Was he Mexican? Maybe he escaped across the US-Mexican border and is now on Welfare and has a longlist of hospital bills which we the taxpayers are now paying.

Article gets a FF, too:>)

I wouldn't trust any of THOSE people.

What I feel about myself would mean more than some BS head-up-ass nonsense. To let some person continue to serve a prison sentence that you know to be false is the real crime.

The judge seems to be acting in more that his capacity of trial judge. He as well as a system that require such an idiotic mentality, need scrapping. The judge himself needs some serious assessment himself.

They're producing around 300K barrels a day.

It's not a lot, but it should be enough for McCain to start another war over.

Put them on the list for sometime after Iran but before Dafur.

Chickens coming home to Roost, just like the bright, funny Reverend Wright reminds us.

The previous posting on this thread was sent else where. WTF-not intended ro this thread at all. Sorry.

USS Cole Attacked by CIA and Mossad???

Big Enigma:
The USS Cole was bombed when it made its "first" visit to this Yemeni port.It was also an "unscheduled" stop at this port.The Capt of the USS Cole later said he'd gotten the secret and coded message a day earlier to dock in this Yemeni port.

The question that jumps out here is just how did a group of so-called al Qaeda terrorists put together a skilled bomb team to blow up the USS Cole on such short notice? These bombers were,the U.S.media asserts,waiting and immediately prepared and equipted with a zodiac boat and very special high explosives that would be powerful enough to penetrate the thick armor of a battleship! But if alQaeda was "waiting" for the US Cole to make this unscheduled,unannounced docking in Yemen,then they must have a high ranking undercover agent in the Pentagon or on board the Cole?

Otherwise the only groups who could have access to classified Pentagon,US Navy ship orders is the CIA and Israel's Mossad!
The bombing of the USS Cole was actually a "propaganda" ploy,sanctioned by the the Bush Govt.and Israel solely to ratchet up public outrage about "Evil Arabs" and so draw out support both for Israel's Middle East colonial aspirations and Bush's "Oil" Wars!!!

Let's see, AntiCadillac...

maybe a Yugo?

That's some tale you've stitched together. Yemen lobbied to be a refueling port, and it seems their government is of two minds, so it's possible the Harbor Master - or someone else - did tip off Al Qaeda.

But there's always small craft in a port, and putting a bomb together doesn't require a lot of time if you have the materials. Maybe they were just waiting for their chance.

Personally this rule of law only goes so far, and apparently it doesn't extend to Yemen. We should just shoot these guys and be done with it.

Anticaddy, False flag? Would not doubt that for a second.

Maybe there was no "small boat" at all?

(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.

The Bush government? Check your timeline.

The bombing of the USS Cole was actually a "propaganda" ploy,sanctioned by the the Bush Govt.and Israel solely to ratchet up public outrage about "Evil Arabs" and so draw out support both for Israel's Middle East colonial aspirations and Bush's "Oil" Wars!!!

Posted by AntiCadillac at 2008-05-04 11:47 PM

In order to prevent future false accusations, AntiCadillac may want to do a little research next time. As was clearly stated in the article, the Cole bombing happened during the Clinton Presidency.

"This makes me think " Phewww Anti cadi you are a wack job, how do you come up with such garbage?

As usual a dr left knows better then all of the experts who have examined the site. "This makes me think " of the dr left rantings PROVING THEIR STUPIDITY on a daily basis. You go guy....

As was clearly stated in the article, the Cole bombing happened during the Clinton Presidency.

It doesn't matter. It was Bush's fault, just like Pearl Harbor. idiot

As was clearly stated in the article, the Cole bombing happened during the Clinton Presidency.

This operation was planned during Bush 41's term so Clinton is not to blame.

As usual a dr left knows better then all of the experts who have examined the site. "This makes me think " of the dr left rantings PROVING THEIR STUPIDITY on a daily basis. You go guy....

Posted by DavetheKnave

DavetheKnave is smarter "then" all of us.

This operation was planned during Bush 41's

How do you know this? Do you have a link (non-conspiratorial one) to support this?

You libs are so funny. I don't think I've ever seen anyone so blinded by hatred for one man as the libs of the 21st century are.

Get a grip on reality, guys.

I wonder if ANTICAD might be thinking about PNAC (1997) "Project for a New American Century" wherein the neocons were even then, not anticipating a Clinton win over Bush 41, were looking for "a Pearl Harbor like" event to start building their case for world dominance by military force.

I don't necessarily go along with all the conspiracy theories but I also don't put it past the neo-cons to kill off a bunch of Americans for no other reason than to further their own ideology.

Not to mention that many of the major architects of PNAC ended up being appointed to cabinet positions by Bush 43 and were also heavily invested in the Military Industrial Complex including Halliburton and the Carlyle Group.

Prior to getting trounced in the 2006 mid-terms, the neo-con agenda was heading full steam toward

"Total dominion over America's traditional, two-party political system. They wanted (and still do) permanent control of Congress, an enduring GOP White House, conservative Supreme Court, rightwing federal judges, Republican governors and legislatures in all 50 states, and a muzzled press."

I don't put anything . . . NOT ANYTHING . . . past this power hungry, greed driven cabal of neo-cons.

I don't put anything . . . NOT ANYTHING . . . past this power hungry, greed driven cabal of neo-cons

I've got a question for any liberal who wants to answer: Is there any event against americans during a republican administration that was NOT conspired by the WH?

I'm not being snarky, I am sincere in this question because I can't think of one that the libs on the DR have not linked to a WH conspiracy.

EVERYBODY knows that the Cole was hit by a missile from the same source that launched the missile against the Pentagon. The whole thing was planned by Herbert Hoover and set in action by Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and Bush 41. See BuffaloBoob for the details. I believe Anticadillac has already conferred with him.

Good question GOATMAN.

But first, would Black Ops be considered part of the "White House" or do they just float around in the underworld capitalizing on juicy targets where ever they find them, without any knowledge of the executive office, no matter which party is in charge?

Independent contrators, so to speak.

I'm not being snarky either.

AntiCad,

...which is why Yemen released the bombers.

It only serves evil NeoCon agenda to let the pulic imagine farfetched conspiracy theories, because it misdirects our attention and indirectly discredits their real ones.

How about they saw the ship and their opportunity for virgin sex. Get real.

Chickens coming home to Roost, just like the bright, funny Reverend Wright reminds us.

Posted by nutcase

If you mean they will try to bomb us again, you are right. You should pray that they don't roost in your front yard.

This is another reason to throw their sorry asses in GITMO.

no sniper,

What I mean is they'll leave us alone if we leave them alone. We started it and we have to stop it. GET IT!

AntiCadillac
was bush in office when cole was attacked?who hounded john o'niel into resignin- bush must have been a pretty powerful governor to engineer all this
-hell as smart as clinton was he didn't even know that drugs were bein flown into a airport(meena) in his state(ark) that he was part ownwer----which is it bush too stupid to tie his own shoes-or evilly cunnin
jasman

NJ,

I'll go with too stupid to tie his own shoes AND super evil.

What I mean is they'll leave us alone if we leave them alone. We started it and we have to stop it. GET IT!

Posted by nutcase

When and where did we start it? Was it when the knights went to the holly land for the first crusade or was it eariler than that when the Moors envaded southern Europe around 700 AD?

I don't think it matters what we do, they will follow us around like a bunch of little lost puppies.

***"The bombing of the USS Cole was actually a "propaganda" ploy,sanctioned by the the Bush Govt."
ANTICADILLAC***

Moron flag

I believe the problem lies in these statements...

"After we worked day and night to bring justice to the victims and prove that these Qaeda operatives were responsible, we're back to square one," said Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent and a lead investigator into the bombing. "Do they have laws over there or not? It's really frustrating what's happening."

The FBI was "dealing with a bureaucracy and a culture they didn't understand," she said. "Yemen operates on a different timeline than we do. We had one group working on a New York minute, and another on a 4,000-year-old history."

hay nut, you still out there? Are you going to answer my question?

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]