Gen. Anthony Zinni: USS Cole Blunder Is My Fault [Rumsfeld Critic a Clinton-Hack ]

Former CENTCOM Commander, Gen. Anthony Zinni - who has called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign because of Rumsfeld's alleged incompetence in running the Iraq war - admitted six years ago that he made the disastrous decision to have the USS Cole use the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling, where the ship was blown up by al-Qaida 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."

Thanks for posting this. Some old FR threads posted after the attack on the Cole are an excellent reminder of how this ship was set up by Clintoon, Gore and apparently Zinni.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39fca442294c.htm

USS Cole Bombing: Yemen Government and Aden Port Operators Collaborate with Islamic Terrorists?

Crime/Corruption Breaking News News Keywords: USS COLE, YEMEN, ADEN, TERRORISM, BIN LADEN
Source: OKCSubmariner
Published: October 29, 2000 Author: Patrick B. Briley
Posted on 10/29/2000 14:27:14 PST by OKCSubmariner
The US investigation of the bombing of the USS Cole at the Yemen port of Aden has been blocked by Yemen authorities. CBS News reported on Friday, October 27,2000 that the government of Yemen had:

Tampered with evidence turned over to the US (which likely includes surveillance tapes and passports).

Disconnected phone lines with Yemeni officials who had cooperated with US investigators.

Refused to allow US investigators to interview many Islamic militants rounded up for questioning.

The CBS report is further corroborated by a New York Post article “Yemen Won’t Let FBI Grill Cole Suspects” dated October 28, 2000 and written by Niles Lathem.

The cause of the Yemen blockage of the USS Cole bombing investigation could possibly be attributed to the involvement of Yemen’s President, Ali-Abdullah Saleh, with Islamic terrorists as well as with wealthy Saudi business families, connected to terrorist Bin Laden and who have economic control of the port of Aden.

The following paragraphs are from a UPI story written by Eli J. Lake and published on Friday, 13 October 2000 and entitled “ For U.S., warning signs emerged in days before Yemen refueling stop”:

One such head of state is Yemen's President Ali-Abdullah Saleh, who told the Qatar-based satellite network Al-Jazeera on Monday (10/9/2000), "All Arabs are urged to support the Palestinian intifada (uprising) through various political and economic means and in the defense field." In speeches over the weekend,Saleh reportedly said he was opening his borders to mujahideen, or holy warriors. (My note: the Mujahideen are Bin Laden military men previously backed by the US against the Russians in Afghanistan.)

Hamas and Islamic Jihad even have official representatives in Yemen, while terrorist groups from Afghanistan to Algeria continue to operate out of the country. In an interview in March with the Christian Science Monitor, Ali Saleh Obad, the head of the opposition Yemen Socialist Party said: "This anti-terrorism is just propaganda -- it's just makeup on the system for the world to see."

He told the paper that Saleh's government still provides passports for numerous agents of terrorist groups.

At an inauguration for the port of Aden on September 11, 1999 the President Saleh delivered a speech in which he said ,"Today we are making history. I am really proud that this strategic project has finally reached light in Aden which is considered to be our main gateway to the world. The long waited dream has finally come to life. I really appreciate the efforts made by the Singapore Organization of Ports and the Yemeni company Yeminvest belonging to the Bin Mahfoodh Group.

This excerpt from Saleh’s speech appeared in a September19, 1999 Vol IX edition of the Yemeni Times in an article written by Ridhwan Al-Saqqaf.entitled “Yemen’s Most Promising Project On Track Aden Container Terminal Open For Business”.

The Bin Mahfoodh Group referred to in Saleh’s speech is also spelled Mahfouz.A review of Saudi companies reveals that one of the largest Saudi companies is the multibillion dollar M. Bin Mahfouz & A. Al-Amoudi Group run and owned by members of the Mahfouz and Al-Amoudi families of Saudi Arabia.

FR person henbane posted a newsday.com article dated October 29, 1999 and entitled “Clinton Confidant Vernon Jordan Now Connected to Terrorist’s Millions”. The article was about an AP story published in USA Today and written by Jack Kelly. This article states that a member of the Mahfouz family group (who had been involved in the illegal transfer of millions of dollars to terrorist Bin Laden) was placed under house arrest and had been replaced by a member of the Al-Amoudi family group to run the Saudi National Commercial Bank. The following paragraphs are from the article:

Businessmen in Saudi Arabia are continuing to transfer tens of millions of dollars to bank accounts linked to accused terrorist Osama bin Laden, USA Today in its editions Friday quotes U.S. intelligence officials as saying.

The money transfers were discovered in August after the Saudi royal family ordered an audit of the National Commercial Bank and its founder and former chairman, Khalid bin Mahfouz, the U.S. officials said.

Mahfouz is now under house arrest in the Saudi city of Taif. His successor, Mohammad Hussein Al-Amoudi, also heads the Capitol Trust Bank in New York and London, which is being investigated by U.S. and British officials for allegedly transferring money to bin Laden, USA Today said.

The newspaper said Amoudi's Washington attorney, Vernon Jordan, who also is a confidant of President Clinton, could not be reached for comment.

As previously discussed, the Mahfouz and Al-Amoudi familie jointly operate one of Saudi Arabia’s largest companies, the Mahfouz & Al-Amoudi Group. To put Mohammed Al-Amoudi in place of Khalid Mahfouz to run the National Commercial Bank gives the appearance of impropriety, like asking a different fox to guard the same hen house. This hen house has been sending millions to Bin Laden and both foxes who guarded it work for the same group or company run by their same families. I suspect that Mohammed Al-Amoudi could be just as loyal to Bin Laden as Khalid Mahfouz and that the house arrest of Mahfouz was only for show and that money could still be going to Bin Laden through the same bank!

But remember something else discussed earlier in my article. The Mahfouz & Al-Amoudi Group also have economic control of the Port of Aden where the Cole was bombed. The Group owns Yemen Holdings, Ltd. and YEMINVEST, the company praised by Yemen President Saleh in his speech for investing in and running the port facilities at Aden. So the company who runs the Port of Yemen is owned by the same Saudi businessmen known to have funneled millions of dollars to Bin Laden through a Saudi bank and who are friendly to President Saleh.

If the bombing of the USS Cole was an inside job by Bin Laden terrorists, were President Saleh and members of the Mahfouz & Al-Amoudi family group the men who let the terrorist bombers inside and the men who are now later protecting the bombers from US investigators?

By an inside job, I mean a job where those involved obtain special, closely held information vital to the timing and success of the job from those who know and have access to the details of the Aden port operations. An inside job could also include help from government and port officials to give terrorists special identification papers and safe passage into and out of the port and country of Yemen.

Another troublesome fact is that Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi, founder of the American Muslim Council, has been linked by terrorism expert Steve Emerson and journalist Kenneth Timmerman to arranging large and questionable campaign fund transfers possibly involving known Arab terrorist groups to the DNC and to the Clinton/Gore reelection campaign in 1996. Also, just last week, Hillary Clinton returned a campaign contribution made by Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi to her Senate campaign in New York after having been discovered by New York Republicans.

For more details and for references to the Timmerman and Emerson articles, please see my article, “Gore, Clinton & Some of Their Associates Linked to Terrorist Groups” posted on FR on October 19,2000.

Is Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi related to the Al-Amoudi family group and Mohammed Al-Amoudi that are tied to the port of Yemen and to banker Khalid Mahfouz, to those who have transferred money to Bin Laden through Saudi banks and who could have been complicit in the Cole bombing?

Will anyone in Congress investigate the ties between President Saleh, the Mahfouz &Al-Amoudi Group, Vernon Jordan, Bin Laden terrorists, Gore and Clinton, and the bombing of the USS Cole?

Someone should also check into the claims of archy of FR that Occidental Petroleum had the refueling contract for the Port of Aden since Al Gore is tied directly to large sums of Occidental Petroleum stock.

If the bombing of the USS Cole was an inside job, who helped the terrorists get inside information and now protects them? Yemen President Saleh? Clinton and Gore? Mahfouz & Al-Amoudi Group family members? Occidental Petroleum? Or Who?

Special credit and thanks to FR persons archy and Betty Jo whose research, information, and ideas motivated me and were used in part to help write this article.
1 Posted on 10/29/2000 14:27:14 PST by OKCSubmariner

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39f9e76a713d.htm

USS Cole: A Politically Correct Casuality?

Foreign Affairs Front Page News Keywords: USSCOLE, MILITARY READINESS
Source: The Washington Times
Published: October 27, 2000 Author: Paul Craig Roberts
Posted on 10/27/2000 13:36:58 PDT by Jeff Head
A political correctness casualty?

Paul Craig Roberts
The Washington Times
October 27, 2000

The USS Cole is a $1 billion high-tech missile warship. But it was no match for a rubber dinghy manned by two Arabs. The explosive-laden dinghy severely damaged the Cole and inflicted 56 casualties (17 dead, 39 injured) on a once-proud U.S. Navy.

The attack on the Cole showed a "great deal of sophistication," declared Richard Clarke, a top U.S. security official with the grand title of National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counterterrorism. On "60 Minutes" last Sunday, Mr. Clarke said the rubber dinghy attack was so sophisticated the U.S. is absolved of any suspicion of intelligence failure.

Listening to Mr. Clarke, one got the definite impression that an attack on the USS Cole with an Exocet missile would signify sophistication beyond comprehension.

There was nothing sophisticated about the attack on the Cole. Experts have pointed out that if the dinghy had been properly positioned, it would have set off the Cole's warheads and fuel tanks and blown the warship to pieces.

There can be no doubt, however, that the Arab attack was more sophisticated than the U.S. cover-up. Eight years of Clinton-Gore-Reno have proved that bald-faced lies lack consequence. Now everyone is getting in on the act. Mr. Clarke can go on national television and misrepresent an attack on a U.S. warship by a rubber dinghy as a highly sophisticated action outside the boundaries of prediction and defense.

Despite having the Cole's report, the Navy can't decide whether the attack on the Cole occurred earlier while entering port or later while docked. Obviously, a committee is searching for the least damaging explanation for the loss of a warship to a rubber dinghy.

What is being covered up is that the USS Cole and its sailors are victims of political correctness.

When a warship enters a potentially unfriendly port, it must be on alert. Unless the commander and crew are so green that they have never before entered a foreign port, officers and crew are familiar with the operation and capable of knowing that an unidentified rubber dinghy has no business coming alongside. Due diligence mandates the order to the dinghy to "stand off," followed by warning shots. If the dinghy persists, due diligence requires that it be blown out of the water.

Three kinds of political correctness prevented the Cole from protecting itself. The State Department doesn't want U.S. ships on alert, because it implies a lack of confidence in foreign "friends" that might give offense. We mustn't be undiplomatic even if U.S. property and lives are at stake.

The Cole's commander knew aggressive behavior on his part would be made an "incident" that politically correct Clinton-Gore appointees in the Pentagon and Office of the Secretary of the Navy would use to terminate his career.

Repeatedly, Clinton appointees have made it clear they regard the military services as "too aggressive" — that is, too male, and out of synch with the civilian population. Recall the recent punishments handed out to U.S. paratroopers who took their military duties in Kosovo seriously.

Years of "sensitivity training" have dulled the warrior spirit and the alertness factor that keeps a band of warriors alive. Commanders and troops are afraid to respond to a potential threat in a timely fashion. What if the threat turns out to be a misperception? The Arabs in the dinghy might only be out for a boat ride or bringing wares to hawk to the Cole's crew.

The Cole's commander could not know for certain the dinghy's purpose. But he did know for certain that if he caused an incident that proved to be unwarranted, he would have no support from Clinton's politically correct Navy. Political correctness has reversed the caution factor. A commander who uses caution to protect his ship is likely to be denounced as "macho-aggressive," whereas one who uses caution to guard against a politically incorrect act can lose his ship but save his career.

The damage inflicted on our armed forces by Clinton-Gore goes far beyond insufficient funding. Similarly, the readiness problem goes beyond undermanned and undertrained forces. Military personnel are afraid to act in a ready, or timely, fashion. Unable to risk the use of force, the USS Cole assisted its own demise.

I feel that this article hits many of the issues associated with the attack on the USS Cole squarely on the head. This is the best case scenario. Questions associated with worse cases would include why they were "topping off" in this port anyway, when they didn't need to? Why Yemen was picked for this foolish nation building policy? Why many civilians in the port seemed to know something was coming off at the appointed hour but our people didn't?, etc.
In all cases, we have to build the warrior spirit back into our forces and forget and can the sensitivity training. PC, caring, sharing, gentler, feminist BS being applied to our fighting forces. The cold steel on the end of an enemy bayonette is not sensitive. One ton of C4 in close proximity is not sensitive. Our military's primary purpose is to stand ready to break and kill the enemy.

1 Posted on 10/27/2000 13:36:58 PDT by Jeff Head (jeffhead@bigplanet.com)
[ Reply | Private Reply | Top | Last ]

Senior Pentagon officials were warned not to let the USS Cole dock in Yemen two days before terrorists attacked the ship five years ago killing 17 sailors, according to Congressman Curt Weldon, who said the crucial intelligence was gleaned from the former secret defense operation, "Able Danger."

Electronics Technician Chief Petty Officer Richard Costelow Morrisville, Pennsylvania

Seaman James Rodrick McDaniels, Norfolk, Virginia

Signalman Seaman Recruit Cherone Louis Gunn, Rex, Georgia

Seaman Recruit Lakiba Nicole Palmer, San Diego, California

Operations Specialist Second Class Timothy Lamont Saunders, Ringgold, Virgina

Seaman Apprentice Craig Bryan Wibberley, Williamsport, Maryland

Mess Management Specialist Seaman Lakeina Monique Francis, Woodleaf, North Carolina

Engineman Second Class Marc Ian Nieto, Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin

Hull Maintenance Technician Third Class Kenneth Eugene Clodfelter, Mechanicsville, Virginia

Electronics Warfare Technician Second Class Ronald Scott Owens, Vero Beach, Florida

Fireman Apprentice Patrick Howard Roy, Keedysville, Maryland

Electronics Warfare Technician First Class Kevin Shawn Rux, Portland, North Dakota

Mess Management Specialist Third Class Ronchester Mananga Santiago, Kingsville, Texas

Firecontrolman Gary Graham Swenchonis, Jr., Rockport, Texas

Engineman Fireman Joshua Langdon Parlett, Churchville, Maryland

Fireman Apprentice Patrick Howard Roy, Keedysville, Maryland

Information Systems Technician Seaman Timothy Lee Gauna, Rice, Texas

That is an excellent article. In fact, I remember Inhofe taking to the floor of congress using many of these facts to berate the current state of the military, thanks to Clinton cutbacks. He specifically pointed out how we've had more military "deployments" under Clinton, than we had total since the end of WWII.

I also recall the early retirements by a number of Generals in protest of Clinton policy. Sadly, unlike today, the media never paid any attention to the underlying problems that existed within the Clinton DoD. Heck, you don't have to look any further than the number of hostile actions we took through the 90's and how the media never had any concern for collateral damage or civilian casualities.

Clinton bombed Iraq on 4 seperate occasions and never was there a concern for the damage it might have caused to the civilian population. Hell, as reporters poured into Iraq to count (and still count) the dead bodies that resulted from this recent conflict, they remained suspiciously absent during the 78-day aerial bombardment of Serbia and Kosovo.

What makes this even more outrageous, is that there were claims...and even evidence, that the US/NATO were intentionally violating the Geneva Conventions. From the deliberate targeting of SerbTV, to the bridge that the civilian commuter train #393 traveled, to electrical grids and public utilities...Wesley Clark violated some of the basic rules of Geneva. Hell, there was even a foreign indicted issued against Clark that listed him as a war criminal, yet you wouldn't know that from our media's coverage.

From Somalia to Kosovo to Iraq to Afghanistan and Sudan, the media NEVER stepped foot in these nations to document the death and destruction that Clinton's agressions may have caused. Even the destruction of the Al-Shifa pharmacuetical plant in Sudan was treated as a benign incident...with media labeling it an "aspirin factory."

This was much more than an aspirin factory, as this plant produced about 50% of the medicines this country needed to fight tuberculosis and Malaria. In fact, one published report I read from years ago claims that as many as 10,000 people may have died as a result of not having access to these medicines. I can guarantee that if this was a Bush attack, we would've heard about these deaths...not to mention the lawsuit that followed and the multi-million dollar payout that our government agreed to.

Did Zinni have anything to do with the decision to pull the troops out after the Black Hawk Down incident? Also did he have anything to do with the decisions involving the lack of armor, etc that contributed to the incident?

I am not that familiar with his career or role prior to becoming Commander at CentCom, which was in 1997. But I did learn from a casual Google search from Larry Chin (whot I conclude is a Communist Wacko from the Marxist Fever Swamp), his fellow inmate in the Swamp, Noam Chomsky claims in his book The New Military Humanism that at the time Marine Lt.General Anthony Zinni was in charge of the overall mission, as reported in this snip:

"Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Somalis were killed in the course of US incursions that took place over three months. In his book The New Military Humanism, Noam Chomsky cites other under-reported facts. "In October 1993, criminal incompetence by the US military led to the slaughter of 1,000 Somalis by American firepower." Chomsky writes. "The official estimate was 6-10,000 Somali casualties in the summer of 1993 alone, two-thirds women and children. Marine Lt. Gen. Anthony Zinni, who commanded the operation, informed the press that 'I'm not counting bodies . . . I'm not interested.'

I don't accept any of judgmental condemnations fuming out of the mouths of radical cretins like Chomsky, but on his reporting who was in charge...he likely didn't have any reason to lie about that.

I don't know Zinni's role in calling off the whole operation, but the article claims Clinton made the decision:

After 18 US Special Forces soldiers were killed in the final Mogadishu firefight, which included the downing of a US helicopter, television screens filled with the scene of a dead US soldier being dragged through the streets by jubilant Somalis. Clinton immediately called off the operation. US forces left Somalia in disgrace

He was Director of Operations for most of what went on in Somolia including the withdrawal. That means he was responsible for the way the troops were deployed, their support or lack there of and the response of the other forces to what was going on.

I can't tell but it looks like he was very much in favor of withdrawal after Blackhawk Down. His comments on a PBS Frontline show of November 1, 2001 make it pretty clear. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/etc/script.html :

"NARRATOR: Neither Mrs. Albright nor any other member of the Clinton administration was willing to be interviewed about decision making in Somalia.

The U.N. resolution meant that Mohammed Aidid became a wanted man with a price on his head.

General ANTHONY ZINNI, Director of Operations 1992-1993: I think that the resolution to declare Aidid a criminal- first of all, I think it was ridiculous. Second of all, I think you were no longer in peace enforcement or peacekeeping. I mean, you were now in a counter-insurgency operation or in some form of war. "

[[SNIP]]

"NARRATOR: Within days, President Clinton made the decision to cut his losses. American troops were to be withdrawn from Somalia. The hunt for Aidid was abandoned, and U.S. representatives were sent to resume negotiations with the warlord.

ROBERT OAKLEY, Ambassador to Somalia 1992-1993 : And General Zinni and I were sent to Somalia, and we told them- I told them specifically how brave they'd been, how unfortunate it was that they'd been put in an impossible situation. They'd been put out there because of faulty policy decisions. And I said, "This is very unfortunate. It's a real tragedy. You all behaved heroically, but you were pawns, in a sense of something much bigger that was beyond your control." "
[[SNIP]]

In addition in looking I found this Slate article http://www.slate.com/id/2101615/ from 2004:

Gen. Zinni's Job Application
Which position in the next administration is he angling for?
By Fred Kaplan
Updated Wednesday, June 2, 2004, at 5:28 PM ET

It's fairly clear that Anthony Zinni would like a big job in the next administration, and it would be a smart move for the next president to give him one. My suggestion: Make him secretary of defense.

Zinni, of course, is the retired Marine general who's made a huge splash criticizing the Bush administration's war in Iraq—from the decision to go to war (which Zinni opposed in 2002) to the setting of troop levels (which, like many officers, he considered too low) to the planning for the occupation (which he decries as "screwed up").
[SNIP]]

For all these reasons, many Democrats hope Kerry will put him on the team. The bad news, from this angle, is that Zinni hasn't made the requisite first moves: He's pointedly stopped short of criticizing Bush personally, calling instead for his advisers to resign; nor has he endorsed Kerry. The good news is that he's all but shouting from the rooftops, "I'm available!"

[[SNIP]] He's shouting now for that next job isn't he. Perhaps it's not Sec Def but VP on the next DemoRat ticket for President. The MSM will back him since he's doing his bit to help them get their party [liberal wing of the DemoRat party] back in power.

[[Continued]]

Paul Van Riper,* a fellow outspoken retired Marine general, who lives near Zinni in Virginia and talks with him every day, confirmed in a phone conversation Tuesday that his friend wouldn't turn up his nose at a good offer. "I don't think he's actively seeking any position, but there are probably positions that he would take," Gen. Van Riper said. "He's not the kind of person who's completely retired."

Another retired general, who's known Zinni for decades but asked not to be identified, went further: "I think he's in full campaign mode."

Some Democrats have gone so far as to pine for a Kerry-Zinni ticket. But this seems implausible and unwise. First, Zinni is a Republican. He endorsed Bush in 2000 (though he now regrets it). Many Democrats might cheer for John McCain as running mate because he's known, well-liked, broadly admired, and he clearly can't stand Bush. Zinni, apart from his harsh critique of the war, is a question mark. Second, we've already seen one retired general, Wesley Clark—such a promising candidate on paper—flame out on the campaign trail. There's no reason to think Zinni would prove more appealing.

Zinni has also been mentioned as a possible secretary of state. In some respects, he would come to the job with more on-the-ground experience than Gen. Colin Powell did. Military commanders in chief, or CINCs, often cut a higher profile than ambassadors these days, and Zinni was CINC for all Europe and the Middle East, as well as a commander or operations director in the Pacific and North Africa.
[[SNIP]]

Clearly, Zinni wants to set up this new system—or, short of that, to be one of the retired CINCs on its new advisory board. If Kerry (or, for that matter, a second-term Bush) really wants to overhaul the Pentagon to meet the demands of 21st-century warfare, Zinni is the man.

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.