US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Commentary :: War and Militarism
No Terrorists Attacked USS Cole!!!
06 May 2008
...the blast came from "underneath" the Cole's waterline either inside or outside the hull - and that any small boat that did get blown up,was in reality just collateral damage or that this non involved small boat was made the convenient scapegoat for the bombing.
Maybe there was no "small boat" at all?

(Note:Yemen at that time was a restricted port and the very same Pentagon kept all US Navy ships out of Yemen - until of course they gave orders for the USS Cole to make its tragic entry into that country!)

But there may be a bigger underlying story,in that no vessel,such as any kind of small boat actually ever attacked or bombed the USS Cole! The bomb may have already been placed aboard the Cole or below its waterline before it ever even entered the Yemeni port.Also this bomb could have been attached to the Cole in Yemen,below the waterline,by divers.

One curious but noteworthy point is that in the Washington Post's photo of the bombed USS Cole the "lines" from the blast that mark the hole in the hull on either side,are all diagonal and "vertical" - coming up from the waterline.These diagonal lines are approximately rising vertically at an angle of 70-80 degrees - but if this explosion actually went off from the deck of a small zodiac-like boat,floating at the waterline,then the blast would also mark the hull with distinctive "horizontal" blast lines - but there is none!
This makes me think that the blast came from "underneath" the Cole's waterline either inside or outside the hull - and that any small boat that did get blown up,was in reality just collateral damage or that this non involved small boat was made the convenient scapegoat for the bombing.


(*from wikipedia)

*Never any Evidence or Official Declaration by the US Govt that al Qaeda was involved in the USS Cole Bombing!

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."[19]

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."[20] The Washington Post reported that, on February 9, Vice President Dick Cheney was briefed on bin Laden's responsibility "without hedge."[21]

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."[22] 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.[22]

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.[23]

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.