Bush ignored USS Cole bombing after taking office (Jan 9, 2001)

This newscast, just 11 days before Bush takes office, is the FIRST TIME anyone reports that OBL was behind the attack on the Cole in October of 2000.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Dubya
• Bush
• Bill
• Clinton
• Cheney
• al
• Qaeda
• war
• Yemen
• Afghanistan
• Iraq
• terrorism
• 9/11
• Republican
• Democrat
• GOP
• spin
• history

[dstrausser83]

You serious? You think the governments only found out 11 days before Bush took office that it was Bin Laden? I think they knew just a little bit before we did... Just a liberal excuse to justify Clintons inaction against Bin Laden in response to the Embassy bombings and the USS Cole. And yes Bush shouldve acted, but it should've been following through on the mandate that Clinton should've put in place to capture Bin Laden.

[BI30]

@dstrausser83 You should never ask someone if they are "serious" when your only response is "a wild guess" that the Clinton White House knew sooner than the news report.

But let's say they knew "three months" earlier...you don't think the Right would of HOWLED with outrage over Clinton... already accused of "Wagging the Dog"... launching a military strike just days before the election to possibly benefit Gore?

And Clinton already left a mandate that went ignored. You may remember 9/11?

[MrBombmecca]

Clintion was Pres at the time.......

[BI30]

@MrBombmecca Lemme guess. You didn't watch even the firs ten seconds before jumping to comment. Am I right?

[ctcole77]

OK, we get it.........everything is Bush's fault.

You hate him.

[1musiclvr]

Maybe you know of some other US Navy ships that have refueled in Yemen. What exactly is a "U.S. port-of-call"? There is no such thing.

You are extremely ignorant about how the Navy operates which makes your credibility zero.

Captain's don't visit any ports without permission. Even for fuel.

[enjoy90000]

you idiot clinton had a chance to capture bin laden but he let him go because he was with a jordan prince

[BI30]

@puttputtking Wow. One would think that with a dozen previous comments saying the EXACT same thing, and my answering with the EXACT same response... "You didn't watch even the first ten seconds before replying, did you?", that at least ONE Bush-apologist would have learned by now to READ.

[puttputtking]

@BI30 It happened in 2000, Clinton had three months to do this and if it hppened on January 9th then he had 11 days to do something. Let me guess, you think just because Bush was taking office he should have taken care of it even though Clinton was still in charge, because you want to blame everything on Bush? Right?

[puttputtking]

@cadu1995 For saying that, you probably will burn in hell with your whole family and Clinton did nothing, you fuc*ing idiot!

[MrBombmecca]

@BI30

yup you are right........

[BI30]

@doughesson I'll be civil here. I'm not sure if you bothered to watch the video all the way to the end, but the fact OBL was behind the bombing wasn't known until January, three weeks before Bush took office. Try to imagine the HOWLS of protest on the Right claiming "Clinton was starting a war right before Bush takes office to try and cripple Bush's presidency." We had no target until January.

The bombing itself took place in October, one month before the November election. Same caveat.