Posted on 09/26/2006 3:42:08 PM PDT by detch
the HEAD IDIOT, Clinton and his odious General Zinni!!! They have BLOOD on their hands because they KNEW how dangerous it was and they didn't allow out sailors to have arms!! Bastards.
I remember someone discussing this back awhile ago and heard that the Cole could have easily refueled out of the harbor and out of danger's way!
I've never checked it out or anything but I've read that the Cole was refuling at an occidental petroleum terminal. Al Gore is a stockholder of Occidental. It might be worth a look or it might be garbage.
My understanding of this is that Clinton had cut the budget for Navy refueling tankers and thus refueling of Navy ships operating in the Indian Ocean or Persian Gulf were forced into ports to refuel rather than being refueled at sea. I believe I've read this in the past, that Clinton cut or even eliminated the refueling fleet and this is why ships like the Cole were forced to refuel in ports. If I'm wrong, forgive the error but I'm almost positive this is what I've read.
BTTT
October 12, 2000 - USS Cole attacked
October 12, 2000 - Albright verifies that Yemen was taken OFF the terrorist watch list FOR GOOD REASON.
My understanding of this is that Clinton had cut the budget for Navy refueling tankers and thus refueling of Navy ships operating in the Indian Ocean or Persian Gulf were forced into ports to refuel rather than being refueled at sea. I believe I've read this in the past, that Clinton cut or even eliminated the refueling fleet and this is why ships like the Cole were forced to refuel in ports. If I'm wrong, forgive the error but I'm almost positive this is what I've read.
bump
Something I found from 1999.
"http://www.politics.guardian.co.uk/yemen/Story/0,,209477,00.html"
SOmething like that would only mater if it were Bush/Cheney and Haliburton owned the terminal.
You should know by now that Democrats are immune to conflicts of interest
This may be true, but then I would also ask why the Congress approved it. I've continued over all those years to be unimpressed with the ability of our Republican Congress to stand up for itself.
We all know that the Skipper of this ship was only obeying orders. Why wasnt the person issuing the orders punished, like the Skipper was.
Still aiting for Clinton to tell us why he never caught nyone involved in this. I bet that one would get his blood up again. After all he promised.
A Clinton promise is like water in a bird bath. After a while it just dries up and goes away.
You're in error--this was a purely political exercise; the Cole had refueled at sea several times before during that deployment.
Nope. They refueled there because it was cheaper to have a single ship tank up in a port than it is to have an oiler following every ship in the fleet. The oilers were supporting the body of the fleet, where they belonged.
And all this talk about Clinton decomissioning oilers in bunches is a smoke screen. Oilers, ammunition ships, and other resupply ships have been removed from the active duty navy and reassigned to the Military Sealift Command. All that means is that they have a primarily civilian crew. They're still there with the fleet, and there were more available when Clinton left office then there are currently. And, I should point out, the policy of converting auxiliaries from USS to USNS has continued under the Bush Administration. Currently there is not a single ammunition ship, supply ship or oiler in the U.S. Navy. First time that's happened in close to 100 years.
I think this cut in tanker spending occured in the early 90s when Democrats still controlled Congress. And when the GOP took control, I don't think it was one of those things that made it onto anyone's radar screen.
It may well be that it was a political exercise, but refueling in ports did have to occur because of the cut in the Navy tanker fleet. The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive. I'm almost totally sure of the facts on this. I think it was Lt. Col. Patterson in his book "Dereliction of Duty" who asserts this, though I'm not entirely positive that was the source. But I am quite sure I've read this.
The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive. I'm almost totally sure of the facts on this.
Fine, show us the decommissioned tankers.
I think it was Lt. Col. Patterson in his book "Dereliction of Duty" who asserts this, though I'm not entirely positive that was the source.
OK, there's the problem. Patterson's books are less than reliable when they get away from the U.S. Air Force and his time at WHAMO.
But I am quite sure I've read this.
I've read that aliens are abducting people and sticking probes up their butts. Doesn't mean the claim is correct.
Bottom line: this was a purely political exercise. If CENTCOM and the Clinton administration hadn't ordered the Cole to Aden, there would've been an oiler available.
You've got that right. Does the name "Teapot Dome" ring a bell? Elk Hills Petroleum Reserve - the heart of the Harding scandal - was sold to Occidental Petroleum under Clinton. Go figure.
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.