General tried to warn Bush about Tillman

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_re_us/tillman_friendly_fire

General tried to warn Bush about Tillman

For weeks after his death, the Pentagon maintained that Pat Tillman was killed in an enemy ambush, even after a top general tried to warn President Bush that the NFL star-turned-soldier likely died by friendly fire, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press.

In the memo sent to a superior officer seven days after Tillman's death, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned that the evidence strongly pointed to friendly fire and the nation's leaders risked embarrassing themselves if they publicly said otherwise.

"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.

The April 29, 2004, memo, was addressed to Gen. John Abizaid, head of Central Command, and was intended as a warning to Bush and acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee.

It is not clear whether Bush or Brownlee received the warning, but it raises new questions on how high up the chain of command the misinformation campaign extended. In speeches following the memo, Bush avoided any reference to the circumstances of Tillman's death.

The family was not told until May 29, 2004, what really happened. In the intervening weeks, the military continued to say Tillman died under enemy fire, and even awarded him the Silver Star, which is given for heroic battlefield action.



What I find sad is that somehow people equate dying from friendly fire as any less a sacrifice or any less courageous than dying from enemy fire.
This whole Tillman thing seems to carry the stink of propaganda. Not that its so unusual for the the government to seek to highlight our heroic armed forces. Anyone see Letters from Iwo Jima?
What is sickening about this whole thing is the parents were not told the truth as soon as it was known. And that politicians and senior Pentagon officials used this death to further their political aims.

 

[WiseOldDude]

You can't warn stupid people, they don't have the mental capacity to see beyond the moment.

 

[Phokus]

That's absolutely disgusting. Of course you won't see the conservative lie machine denouncing this, even though it disgraces the memory of a military hero.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: WiseOldDude
You can't warn stupid people, they don't have the mental capacity to see beyond the moment.

bingo

 

[musicc]

Does it you sick your stomach to think people allow this kind of action? I guess there is a new meaning in honor the dead.

 

[Gaard]

[*]"How can we use this to further our agenda?"

[*]"This is sad. He was a true hero."



Which phrase do you think first popped into the minds of our leaders?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
Did Tillman get a fast track through training? I mean if he earned the patch and the beret, I don't really see why his comrades would of hated him, unless he was just a dick.

It had nothing to do with his comrades hating him.

There was a seemingly excellent show on how the mis-hap occurred (can't remember the channel).

It had some of the soldiers involved (who've since left the service IIRC) explaining what happened (his brother was in the same unit and present at the time), and good CG gfx showing the terain and various enemy & friendly convoys passing through the large gulley etc . Tillman wasn't the only killed in that occurance. I'm pretty sure everyone at his position was attacked & kiled by friendly fire.

Fern

 

[RightIsWrong]

As is usual and par for the course within this administration, those that actually try to get to the truth and don't go along with the propoganda get blamed and punished.

It appears that the Lt. Gen. that is going to take the fall for the Tillman coverup actually tried to warn his superiors and Bush himself to not scream from the mountaintops that Tillman was killed by the enemy and more than likely was the unfortunate victim of friendly fire.

For weeks after his death, the Pentagon maintained that Pat Tillman was killed in an enemy ambush, even after a top general tried to warn President Bush that the NFL star-turned-soldier likely died by friendly fire, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press.

In the memo sent to a superior officer seven days after Tillman's death, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned that the evidence strongly pointed to friendly fire and the nation's leaders risked embarrassing themselves if they publicly said otherwise.

"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.

The April 29, 2004, memo, was addressed to Gen. John Abizaid, head of Central Command, and was intended as a warning to Bush and acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee.

It is not clear whether Bush or Brownlee received the warning, but it raises new questions on how high up the chain of command the misinformation campaign extended. In speeches following the memo, Bush avoided any reference to the circumstances of Tillman's death.

The family was not told until May 29, 2004, what really happened. In the intervening weeks, the military continued to say Tillman died under enemy fire, and even awarded him the Silver Star, which is given for heroic battlefield action.

White House spokesman Blain Rethmeier said Friday that a review of records turned up no indication that the president had received McChrystal's warning. Rethmeier emphasized that the president often pays tribute to fallen soldiers without mentioning the exact circumstances of their deaths.

The Tillman family has charged that the military and the Bush administration deliberately deceived his relatives and the nation to avoid turning public opinion against the war.

Tillman's mother, Mary, had no immediate comment Friday on the newly disclosed memo.

The memo was provided to the AP by a government official who requested anonymity because the document was not released as part of the Pentagon's official report into the way the Army brass withheld the truth. McChrystal was the highest-ranking officer accused of wrongdoing in the report, issued earlier this week.

In his memo, McChrystal said he had heard Bush and Brownlee "might include comments about Cpl. Tillman's heroism and his approved Silver Star medal in speeches currently being prepared, not knowing the specifics surrounding his death."

McChrystal said he expected an investigation under way "will find that it is highly possible Cpl. Tillman was killed by friendly fire."

At the same time, McChrystal said: "The potential that he might have been killed by friendly fire in no way detracts from his witnessed heroism or the recommended personal decoration for valor in the face of the enemy."

A former spokesman for Abizaid did not immediately return phone and e-mail messages.

As for Brownlee, he told investigators he did not recall learning Tillman was killed by his fellow Rangers until several weeks after the fact. He did not discuss the matter with the White House, he told investigators.

A spokesman for McChrystal said he had no comment.

McChrystal was, and still is, commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, head of "black ops" forces. He has since been promoted to lieutenant general. Abizaid was in charge of American forces in the Middle East and Central Asia.

On Monday, the Pentagon released the findings of an investigation into the circumstances of Tillman's death, and into whether the military covered them up.

The investigators recommended that nine Army officers, including McChrystal, be held accountable for errors in reporting the friendly fire death to their superiors and to Tillman's family. McChrystal was found "accountable for the inaccurate and misleading assertions" contained in papers recommending Tillman get the Silver Star.

---

Moderator's note - This post was the op in a second thread on the same topic. All posts from that thread moved to this one. 🙂

Mod

 

[International Machine Consortium]

No, there were survivors to tell the tale. How do you think they got the story?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Shame on Bush for trying to take a person who was killed in combat and hold him up as an example of what is right with this country. :roll:

Exactly what hard was done via this mistake?

I'm guessing that you mean "harm".

The harm that was done was that the government is supposed to be forthright with its citizenry. Knowing that there was a possibility, and a strong one at that, that the story that was spread over and over to the press was nothing short of a propoganda recruitment ad and not even suggesting that there needed to be an investigation into the whole event because nothing was confirmed further cements the feelings that this administration will do and say anything to further its agenda.

I guess if you think that complete dishonesty doesn't really have any negative side effects....you'd be right. No harm was done.

 

[imported_Infidel]

This administration, and this president, have no moral compass to speak of.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: judasmachine
Did Tillman get a fast track through training? I mean if he earned the patch and the beret, I don't really see why his comrades would of hated him, unless he was just a dick.

It had nothing to do with his comrades hating him.

There was a seemingly excellent show on how the mis-hap occurred (can't remember the channel).

It had some of the soldiers involved (who've since left the service IIRC) explaining what happened (his brother was in the same unit and present at the time), and good CG gfx showing the terain and various enemy & friendly convoys passing through the large gulley etc . Tillman wasn't the only killed in that occurance. I'm pretty sure everyone at his position was attacked & kiled by friendly fire.

Fern

I guess I missed all that.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Disgusting. Yet another example of power corrupting absolutely.

 

[Fern]

In speeches following the memo, Bush avoided any reference to the circumstances of Tillman's death.

Seems he (Bush) did the appropriate thing in avoiding any reference to the circumstances.

I say this on Keith O's program last night. Not sure sure how this specifically reflects badly on Bush?

Oh, some of the Keithie awards were pretty funny. The "flying lizard" was hilarious.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
No, there were survivors to tell the tale. How do you think they got the story?

If you're responding to me what I wrote was:

I'm pretty sure everyone at his position was attacked & kiled by friendly fire.

"His position" being where he was actually physically standing/crouching. He was up in an elevated position behind large rocks/bolders looking down on the convoys. There were 2 or 3 (IIRC) other soldiers with him at that spot. They were all mis-identified and shot at by friendlies. I'm pretty sure he wasn't the first friendly shot either. I beleive after the first guy was shot, Tillman came out from behind cover and tried to wave off the attack, etc

Moreover, I pointed that some of the soldiers in his unit (obviously deployed at a different spot) who were there, appeared in this TV show describing what ocurred. So, of course I know that they weren't all killed.

Fern

 

[ProfJohn]

Shame on Bush for trying to take a person who was killed in combat and hold him up as an example of what is right with this country. :roll:

Exactly what hard was done via this mistake?

 

[judasmachine]

Did Tillman get a fast track through training? I mean if he earned the patch and the beret, I don't really see why his comrades would of hated him, unless he was just a dick.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Shame on Bush for trying to take a person who was killed in combat and hold him up as an example of what is right with this country. :roll:

Exactly what hard was done via this mistake?

I'm guessing that you mean "harm".

The harm that was done was that the government is supposed to be forthright with its citizenry. Knowing that there was a possibility, and a strong one at that, that the story that was spread over and over to the press was nothing short of a propoganda recruitment ad and not even suggesting that there needed to be an investigation into the whole event because nothing was confirmed further cements the feelings that this administration will do and say anything to further its agenda.

Exactly. Pat Tillman was a victim of friendly fire in a combat zone. That was tragic. It shouldn't have happened, but it did. Sh8 happens in war. 🙁

Beyond that, Tillman was a well known public personality which is why the public media gave the story more attention than it would have if the same tragic events had involved to one or more unknown soldiers. That may not be fair, but it's what happens.

Obviously, some fine military minds wanted to avoid the negative PR they knew would follow if they revealed the truth about sad circumstances of Tillman's death. That was bad enough. Their lies only compounded to the hurt for Tillman's family and friends. Not only had they lost a loved one, but those representing the nation for which he sacrificed his life in Afghanistan LIED to them about how it happened, not for any reason of grave national security, but only to avoid public embarrassment and any loss of support for their already illegal war of lies in Iraq. That is brutal, callous disregard for the value his sacrifice and for the honor of our military and for the underlying values of the nation, itself.

Election to the nation's highest office is a matter of public trust. If the Liar In Chief is a willing participant in low grade deceptions for PR purposes like this, why should we believe him in more important matters when he tells us we have to send our citizens to die in a war? Why should we believe him when he says he hasn't authorized torturing captives? Why should we believe him when he says he hasn't shredded the rights guaranteed to every American citizen under the U.S. Constitution by authorizing unwarranted, illegal domestic spying or abrogating our rights of habeas corpus and our right to legal counsel?

Why should we believe anything he says, ever? :roll:

I guess if you think that complete dishonesty doesn't really have any negative side effects....you'd be right. No harm was done.

That's typical of everything PrevaricatorJohn posts. He always lies. Even his sig file is a lie.


His snipped Clinton quote is yet another example of the same kind of LIE of ommision. It says:

Bill Clinton on torture
"Most Americans would probably think, Well, I'd be happy to have someone beat up if that would keep them from blowing up another bomb, another 9/11. I get that."

Clinton's complete statement is:

NPR: Former President Clinton offered a different view in a conversation from New York. He was attending a meeting of corporate and government leaders called the Clinton Global Initiative. During an interview with NPR, the subject turned to terrorism. President Clinton is one of the few people who have viewed national security as it looks from the desk in the Oval Office.

Is it sometimes necessary to coerce or torture people in order to protect national security? to get information that you believe you really need?

Clinton: Well, I think as a policy it's in error. I think the Geneva Conventions are there for a reason. I think that, number 1, it's consistent with our values, and number 2, it's consistent with our interests. There have been repeated examples where a pattern or policy of torture produces... sometimes it'll get you something you don't know is worthwhile but more often than not it just gets people to lie to tell you whatever you want to hear to keep from beating the living daylights beaten out of them. And when you do it, you run the risk that your own people, if captured, will be tortured in return. That's the reason, apart from the humanitarian and moral reasons that the world has moved away from torture. That's the reason Senator McCain and others passed that prohibition. Now, the President says that he's just trying to get the rules clear about how far the CIA can go when they're whacking these people around in these secret prisons. Most Americans would probably think, Well, I'd be happy to have someone beat up if that would keep them from blowing up another bomb, another 9/11. I get that. But I think it's important to remember the reason that the entire military apparatus is opposed to torture.

PrevaricatorJohn -- Your use of a small section of his much larger statement, by itself and out of context, is a blatant attempt to show that Clinton supports the use of torture. Clinton actually said exactly the opposite. That's a perfect example of a LIE OF OMISSION. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

I'll make it simple for you. If you don't want people calling you about the lies in your sig file, change it. If you want people to stop calling you on your lies, stop lying.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Shame on Bush for trying to take a person who was killed in combat and hold him up as an example of what is right with this country. :roll:

Exactly what hard was done via this mistake?

Lieing on purpose is a mistake. Is this so complicated for you?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Lieing on purpose is a mistake. Is this so complicated for you?

By definition, lying on purpose is a NOT mistake. If Bush knew Tillman was killed by friendly fire when he addressed the nation, and he didn't tell Tillman's family or anyone else the truth, he allowed the public to continue believing the fictional story that he was killed in an enemy ambush. That's called a lie of ommision. Here's one definition

Lies of Omission:

To lie by omission is to remain silent and thereby withhold from someone else a vital piece (or pieces) of information. The silence is deception in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information was withheld. It subverts the truth; it is a way to manipulate someone into altering their behavior to suit the desire of the person who intentionally withheld the vital information; and, most importantly, it's a gross violation of another person's right of self-determination. Here's an example.

Have you ever heard the word, "spin doctor?" This is the job title for the political campaign people who intentionally speak only a part of the truth with the goal of deceiving their listeners and getting the listener to supporting the spin doctor's candidate.

If Bush lied about the circumstances of Tillman's death, it's a freaking insult to his family and friends, to the entire nation and to the honor of the Presidency, itself.

 

[DealMonkey]

Nothing stinks more than a cover-up.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Shame on Bush for trying to take a person who was killed in combat and hold him up as an example of what is right with this country. :roll:

Exactly what hard was done via this mistake?

Lying about the true circumstance of a soldier's death for political gain? Disrespect for the Nation, the office of the Presidency, and the people sacrificing their lives?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Shame on Bush for trying to take a person who was killed in combat and hold him up as an example of what is right with this country. :roll:

Exactly what hard was done via this mistake?

Lying about the true circumstance of a soldier's death for political gain? Disrespect for the Nation, the office of the Presidency, and the people sacrificing their lives?

Read the part of the story the OP left out of his quote.
Harvey... I believe this falls under your 'lie of omission' statement huh?

White House spokesman Blain Rethmeier said Friday that a review of records turned up no indication that the president had received McChrystal's warning. Rethmeier emphasized that the president often pays tribute to fallen soldiers without mentioning the exact circumstances of their deaths.
The Tillman family has charged that the military and the Bush administration deliberately deceived his relatives and the nation to avoid turning public opinion against the war.

Tillman's mother, Mary, said Saturday the newly disclosed document demonstrates Bush was complicit in deceiving her family.

"He knew it was friendly fire in the very beginning, and he never intervened to help, and he essentially has covered up a crime in order to promote the war," Mary Tillman said in a telephone interview. "All of this was done for PR purposes."

The memo was provided to the AP by a government official who requested anonymity because the document was not released as part of the Pentagon's official report into the way the Army brass withheld the truth. McChrystal was the highest-ranking officer accused of wrongdoing in the report, issued earlier this week.

In his memo, McChrystal said he had heard Bush and Brownlee "might include comments about Cpl. Tillman's heroism and his approved Silver Star medal in speeches currently being prepared, not knowing the specifics surrounding his death."

McChrystal said he expected an investigation under way "will find that it is highly possible Cpl. Tillman was killed by friendly fire."

At the same time, McChrystal said: "The potential that he might have been killed by friendly fire in no way detracts from his witnessed heroism or the recommended personal decoration for valor in the face of the enemy."

A former spokesman for Abizaid did not immediately return phone and e-mail messages.

As for Brownlee, he told investigators he did not recall learning Tillman was killed by his fellow Rangers until several weeks after the fact. He did not discuss the matter with the White House, he told investigators.

A spokesman for McChrystal said he had no comment.

McChrystal was, and still is, commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, head of "black ops" forces. He has since been promoted to lieutenant general. Abizaid was in charge of American forces in the Middle East and Central Asia.

On Monday, the Pentagon released the findings of an investigation into the circumstances of Tillman's death, and into whether the military covered them up.

The investigators recommended that nine Army officers, including McChrystal, be held accountable for errors in reporting the friendly fire death to their superiors and to Tillman's family. McChrystal was found "accountable for the inaccurate and misleading assertions" contained in papers recommending Tillman get the Silver Star.

Some of the officers involved said they wanted to wait until the investigations were complete before informing the Tillman family.

Tillman was killed after his Army Ranger comrades were ambushed in eastern Afghanistan. Rangers in a convoy trailing Tillman's group had just emerged from a canyon where they had been fired upon. They saw Tillman and mistakenly fired on him.

It seems from this that they were not even 100% sure it was friendly fire yet.
AND as the quote in the OP says, Bush never talked about how Tilman died, just that he died and of his heroic actions.

 

[1EZduzit]

LOL PJ, Bush believes whatever sounds the best for him again and again and again, yet you still try to defend the idiot.

If the POTUS can't get the straight dope from the field on something as striaght forward as this then how can we trust anything he or his generals tell us?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: PrevaicatorJohn
Read the part of the story the OP left out of his quote.
Harvey... I believe this falls under your 'lie of omission' statement huh?

White House spokesman Blain Rethmeier said Friday that a review of records turned up no indication that the president had received McChrystal's warning. Rethmeier emphasized that the president often pays tribute to fallen soldiers without mentioning the exact circumstances of their deaths.
.
.
(edited for brevity)

Not even close, PJ. I said:

If Bush lied about the circumstances of Tillman's death, it's a freaking insult to his family and friends, to the entire nation and to the honor of the Presidency, itself.

That's called a conditional statement -- IF A, THEN B. I believe you may want to address your statement to WHAMPOM, who referreed only to the terms of the conditional conclusion of my post.

A clear example of a lie of omission is the snipped Clinton quote in your sig file:

Bill Clinton on torture
"Most Americans would probably think, Well, I'd be happy to have someone beat up if that would keep them from blowing up another bomb, another 9/11. I get that."

Clinton's complete statement is:

NPR: Former President Clinton offered a different view in a conversation from New York. He was attending a meeting of corporate and government leaders called the Clinton Global Initiative. During an interview with NPR, the subject turned to terrorism. President Clinton is one of the few people who have viewed national security as it looks from the desk in the Oval Office.

Is it sometimes necessary to coerce or torture people in order to protect national security? to get information that you believe you really need?

Clinton: Well, I think as a policy it's in error. I think the Geneva Conventions are there for a reason. I think that, number 1, it's consistent with our values, and number 2, it's consistent with our interests. There have been repeated examples where a pattern or policy of torture produces... sometimes it'll get you something you don't know is worthwhile but more often than not it just gets people to lie to tell you whatever you want to hear to keep from beating the living daylights beaten out of them. And when you do it, you run the risk that your own people, if captured, will be tortured in return. That's the reason, apart from the humanitarian and moral reasons that the world has moved away from torture. That's the reason Senator McCain and others passed that prohibition. Now, the President says that he's just trying to get the rules clear about how far the CIA can go when they're whacking these people around in these secret prisons. Most Americans would probably think, Well, I'd be happy to have someone beat up if that would keep them from blowing up another bomb, another 9/11. I get that. But I think it's important to remember the reason that the entire military apparatus is opposed to torture.

Your use of a small section of his much larger statement, by itself and out of context, is a blatantly false representation that Clinton supports the use of torture. Clinton actually said exactly the opposite. That's a perfect example of a LIE OF OMISSION. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

I'll make it simple for you. If you don't want people calling you about the lies in your sig file, change it. If you want people to stop calling you on your lies, stop lying.