Before Ground Zero and the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, there was the U.S.S. Cole. On October 12, 2000, 17 sailors were killed and 39 were injured when terrorists blew themselves up alongside the Cole, which had stopped for refueling in a port in Yemen. The ship's commander, Kirk Lippold, has been hailed as a hero not only for saving lives and minimizing casualties in the chaos that ensued, but also for saving the $1 billion ship. Yet as
this article details, Lippold has faced political repercussions for his actions:
NORFOLK, Va. - The Navy gave Cmdr. Kirk Lippold a medal for saving the USS Cole and preventing further loss of life after al-Qaida operatives blew a huge hole into the guided-missile destroyer in the Yemen port of Aden on Oct. 12, 2000.
Little did Lippold know then that his fast-track career might be over.
While Lippold's punishment has not been made public, he is the first commissioned military officer or civilian official since George W. Bush became president to be held liable for failing to prevent an act of terrorism against the United States.
(emphasis added.) I disagree with the use of the term "held liable" here; it connotes a finding of guilt or culpability, of which there is none. Lippold is not being "held liable" as much as "forced to bear the responsibility" of not preventing the attack. You see, despite receiving medals and being hailed as a hero, the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner refuses to grant Lippold a promotion.
There is no debate over whether Lippold acted honorably after the attacks. He evacuated his sailors, secured the ship, and made order out of chaos. After the attacks, Lippold met with each and every grieving family. They asked "hard questions" and Lippold spent time looking at yearbooks and wedding albums. "I'm sorry" he told them. Indeed, Lippold does not avoid the fact that he is accountable for his actions:
"If you want accountability, there was one accountable officer on that ship, and that was me," Lippold said during a three-hour interview. "But if you want to blame me for allowing that attack on my ship that killed 17 of my sailors - that is essentially putting me as a U.S. military commander in the war on terrorism on the same level as Osama bin Laden, and I believe that's wrong."
Did Lippold fail to prevent a terrorist attack?
Twenty security measures had not been implemented, though some were waived. A low-level investigation concluded that had those measures been implemented, the attack could be prevented. However, those findings were overturned in a subsequent investigation which found that Lippold's conduct fell within the acceptable conduct for a ship commander.
Admiral Ven Clark, the highest-ranking Navy officer at the time, found that Lippold's failure to implement some security precautions would not have prevented the attack, and that Lippold was not informed of the terrorist threat in Yemen. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the then-secretary of defense came to the same conclusion: Lippold was not to blame.
More below...
Sen. Warner Blocks Lippold's Promotion
In 2002, the White House signed off on Lippold's promotion and sent it over to Congress, where his nomination was secretly killed.
Senator Warner denies it, but sources say that he "removed Lippold's name from the list of Navy promotions that the committee approved for Senate confirmation." He was so intent on denying Lippold his promotion, Warner even threatened to open full hearings on the Cole attack, where he would "summon relatives of the 17 dead sailors."
The Pentagon again tried to promote Lippold in 2004, the Joint Chiefs of Staff again voted, and again a personal appeal was made for President Bush to intervene. This time, he chose not to.
The Repulsive Hypocrisy Of Senator Warner
Investigation after investigation has concluded that Lippold was not aware that the Cole would be attacked. His actions on that day and in the weeks after the attack saved lives and a warship...and yet, today, this hero is relegated to a desk job.
Senator Warner had no problem voting to promote Condoleeza Rice to Secretary of State, despite the fact she failed to respond properly to a PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack In The United States."
Senator Warner had no problem promoting Gen. Peter Shoomaker to Army Chief of Staff, despite the fact that Shoomaker was warned that Yemen was a "hot spot" for potential terrorist activity two days before the Cole attack.
Yet when it comes to Commander Lippold--who had not a hint of knowledge about an impending terrorist attack--Senator Warner refuses to grant him the promotion the rest of the federal government thinks he deserves. Repulsive hypocrisy, indeed.