Posted on 04/18/2006 10:38:57 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax
Former CENTCOM Commander, Gen. Anthony Zinni - who has called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign because of his alleged incompetence in running the Iraq war - admitted six years ago that he made the disastrous decision to have the U.S.S. Cole use the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling, where the ship was blown up by al Qaeda terrorists.
Worse still, at least one report indicates that Gen. Zinni may have played a role in an August 1998 leak that tipped off Osama bin Laden to an impending U.S. cruise missile attack - allowing the top terrorist to escape.
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in October 2000, a week after the Cole attack, the then-recently retired Zinni said: "I pass that buck on to nobody."
The Rumsfeld critic explained that he personally signed off on berthing the Cole in Yemen even though "their coast is a sieve for terrorists."
"The threat conditions in Aden were better than elsewhere," he insisted, citing risk assessments for Sudan and Saudi Arabia.
Gen. Zinni said that cutbacks in the size of the Navy's fleet during the Clinton years made it necessary to use regional ports for refueling, noting: "Ten years ago, we did all refueling at sea" using Navy oilers.
Still, prior to the Cole attack, there's no record that Gen. Zinni ever complained about Clinton era defense cuts.
In what may be an even more troubling development, a report indicates that the leading Rumsfeld critic may have inadvertently played a role in tipping off Osama bin Laden to an impending U.S. cruise missile attack two years before the Cole episode.
Two days after President Clinton ordered the attack on bin Laden's encampment in Khost Afghanistan, the Associated Press reported:
"Kuwait's Al-Watan newspaper, quoting unidentified sources in London today, reported that Pakistan leaked to bin Laden news about an impending U.S. strike. The sources said the leak was aimed at limiting casualties, so that bin Laden would have less justification for a counterattack.
"A Pakistani government source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Gen. Anthony Zinni, commander of the U.S. Central Command, was in Peshawar the day before the attack to meet with Pakistani officials.
"Other Pakistani sources said Zinni came with a team of U.S. intelligence experts whose task was to pinpoint the camps and determine bin Laden's exact whereabouts."
And how many Lt. Generals are there?
Brit Hume exposed the duplicitous General Zinni last evening on his "grape vine segment". You can listen to it by accessing the Fox New website and hear Brit. Very interesting.
Plus there are thousands of retired generals already.
Only 6 are whining.
Cut off his pension! He hasn't served well, just too long. Cut off Clinton's pension(s), too.
(Boy, we could save a lot of bucks if we quit paying those who spread anti-American propaganda.)
BUMP!
Is that comment supposed to give Zinni more credibility? I'd love to know who he's taking his orders from, NOW.
Thanks for the ping.
Flavius, I think you may have missed the sarcasm tag!
Thanks for the ping.
Out of the thousands of retired generals, I thought that there were only 6 whiners.
In early 2000, Former Clinton CENTCOM commander, Anthony Zinni told Congress "Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region," adding, "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions ...
Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192065,00.html
He was generous and rounded up to an even dozen! ;)
But they SHOULD have simply refueled at sea {topped off requiring only minutes} from a USNS oiler. Second major blunder was placing a ship two days away from the rest of the fleet and alone. Third blunder was they were in fact aware of the danger they meaning State Department but the alert was not processed through the Pentagon and sent to the Captain of the COLE in time. That's what we get for letting the State Department be the overseer of such vital information. If Zinni had indeed retired three months prior then the responsibility fell elsewhere. Those orders could have been changed at any point. IIRC Franks was in charge.
Refueling in Yemen was a political move and like many still ongoing blunders was bad judgment from the Pentagon. The same type of blunder equal to PUEBLO and LIBERTY. The COLE attack is the reason we should not be using the UAE for yard work and berthing our carriers pier side there.
The COLE attack wasn't just a lucky hit and someone knew precisely where to detonate for maximum damage. D.I.W. is as bad as it gets next to sinking for a ship. The crews heroic efforts and Navy Damage Control Training served them well to save the ship under the circumstances.
So where could a M.E. terrorist learn the layout of a ship such as the Cole? In the UAE shipyards would be my first guess. Now keep in mind our so called ally Yemen has managed to allow an escape of those who masterminded the COLE bombing. Our government being the good friend to Yemen it is did not demand via military threat if necessary the surrender of custody of those responsible for the bombing once they were located. Why weren't they in GITMO facing a military tribunal? We'll never get those answers as long as the State Department continues to be the guiding force behind our M.E. military operations.
That's about the size of it. Which can be a good thing IF you have the means to back it up. {Fleet support near-by} That whole situation was wrong starting a few days earlier including being in the area alone.
The drive-by media won't mention it. It doesn't serve their agenda.
Sounds like Zinni 'retired' right after the Cole/Yemen thing. No coincidence, I suspect.
If it was he who decided Yemen was a good fueling port then he was partly responsible. So were the ones who sat on the alert. That is why the State Department has no business being involved in such matters. But the disturbing thing is what have we learned? Berthing a nuclear aircraft carrier at a pier in the M.E. is insanity yet our current leaders do so in UAE.
I don't care how good they claim air defenses and security is it's a stupid move in a hostile environment. Use the ships Utility Boats instead that policy served us well for decades. In 4 year my ship moored once at one foreign port {1970's France} and even then remained steaming.
If a carrier is anchored in the harbor it can be underway {moving } in less than 5 minutes on it's own power with no tug boats or Pilot needed. {I was on one that did it years ago under emergency conditions} Otherwise we're talking about an hour at best to get underway & out of port situation. Under battle conditions minutes and even seconds count. Any ship in the eastern Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea, or PG must be considered being under battle conditions or a modified alert status. We need to draw on experiences and policies used in the Cold War and act accordingly.
At your post on 34, there is no sarcasm tag friend.
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.