You're in error--this was a purely political exercise; the Cole had refueled at sea several times before during that deployment.
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.