Cynical — and misplaced — exploitation of the USS Cole

As most people now realize, the terrorist attack on the [tag]USS Cole[/tag] has become something of an embarrassment for the [tag]Bush[/tag] [tag]White House[/tag]. The [tag]Cole[/tag] was bombed in October 2000, shortly before the Gore-Bush presidential election. Intelligence and law-enforcement officials confirmed that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attack early in 2001, which foreclosed Clinton’s opportunity to respond. [tag]Clinton[/tag] left the matter to his successor, whom he hoped would take the matter seriously.

He didn’t. Bush had eight months before 9/11 to respond to the attacks on the Cole, but he chose to do literally nothing.

In a shameless attempt to rewrite history, however, the Bush gang considers the Cole bombing one of the lynchpins in their counter-terrorism talking-points. As they see it, the attack on the Cole was ignored by U.S. officials, which in turn emboldened al Qaeda and other terrorists who believed we wouldn’t respond to terrorism. (The narrative fails to mention that it was Bush’s negligence that Bush and his allies are complaining about.)

Particularly after the Chris Wallace-Bill Clinton “discussion” a few weeks ago, the USS Cole has become a key partisan tool for the Bush White House — so much so that the Bush gang issued a solemn statement the other day commemorating the terrorist attack.

Six years ago, on October 12, 2000, al Qaida attacked the USS Cole, a U.S. Navy warship refueling in Aden harbor in Yemen. This terrorist attack killed seventeen sailors and injured many others, leaving the victims’ loved ones and our Nation to mourn our collective loss. […]

Six years ago, our Nation was tested by terrorism. Terrorists continue to be an active threat to our Nation, but we are responding resolutely and forcefully. On this solemn anniversary, we rededicate ourselves to the fight against the enemies of humanity, offer our prayers and condolences to the families of the Cole victims, and offer thanks to the men and women of our Navy who protect our country and promote peace and freedom around the world.

It’s subtle, isn’t it? We were “tested by terrorism” six years ago, but now we’re “responding resolutely and forcefully.”

Sure, it’s exploitative and misguided, but there’s something else that’s troublesome about this.

Dan Froomkin noticed the problem.

The White House issued a solemn statement Thursday commemorating the sixth anniversary of the al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole.

The White House has been citing the Cole a lot lately, as part of its narrative that President Clinton, who was in charge back then, was asleep at the switch when it came to terrorism.

I went back to see what the White House statement was like on the fifth anniversary of the attack on the Cole. But there wasn’t one!

And there wasn’t one on the fourth, the third, the second or the first, either.

Yes, the White House wants to honor the fallen, but only the sixth anniversary, not the fifth, fourth, third, second, or first. The Bush gang chose to honor “our collective loss,” but only now that the attack itself has a certain political salience.

They…have…no…shame.

When not using straw men as political props, the Bush adminsitration likes to use dead people.

  • Oh, please.

    The disgusting part is that DeLay et al claimed that Clinton’s forceful response to the African Embassy bombings was a “wag the dog” ploy to distract America from Lewinsky. DeLay actually claimed that Clinton acted without proof that Osama had any involvement in the attacks.

    Come the Cole, and the Clinton White House decides to collect the proof first. They hand it over to Boy George II and his dominatrix NSA, and they do nothing.

    All the blame belongs on the Bushites, and any Republican who can’t understand that is too stupid to listen to.

  • Wow. I can’t believe the White House’s National Tragedy Exploitation Team dropped the ball on this one. I can see the disadvantage in talking about the Cole in October, 2001, since (with 9/11 fresh on the minds) a natural follow-up question would have been “If we had done anything about the Cole, could it have prevented 9/11?”*. However, every year thereafter, you’d think they’d use the opportunity to remind the American public that there are people in the world that “hate our freedom”.

    *Though as CB points out, the question is still valid

  • I”m still trying to get my mind around the words “embarrassment” and “Bush White House” in the same sentence…

  • The way I read this: They knew about the problem from before day one. This makes their failure to pay attention to reports the Clinton Admin left behind even harder to explain. Look out Dr. Rice, you might be the next on the sacrificial pyre to Bush’s ego!

    In other words, on their watch 17 dead soldiers became nearly 3,000 dead US civilians less than a year later and has become that many more dead US soldiers (and at least 10 times that number in Iraqi lives) almost four years later.

    In other words, according to ShrubCo, it has been trying to do something about terrorists since Day One the result is an even bloodier war.

    In other words, ShrubCo supports terrorism.

  • Bill Clinton had to fight a Republican Congress to try to go after bin Laden back when he was in the minor leagues. Now bin Laden has been bigtime for 6 years and Bush hasn’t caught him.

    Can you imagine the cacophony from the Right if 9/11 had happened on Clinton’s watch? There would have been no moment of unity. Those bastards would have politically attacked immediately. Maybe the Repubs could have been rounded up as seditionists then.

    I wonder if the Hunt for bin Laden will show the Republican Congress’ obstruction of that hunt. The hunt for bin Laden is a continuing saga.

  • I went back to see what the White House statement was like on the fifth anniversary of the attack on the Cole. But there wasn’t one! And there wasn’t one on the fourth, the third, the second or the first, either.

    Where’s Winston Smith when you really need him?

  • ***Where’s Winston Smith when you really need him?***
    ——————————————————————————-RSA

    he’s an an undisclosed location, having kool aid forcibly poured down his throat by our beloved FaceShot…er,…Vice President, while a really ugly evildoer named Rove chants something about extraordinary rendition, multiplied by the square root of the sum of torture plus military tribunals, and then divided by the average dewpoint of Guantanamo, = habeus corpus….

  • Of course blame Clinton – it is so easy (and reflexive).

    Of course considering that this administration does not think law enforcement is the way to respond to terrorist attacks, that (and just flat out not caring) explains why they did nothing after it was known who was responsible.

    An investigation by law enforcement takes time, which explains why there was no reflexive let bomb someone response by the Clinton administration, because they didn’t want to be wrong and look at what Republicnas did when the administration did go after someone after the Embassy attacks.

  • Dick Cheney was attempting to negoitiate the Afghan pipeline deal with the Taliban in 2001 — continuing his work from when he was in charge of Halliburton. Of course we couldn’t go after Osama then.

  • @#9 ET
    An investigation by law enforcement takes time,

    Not to mention all of those pesky rules about evidence and appeals and they didn’t have the Black prisons set up yet (maybe). In addition, criminal investigations do not bring in the big contracting $$$ for friends. You need a war for that.

  • OT

    Just a heads up to Froomkin freaks like myself:

    I just noticed a URL format change for Froomkin…

    The new format uses a URL WITH THE DATE….

    The old one URL was a standalone link that just replaced each article everyday….apparently today they changed it …..

    The old link still works but now includes an archive of older articles which is awesome..

    The story that appears at the top of the page is the newest entry by Dan followed by archived articles..

    Just wanted to pass it on…..as I was alittle confused when I went to the site today…….

  • lib4
    my Froomkin today was 5 pages, compared to the usual 1 page. How did yours show up; his column did not appear any longer than usual.

  • By the way, while signing the Magna Carta Repeal Act 2006 today, Bush said he will try the USS Cole bombers.

    BUSH: “We’ll also seek to prosecute those believed responsible for the attack on the USS Cole, which killed 17 American sailors six years ago last week”

    So why couldn’t he do it this past 6 years??? Oh that’s right, you couldn’t waterboard people until today….

  • Comments are closed.