Clinton Denies Taped Bin Laden Admission, Blames 'Misquote'

During his private interview with the 9/11 Commission on Thursday, ex-President Bill Clinton denied that he told a New York business group in 2002 that he turned down an offer from Sudan for Osama bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., according to 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey.

"Bill Clinton said yesterday that, that was a misquote," Kerrey told WDAY Fargo, North Dakota radio host Scott Hennen, in an interview set for broadcast on Monday.

A transcript of the exchange between Hennen and Kerrey was read on the air by national radio host Sean Hannity late Friday. It shows that the 9/11 Commission was unaware that Clinton's bombshell admission that he spurned the bin Laden offer had been recorded by NewsMax.

After Kerrey said Clinton had denied the quote, Hennen said, "But wait a minute - I heard it in his own voice. I've heard him say it. I have the tape of him saying just that."

"Really?" said a perplexed Kerrey. "Well, then - ship it to me, because Clinton said yesterday [in private 9/11 testimony] that he didn't have a recollection of that."

Clinton made the bombshell admission to the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002. Though the LIA videotaped his appearance, the group has refused requests for copies from NBC News, Fox News and NewsMax.

Though NewsMax has the only publicly available recording of Clinton's remarks that day, they were also reported by Newsday the next day.

We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan. [End of Excerpt]

To hear ex-President Clinton make the admission that he denied making to the 9/11 Commission, Click Here.

26 October 2000

Presenter: Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon

Transcript of Pentagon Briefing; Force Protection, USS Cole Discussed

Yesterday on the Hill, some interesting things came out at the House Armed Services Committee hearing. Walt Slocombe said that there are -- in talking about the NSA [National Security Agency] report that the Washington Times had reported on, he talked about a separate intelligence report that came out about 12 hours before the bombing. He said at the time that it didn't mention Yemen specifically. But since then, an intelligence official has confirmed to me that in fact it did include Yemen and several other countries.

What more can you tell us about that? How specific was it? And how was that disseminated?

And then I have another question.

Bacon: Okay. First, on those two reports, I'm probably going to give you less detail than you would like for the simple reason that obviously, this -- every time is a sensitive time to talk about intelligence. This is a particularly sensitive time to talk about intelligence. We not only have the FBI working to trace down every single lead as to who performed the dastardly bombing of the Cole, but we also have troops throughout the Middle East on heightened alert, certainly in parts of the Middle East. And so we want to be as careful as possible not to say anything that would compromise our ability to collect intelligence from the widest number of sources.

There were two reports. One appeared the day before the bombing of the Cole, the other appeared about 12 hours after the bombing of the Cole. These reports were similar to dozens of other reports that are received in the course of an average week or an average month, in that they contained some information that lacked specificity. There was nothing specific in these reports that would lead anybody to assume that, one, an attack was imminent, and two, the target of the attack. Both reports did mention the word "Yemen", but they mentioned many other places as well. At least the first one mentioned several other places. The reason a country -- there are many reasons why a country name may appear in a report that are separate from where a -- a prediction as to where a terrorist act may take place.

The second question had to do with dissemination. Reports -- these reports were both disseminated to NavCent, which is the Central Command's naval forces in Bahrain. Typically the NavCent people, if they receive a report that is highly specific or contains any element of urgency to it, immediately will pass that report on to every operating unit that might have an interest in knowing that information. I do not know whether these reports were passed on to the Cole. That's one of the issues that will be determined.

But the reports did not provide enough specificity to allow any skipper or military commander to make a decision to change behavior based on these reports. I think I can say that without fear of contradiction.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/00102608.htm

Q: Madame Secretary, I was reading the description of Yemen in our latest terrorist report, and I'm wondering why this country was ever taken off the terrorist list when there are groups like the Islamic Jihad; Hamas has an office there; Palestinian Islamic Jihad -- all of these apparently still have a presence there. Osama bin Laden has a presence there.

Why was this country removed or not put back on the list of terrorist-sponsoring states when a country like North Korea, which has no terrorists, as far as I know, is still on the list?

SEC. ALBRIGHT: Well, as you know, we're very careful in determining how that list is put together. And there are a variety of considerations in it, and we obviously felt that there was a reason to.

But I think that we first have to be very careful here to make an assessment of the facts. And I think it's very important that we know what happened and where it was caused. And we obviously will keep looking at the situation.

MR. BOUCHER: Let's go to Andrea.

Q: Madame Secretary, I'd like to pick up on Barry's question. Could you please share with us whether or not you have a heightened concern, greater concern, after this latest attack in Yemen, not just about anti-Israeli sentiment within the Arab world, but anti-American sentiment, and whether or not you think it's appropriate to renew that embassy closing that you had initiated last week.

SEC. ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, I really caution you all not to jump to conclusions here. We have, ourselves, been talking about it all morning, and the investigation is going on. And I just think it's important -- you know, it's a great tragedy that four Americans died and that 30 are injured -- I think there are two Yemeni nationals among those -- and it is a great tragedy. And we are obviously doing everything that we can. And as I said, if it does appear -- if it is a terrorist attack, we obviously will take appropriate steps. But I just urge a little bit of caution.

On the second point, I think, you know, the answer is yes, obviously, there are demonstrations going on in a variety of places. We are watching everything very carefully.

And the -- we are, I believe, taking the responsible action as far as our embassies are concerned. Everybody -- we're all in contact, and people are very watchful.

But let me just say this:

The United States is not going to stop doing what we have to do. We have responsibilities. We have national interests. We all -- we are operating in a world that is filled with a variety of threats, but that doesn't mean that we can crawl into an ostrich-like mode. We are eagles, and I think that it is very important that the United States stay involved, that we understand the threats. And we will continue to do what we have to do.

Attorney General Reno's Weekly Media Briefing, Oct. 12, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WEEKLY PRESS BRIEFING
BRIEFER: ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.
9:31 A.M. EDT THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2000

ATTY GEN. RENO: Good morning.

Earlier this morning, there was an explosion adjacent to one of our
destroyers which was docked in a port in Yemen. Our hearts go out to
all those who survived, to those who were injured, to the families of
those who were killed. We will do everything we can to find out what
caused this tragedy. The FBI is working together with the Defense
Department and other investigative agencies to investigate the
accident -- the incident. The FBI has already dispatched local
resources to the scene, and it is sending investigators, explosive
experts and an evidence response team.

Q: And can you tell us the nature of the resources that the FBI is
sending to the region in terms of -- (inaudible.)

ATTY GEN. RENO: No, we will do everything that we can.

Q: Ms. Reno, whatever you can say about whatever warning we may have
had. Did the United States receive any kind of warnings? Do we have
any reason to think at this point who might be behind it?

ATTY GEN. RENO: I can't comment further at this time.

Q: Do we know the nature of the explosives? Were there witnesses?

ATTY GEN. RENO: Again, from this distance, I don't think we should
comment until we have more complete facts.

Q: Ms. Reno, will the U.S. federal government be on a heightened state
of alert both in terms of within the U.S. and naval facilities around
the -- and military facilities around the world?

ATTY GEN. RENO: That is an issue that is being addressed.

Q: Do you know if this is connected to the current unrest in the
Middle East, or is it --

ATTY GEN. RENO: I think it would be premature to say.

Q: Ma'am, do you have the latest figures in casualties, killed and
injured?

ATTY GEN. RENO: The latest figures I have were five killed and 30
injured. But we will try to keep you advised as to what we know.

Q: Ms. Reno, when was the department notified and how?

ATTY GEN. RENO: We were notified this morning. When I came in, I was
given the notice. I don't know exactly what time we received it, but
it came from the Defense Department.

Q: From DoD?

ATTY GEN. RENO: That's as I understand it.

Q: Is the FBI establishing -- I'm sure they have contacts with the
Yemeni authorities. Are they setting up a liaison office in Yemen?

ATTY GEN. RENO: As I indicated, we've already dispatched resources
from that area to the scene.

Q: Ms. Reno, what can you tell the American people about Yemen in
terms of whether there's been terrorist activity in that country and
whether we have any sense that terrorist groups operate out of Yemen?

ATTY GEN. RENO: I think it would be important now to assess everything
that we have -- we're working with everybody else. But until we have
more complete facts, I don't think it would be helpful to comment.

Q: Is the FBI the lead investigative agency? What's the coordination
between the FBI and the DoD on this?

ATTY GEN. RENO: No, on matters beyond our borders, the State
Department heads the effort, but we will work with everybody and
provide whatever support we can and conduct such investigation as is
appropriate.

Q: Does the Justice Department have a direct role in addition to the
FBI resources that have been dispatched to the region?

ATTY GEN. RENO: That would be premature to say. Obviously we're all
involved in it in terms of what should be done based on the
information that is developed.

Q: Ms. Reno, the evidence response team, will that come from the U.S.?
And do you have any indication of how soon they'll be prepared to go?

ATTY GEN. RENO: What we're trying to do is respond as quickly as
possible. And the FBI, I am sure -- I talked to Deputy Director Picard
this morning because Director Freeh was en route. We will provide
whatever resources we possibly can.

Q: Did you get the impression that that --

Q: Director Freeh was en route to Yemen?

ATTY GEN. RENO: No. I don't know where he was en route to.

Q: Oh.

Q: Did you get the impression -- sorry -- that that team will be on
its way today?

ATTY GEN. RENO: I would very much hope.

Q: You say the -- did you say the Department of State was taking the
lead in this matter?

ATTY GEN. RENO: The Department of State, in any matter that occurs
overseas, is the lead agency, and as we are for anything that is
domestic.

Q: Is CIA and Justice coordinating at this point?

ATTY GEN. RENO: We're --

Q: CIA?

ATTY GEN. RENO: Again, I have described our efforts, and I think to go
further would be premature at this point.

Q: Did you say that Director Freeh was involved?

ATTY GEN. RENO: No, I said he was en route someplace. I don't know. I
could not reach him at the time I called. But he's not en route to
Yemen.

Q: But will a senior FBI official go to Yemen to take charge of at
least the bureau's efforts there?

ATTY GEN. RENO: I'm sure that the FBI will have all appropriate
personnel available and at the scene.

Q: What the best information that -- (inaudible.) What's the latest
and best information you have about precisely when and how this
occurred?

ATTY GEN. RENO: When or how what?

Q: When and how this incident occurred.

ATTY GEN. RENO: I've given you the best information I have.

Q: When you say next to a destroyer or adjacent to one of our
destroyers, do you know how close the explosion was?

ATTY GEN. RENO: No, I don't.

Q: Do you know if the victims are members of the U.S. Navy or the U.S.
military?

ATTY GEN. RENO: I am told that they are, but that should be subject to
confirmation from the Defense Department.

Q: Ms. Reno, one other question. Did you get any indication of the
size or force of this explosion or how much damage it did to the ship?

ATTY GEN. RENO: I think that would be more appropriate for the Defense
Department to address.

Q: Last question: Have there been any credible claims of
responsibility? Anything that's happened since the attack to make you
-- to lead the direction in one way or another -- lead the
investigation one way or another?

ATTY GEN. RENO: I should not comment any further.

Q: Ms. Reno, you've been careful in your remarks not to use the word
terrorism or attack. What is the best assessment of what we have here
so far?

ATTY GEN. RENO: I think it would be premature to comment.

Q: Has there been a meeting this morning that you can describe to us
of U.S. officials in any manner to discuss this matter and to
organize? Since there's so many different parts of the government
involved, can you give us a sense of that?

ATTY GEN. RENO: All I can tell you is that the FBI has met to organize
and respond as appropriate.

Q: Will you be -- you and other officials be briefing the President
any time soon on this initial investigation?

ATTY GEN. RENO: We will provide whatever information is developed. I'm
sure that the President has been briefed.

Q: What is your role vis-a-vis the -- did the FBI take this initiative
on its own, or were you involved in its decision to deploy resources
to the region?

ATTY GEN. RENO: When I called Director -- Deputy Director Picard, he
was already responding.

....

Q: I just want to follow on that. Is there -- could you, looking at
history, address how the FBI has been involved in cases perhaps
similar to what happened in Yemen, what the role of the FBI might be
--

ATTY GEN. RENO: I'm not going to discuss it in connection with any
other matter, because that would cause people to conclude that we
think they are equivalent or something. I think it would be more
appropriate to see what is developed and at an appropriate time --
(beeper is heard) -- you-all are certainly beeping an awful lot!
(Laughter.)

Q: (Off mike) -- our machines.

Q: Beeping.

Q: (Laughs.)

Q: Ms. Reno, on the Yemeni --

ATTY GEN. RENO: Let me -- so I think it would be important for us to
have a better grasp after we get people on the scene.

Q: Ms. Reno, on the Yemeni explosion, we say "local resources" are
sent to the scene. Are you talking about FBI resources already in
position in the Middle East?

ATTY. GEN. RENO: We're trying, as I understand it, to get those FBI
representatives closest to the area who can provide support; we're
trying to get them there.

Q: And do you know if the destroyer was on its own, or was it part of
some screen for an aircraft carrier group?

ATTY. GEN. RENO: I think it would be important that the Defense
Department comment.

bravo carl.

bill clinton admits: I DID NOT PROTECT AMERICA FROM TERRORISTS (WHY THE CLINTONS, KERRY AND THE LEFT ARE DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA): by Mia T, 3.31.04

"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

ritical to the understanding of the clintons' (and Kerry's and the left's) inability to protect America from terrorism is the analysis of clinton's final phrase, "though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

"I did not bring him [Osama bin Laden] here... though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

This phrase is clinton's explicit rejection of both bin Laden's repeated declarations/acts of war and the (Bush) doctrine of preemption to fight terror.

This phrase underscores clinton's failure to understand that:

a terrorist war requires only one consenting player
defining bin Laden's acts of war as "crimes'' is a dangerous, anachronistic, postmodern conceit (It doesn't depend on what the meaning of the word "war" is) and amounts to surrender
preemption serves a necessary, critically protective, as well as offensive function in any war on terror.

The sorry endpoint of this massive, 8-year clinton blunder was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda.

ASIDE: It is beyond farce, therefore, for Richard Clarke to exalt clinton, (whose response to terrorism--in those rare ("bimbo") instances when he did, in fact, respond--was feckless, at best), even as he attempts to take down Bush, a great president whose demonstrated vision, courage and tenacity in the face of seditious undermining by the power-hungry clintons and their leftist goons is nothing short of heroic.

Mia T, 3.28.04
CLINTON TURNED DOWN SUDAN'S OFFERS OF BIN LADEN
HEAR CLINTON'S SECRETLY TAPED "ADMISSION" NOW

link to movie
requires Flash Player 6, available HERE

CLINTON TURNED DOWN SUDAN'S OFFERS OF BIN LADEN
HEAR CLINTON'S SECRETLY TAPED "ADMISSION" NOW

by Mia T, 3.28.04

"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

"The instant that second plane hit, I said to the person with whom I was speaking, 'Bin Laden did this.' I knew immediately. I know what this network can do."

bill clinton

To hear Clinton now say "We must do more to reduce the pool of potential terrorists" is thus beyond farce. He had numerous opportunities to reduce that pool, and he blew it.

A Fish Rots from the Head
Investor's Business Daily

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
MANSOOR IJAZ
December 5, 2001

isten carefully to clinton's "admission." Watch the flash movie. Diagram the sentences.

It's the classic clinton snake-oil sales pitch that exploits liberal credulousness and the gestalt concepts of structural economy and closure (the tendency to perceive incomplete forms as complete). This allows clinton to tell the story of his utter failure to fight terrorism, his failure to take bin Laden from Sudan, his repeated failures, in fact, to decapitate an incipient and still stoppable al Qaeda, without explicitly admitting it.

"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again; [so] they released him [to America]."

Note that the linkage between the above two sentences and the indirect object of the second sentence are each implied, giving clinton plausible deniability.

"[H]e had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

This position is surprising on two counts:

clinton has never been one to allow the rule of law get in his way.
Although bin Laden had repeatedly declared war on America during clinton's tenure, clinton treats terrorism not as a war but as a law enforcement problem, which, by definition is defensive, after-the-fact and fatally-too-late.

The impeached ex-president fails to understand that when terrorists declare war on you…and then proceed to kill you… you are, perforce, at war. At that point, you really have only one decision to make: Do you fight the terrorists… or do you surrender?

Critical to the understanding of the clintons' (and Kerry's and the left's) inability to protect America from terrorism is the analysis of clinton's final phrase, "though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

"I did not bring him [Osama bin Laden] here... though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

This phrase is clinton's explicit rejection of both bin Laden's repeated declarations/acts of war and the (Bush) doctrine of preemption to fight terror.

This phrase underscores clinton's failure to understand that:

a terrorist war requires only one consenting player
defining bin Laden's acts of war as "crimes'' is a dangerous, anachronistic, postmodern conceit (It doesn't depend on what the meaning of the word "war" is) and amounts to surrender
preemption serves a necessary, critically protective, as well as offensive function in any war on terror.

The sorry endpoint of this massive, 8-year clinton blunder was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato."

Finally, this last paragraph underscores clinton's penchant for passing off the tough problems (and the buck) to others (while arrogating their solutions as his own). It would have been a simple matter for him to take bin Laden. Why did he turn the offer down?

The answer was inadvertently if somewhat obliquely provided by Madeleine Albright at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons--nothing--only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war].

According to Albright, a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [, if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton [an unprincipled fraud whose only significance is the devastation that he (and his zipper-hoisted spinoff) have wreaked on America].

WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
(a NEW virtual john kerry talks series)

Kerry's Fatal(clinton)Error: Mia T, 3.16.04

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

Kerry seldom speaks out on the campaign trail about the importance of fighting terrorism, and polls shows it's an issue on which Bush appears to have an advantage.

"We are determined to make this campaign about real issues facing Americans, like making health care affordable, improving education and getting our economy back on track," Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill said....

BRIAN BLOMQUIST
KERRY JOINS AIR WAR
NYPOST.COM

"I voted for a process by which war would be the last resort."

John Kerry

Kerry hits out at Bush over Iraq
Adam Blenford and agencies
Monday January 26, 2004

ohn Kerry says the war on terror is less about military might than about law enforcement.

This should not surprise us. Kerry's dangerously flawed thinking on terrorism is perfectly consistent with his dangerously soporific bombast: Both are anachronistic, early 20th-century artifacts.

Osama bin Laden has made it perfectly clear: The clintons' military fecklessness and cowardice emboldened the terrorists.

Even if we allow for his characteristic flatulence and opportunism, John Kerry's demagogically tortured parsing of President George W. Bush's war-as-the-last-resort pledge and the fact that Kerry's list of the "real issues facing Americans" does not include the one issue, namely terrorism, that renders all other issues moot -- (health care, education and money have very limited utility to the dead)-- reveal a fundamental--and fatal--misunderstanding of America's situation.

When terrorists declare war on you…and then proceed to kill you… you are, perforce, at war. At that point, you really have only one decision to make: Do you fight the terrorists… or do you surrender?

Contrary to clinton/leftist-media spin, this war waged against America by the terrorists did not begin on September 11, 2001. The terrorists--bin Laden--had declared war on America repeatedly, had killed Americans repeatedly, throughout the clinton years.

Remarkably, the same terrorists hit the same WTC building in 1993, and clinton, 15 minutes away from the devastation, didn't even bother to visit the site, preferring instead to add his old bromides on the economy to the pollution along the Jersey Turnpike. (Ironically, the legacy clinton would desperately, futilely seek throughout his life was right under his nose on that day in 1993; but he was too self-absorbed--too stupid, some would say--to see it.)

And as for the September 11 attacks, they were planned in May 1998, on the clintons' watch, in the Khalden Camp in southeastern Afghanistan.

The terrorists declared war on America on the clintons watch and the clintons surrendered.

Democrats, from the clintons to Kerry, reflexively choose "surrender."

President Bush chooses '"fight."

Andrew Cuomo didn't call the Democrats "clueless" for no reason.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release October 12, 2000

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
ON MIDDLE EAST SITUATION
AND INCIDENT ON USS COLE IN YEMEN

The Rose Garden

1:47 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: I have just been meeting with my national
security team on today's tragic events in the Middle East, and I would
like to make a brief statement.

First, as you know, an explosion claimed the lives of at least
four sailors on one of our naval vessels, the USS Cole, this morning.
Many were injured; a number are still missing. They were simply doing
their duty. The ship was refueling in a port in Yemen while en route to
the Persian Gulf. We're rushing medical assistance to the scene, and
our prayers are with the families who have lost their loved ones or are
still awaiting news.

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. If their intention was to deter us from our
mission of promoting peace and security in the Middle East, they will
fail, utterly.

I have directed the Department of Defense, the FBI and the
State Department to send officials to Yemen to begin the investigation.
Secretary Albright has spoken with President Salih of Yemen, and we
expect to work closely with his government to that effect.

Our military forces and our embassies in the region have been
on heightened state of alert for some time now. I have ordered our
ships in the region to pull out of port, and our land forces to increase
their security.

Tensions are extremely high today throughout the entire
region, as all of you know. I strongly condemn the murder of Israeli
soldiers in Ramallah today. While I understand the anguish Palestinians
feel over the losses they have suffered, there can be no possible
justification for mob violence. I call on both sides to undertake a
cease-fire immediately, and immediately to condemn all acts of violence.

Finally, let me say this. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is
one of the greatest tragedies and most difficult problems of our time.
But it can be solved. The progress of the last few years -- progress
that brought Israel to the hope of a final peace with true security, and
Palestinians to the hope of a sovereign state recognized by the entire
world -- was not made through violence. It happened because both sides
sat down together, negotiated, and slowly built up the trust that
violence destroys.

Now is the time to stop the bloodshed, to restore calm, to
return to dialogue, and ultimately to the negotiating table. The
alternative to the peace process is now no longer merely hypothetical.
It is unfolding today before our very eyes.

Now, I need to go back to work on this, and so I won't take
questions right now. But the Department of Defense will offer a
briefing today and will be able to answer the questions that are
relevant to today's events.

Thank you.

END 1:52 P.M. EDT

Sailors in Far East stunned,
angered by USS Cole incident
By Steve Liewer
Stars and Stripes

If some Middle East terrorists want to pick a fight with the U.S. Navy, there are plenty of sailors and Marines in the Western Pacific who are ready.

Just ask Marine Cpl. Steve Stewart, 21, on temporary assignment at Yokosuka Naval Base, Japan.

"This is World War III," he said. "I’ll give it another month. We’ll be going back there. I think we have to go back there and show them not to mess with the United States."

"I want some payback," added Petty Officer 3rd class Dion Eisman, 21, who works in the ordnance section at Yokosuka Naval Base, Japan. "They killed people."

The news of Thursday’s suicide attack in Yemen against the Navy destroyer USS Cole spread like a fire around Pacific military bases. It hit especially hard in the Far East Navy bases that so often send ships for duty in the Persian Gulf.

"No Christmas for us. We’re going to war," said Airman Kendra Hutchison, an aviation ordnanceman aboard the Yokosuka-based USS Kitty Hawk. "The Kitty Hawk is usually the first one to go."

Rumors spread across the bases at Yokosuka and Sasebo, Japan, that the president might quickly dispatch 7th Fleet ships to the Persian Gulf — a scenario that is not far-fetched, given the fleet’s reputation for responding quickly to emergencies.

But Lt. Jeff Davis, a fleet spokesman, said his command has not received orders to sail west, and no indication that they will go. Four 7th Fleet ships that have been at sea are scheduled for port visits in the next week: the carrier USS Kitty Hawk and the cruiser USS Vincennes to Otaru, Japan; the cruiser USS Chancellorsville to Fukuoka, Japan; and the USS Cowpens to Vladivostok, Russia. All are still scheduled to join in Operation Foal Eagle, a joint exercise with the South Korean military, later this month.

"There have been no changes to any schedule," Davis said.

The bombing — the first hostile fire against a U.S. Navy ship since 1991 — sent a shiver through many sailors, and especially their families.

"It’s devastating," said Petty Officer 2nd class Dale Stafford, 32, a hospitalman at Yokosuka. "If you’re in the military, your family is going to get worried, whether you’re away from home or not."

The news gave pause to two Sasebo sailors who were just heading to sea aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Essex for the first time Friday.

"It’s kind of exciting and scary at the same time," said Airman Daniel Butts, 19. "Personally, I don’t want to go over there. But I’ll still go anywhere I have to."

"I haven’t even headed out to the fleet yet," said Seaman Jamie LeAnn Ellis, 18, also bound for the Essex. "And with this happening, I think it is kind of scary."

The 4-year-old Cole, which survived the attack in Aden, Yemen, but was reportedly listing, is an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer employing the Aegis missile-defense system. Two of its sister ships, the USS John S. McCain and the USS Curtis Wilbur, are based in Yokosuka. Both were at sea on Friday.

But several sailors at Yokosuka’s Aegis Training and Readiness Center who have served on Arleigh Burke-class ships said they couldn’t help but put themselves in the shoes of Cole’s sailors.

"I pictured the general area (where the explosion occurred)," said Petty Officer 1st class Ritchie Andrews. "I walked through it so many times before."

"I have a friend stationed on the Cole, and I have no idea if he’s all right," said Petty Officer 1st class Bobby Johnson, who served on the USS Arleigh Burke from 1995-98. "It hit … near the mess decks, in a major passageway. It couldn’t hit at a worse place really. They couldn’t have picked it by accident."

Past terrorist acts — the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, the 1996 Khobar Towers explosion in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa — have faded a bit with time. The killings blooded a new generation of American servicemembers.

"It’s a sad incident, I don’t care what nationality you are," said Twanda Arrington, whose husband, Ray, is a petty officer 1st class aboard the USS Blue Ridge. "This kind of jolts you into reality — this kind of thing can happen to anyone. Just because you’re on an American ship doesn’t mean you’re safe."

Donovan Brooks, Rick Chernitzer and Greg Tyler contributed to this report.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.