Tillman family critical of military

[REMgirl]

Read it at the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/22/AR2005052200865.html

They are disgusted, and with good reason.

[Nellie Bly]

They blew up their poster boy.

It's harsh, but they've got every right to be that harsh toward the army. I'm glad they're being so vocal about it.

[Handy Smurf]

what a slap in the face to his loved ones

and when will anyone in the army be held accountable for essentially trying to cover this up?

[Shlep]

Actually, in contrast to what the Tillman family think, I'm more apt to believe that the account of his death was tarted up with heroic imagery because of his considerable celebrity, not in spite of it. The Army surely knew that he'd be the lead story the next day; the idea that the selfless American who walked away from millions of dollars and fame as an NFL player to go chew dirt with the grunts in Afghanistan got shot to death in what was apparently a stupid, undisciplined mishap certainly could not have been thought to be good PR. Especially since from what I understand, the cover-up started with his fellow soldiers.

In any case, I find myself quite disgusted with the US Army right now. Pat Tillman was a highly principled man who gave up career, a fortune, and eventually his life trying to do what he thought was right. This sort of a clusterfuck of lies and stonewalling around his death is an unfitting legacy.

[Docta]

and when will anyone in the army be held accountable for essentially trying to cover this up?

of course, just like everyone else in this bush government who screws up. he came into office weilding a new era of responsibility you know? somehow this has to be the "mainstream media's" fault.

[paranoidandroid]

and when will anyone in the army be held accountable for essentially trying to cover this up?


yeah, they'll get promoted. that seems to be the M.O. these days in our government.

[crank-e]

Pat Tillman was a highly principled man who gave up career, a fortune, and eventually his life trying to do what he thought was right. This sort of a clusterfuck of lies and stonewalling around his death is an unfitting legacy.

That characterizes most of the military personnel I know. The only difference is he got his photo on CNN for dying for it, and the rest have been (for the most part) ignored. One former NFL player per 2,000 US deaths seems like a irrelevantly safe ratio.

Regardless, fuck the brass for any part they may have played. Unfortunately, chances are they'll do it again. And again..

[yoshomon]

The entire story is disheartening, but my first reaction to the Tillmans ranting was "GO AWAY". Deal with your sorrow in private. Deal with your anger in private. Deal with the lying military in private. Why is this on the front page? What do you hope to get out of rehashing this tragedy?

Maybe because they want to expose the military for lying and don't want something similar to happen again...

[Shlep]

The entire story is disheartening, but my first reaction to the Tillmans ranting was "GO AWAY". Deal with your sorrow in private. Deal with your anger in private. Deal with the lying military in private. Why is this on the front page? What do you hope to get out of rehashing this tragedy?

They need to be talking with a counsellor not a reporter. Instead of spouting off for publicity, perhaps they should be consulting with other military families who've suffered the same tragedy and how they dealt with their anger and sorrow without preening for attention. Piestewa comes to mind.

Not trying to be callous here, but that story just rubbed me the wrong way.

I suspect that the Tillmans would like nothing more than to grieve in private. I likewise suspect that they wish that if their son's life had to end this way, it'd have been better if he'd just been Pat Tillman from Anywhere, USA instead of Pat Tilmman: Square-jawed all-American action hero who left glamour and luxury of life as an NFL player to become a grunt and in doing so becoming the embodiment of noble American resolve to fight terror. Because of who he was, the Army no doubt wanted more than anything to have him die as he lived: bravely and selflessly, locating, closing with, and destroying the enemy instead of getting cut down in a terrified friendly-fire fuckup.

The Tillmans aren't making their anguish a public spectacle in the media, but rather the other way around.

Pity too since his legacy is tainted with lies and deception. So what if he was killed by friendly fire? He voluntarily chose to wear the uniform of the US Army, to go into a dangerous specialization, and was killed fighting this country's enemy. That, in my book, is more then enough to win my respect and deserve to be called a "hero" in my book...whether it's Pat Tillman or the anonymous grunts who died shoulder to shoulder with him that day.

What pisses me off is now you have to be a football player like Pat Tillman or America's friggin' sweetheart like Jessica Lynch for your wounding or death in combat to have resonance. Pat Tillman made the ultimate sacrifice protecting the country, and deserves all the esteem he gets. And that should be the same esteem afforded to the 1,400+ men and women who've made the exact same sacrifice in the past few years.

[Docta]

What pisses me off is now you have to be a football player like Pat Tillman or America's friggin' sweetheart like Jessica Lynch for your wounding or death in combat to have resonance. Pat Tillman made the ultimate sacrifice protecting the country, and deserves all the esteem he gets. And that should be the same esteem afforded to the 1,400+ men and women who've made the exact same sacrifice in the past few years.

just curious, what are you looking for in a "resonance" for the rest of the casualties? what is the proper way to show one's respect for the sacrafice of so many?

[chuxxter]

just curious, what are you looking for in a "resonance" for the rest of the casualties? what is the proper way to show one's respect for the sacrafice of so many?
How about getting everybody else the fuck out of there, for starters. You know, I do not want to sound harsh, but the word 'hero' gets thrown around a little too much for my liking these days. Around here (NYC) we see it every day with regard to the NYPD and the NYFD. I care more for the remaining living troops. I would prefer not to see any more sacrificed.

[BronxDJ]

"Pity too since his legacy is tainted with lies and deception. So what if he was killed by friendly fire? He voluntarily chose to wear the uniform of the US Army, to go into a dangerous specialization, and was killed fighting this country's enemy. "

Our most dangerous enemies are in the White House

[twentyshots]

Pat Tillman was not killed yesterday- I am thinking his family's grief has since turned to anger from being lied to which is why they are talking to reporters about it.

[stratt-daddy]

Don't be too quick to judge a system that can't possibly fathom.

Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

[chuxxter]

Don't be too quick to judge a system that can't possibly fathom.

Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
This quote might have some relevance when we had some real enemies out there that were a constant threat to our way of life. I do not consider these Iraqis a threat to my existence therefore this system has no credibility for me. This action was based on manufactured and false intelligence by an administration that had an agenda. And by the way, this was a movie, okay.

[BronxDJ]

Don't be too quick to judge a system that can't possibly fathom.

Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

That pice of monologue from whatever that movie was clalled with Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson I think is emblematic of the problem. The wall he is talking about is Git-Mo - Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. We occupy a piece of another country and have used that post to blockade the country and wage acts of undeclared war in Central America - one example being the mining of harbors in Nicaragua condemned by the World Court in the 80's. We currently use that piece of property to circumvent US laws and military code on treatment of prisoners and due process. It is an offensive, not defensive postion and many offenses are committed there. Remembver that at the end of the speech, Kevin Bacon's character, who had been prosecuting Tom Cruise's client, arrested Nicholson's character. He committed murder. It is a bad example to use unless the point you want to make is that we need to look closely and unflinchingly at what is done in our name. Much of it is repulsive.

[stratt-daddy]

The military does not train or conduct its operations based on whether or not YOU think the enemy is real or not.

And by the way, Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan, OKAY?......Not sure where your reference to "these Iraqis" is coming from.

My comment was directed at those who blame the military, not those generally opposed to the war, as you seem to be.

[chuxxter]

The military does not train or conduct its operations based on whether or not YOU think the enemy is real or not.

And by the way, Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan, OKAY?......Not sure where your reference to "these Iraqis" is coming from.

My comment was directed at those who blame the military, not those generally opposed to the war, as you seem to be.
First of all, I don't give a rats ass where he was killed. Afghans are not a serious threat to me either. Secondly, the commander-in chief is an elected position, so our opinion should count. And the military in these actions can be blamed for some very shoddy PR work. Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman and probably some others we know nothing about show the military is not above lying and conspiring to keep their 'image' clean. Just like politicans, being upfront from the start would have saved the military a lot of headaches and bad press.

[stratt-daddy]

In a perfect world the military would not be forced to provide precise details of soldier's death to the media hours after it occurred......before a thorough investigation can be completed.

This incident was driven by the media's insatiable demand for information. Next time the media asks for that kind of information, would you as a consumer of the media accept "No comment until a thorough investigation is completed" as an answer?

Last time I checked, CNN was not in the military's chain of command.

[chuxxter]

In a perfect world the military would not be forced to provide precise details of soldier's death to the media hours after it occurred......before a thorough investigation can be completed.

This incident was driven by the media's insatiable demand for information. Next time the media asks for that kind of information, would you as a consumer of the media accept "No comment until a thorough investigation is completed" as an answer?

Last time I checked, CNN was not in the military's chain of command.
Please. It is so easy to blame the media. I do not remember any stories detailing the army reporting the death due to media pressure. And, since I am not actually a great fan of the media, YES i would accept such an answer. Stop using the media as a whipping boy to justify the army's total lack of common sense. THEY LIED. Not the media's fault.

[Shlep]

just curious, what are you looking for in a "resonance" for the rest of the casualties? what is the proper way to show one's respect for the sacrafice of so many?

Not sure exactly what you're asking me here...as for showing respect, I don't think there needs to be much in the way of an outward showing of it. I think simply respecting everyone's sacrifice equally would do.

Don't be too quick to judge a system that can't possibly fathom.
<speech>

Well, I grew up immersed in that system as an Army brat and lived it for a few years in the same Marine Corps that the fictional Col. Jessup was in. And I will say that if you're looking to A Few Good Men, a movie made by Carl Reiner who while being a talented comedian is a flaming liberal who knows probably knows as much about the military as "Meathead" did to provide a meaningful context for describing said system, I'd venture to say it's you who's lacking the ability to fathom it.

The movie was entertaining, but was about as close to accurately depicting the Marine Corps, it's culture, and the UCMJ as Rambo II was in depicting a proper Special Forces operation. I knew plenty of guys who were at Gitmo, never once did I ever hear them mention anything about a "Code Red." Any JAG lawyer trying to get two Marines off of a charge of carrying out an order they knew to be illegal per the directives of a superior officer of the guy giving the order by claiming that they were, after all, just doing as they were told would, I think, run the risk of being disbarred for incompetance. And the character of Col. Jessup was nothing more than a pompous, self-righteous, bullying prima donna.

Regarding the Army's treatment of the Tillman incident: it was completely indefensible, full stop, end of story. If I infer your post correctly, and you're trying to claim that lying about how Pat Tillman died to protect his, and by extension the Armys', image is okay because they defend the country, you ought to be embarassed. They utterly dishonored him by tarting up the circumstances of his death for PR points.

[chuxxter]

MY MAN SHLEP!! Rant on brother, I am on your side.

[BronxDJ]

As I posted on anohter thread yesterday, there is a Project fo a New American Century document (PNAC it used to be available PDF on line) in which its authors, Wolfowitz, Pearls, Kristol, Cheney, advocate seizing more power in the mideast, ousting Saddam, curtailing civil liberties at home and greatly increasing military spending and mission in service of multinational corporations. It was written during Clinton's presidency. They conclude that it would take a Pearl Horbor-like event to use to manipulate the population to support achieving these goals. They have certainly used 9/11 towards the ends described in the PNAC document.

Of the 19 hijackers, 15 were Suadi, but we went to war with Afghanistan. Perhaps to be there when a pipeline is completed between Kazakstan and Pakistan. Does anyone else wonder where Osama is?

[stratt-daddy]

At the time, did they LIE......or present the facts as they knew them?......I don't know and neither do you.

[Shlep]

In a perfect world the military would not be forced to provide precise details of soldier's death to the media hours after it occurred......before a thorough investigation can be completed.

This incident was driven by the media's insatiable demand for information. Next time the media asks for that kind of information, would you as a consumer of the media accept "No comment until a thorough investigation is completed" as an answer?

Last time I checked, CNN was not in the military's chain of command.

Here you hold CNN responsible for causing the military to release bogus details of Tillmans' death, then state that they're not in a position to do so. Well, which is it?

Did CNN tell soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan to burn Tillmans' shot-up uniform and body armor hours after he was killed? I doubt it. Did CNN force Tillmans' superiors and members of the Army press liasion to just go and completely make shit up so they'd have a story to run?

And considering the astonishing embarassment that results when a large and otherwise respected media outlet runs a story fabricated by the source and then has to go back, retract it, and essentially admit that they didn't do their diligence and make sure the facts were vetted (like big, important journalists fighting to bring their consumers The Truth, though the heavens may fall are supposed to do), I sincerely doubt CNN was on the horn to a rep for the Army screaming "Gimme something! Anything! I don't care, I've got a deadline!!!"

[jd1]

I hate to get into this... I know it does no good... But I am not sure that these reports are entirely fair to the military.

Looking at the facts in the Post article quoted above...

1. Troops on the ground in Afghanistan withheld information about Tillman's death. The brass here in the US, who notified the family, did not know of the friendly fire angle until later.

2. The Army had reports of friendly fire before the televised memorial service. They were conducting an investigation. They finished their investigation after the memorial service, and then informed the family about the friendly fire.

I am not so sure that all this adds up to a cover-up. It is not unreasonable that they did not want to tell the family about the friendly fire before they were certain--it could put them through a lot of unnecessary pain if it turned out not to be true. Given the confusion of the events in combat, taking the time to do a proper investigation seems relatively reasonable to me.

The military may have erred on the side of caution here, but they are essentially a large and conservative bureaucracy that does everything at a glacial pace.

Furthermore: This whole story looks terrible. It does great PR damage to the armed forces. If the military were really so interested in nothing but twisting the Tillman story around to suit their own ends, why reveal the friendly fire story at all? Ever? Or why not get it over with at once, instead of bringing it out later when it will raise all these questions? It's simply not a rational conspiracy. They are doing the WORST possible thing here, from the point of view of their own interests.

I understand the family is grieving. But I am unconvinced by the arguments put forward by their lawyer. 2+2 does not add up to 5, and that is what he is trying to say here.

YMMV, of course.

--JD

[Shlep]

At the time, did they LIE......or present the facts as they knew them?......I don't know and neither do you.

The article states quite clearly that somewhere up higher in the chain of command there was a deliberate effort to keep the actual circumstances quiet until Tillman could be planted in the ground, awarded a posthumous medal for heroism, and have his death milked for PR points before quietly telling the family "Whoops! We fudged it!"

Assuming I give the guys at the top the benefit of the doubt that they were just as snowed as the Tillman family, then they should do right right by Pat Tillman and be and set the record straight as loudly as they screwed it up.

[chuxxter]

At the time, did they LIE......or present the facts as they knew them?......I don't know and neither do you.
No offense, dude, but this is a complete bullshit statement. We KNOW they lied at the time because all the facts are coming to light. They created the facts as they knew them. How can you possibly defend the Army in this case? They knowingly created a false scenario for Tillman's death. KNOWINGLY!!!! And now they simply expect his family to shut up and go away? Unbelievable arrogance and stupidity at the top of the chain of command, if you ask me.

[chuxxter]

YMMV, of course.

--JD
I am not up on slang. What does this mean, please?

[BronxDJ]

Here you hold CNN responsible for causing the military to release bogus details of Tillmans' death, then state that they're not in a position to do so. Well, which is it?

Did CNN tell soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan to burn Tillmans' shot-up uniform and body armor hours after he was killed? I doubt it. Did CNN force Tillmans' superiors and members of the Army press liasion to just go and completely make shit up so they'd have a story to run?

And considering the astonishing embarassment that results when a large and otherwise respected media outlet runs a story fabricated by the source and then has to go back, retract it, and essentially admit that they didn't do their diligence and make sure the facts were vetted (like big, important journalists fighting to bring their consumers The Truth, though the heavens may fall are supposed to do), I sincerely doubt CNN was on the horn to a rep for the Army screaming "Gimme something! Anything! I don't care, I've got a deadline!!!"

The army and the administration had a great PR story with Tillman joining the Special Forces. It obviously was not the same as Tillman's agenda as he shunned interviews during training and while in Afghanistan. That did not stop myths from being made about him. The army tried to furhter the myth once he was killed. You are right, Shlep, aobut who tried to spin and create a story. CNN reproted what the Army told them was the story - astory the army made up for its own purposes. The shame is on them.

[miami2112]

these soldiers are not being sacrificed, they are being murdered in an unlawful, unjust war.

the army, like any adult, should just learn to admit when it fucks up, say so, and apologize. any soldier murdered while on duty deserves better than that.

it seems to me that those in command (in light of this sad story) view soldiers as a disposable resource, as opposed to an actual human. hard to believe that the bush administration, with its steadfast stance of the sanctity of human life (no stem cell research, repealing abortion rights to some degree), seems so eager to "sacrifice" some soldiers life. talk about hypocrasy.

[BronxDJ]

these soldiers are not being sacrificed, they are being murdered in an unlawful, unjust war.

the army, like any adult, should just learn to admit when it fucks up, say so, and apologize. any soldier murdered while on duty deserves better than that.

it seems to me that those in command (in light of this sad story) view soldiers as a disposable resource, as opposed to an actual human. hard to believe that the bush administration, with its steadfast stance of the sanctity of human life (no stem cell research, repealing abortion rights to some degree), seems so eager to "sacrifice" some soldiers life. talk about hypocrasy.

Not to mention tens or hundreds of thousands of civilains in Afghanistan and Iraq and those in this country who are impacted by the cuts in funding of vital services to finance the debt created by the war(s).

[jd1]

The article states quite clearly that somewhere up higher in the chain of command there was a deliberate effort to keep the actual circumstances quiet until Tillman could be planted in the ground, awarded a posthumous medal for heroism, and have his death milked for PR points before quietly telling the family "Whoops! We fudged it!"The article said that the Army withheld information until the investigation was complete. This is very different from saying that they withheld it until their phony "war hero" story could be put in place--especially since their actions led to the exact opposite outcome.

It is entirely reasonable to suspect that the Army slowed down its investigation until the memorial was done. That is one explanation that is consistent with the facts. It is far from the only one, however.

The facts also support the possibility that the Army was well-intentioned and simply wanted a thorough investigation before they said anything else in a high-profile case. How are any of us to be so sure which one is really true?

BTW, Chuxx, YMMV = Your mileage may vary.

--JD

[chuxxter]

Thanks, Jd. What a great expression. Must remember this in the future.

[BronxDJ]

Chuxx- your signature line about "it's my job to arrange the meeting" seems to betray a point of view different than the one you take in this series of exchanges. Peace out,

[chuxxter]

Chuxx- your signature line about "it's my job to arrange the meeting" seems to betray a point of view different than the one you take in this series of exchanges. Peace out,
That's from "Man on Fire" with Denzel Washington, and I just thought it a cool movie line. Sorta like "Make my day". I do not advocate arranging meetings between people and their makers, as a rule. There are always exceptions, though. ;)