Perhaps Bill Clinton and Al Gore should be asked to return and testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission? Then Bob Kerrey could ask them why there was no response to the bombing of the USS Cole:
The USS Cole bombing was a terrorist attack against the U.S. guided missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG 67) that occurred on October 12, 2000.
Enquiring minds want to know, right Bob? After all, it's not as though the last-minute pardons had yet distracted them in October. Of course, what Dr. Rice tried to explain to Mr. Kerrey was that the Bush administration was not interested in a tit-for-tat response. Can you imagine the response from some of the esteemed members of Mr. Kerrey's party if President George W. Bush had actually launched cruise missiles at Al Qaeda targets within a week of taking office in response to a Sandy Berger briefing? Or what if, instead, in February or March the US issued an ultimatum to the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden? Somehow, it's difficult for me to imagine Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Roemer or the NY Times applauding these hypothetical moves.
So what else is news.
DOWNDATE: As Kevin noted in the comments, Bill Clinton testified yesterday in private -- not under oath, and today Al Gore testified in private -- also not under oath. I guess they need to make sure they get their stories straight after some of the truth has leaked out. Say, this wouldn't all be part of the "rapid response" to the testimony arranged by a Kerry campaign operative would it? Why, wouldn't that be a, gasp, conspiracy to obstruct the 9/11 Commission's holy work?
He met with the commission after Dr. Rice. Why was it so important she appear in public under oath while he could appear privately not under oath?
Other than his understandable reticence in never having to testify under oath again?
I wonder if Kerrey asked about the Cole when President Clinton was sitting in front of him?
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at 12:28 PM