Posted on 04/23/2006 10:29:07 AM PDT by Diver Dave
Ex-Cole skipper says he wasn't warned of danger before attack.
First of a two-part series. SHARPSBURG, Md. -- In October, as he had done on the same day in each of the four previous Octobers, a middle-aged man with an upright military bearing approached a grave at Antietam National Cemetery.
The man stood in silence for a minute, then lowered his head in tribute to a fallen seaman: Patrick Howard Roy, one of 17 sailors killed when al-Qaida operatives blew a huge hole into the USS Cole in the Yemen port of Aden on Oct.12, 2000.
The man who attended Roy's grave, Kirk Lippold, was his commanding officer on the Cole. While Lippold's punishment has not been made public, he is the first commissioned military officer or civilian official to be held accountable, since George W. Bush became president, for failing to prevent an act of terrorism against the United States
(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...
The author failed to make a Clinton connection, instead blames the White House and Senate for Commander Kirk Lippold's failure to receive promotion to Captain.
Zinni was responsible for keeping that ship safe. He handed off security to the locals...
Please explain your assertion.
Zinni? Zinni? That name rings a bell somewhere.
[Bush]...has defended Donald H. Rumsfeld against withering attacks from retired generals angry over the defense secretary's handling of Iraq.
Typical liberal exageration of the facts from a very left of left newspaper.
So, apparently, does Republican Sen. John Warner, who as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is the man most responsible for scuttling Lippold's promotion.
How does the Senate Armed Services Committee get involved in military promotions? Is that routine? If so, why?
The captain is responsible for his ship period, its always been like that in the navy.
Intelligence not getting analyzed and passed on, that's nothing new either. No special warning should be needed for a captain to keep his ship vigilant and prepared in a middle east port.
You have to keep the two issues seperate. Were there major intelligence failures, information not getting passed on where it should? Sure. Does that intelligence failure mean the captain was judged and passed over unfairly? Not necessarily.
Not every attack can be defended against, predicted or prevented. The fact of the attack itself doesn't necessarily mean the captain did a bad job.
Yet, the intelligence failure doesn't mean the captain did a good job given the situation he had either.
A report would have examined the questions of how the captain handled things given what he knew. Crew readiness, watch policies, etc...
Someone needs to tell Curt Weldon that Mary McCarthy gave money to Sestak , his opponent. Very interesting...Sandy Burglar and John Deutsch did also!!!VERY VERY interesting!! Weldon is on to something HUGE!!! Let's support him!!
It;'s in Zinni's own words....I pass the blame to no one.
Watch out for the name, Kie Fallis. I suspect that this person is another Clintonoid.
"Zinni admitted he was at fault. It was on FoxNews.com."
gafusa - You are so correct!! And .. I recently saw a transcript of that statement to back you up.
All promotions of military officers are approved by the Senate. I believe the Armed Services Comittee is the body that brings the promotion lists to the floor.
The Navy convenes a selection board of senior officers who rack and stack the candidates. He was passed over by them.
Not to slam the CDR, but it seems odd that he would be retired to his stateroom during the first ever refueling stop of a US Naval ship in Aden.
I would think that no other naval officer would be more motivated to protect any future command than Kirk Lippold.
The CO of any Naval Ship is ultimately responsible for his crew and his ship, HOWEVER, with NO INTELLIGENCE or WARNINGS of ANY SORT about dangers of refueling in Yemen, it is beyond reason to hold him RESPONSIBLE for the attack.
A painful half-truth. He could not be expected to foresee a random attack, but...
Yes It is not beyond reason to expect vigilance in a hostile (by definition) port.
A watchful crew would have prevented a successful attack.
The person responsible for the attack on the Cole was Clinton, period. During his reign of terror, the military budget had been cut to the bone. The Cole was refueling in port because she could not refuel at sea. At the time of the attack, there were exactly TWO fleet tankers in the ENTIRE US Navy. The Cole had no option but to pull into port to refuel.
This attack could not have occurred if the Cole had been able to do what ships in the Navy have always done; refueled at sea, under cover of darkness. The fact that the Cole was in port refueling at all can be laid directly at the feet of Clinton. He couldn't be more responsible even if he had detonated the explosives himself.
Can you find it for me?
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.