The Cole was bombed in mid-October 2000.
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 11 November 2000. It was an "unproven assumption" in late November. By 21 December the CIA had made a "preliminary judgment" that "al Qaeda appeared to have supported the attack" without a "definitive conclusion".[40]
Accounts thereafter are varied and somewhat contradictory. Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told the Commission that when the administration took office on 20 January 2001, "We knew that there was speculation that the 2000 Cole attack was al Qaeda...We received, I think, on January 25 the same assessment [of al-Qaeda responsibility]. It was preliminary. It was not clear."
The Washington Post reported that, on 9 February, Vice President Dick Cheney was briefed on bin Laden's responsibility "without hedge."[41]
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".[42]
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."[43] The report suggests (pages 201–202) that the official assessment was similarly vague until at least March 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.[43]
According to 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.[44]
So "respond to who", Dick? What target?
If I recall correctly, at the time the neocon's favored response was "bomb Saddam". Of course,
that was their favored response
to everything.
If you thought Clinton's response over the 3 1/2 months he was still in office was inadequate, why didn't you do anything in the 9 months you had before 9/11?
Hell, Clinton can at least point to Somalia and Mogadishu as an example of what can happen when an outgoing administration saddles an incoming one with an iffy commitment at the last minute as a reason why they left taking action to Bush & Cheney. Who did nothing.
The lack of response is yours, Dick.
= new reply since forum marked as read
