what your suspicion is?
BEN-VENISTE: I think the question was that there was a degree of confidentiality associated with that and that we would take from that the output that is reflected in the report, but go no further. And that until some five years’ time after our work, we would keep that confidential. I thought we would be better to make all of the information that we had available to the public and make our report as transparent as possible so that the American public could have that.
BLITZER: Now, you haven’t spoken publicly about this, your interview in the Oval Office, together with the other commissioners, the president and the vice president. Why are you doing that right now?
BEN-VENISTE: Well, I think it’s an important subject. The issue of the Cole is an important subject, and there has been a lot of politicization over this issue, why didn’t President Clinton respond?
Well, we set forth in the report the reasons, and that is because the CIA had not given the president the conclusion that al Qaeda was responsible. That did not occur until some point in December. It was reiterated in a briefing to the — to the new president in January.
BLITZER: Well, let me stop you for a second. If former President Clinton knew in December…
BEN-VENISTE: Right.
BLITZER: … that the CIA and the FBI had, in his words, certified that al Qaeda was responsible, he was still president until January 20, 2001. He had a month, let’s say, or at least a few weeks to respond.
Why didn’t he?
BEN-VENISTE: Well, I think that was a question of whether a president who would be soon leaving office would initiate an attack against a foreign country, Afghanistan. And I think that was left up to the new administration. But strangely, in the transition there did not seem to be any great interest by the Bush administration, at least none that we found, in pursuing the question of plans which were being drawn up to attack in Afghanistan as a response to the Cole.
BLITZER: Now, as best of my recollection, when you went to the Oval Office with your other commissioners, the president and the vice president did that together. That was a joint interview.
BEN-VENISTE: At the request of the president.
BLITZER: Did the vice president say anything to you? Did he know that this warning had been given to the Taliban, who were then ruling Afghanistan, if there’s another attack on the United States, we’re going to go after you because you harbor al Qaeda? And there was this attack on the USS Cole.
BEN-VENISTE: The vice president did not at that point volunteer any information about the Cole.
BLITZER: So what’s your — did the president say to you — did the president say, you know, "I made a mistake, I wish we would have done something"? What did he say when you continually — when you pressed him? And I know you’re a former prosecutor, you know how to drill, try to press a point.
BEN-VENISTE: Well, the president made a humorous remark about the fact that — asking me whether I had ever lost an argument, and I reminded him that — or I informed him that I, too, had two daughters. And so we passed that.
He made his statement about the state of his knowledge, and I accepted that as a given, although I was surprised considering the number of people who continued on, including Richard Clarke. So that information was there and available, but the question of why we did not respond to the Cole, I think it was an important lapse, quite frankly.
I think that we would have sent a message to the Taliban and we would have sent a message to al Qaeda. It could have conceivably — I don’t know the answer to this, but conceivably it could have had an affect on whether Sheikh Mullah and — Omar.
BLITZER: Mullah Mohammed Omar, the leader of the Taliban.
BEN-VENISTE: Omar, right — would have continued to harbor bin Laden and al Qaeda in their country.
BLITZER: It’s such a fascinating aspect of this whole issue. It’s surprising to me that none of this made it into the final report, but that’s a question for another day.
BEN-VENISTE: Well, some of it did.
BLITZER: But the — but the — but the specific references to the interview in the Oval Office.
BEN-VENISTE: That’s correct, but the threats that were conveyed to the Taliban government in Afghanistan are reflected in our report.
BLITZER: Well, thanks very much, Richard Ben-Veniste, for coming in.
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
BLITZER: Appreciate it. "In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on October 13, 2007 12:55:26 PM new
It looks like Bush did not do anything either in response to the Cole attack.
President Bill Clinton declared, "If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable". Some critics have pointed out that, under U.S. law, an attack against a military target does not meet the legal definition of terrorism [6][7][8][9] (see: 22 USC § 2656f(d)(2)).
On January 19, 2001, The Navy completed and released its Judge Advocate General Manual (JAGMAN) investigation of the incident, concluding that Cole's commanding officer Commander Kirk Lippold "acted reasonably in adjusting his force protection posture based on his assessment of the situation that presented itself" when Cole arrived in Aden to refuel. The JAGMAN also concluded that "the commanding officer of Cole did not have the specific intelligence, focused training, appropriate equipment or on-scene security support to effectively prevent or deter such a determined, preplanned assault on his ship" and recommended significant changes in Navy procedures.
On November 3, 2002, the CIA fired a AGM-114 Hellfire missile from a Predator UAV at a vehicle carrying Abu Ali al-Harithi, a suspected planner of the bombing plot. Also in the vehicle was Ahmed Hijazi, a U.S. citizen. Both were killed. This operation was carried out on Yemeni soil.
On September 29, 2004, a Yemeni judge sentenced Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Jamal al-Badawi to death for their roles in the bombing. Al-Nashiri, believed to be the operation's mastermind, is currently being held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[10] Al-Badawi, in Yemeni custody, denounced the verdict as "an American one." Four others were sentenced to prison terms of five to 10 years for their involvement, including one Yemeni who had videotaped the attack.
On February 3, 2006, 23 suspected or convicted Al-Qaeda members escaped from jail in Yemen. This number included 13 who were convicted of the USS Cole bombings and the bombing of the French tanker Limburg in 2002. Among those who reportedly escaped was Al-Badawi. Al-Qaeda's Yemeni number two Abu Assem al-Ahdal may also be among those now on the loose.[11]
Both the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration have been criticized for failing to respond militarily to the attack on the USS Cole before September 11, 2001. The 9-11 Commission Report cites one source who said in February 2001, "[bin Laden] complained frequently that the United States had not yet attacked [in response to the Cole]... Bin Ladin wanted the United States to attack, and if it did not he would launch something bigger."[12]
Evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement was inconclusive for months after the attack. The staff of the 9-11 Commission found that al-Qaeda's direction of the bombing was under investigation but "increasingly clear" on November 11, 2000. It was an "unproven assumption" in late November. By December 21 the CIA had made a "preliminary judgment" that "al Qaeda appeared to have supported the attack," with no "definitive conclusion."[13]
Accounts thereafter are varied and somewhat contradictory.
Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told the Commission that when the administration took office on January 20, 2001, "We knew that there was speculation that the 2000 Cole attack was al Qaeda... We received, I think, on January 25th the same assessment [of al-Qaeda responsibility]. It was preliminary. It was not clear."
Newsweek reported that on the following day, "six days after Bush took office," the FBI "believed they had clear evidence tying the bombers to Al Qaeda."[14] The Washington Post reported that, on February 9, Vice President Dick Cheney was briefed on bin Laden's responsibility "without hedge."[15]
These conclusions are contrasted by testimony of key figures before the 9/11 Commission, summarized in the 9/11 Commission Report. Former CIA Director George Tenet testified (page 196) that he "believed he laid out what was knowable early in the investigation, and that this evidence never really changed until after 9/11."[16] The report suggests (pages 201 - 202) that the official assessment was similarly vague until at least March of 2001:
On January 25, Tenet briefed the President on the Cole investigation. The written briefing repeated for top officials of the new administration what the CIA had told the Clinton White House in November. This included the "preliminary judgment" that al Qaeda was responsible, with the caveat that no evidence had yet been found that Bin Ladin himself ordered the attack... in March 2001, the CIA's briefing slides for Rice were still describing the CIA's "preliminary judgment" that a "strong circumstantial case" could be made against al Qaeda but noting that the CIA continued to lack "conclusive information on external command and control" of the attack.[16]
According to Dr. Rice, the decision not to respond militarily to the Cole bombing was President Bush's. She said he "made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies.'" The administration instead began work on a new strategy to eliminate al-Qaeda.[17]
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on October 24, 2007 09:04:51 PM new
Lordy, what's to celebrate?!! It's like celebrating the anniversary of a divorce, or brain surgery.
_____________________
