[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

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.

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

[MikeA]

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.