In the days since I first read this story, there’s been a number of articles written that leverage Tillman’s parents’ statements to fit a larger argument against government secrecy. And while secrecy is part of this case, the larger problem centers on this instinctive urge to tell a lie, and how easy and often it seems to happen within the Bush administration. What was the justification for resorting to lies in the case of Pat Tillman’s death?
At the heart of any answer to the question ‘why’ is the apparent sense of entitlement President Bush has allowed to dictate his actions since well before his political career was first born. This sickness allows a religious man like Bush to feel deserving of the luxury, the right to more than just Tillman’s life, but all the political capital that could be squeezed from lying about his death. While it is crystal clear that Bush had no right to invent a legacy, his goal had nothing to do with Pat Tillman at all, but was purely based in selfishness.
Tillman’s celebrity was seen as merely a gift to our President, rather than a testament to the man himself. He was and should represent forever a lasting memory of selflessness in the face of mortal danger that all of us can draw courage and pride from. The sacrifice that was made is one that baffles the mind, especially within a culture that too often attaches the ‘hero’ label to anything that could possibly equal a point or two in the ratings. And his death caused us all to pause, and realize that our enjoyment of life and all America has to offer us is less of a right than it is a privilege.
He was killed by friendly fire, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong or dirty about that. Anyone who knows a thing about combat understands that on the battlefield, tragedies are easy to come by. The circumstances surrounding ‘how’ he died were inconsequential to me and likely would have been to his family or anyone else. Because the point of all this, and what we should be teaching our children, is not how he died but instead the fact that he volunteered in the first place. That was and still is the most heroic thing Pat Tillman could have done.
It’s this focus on the details and the need for a ‘story’ to tack onto his death that angers me more than anything. What was our President saying with all of this? That the manner in which he perished would have diminished the sense of what he sacrificed for his country? I can’t imagine what else he must have thought, and that it happened amidst an election, where his opponent John Kerry was facing similar distortions of his own service, paints an even clearer picture of what President Bush and his friends are all about.
The sacrifice one makes in enlisting is something that matters very little to him and others in his administration. Why? They never came close to exhibiting such courage themselves. So the focus must naturally shift from that sacrifice and focus instead on what happened afterwards. And it was this fundamental lack of understanding that prompted the lies that followed. Dying because of friendly fire wasn’t good enough for President Bush or the people who talked him into acting on such a despicable notion.
I’m sickened by this as I too have felt that internal sorrow with rifle in hand on the other side of the world, the knowledge that my government doesn’t appreciate me or anyone around me, but will exploit what we do for their own purposes any chance they get. When the embassies in Africa were blown up by Osama Bin Laden, we were all focused on Headline News and preparing ourselves mentally for what followed. And as I was working a Christmas Day 24-hour guard rotation at the front gate of our post in Vilseck, Germany – the politicians were shouting ‘No War For Monica’.
And there you have the truth of where the disconnect lies when it comes to our military and our government. The politicians don’t see the courage they talk of so often, but only political opportunity. They didn’t care in the least that Americans died needlessly in Africa no more than they cared to present a truthful account of Tillman’s death and how the circumstances diminished nothing about his sacrifice. The truth of his death wasn’t worth enough to them, so they simply made up a story that qualified within their morbid rationale of what’s acceptably ‘heroic’.
To them a soldier’s sacrifice only equals an opportunity to get votes and criticize opponents, but nothing more. Pat Tillman’s sacrifice will always mean something to me, as it will mean something to every American. I just wish it meant something more to President Bush than a political opportunity. By lying about it, they raped our perception of what’s truly important here, and planted a seed of ignorance that incorrectly tells us that how he died was somehow dishonorable when it wasn’t. His family and our country deserved better.
”Pat had high ideals about the country; that’s why he did what he did,” Mary Tillman said in her first lengthy interview since her son’s death. ”The military let him down. The administration let him down. It was a sign of disrespect. The fact that he was the ultimate team player and he watched his own men kill him is absolutely heartbreaking and tragic. The fact that they lied about it afterward is disgusting.”
Another great article, Chris.
Lying is not one of my family values. Those responsible for the lies, and those continuing them, must be punished. Either you’re with me on this, or against me. And it’s not going to be pretty.
The administration refuses to admit errors. The Tillman case was an extension of this policy. The problem with pretending everything is perfect is that it leads to unrealistic expectations and bad decisions. One thing that frustrating is the right wings refusal to admit that Iraq and now Afganistan are not going well; And when a unpleasant fact like prisoner abuse comes to light they blame the source. The situation will not improve unless they admit that mistakes have been made and fix them.
If lies were told about the death of Pat Tillman shame on the lie tellers!!
Dishonesty is a plague. DC is suffering from it. I served with a guy who was in the first Gulf War, and he’d have these random nosebleeds out of nowhere. Just sitting there talking about whatever and the thing would just start going. As pridefull as he was, when a uniform got stained, he’d go out and buy a new one. Worst thing though was how he’d get spontaneously get this hacking cough from out of nowhere, that sounded like a heavy smoker waking up in the morning. He hadn’t smoked a cigarette in his life.
There’s no doubt that soldiers were exposed to depleated uranium and other forms of funkiness in that war. As of 2000 when I saw him last, the Army still hadn’t come clean with this truth about that war. They lied about it, and still do as far as I know. Veterans have passed whatever they got to their children.
So for the sake of being able to say a certain thing…or tell a story about the war, these people have to live with this for the rest of their lives.
This is from the baltimore sun via talkingpointsmemo. I think it sums up the problem with the Bushies.
“I John Riggs spent 39 years in the Army, earning a Distinguished Flying Cross for bravery during the Vietnam War and working his way up to become a three-star general entrusted with creating a high-tech Army for the 21st century.
But on a spring day last year, Riggs was told by senior Army officials that he would be retired at a reduced rank, losing one of his stars because of infractions considered so minor that they were not placed in his official record.
…
His Pentagon superiors said he allowed outside contractors to perform work they were not supposed to do, creating “an adverse command climate.”
But some of the general’s supporters believe the motivation behind his demotion was politics. Riggs was blunt and outspoken on a number of issues and publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and needed more troops.
“They all went bat s- – when that happened,” recalled retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner, a one-time Pentagon adviser who ran reconstruction efforts in Iraq in the spring of 2003. “The military part of [the defense secretary’s office] has been politicized. If [officers] disagree, they are ostracized and their reputations are ruined.”
…
Garner and 40 other Riggs supporters – including an unusually candid group of retired generals – are trying to help restore his rank.
But even his most ardent supporters concede that his appeal has little chance of succeeding and that an act of Congress might be required.”
.
That is absolutely dispicable. I’m baffled at how – no offense – a vegitable on life support for fifteen years…someone who has no chance of anything more than a catatonic state get’s hordes of people – a cable news network all her own, yet nobody gives a damn about a guy like this who gave us 39 years of his life.
Who earned it more? Him or Shiavo?
The mad architects do nothing more than use whoever of us is worth using. They don’t care, it’s not about fairness, it’s only about opportunity. Public perception of who’s getting screwed, who represents the ‘good fight’ and who can just get tossed on the scrap heap with the rest of us.
I say this general is the one who deserves the support from every single one of us. THIS is what ‘Support The Troops’ REALLY means! It’s not about symbolism, but about action. Talk is cheap, and the most prevalent piece of bullshit pervading our society today is the myth that our government OR the American public gives a damn about the troops when they most surely do not.
Anyone who condones this is only about the game, and full of shit from their head to their toes! Worst thing about it though is that a collection of suits who never had the balls to volunteer for the fight themselves are judging a man who provided them that luxury. It’s the worst sins of this administration, that they actually considered themselves worthy of even being in the same room as a guy like this, let alone bust his balls for telling the truth. For looking out for his SOLDIERS…how disgraceful right?
That is absolutely dispicable. I’m baffled at how – no offense – a vegitable on life support for fifteen years…someone who has no chance of anything more than a catatonic state get’s hordes of people – a cable news network all her own, yet nobody gives a damn about a guy like this who gave us 39 years of his life.
I’ll try to help unbaffle you about this so here goes. This general held his own future in his hands while Shaivo was killed for money and a cheap divorce. The general should have known better than to breach the chain of command and act insubordinately to his superiors with his own opinions, and remember, these are only opinions by one guy obviously not supported by a majority of the other generals.
So, you have this guy who, instead of folling proper chain of command and whatever avenues he had to voice his opinions decided to hold a press conference and call his boss an idiot in public, in some sort of macho “I don’t care what you think” mentality. Well, he sure seems to care now that the consequences of his actions are coming to bear.
Here’s the problem with Shaivo, now that other people with brain damage as severe as her’s have come out of their comas there is a “oh shit” feeling that Michael just out did OJ by getting away with murder. Let’s not throw away the downtroden and raise up the mutinous. Shaive should still be alive and this guy deserves to lose his job for being so arrogant.
He’s a general for a reason. These people are promoted and put in positions of leadership because they earn it. The justification for his demotion was mismanagement. Rumsfeld says nothing about anything this man said. It was a shady deal. You’re agreeing that politics was the reason for it, but if that’s so well understood, then why can’t the administration just say that? Doesn’t he deserve better? After 39 years?
He stated that the Army was overstretched. You don’t agree with his assessment? Rumsfeld needs to manage the problem, not pretend it doesn’t exist and chop off the heads of whoever disagrees. This is a bad message to be sending to the Army and the country. It looks like Rumsfeld doesn’t have a handle on this…which he doesn’t.
Here’s the disconnect though Right. It could be this general, a vet who’s not getting what they deserve or a unit of soldiers who are in need of replacements and not getting them. The fact is, millions of Americans will go to bat for a woman on life support before they will one of these soldiers they claim to support. Our priorities are wrong.
All this talk now about embryos…you have people advocating for these things that develop if the host is lucky, but once the person is born, they’re on their own. It’s all about picking something or someone to advocate for that will equal political points. The guise of it being an argument for a ‘culture of life’ is false.
You’re agreeing that politics was the reason for it, but if that’s so well understood, then why can’t the administration just say that? Doesn’t he deserve better? After 39 years?
Remember, it was the general who brought in the politics so I say if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. Play with fire, get burned….I’m done with the cliche’s. After 39 years this guy should have the basics of decorum figured out by now and how to act like an officer in the U.S. military. This ain’t Mutiny on the Bounty.
He stated that the Army was overstretched. You don’t agree with his assessment?
Nay, sure it would be nice to waltz in with 2 million men and a couple carriers full of X-wing fighters (Star Wars reference–10 points!!!) but we don’t have that kind of luxury. Just look, we’ve wiped out Saddam in a week, held REAL elections and the country is on the path to democracy regardless of what the Syrians and Jordanians try to do.
Our technology gives us an edge as does our ability to plan and execute maneuvers. We’re not there to take over the country rather to protect it from outside forces while it stabilizes. If this general is unable to do the job with the resources he has when at the same time other generals in the same boat are performing then I think it’s wrong to blame Rumsfeld for the generals failures.
This is a bad message to be sending to the Army and the country. It looks like Rumsfeld doesn’t have a handle on this…which he doesn’t.
I think it’s a great message, no matter who you are or what you’ve done there are codes of conduct that will be enforced and no one will build cults of personality. I think this guy is just prepping for a political career, can you guess which way he’ll go? Cough*democrat*cough. It’s a cheap publicity stunt that back fired on him.
Rumsfeld has a great handle on the situation and this goes to show that he is in charge, not some whiny general who thinks his job is too hard and he doesn’t have enough stuff and the other generals make fun of him and pick him last in the kickball line up. Whaah.
The fact is, millions of Americans will go to bat for a woman on life support before they will one of these soldiers they claim to support.
Who do you think these soldiers are fighting for? They fight to keep us free of governments that arbitrarily take life of people they deem of no value. We fought the likes of Hitler because in Germany at that time they would have killed Shaivo too. Soldiers have fought and now fight for our civil rights and for each person to be treated not just equally but with basic human dignity.
The disconnect is that it’s either shaivo or the soldiers when it’s because of soldiers that we have a society that allowed Terri to live as long as she did before her husband killed her for money and to marry the chick he was cheating on her with.
People don’t become soldiers for fame or fortune, they want careers and to help ensure their children have a decent society to grow up in. If you want to support our troops you can start by nott destroying what they are fighting for abroad here at home!!!
DI: You’re agreeing that politics was the reason for it, but if that’s so well understood, then why can’t the administration just say that? Doesn’t he deserve better? After 39 years?
RT: Remember, it was the general who brought in the politics so I say if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. Play with fire, get burned….I’m done with the cliche’s. After 39 years this guy should have the basics of decorum figured out by now and how to act like an officer in the U.S. military. This ain’t Mutiny on the Bounty.
This is where you and I disagree. I fully understand the necessity of a chain of command and adherence to it for the sake of the lives that are at stake, but we’re not talking about a platoon leader here or a company commander. This isn’t even a Division Commander, but higher up than that. The commanders that serve below this General tell him what’s going on for them on the ground. He sends it up the chain.
When the issues those commanders have been reporting are not even addressed in a full year, what does the honorable leader do? He advocates for his soldiers and gets the message out there that the military is not getting what they need. If he hadn’t spoken out in 39 years, then I think he’s got enough credibility for me. This isn’t an easy decision for someone like him to make, and he’s speaking for the soldiers who don’t have a voice.
That’s heroic – and the chain of command line in this instance coupled with the bogus charge they used as an excuse to bust him down are both wrong. They did it to General Shinsecki as well. It’s an abuse of power to ‘retire’ men of that rank for merely saying what you didn’t want to hear.
DI: He stated that the Army was overstretched. You don’t agree with his assessment?
RT: Nay, sure it would be nice to waltz in with 2 million men and a couple carriers full of X-wing fighters (Star Wars reference–10 points!!!) but we don’t have that kind of luxury. Just look, we’ve wiped out Saddam in a week, held REAL elections and the country is on the path to democracy regardless of what the Syrians and Jordanians try to do.
Our technology gives us an edge as does our ability to plan and execute maneuvers. We’re not there to take over the country rather to protect it from outside forces while it stabilizes. If this general is unable to do the job with the resources he has when at the same time other generals in the same boat are performing then I think it’s wrong to blame Rumsfeld for the generals failures.
I think that’s spin. Saying, ‘well of course we’d like to have everything’, is a valid statement if those troops had the best we could provide already – but they don’t. The recruiting problems haven’t been addressed, and it’s been documented that units over there are being forced to perform duties they’re not equiped to handle. 400 marines being put in charge of a 10K square mile area? They ignore these things.
The argument of ‘well, some commanders are getting the job done’ is basically aassuming that the ones who aren’t getting it done are simply incompetent. I’m quite sure that’s not true. But this is the politicization of something we’re all supposed to be concerned about…to deflect criticism, your argument is that it’s OK to assume that the problems are due to incompetence and have nothing to do with a lack of support from our government.
DI: This is a bad message to be sending to the Army and the country. It looks like Rumsfeld doesn’t have a handle on this…which he doesn’t.
RT: I think it’s a great message, no matter who you are or what you’ve done there are codes of conduct that will be enforced and no one will build cults of personality. I think this guy is just prepping for a political career, can you guess which way he’ll go? Cough*democrat*cough. It’s a cheap publicity stunt that back fired on him.
This argument is invalid. This is a patented Scott McClellan ploy, to immediately point to possible alterior motives, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with it. Just assume it in every case, and ignore it when critiquing the politicians on your own side.
RT: Rumsfeld has a great handle on the situation and this goes to show that he is in charge, not some whiny general who thinks his job is too hard and he doesn’t have enough stuff and the other generals make fun of him and pick him last in the kickball line up. Whaah.
This is a misrepresentation of a 39 year Army General. You’re letting politics convince you that he’s a dirtbag. How do you think one gets to the rank of 3-star general?
DI: The fact is, millions of Americans will go to bat for a woman on life support before they will one of these soldiers they claim to support.
RT: Who do you think these soldiers are fighting for? They fight to keep us free of governments that arbitrarily take life of people they deem of no value. We fought the likes of Hitler because in Germany at that time they would have killed Shaivo too. Soldiers have fought and now fight for our civil rights and for each person to be treated not just equally but with basic human dignity.
How much basic human dignity was involved with the decisionmaking behind involuntarily posting her image in that condition all over the media? Her appearance was important to her, and the neverending reruning of that same clip of her in the bed from years ago was kind of like how Dante would have had her die in Inferno.
You strip a person of their dignity when you choose politics first and to assume the worst about them.
RT: The disconnect is that it’s either shaivo or the soldiers when it’s because of soldiers that we have a society that allowed Terri to live as long as she did before her husband killed her for money and to marry the chick he was cheating on her with.
See, here’s another accusation of something you can’t be sure of. An assumption of the worst about someone for the sake of politics.
RT: People don’t become soldiers for fame or fortune, they want careers and to help ensure their children have a decent society to grow up in. If you want to support our troops you can start by nott destroying what they are fighting for abroad here at home!!!
Are you saying that’s what I’m doing? Having had the experience from both sides of the uniform, I can tell you for sure that there are soldiers out there today who feel exactally the way I’m describing in my articles on the military. There’s a soldier who will come back without a limb and remember for the rest of his life how whatever he was doing in Iraq came second for the American media and public. There’s always Deep Throat, Shiavo or something else to overshaddow them.
Right – what do you think about the lie Bush told concerning Tillman? Basically played the public for a bunch of suckers.
When the issues those commanders have been reporting are not even addressed in a full year, what does the honorable leader do?
How do you know or even quantify this? Are you saying that these commanders should get whatever they ask for and if they don’t, and soon, then a general should publicly go after his own superiors? Everyone has a job to do and not everyone likes it but it has to be done, the general just caused himself a lot of grief for acting very unprofessional.
It’s an abuse of power to ‘retire’ men of that rank for merely saying what you didn’t want to hear.
I don’t know what you mean by this. If I go out and hold a press conference disparraging my employer on Saturday, I shouldn’t be suprised when my key card doesn’t work on Monday. Since when did the military get the right to openly revolt against the government?
I think that’s spin. Saying, ‘well of course we’d like to have everything’, is a valid statement if those troops had the best we could provide already – but they don’t. The recruiting problems haven’t been addressed, and it’s been documented that units over there are being forced to perform duties they’re not equiped to handle. 400 marines being put in charge of a 10K square mile area? They ignore these things.
Again, not sure how you quantify the above. We have what we need over there to get the job done and the job is getting done. I’m not sure what it is that you think is missing, we have basically won and Iraq is on course for historic reform. Now, Iraqis are bearing the brunt of the casualties and are taking over their own security. I don’t see the problem.
This argument is invalid. This is a patented Scott McClellan ploy, to immediately point to possible alterior motives, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with it. Just assume it in every case, and ignore it when critiquing the politicians on your own side.
I’m not sure who Scott McClellan is but I imagine he must be someone conservative. Is it such a stretch, after people like Wesley Clark, to think generals go into politics after retirement? Isn’t it odd that a general would buck his own codes of conduct at the end of his career just when the political tide might take him somewhere? It’s just the first thing to come to my mind. It was too setup, but it’s just me.
This is a misrepresentation of a 39 year Army General. You’re letting politics convince you that he’s a dirtbag. How do you think one gets to the rank of 3-star general?
I didn’t say he was a dirtbag, I said he created his own situation, make your bed and sleep in it, dig your grave, remember the cliche’ thing? I do question his judgement.
How much basic human dignity was involved with the decisionmaking behind involuntarily posting her image in that condition all over the media?
Hey, if I’m ever about to be murdered by my “spouse” and her boyfriend, please, PLEASE post my image where ever you can if it will keep my killers at bay. Generate as much sympathy as you want, sell T-shirts, make action figures, what ever, just get publicity and get me help!!!
See, here’s another accusation of something you can’t be sure of. An assumption of the worst about someone for the sake of politics.
Hello!!! Rumsfelt, Owens, Bush, O’Reiley, anyone conservative!!! The pot calls the kettle black.
Neither an assumption nor for the sake of politics. It was michael’s own actions that created so much suspicion. He could have spent the lawsuit money for Terri on Terri but he didn’t, he could have given her the therapy that brought that Firefighter back from his 12 year coma but he didn’t, he could have divorced Terri and given her to people who actually love and can care for her, but he didn’t. This is a natural conclusion based on the facts.
There’s always Deep Throat, Shiavo or something else to overshaddow them.
I am trying to understand where you are going with this as you have talked about this before. What do you want to happen in the media when news comes up? You talk as if you expect the media to do something else but don’t say what.
There are going to be news stories breaking everyday, I don’t see how current events overshadows the work our military is doing over sees. Why can’t we read about something other than Iraq? Would you force Iraq on the cover of the newspapers everyday?
Right – what do you think about the lie Bush told concerning Tillman? Basically played the public for a bunch of suckers.
First of all, thanks for not trying to influence my answer but I will say this, I honestly don’t know what it is Bush said. I bookmarked a webpage for both Tillman and sgt. Paul Smith and I know Tillman was killed by his own guys in a friendly fire accident, or at least that’s what the article said.
That marine unit we discussed before. That’s a perfect example. There is a unit there right now with 400 that are responsible for 10K square miles of land. They’ve been saying that they need more people to accomplish the mission, and they get no help. That marine unit who lost close to half of their men (i can’t remember the exact numbers off the top of my head), they needed bomb detection devices, but were so far down the food chain that many of them had to die needlessly before the leadership got them what they needed.
We’re not a poor country. This shouldn’t happen. I’ve had to throw down 400 bucks of my own money for a GPS in the past…I didn’t get my arm blown off because I didn’t have this, but if I didn’t have it I would have been in a lot of trouble. As a driver, when you get a grid location in territory that’s all hills, it’s nervewracking getting to the spot on time every time. I bit the bullet and threw down an entire half month’s pay for something I needed to do my job.
The S-2 had 2, S-3 had 3-4, but the S-1 was alloted none. This type of thing happens and it’s a failure on the part of the leadership. The general pointing out these things is not dishonorable.
He didn’t openly revolt. This is blown out of proportion on the chain of command issue. What he said, if the administration disagreed, it should be transparant as to where they disagree. Bush isn’t in Iraq, neither is Rumsfeld. This general was, and obviously he felt like they wouldn’t do anything about the problems the units were having.
The accounts of the soldiers themselves:
http://optruth.org/main.cfm
Or are they all dishonest?
Scott McClellan is the White House Press Secretary. He’s the guy who goes to the podium and makes allegations like, ‘he’s probably looking to sell his book’, to anyone who blows the whistle. I don’t think you understand how serious this is to these people. The general wasn’t like you or me, and his motivations for speaking out are over our head from where we’re sitting. To assume that he would serve 39 years and then suddenly cross over to the dark side is kind of disrespectfull to the entire military institution. We need to respect what a 39 year veteran does and says. If it was your father or grandfather…think about it that way.
So there’s no circumstance that you can imagine that would justify a leader saying what he said? Is the goal to provide the soldiers what they need, or to control the appearance? Can’t we assume that he has a better handle on what’s going on with his soldiers than the President or Rumsfeld?
And he was booted on a seperate issue. They didn’t even mention chain of command, so we’re really arguing here about something that’s apparantly not even part of the story.
You assume that what you’d want is what everybody would want. That’s where the disconnect is here.
? I didn’t get this response. The allegations that he had something to do with her accident are irresponsible. There’s been plenty of time to convict him if he did have something to do with it.
What would the odds be of someone coming out of that alive? Because it happened once or twice doesn’t make it automatic. The parents had nothing to lose by starting all of this. We’re judging this man, yet who among us has been in his shoes? It’s a case of ‘wanting to believe’ a certain thing and fixing the details to match it.
It’s the most significant thing happening in the world involving Americans. Bill O’Rieley burns this argument out on a nightly basis now…the argument that because the NYTimes covers the war and puts stories of the war on the frong page, they’re anti-American. I for one want articles on the war.
The news is more than just entertainment. The media served a purpose in the past, they were the voice of the people. Now they’re something very different. Iraq is the big story and should be until the war is over. We should have information, the troops should have everything they need and that’s it. The lies and non-coverage is detrimental to our nation.
I watched Bush broadcast across the NFL, on the big screen in Arizona for a home game and he lied about how Tillman died. He milked this lie for all he could get out of it. Think about that. He spoke to millions across the country at one time and flat out lied. The right-wing adopted Tillman as a posterchild and created a backstory for him.
Or are they all dishonest?
All this seems to be is a collection of one sided stories. Where are all the people I’ve talked to who are proud to have served and think we are doing a great job over there. You complain alot about politics getting into the mix and then put up a link like this.
No I don’t think they are all dishonest, putting a bunch of the same stories on a website to make it look like everyone is against the war and calling it operation truth is what is dishonest.
Scott McClellan is the White House Press Secretary.
I’ll be damned, I don’t pay much attention to the white house staff these days.
To assume that he would serve 39 years and then suddenly cross over to the dark side is kind of disrespectfull to the entire military institution. We need to respect what a 39 year veteran does and says. If it was your father or grandfather…think about it that way.
The “dark side” eh??? Nice. Again, it is the general who spoke unprofessionally so as a leader I am sure he understands what the word consequence means. Maybe he was right, maybe not but there are ways of dealing with your opinions.
Your saying we should respect his 39 years of service but service to an institution he seems to have lost respect for. Does 39 years exempt you for protocol, ethics and proper decorum? Why should we respect his general-hood when he doesn’t seem to?
So there’s no circumstance that you can imagine that would justify a leader saying what he said? Is the goal to provide the soldiers what they need, or to control the appearance? Can’t we assume that he has a better handle on what’s going on with his soldiers than the President or Rumsfeld?
Why do you assume that? He is only one cog in a huge machine, Bush and Rumsfeld know what is going on everywhere and as information comes in. This general only knows his piece of the puzzle yet you assume he has this grand knowledge base that allows him to second guess Congress, The President, Defense Secretary, The Vice President and the theatre commander. Where did this omniscience come from?
And no, there isn’t a circumstance in which what this guy did would be ok. Follow the chain and if that doesn’t work that is what grand juries and district attorneys are for. Civillian still trumps military unless something has changed.
You assume that what you’d want is what everybody would want.
Are you suggesting that Terri Shaivo wanted to commit suicide so her husband and his new girlfriend could start a new life with her half of her estate?
? I didn’t get this response.
I was pointing out the humor I find in this statement:
DI: See, here’s another accusation of something you can’t be sure of. An assumption of the worst about someone for the sake of politics.
when the blog is filled with such accusations about Bush and Rumsfeld, amoung others as if we could hear their thoughts. I make one observation of Michael based on a clear set of diabolical events and it’s WHAMO!!
What would the odds be of someone coming out of that alive? Because it happened once or twice doesn’t make it automatic.
This is where I talk about the inherent value of human life. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t automatic, she is a person and deserves a chance, no matter how small. The firefighter came back but would you be ok with pulling his plug? We don’t have the luxury to know who will live or die but we have the skill and facilities to try.
It’s the most significant thing happening in the world involving Americans. Bill O’Rieley burns this argument out on a nightly basis now…the argument that because the NYTimes covers the war and puts stories of the war on the frong page, they’re anti-American. I for one want articles on the war.
No, what the NYT does is put anti-American stories on the front page, they use the front page to editorialize and that is why Fox News will always be more trustworthy that the NYT. Fox puts opinion in the opinion section and news in the news section, NYT is all opinion, some labeled as such and some cleverly crafted to look like news.
I am fine with war coverage as long as the coverage doesn’t prostitute our fighting men and women to the john that is the liberal establishment. The NYT needs bad things to happen to good people so they don’t have to make up stories to sell papers to their liberal base. Good news about Iraq is bad for NYT business and I challenge anyone to refute that.
The right-wing adopted Tillman as a posterchild and created a backstory for him.
Help me out here, are you saying that he didn’t die in a friendly fire accident? I thought Tillman was a hero because he turned down a football career to serve his country, so I am still not sure what all the hubub is about. Didn’t Tillman have a spot on the Arizona Cardinals NFL team? Sorry, I missed this event.
There is a unit there right now with 400 that are responsible for 10K square miles of land.
You say 10k square miles of land, what kind of land? How many locals are out there also? A flat, barren, lifeless desert shouldn’t be too tough to patrol. If you were to say 10k square miles of L.A. or Southern California then I’d say 40,000 wasn’t enough.
400 soldiers cannot patrol something the size of Massachusetts. I’m not sure of the exact location, but that’s probably a good thing. If the unit is 400 strong, they cannot be out there on their own or doubled up even. It’s extremely dangerous. There’s a disconnect there. These guys aren’t in Bastogne staring directly at the enemy, holding the line. I get the concept of ‘get it done’ in the military, but there’s a difference between something that can be done and something that can’t. Not only that, but the risk compared to the benefit is arbitrary.
Your assuming you know all the details. Are you saying that a commander would be allowed to assign 400 soldiers to a task that only 5,000 could do? I am pretty sure were not sending 400 guys into the equivilent of North Korea, if seasoned generals have determined 400 is enough for the terrain and environment us armchair warriors probably shouldn’t cause too much of a ruckus.
I can’t imagine what else he must have thought, and that it happened amidst an election, where his opponent John Kerry was facing similar distortions of his own service, paints an even clearer picture of what President Bush and his friends are all about.
Kerry has released his records and now and it looks like the conservatives and veterans were right, which I felt was right too. I think this is a plan to get the worst over with for another presidentail bid although he will be the Jane Fonda anti-american candidate.
And it might work. The American people, as you have brought up about the slave trade in the middle east, don’t seem to care about the plight of other countries. Liberals would be overjoyed if Saddam were still running Iraq, if communism takes over South America and if Europeans and Canadians disrespect the jews by calling Bush a Nazi.
Tillman is made up of everything liberals hate, patriotism, sacrafice, working hard and believing in something that doesn’t have a hard scientific foundation or have to do with killing babies.
Odd thing – the first two articles I’ve clicked on haven’t made it to the screen. This could be the dial-up, but the articles to the top and bottom of each link came right up…searching Google News ‘400 Iraq Miles’. I’m still trying to get one open so I can post some quotes.
You’re assuming that the information out there is mistaken. It’s either that or you’re assuming that the Army wouldn’t ask too few troops to do a job they weren’t staffed for. As someone who’s been in the Army, let me make it clear that the orders are what they are, and if the boss man wants something done – it’s not under discussion. After this exposure it may be, but never assume that whether or not the mission is feasible matters in all cases.
Third link that failed to work – I’m just going to post the links here and you can take a look for yourself. I think it’s legit – and should cause us all to pause and consider ‘how much’ support we’re actually providing.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/11833598.htm
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/11817185.htm
Finally one that worked:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0601iraq-insurgency01.html
Deadissue.
DI: I can’t imagine what else he must have thought, and that it happened amidst an election, where his opponent John Kerry was facing similar distortions of his own service, paints an even clearer picture of what President Bush and his friends are all about.
RT: Kerry has released his records and now and it looks like the conservatives and veterans were right, which I felt was right too. I think this is a plan to get the worst over with for another presidentail bid although he will be the Jane Fonda anti-american candidate.
And it might work. The American people, as you have brought up about the slave trade in the middle east, don’t seem to care about the plight of other countries. Liberals would be overjoyed if Saddam were still running Iraq, if communism takes over South America and if Europeans and Canadians disrespect the jews by calling Bush a Nazi.
Tillman is made up of everything liberals hate, patriotism, sacrafice, working hard and believing in something that doesn’t have a hard scientific foundation or have to do with killing babies.
What negative information was revealed in the records? Right – the ‘everything liberals hate’ sentiment is garbage. I or any other Democrat could lean on a ‘conservatives don’t read books’ line, but such a characterization is obviously not true.
The Swift Boat guy and someone else were making claims that Kerry released the records to the Boston Globe, and because they went to that specific place, that he didn’t fill out the form. They said that if you filled out the form, the records were released to anyone who wanted them.
But a June 9 New York Sun article did consult a Navy spokesman, who refuted O’Neill’s claim: “[T]he Navy spokesman, Commander [Daniel] Hernandez, said the latest release does include the papers from St. Louis. ‘It’s the whole record,’ he said.'”
The misinformation campaign concerning Kerry’s military service is horrible. O’Neill flat out lied here. How often has he lied about Kerry in the past? As many times as he’s had to.