Pat Tillman
National NewsSubmitted by WSClark
A young, handsome, driven football player turns down a multi-million dollar contract to join the Army Rangers after 9/11. Our country rightfully celebrates his patriotism, courage and selflessness as he goes from training camp to boot camp. He was the epitome of the American ideal – personal sacrifice for the common good.
Pat Tillman and his brother joined the Rangers and volunteered for duty in the war on terror(ism.) What was not widely reported in those days of jingoistic fervor was that Pat Tillman considered the War on Iraq to be illegal. He was also an atheist and by most accounts a liberal in his thinking.
After a tour of duty in Iraq, Pat and his brother were sent to Afghanistan. In an unfortunate series of events, Pat was killed by friendly fire during a patrol in the rugged mountainous area of Afghanistan near the Pakistani border. The initial reports, however, did not mention that Corporal Tillman was most likely accidentally killed by his own platoon. Pat Tillman was awarded a Silver Star posthumously. The Bush Administration used the death of Cpl. Tillman for public relations purposes, showing the handsome football player as an example of all that was good about the war effort.
It was not until weeks later that the truth came out. Even after the Army knew the circumstances of his death, the Bush PR machine still pushed the story, much as they had done with the saga of Private Jessica Lynch. It was a full month after the facts were known that the family of Pat Tillman was finally informed of the truth of his death.
Pat Tillman remains an American hero – the circumstances of his death in no way minimize his sacrifice.
The fact remains, however, that the Bush Administration continually attempts to feed the American public propaganda, just as the Soviets and Nazis feed propaganda to their people.
We deserve better. The memory of Pat Tillman deserves better. Do we have to wait until January of 2009 for this madness to end?
Vaughn Tolle said:
What has concerned me about this matter is that the family were not given the information first; that is, when it became obvious that Cpl Tillman's death was likely to have been from friendly fire, the family should have been so informed then. I'm sure there will be those who will make the argument that until the military was positive, there should not have been any informing the family; that doesn't fly, with me.
I find it equally offensive that the military allowed the public to go on believing that which was not the truth during the weeks following his death. If it was apparent that there was likely no "enemy" ambush, these facts should have been made known at that point, but again after the family had been notified.
As WS points out, the circumstances of his death do not minimize his status. The facts, as they have developed and have come out, minimizes the military.
I find it equally offensive that the military allowed the public to go on believing that which was not the truth during the weeks following his death. If it was apparent that there was likely no "enemy" ambush, these facts should have been made known at that point, but again after the family had been notified.
As WS points out, the circumstances of his death do not minimize his status. The facts, as they have developed and have come out, minimizes the military.
Dubya said:
Do you really think it was some sort of "propaganda machine" keeping this information secret specifically for the purposes of protecting Bush?
The simple fact of the matter is most families don't know the truth behind the circumstances regarding the loss of their loved ones in combat until the investigation is complete.
Pat Tillman's case was tradgic, but at the same time was extremely unique not only because it was friendly fire, but because he was extremely famous for his patriotism and turning down the multi-million dollar contract in order to serve.
-----"I felt that it was essential that you received this information as soon as we detected it in order to preclude any unknowing statements by our country's leaders which might cause public embarrassment if the circumstances of Cpl. Tillman's death become public," McChrystal wrote on April 29, 2004, to Gen. John Abizaid, head of Central Command.-----
The article link on MSNBC is trying to slant this quote to suggest a cover-up. To ME this memo seems to suggest to President Bush that any statements contrary to the acknowledgment of "Friendly Fire" would cause embarrassment.
Every operation and the events detailed within it are ALWAYS confidential/secret until the situation has been investigated or debriefed. In the RANGERS, and other special forces units, their operations are NEVER supposed to be detailed to the public, and that includes family. The family wasn't kept in the dark because it was Pat Tillman and it might be embarrassing; they were kept in the dark because that's how the Army works; it's SOP.
I'm not disregarding some sort of "cover-up" as a possibility, but a MEMO from "some" Major-General in the field is not necessarily going to reach the President in a timely manner, if at all. The Military Machine is hardly efficient when it comes to affairs outside of military operations.
When my good-friend died in Afghanistan, we didn't know the circumstances of his death; didn't even have his body to bury for 37 days. Even after we knew what had caused his death, what actually happened didn't reach us or his family until his fellow soldiers came and spoke with us at the funeral.
God Bless Pat Tillman for his service; and my sympathy to his friends, family, and to the soldiers who have to forever live with the fact that they killed a fellow brother-in-arms, but (in my opinion) using his death as ammunition against the political administration just doesn't match up.
~Dubya
The simple fact of the matter is most families don't know the truth behind the circumstances regarding the loss of their loved ones in combat until the investigation is complete.
Pat Tillman's case was tradgic, but at the same time was extremely unique not only because it was friendly fire, but because he was extremely famous for his patriotism and turning down the multi-million dollar contract in order to serve.
-----"I felt that it was essential that you received this information as soon as we detected it in order to preclude any unknowing statements by our country's leaders which might cause public embarrassment if the circumstances of Cpl. Tillman's death become public," McChrystal wrote on April 29, 2004, to Gen. John Abizaid, head of Central Command.-----
The article link on MSNBC is trying to slant this quote to suggest a cover-up. To ME this memo seems to suggest to President Bush that any statements contrary to the acknowledgment of "Friendly Fire" would cause embarrassment.
Every operation and the events detailed within it are ALWAYS confidential/secret until the situation has been investigated or debriefed. In the RANGERS, and other special forces units, their operations are NEVER supposed to be detailed to the public, and that includes family. The family wasn't kept in the dark because it was Pat Tillman and it might be embarrassing; they were kept in the dark because that's how the Army works; it's SOP.
I'm not disregarding some sort of "cover-up" as a possibility, but a MEMO from "some" Major-General in the field is not necessarily going to reach the President in a timely manner, if at all. The Military Machine is hardly efficient when it comes to affairs outside of military operations.
When my good-friend died in Afghanistan, we didn't know the circumstances of his death; didn't even have his body to bury for 37 days. Even after we knew what had caused his death, what actually happened didn't reach us or his family until his fellow soldiers came and spoke with us at the funeral.
God Bless Pat Tillman for his service; and my sympathy to his friends, family, and to the soldiers who have to forever live with the fact that they killed a fellow brother-in-arms, but (in my opinion) using his death as ammunition against the political administration just doesn't match up.
~Dubya
Vaughn Tolle said:
~Dubya, while much of what you post is generally true, would you agree that the Tillman matter was, all in all, mishandled from a PR perspective? It seemed to me that the public information in the media was very agressive in the favor of the military; the positive "spin" (I don't like the word, but am using it) was constant. IF the military had questions, as it appears it did quite soon after the incident, of the circumstances, it would seem to me as one who did his four in uniform that the agressive promotion would have been quickly muted, at the least. While no "cover up" may, in fact, have occurred, the way it was handled in the public eye does give rise to a perception to this effect; and the military has no one to blame but itself.
Dubya said:
Touche'. I would agree that it was handled poorly from a PR perspective; specifically because he was a celebrity. Almost like the people in charge didn't know quite how to handle it. My point is that I believe cover up and propaganda to be too strong of language.
~Dubya
~Dubya
lindainks55 said:
There seem to be many things the people in charge didn't quite know how to handle with regard to the current ?wars? America has sent their soldiers to. What is the objective, how do we gauge progress, what is progress and how do we accomplish more of that? Incompetence isn't too strong a word, imo.
With regard to the death of Tillman. He started out a public figure so remained a public figure. Add 24-hour news networks searching for "news," and you get stories before they are "ready" to be released. But why was his death ever anything more than a death with a cause under investigation? It wasn't the army's SOP because there were details released. Someone made this seem to be something it wasn't. Who? Why is cover-up too strong a word when it was obvious the details being reported weren't true but were allowed to continue without question?
With regard to the death of Tillman. He started out a public figure so remained a public figure. Add 24-hour news networks searching for "news," and you get stories before they are "ready" to be released. But why was his death ever anything more than a death with a cause under investigation? It wasn't the army's SOP because there were details released. Someone made this seem to be something it wasn't. Who? Why is cover-up too strong a word when it was obvious the details being reported weren't true but were allowed to continue without question?
longhorn said:
I guess the military couldnt be bothered with a complete and public investigation of Tillman's death and the circumstances surrounding it, but looks like Matt Sanchez might not be so lucky. He's the Marine who won awards from conservative repukes, appeared with coultergeist, and then was "exposed" heheheh as being a gay porn star and raising money for himself by fraudulently claiming he was being deployed to iraq. Oh yeah, and he claimed he was spit on by the anti-war folks.
Sanchez investigation wraps up today
By John Hoellwarth - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Apr 1, 2007 8:22:25 EDT
The Corps on Friday was slated to wrap up an investigation into allegations that a corporal in the Individual Ready Reserve who appeared in gay porn films before enlisting solicited more than $12,000 from private organizations by asking them to fund a deployment to Iraq he never made, according to e-mails from the investigating officer forwarded to Marine Corps Times.
Reserve Col. Charles Jones, a staff judge advocate called to Marine Corps Mobilization Command in Kansas City, Mo., on temporary orders that expire Saturday, informed Reserve Cpl. Matt Sanchez of the allegations against him in a March 22 e-mail that advised Sanchez of his rights
<<<>>>
Jones wrote that Sanchez’s participation in porn films was part of the investigation, but that two of the three allegations against him involved lying “to various people, including but not limited to, representatives of the New York City United War Veterans Council and U-Haul Corporation” about deploying to Iraq at the commandant’s request.
“Specifically, you wrongfully solicited funds to support your purported deployment to Iraq” by coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC and $12,000 from U-Haul, Jones wrote.
_______________________________
EDIT NOTE: The link is good - if you can't get it through that link try through Salon's link:
http://www.salon.com/ent/col/fix/2007/04/02/mon/in...
Sanchez investigation wraps up today
By John Hoellwarth - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Apr 1, 2007 8:22:25 EDT
The Corps on Friday was slated to wrap up an investigation into allegations that a corporal in the Individual Ready Reserve who appeared in gay porn films before enlisting solicited more than $12,000 from private organizations by asking them to fund a deployment to Iraq he never made, according to e-mails from the investigating officer forwarded to Marine Corps Times.
Reserve Col. Charles Jones, a staff judge advocate called to Marine Corps Mobilization Command in Kansas City, Mo., on temporary orders that expire Saturday, informed Reserve Cpl. Matt Sanchez of the allegations against him in a March 22 e-mail that advised Sanchez of his rights
<<<
Jones wrote that Sanchez’s participation in porn films was part of the investigation, but that two of the three allegations against him involved lying “to various people, including but not limited to, representatives of the New York City United War Veterans Council and U-Haul Corporation” about deploying to Iraq at the commandant’s request.
“Specifically, you wrongfully solicited funds to support your purported deployment to Iraq” by coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC and $12,000 from U-Haul, Jones wrote.
_______________________________
EDIT NOTE: The link is good - if you can't get it through that link try through Salon's link:
http://www.salon.com/ent/col/fix/2007/04/02/mon/in...
Vaughn Tolle said:
lh, re: burning of Cpl Tillman's uniform; as I recall, that was done by some of his fellow Rangers who wanted to "cover up" the fact that he was killed by friendly fire. These troops (again from memory) were disciplined by removing them from the Rangers.
On the diary; that's definitely not SOP, as I understand it.
On the diary; that's definitely not SOP, as I understand it.
longhorn said:
So... the military tried to cover up that his death was by friendly fire, so they burned his uniform. Then they burned his diary. Then they, at best, mislead his family about his death and surrounding circumstances, knowingly kept up the lies surrounding his death during his very public memorial, and dribbled the real truth out later?
And anyone has to ask WHY there might be some suspicion that the military is less than trustworthy here? WHY there might be some conspiracy theory at play?
I think you'd have to be a real koolaide drinker NOT to think there is just too much smoke to rule out a fire.
And anyone has to ask WHY there might be some suspicion that the military is less than trustworthy here? WHY there might be some conspiracy theory at play?
I think you'd have to be a real koolaide drinker NOT to think there is just too much smoke to rule out a fire.
Vaughn Tolle said:
lh, when you say "the military" re: burning of the uniform, etc., I think you're being a bit overly broad. It appears from what I've read, etc., that at least the initial actions were taken by some of his fellow Rangers; there doesn't seem to have been any indicia of command pressure there.
Once we get past these actions, then there seems to have been a great deal of command interest in the matter, which gives rise to the (to my mind) justificialbe suspicions concerning the handling of the enire incident and subsequent events.
Once we get past these actions, then there seems to have been a great deal of command interest in the matter, which gives rise to the (to my mind) justificialbe suspicions concerning the handling of the enire incident and subsequent events.
longhorn said:
Sorry Vaughn, but "the military" is just one half of the military industrial complex to me. :) A single entity. And now that Petreaus has politicized the military by meeting with the republican CAUCUS, as far as I'm concerned, it's just another arm of the same beast. And that beast has a history of deny 'till ya die and then asking "who you gonna believe, me or those lying eyes of yours?"
This is just my opinion, no data to back it up, but I think respect for governmental and military institutions must be at an all time low. Partly the incompetence demostrated at all levels, but the on-going culture of lies and personal enrichment at taxpayer expense.
The difference between now and August of '74 is that people felt the republic would survive based on the inherent strength of our institution and the integrity of the courts.
Now? I think you can fill in the blanks.
This is just my opinion, no data to back it up, but I think respect for governmental and military institutions must be at an all time low. Partly the incompetence demostrated at all levels, but the on-going culture of lies and personal enrichment at taxpayer expense.
The difference between now and August of '74 is that people felt the republic would survive based on the inherent strength of our institution and the integrity of the courts.
Now? I think you can fill in the blanks.
Vaughn Tolle said:
lh, I understand your thoughts and opinions on the issue.
Something I learned while in the military; be very suspicious of "official pronouncements". Using the Tillman case as an example, my "BS filter" was alerted when the story broke, and when there were no interviews with fellow squad members, etc., I began to wonder what had actually happened. As time elapsed, I wondered more; then, when the official announcement was made, I knew why I had been having uneasy feelings about the matter. While the military appears (and is in most cases) a monolithic entity, there are things that happen on an individual level which are without the ability to control by "up the chain". Some of these are good; some are bad; and some just don't matter in the long run.
Something I learned while in the military; be very suspicious of "official pronouncements". Using the Tillman case as an example, my "BS filter" was alerted when the story broke, and when there were no interviews with fellow squad members, etc., I began to wonder what had actually happened. As time elapsed, I wondered more; then, when the official announcement was made, I knew why I had been having uneasy feelings about the matter. While the military appears (and is in most cases) a monolithic entity, there are things that happen on an individual level which are without the ability to control by "up the chain". Some of these are good; some are bad; and some just don't matter in the long run.
WSClark said:
Some thoughts........
First, thank you all for comments on my article. I have a long way to go before I catch up to Linda Inks, but this is a start.
Second, I do not think that the Army withheld info from the public to "protect" Bush, I believe that they wanted to use the death of Pat Tillman for propaganda purposes. I know that it may sound self-serving, but I remember thinking when I heard that Tillman had given up his NFL career that he would not survive his Army career. The story was just too convenient - a gift wrapped PR story.
First, thank you all for comments on my article. I have a long way to go before I catch up to Linda Inks, but this is a start.
Second, I do not think that the Army withheld info from the public to "protect" Bush, I believe that they wanted to use the death of Pat Tillman for propaganda purposes. I know that it may sound self-serving, but I remember thinking when I heard that Tillman had given up his NFL career that he would not survive his Army career. The story was just too convenient - a gift wrapped PR story.
Loading....