From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
it was lies, cover-ups and more lies.
Published on April 24, 2007 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In War on Terror
The controversy involving Pat Tillman isn't about Pat Tillman.

It's about you and me, the American people.

And it's not really a controversy at this point. At this point , the evidence is alarmingly clear. We were lied to. the use of Pat Tillman's death as a Madison Ave. promotion tool by the executive branch of our government was not only wrong, it is outright disgusting. Heads need to roll. I don't know exactly who's yet, but hopefully not some private or pion like all too often in the past.

"I was ordered not to tell them," Army Specialist Bryan O’Neal told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is also looking at how the rescue of Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch was used, abused and lied about.

"He basically just said, 'Do not let Kevin know, he’s probably in a bad place knowing that his brother’s dead,'" O’Neal said.

The "he" O'Neil refers to is his batallion commander, then ranked "Lt. Col". Jeff Bailey.

Bailey specifically ordered O'Neil to even tell the truth to Pat Tilman's brother, Kevin. Kevin Tillman was serving in the same platoon and was in the convoy that day, but did not see the incident. So it is clear that they did not just want to use Tillman's death for publicity, as a media story to recruit more young people to die for their country in Iraq like Pat Tillman, they lied to his family. They lied to his brother, who was serving his country in the exact same platoon as his now dead brother.

Kevin Tillman, along with Pat, was willing to die for his country, and his country was willingly lying to him about the circumstances of his brother's friendly fire death. The painting of a heroic engagement with the enemy wasn't just an advertisement, it was their blatant willing betrayal and treasonous acts to an American family who was willingly giving their lives for that country.

What a disgrace!!!

And they lied to every American family.

Pat Tillman’s mother, Mary Tillman, said she believed then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld must have known. “The fact that he would have died by friendly fire and no one told Rumsfeld is ludicrous,” she said.

A memo was cited in today's hearings, written by a top general seven days after Tillman’s death warning it was "highly possible" the Army Ranger was killed by friendly fire and making clear his warning should be conveyed to the president.

"It’s a little disingenuous to think the administration didn’t know," Kevin Tillman told the committee. "That’s kind of what we hoped you guys would get involved with and take a look."

Mary Tillman said family members were "absolutely appalled" upon realizing the extent to which they were misled. "We’ve all been betrayed. ... We never thought they would use him the way they did."

Tillman's death received worldwide attention because he had walked away from a huge contract with the NFL's Arizona Cardinals to enlist in the Army after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Again, heads need to roll.

for more, go here...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18287244/








Comments
on Apr 24, 2007
  
on Apr 24, 2007

I watched part of the hearings this morning.  Saw Jessica and Tillman speak.

I agree lying was wrong.  But the whole time I listened to each of them talking I thought....this kind of thing happens in wars doesn't it?

I remember right after Jessica was captured, some of the interviews by "eye witnesses."  They were every day soldiers talking about how she "fired until her gun ran out of ammo."  I doubt anyone told those guys to lie.  I do think war, by its very nature and the way people perceive things, can be exaggerated.

 

on Apr 26, 2007
I think this is a tempest in a tea cup. During war you rarely tell the people what is happening until the war is over. During WWII when we lost thousands of people in a training exercise in preparation for the D-Day invasion it was covered up until after the war was over. When men were executed for rape and murder of civilians the families were told that the loved one died serving his country. The truth came out after the war was won not during the war.
Telling someone not to tell the brother of the dead that it was a FFI is normal and justified. In some families the responsibility to hunt down and kill the people responsible falls to the brothers. Do you wish to have more friendly fire incidents because of revenge killings? The information will always get out just not during a time of war. Spec Ops ran into a little trouble and called in air support they forgot to let the wing know exactly where they were so bombs fell on their position killing a lot of our own people. It happens a lot more than reported because of the heat of battle not a desire to hide the truth.
on Apr 26, 2007
During war you rarely tell the people what is happening until the war is over. During WWII


well, unfortunately for that argument, this is not 1941. the facts are that when wwII happened, we were in the industrial age. today, we are in the information age. in the past, leaders used the ability to squelch truth to rally masses and start or perpetuate conflicts that today might not happen if people knew the truth. i don't see the ability to control a free press thru various means and progandate lies to further a warlord's agenda as a good thing. maybe you do, but to me, i prefer the truth.

some like to talk about "pre 9/11 thinking". this is "pre 1950 thinking." it's fine to remember fondly of days past, but justifying lies as right just because the information was easier silenced? i don't think so.

and comparing people with no name recognition to pat tillman, who was THE soldier everyone liked, and could appreciate at least his sense of self sacrifice in walking away from millions of dollars to serve our country, is apples and oranges. not only was the the handling of telling pat's family a disgrace, but they used him to encourage others to serve. and it was all lies. that is wrong in peacetime, that is wrong in wartime and it is wrong any time.

no one thought that kevin tillman was going on a rampage. but obviously they did think the truth was a bad thing somehow. and again, it is wrong. if you can rationalize this blatant lying and abuse of his memory as a good thing in your mind, that's your issue. but the ends don't justify the means here by any means as i see it.

on Apr 26, 2007
well, unfortunately for that argument, this is not 1941. the facts are that when wwII happened, we were in the industrial age. today, we are in the information age. in the past, leaders used the ability to squelch truth to rally masses and start or perpetuate conflicts that today might not happen if people knew the truth. i don't see the ability to control a free press thru various means and progandate lies to further a warlord's agenda as a good thing. maybe you do, but to me, i prefer the truth.


Please explain how telling a person in a war zone that his brother was killed by friendly fire does anything other than endanger your own people? This is what is normally done to protect the troops.

and comparing people with no name recognition to pat tillman, who was THE soldier everyone liked, and could appreciate at least his sense of self sacrifice in walking away from millions of dollars to serve our country, is apples and oranges. not only was the the handling of telling pat's family a disgrace, but they used him to encourage others to serve. and it was all lies. that is wrong in peacetime, that is wrong in wartime and it is wrong any time.


This argument holds little water with me. The last time I watched a football game was super bowl I, I had no idea who the man was until after he was dead. I morned the loss of a soldier no more. For those people that like or even watch football I doubt that many joined the military for that reason, if there was a draft then it would make sense but because it is an all volunteer force people were joining because the country needed them, we were attacked, we were at war, a football guy joined the military. I just don’t see the impact but like I said I don’t watch football.

no one thought that kevin tillman was going on a rampage. but obviously they did think the truth was a bad thing somehow. and again, it is wrong. if you can rationalize this blatant lying and abuse of his memory as a good thing in your mind, that's your issue. but the ends don't justify the means here by any means as i see it.


It is a matter of policy that he would not be told until he was out of the war zone. This is why the news broke after he was home not while he was there. The issue is that policy has been around for 80 years and now it is a bad thing. Most rules, and regulations are written in blood. What I mean is someone had to die or get injured before they come up with a rule saying don't do that. You want to ignore the reasons because it suits your political point of view at this time. Remember the friendley fire situation when a Muslim soldier killed a bunch of people? That was not hidden even though it could have caused problems with other Muslims in the military. The reason is that the people in the military don't fear Muslimes in the military and there is little chance for revenge killings in that case. If the Administration were hiding all FFI's then you would be correct in your thinking and I would be first in line screaming for everyones head that was involved.

In one area you are correct, Tillman was a celebrety and the Democrats are using that to gain favor in their attacks on the military. I say the military because these rules were in place before Mr. Bush was born so it can't be his fault so attacking him would only prove foolish. But attacking the military is another thing.
on Apr 26, 2007
It is a matter of policy that he would not be told until he was out of the war zone.


it wasn't him being lied to in a war zone that is at issue. EVERYONE was lied to and the tillman's were stonewalled from the truth till the inspector general and family pressure became too much and they were able to bring their case before a congressional committee that wasn't a rubber stamp for the administration.

and as far as "policy" goes, here's how one of his fellow soldiers summed it up when interviewed by Brig general Jones for his report on the matter...

"I mean, it's horrible that Pat was dead. Absolutely horrible. But it hurts even more to know that it was one of our own guys that did it . . .," one soldier told Jones. "We just, we didn't want to get anything, you know, bad said about the regiment or anything like that. ... We didn't want the world finding out what actually happened."sounds more like a textbook coverup than anything.


Please explain how telling a person in a war zone that his brother was killed by friendly fire does anything other than endanger your own people? This is what is normally done to protect the troops.


what is normally done and what is right are 2 very different things. i'll stick with truth, you stick with business as usual, or business as in the 1940's.

and you can't claim that tillman's celebrity didn't exist when commenting about your personal football watching. tillman was a celebrity because people who didn't watch football were blanketed with the reports of his service. then acknowledge his celebrity only for your own partisan put-down. the 2 statements that are in contradiction are as follows...

I had no idea who the man was until after he was dead


In one area you are correct, Tillman was a celebrety


fact is that tillman was a big celebrity. fact is that truth isn't a bad thing as you suggest. history is full of people who hurt causes by manipulating truth for their "greater good." corruption and lies are just that, no matter how much you want to dress it up and give it cute language.

like i said palladin, if you want to side with liars, feel free. but don't try to think that you are doing anything even a hair more noble than that.
on Apr 26, 2007
This is no tempest in a teacup.

The Army that Pat Tillman honored by his enlistment failed to honor his service and sacrifice, in every way possible. The soldiers and immediate superiors who served with him during his last tour should not just be ashamed, they should be court-martialed & mustered out dishonorably at minimum. Those higher up the chain of command who knew the lie and allowed it to go unchallenged should be court-martialed as well. If what they did isn't dereliction of duty, I don't know what would qualify. They were unworthy of serving alongside, let alone commanding, a soldier such as Tillman and showed a cowardice in the aftermath of his death that was shameful and pathetic.
on Apr 26, 2007
It is a matter of policy that he would not be told until he was out of the war zone.


it wasn't him being lied to in a war zone that is at issue. EVERYONE was lied to and the tillman's were stonewalled from the truth till the inspector general and family pressure became too much and they were able to bring their case before a congressional committee that wasn't a rubber stamp for the administration.


You don't get it do you? If it was told to "everyone" else, it would have been told to someone close to Tillman. In which case it would have found out before it was nessecary.

Please explain how telling a person in a war zone that his brother was killed by friendly fire does anything other than endanger your own people? This is what is normally done to protect the troops.


what is normally done and what is right are 2 very different things. i'll stick with truth, you stick with business as usual, or business as in the 1940's


And as far as this goes.....I suppose you think you know better than the people who set the policy and those who follow it. Right? WRONG!
on Apr 26, 2007
Much as I want to give the troops the benefit of the doubt, this doesn't sound at all like simply 'protecting' his brother or anyone else, unless you count the guys who screwed up & killed him. For a supposed 'elite' Ranger unit, clear thinking and discipline seemed to be in rather short supply that day, both before and after he was killed. God forbid that unit was the best the Army could put on the ground.
on Apr 26, 2007
it wasn't him being lied to in a war zone that is at issue. EVERYONE was lied to and the tillman's were stonewalled from the truth till the inspector general and family pressure became too much and they were able to bring their case before a congressional committee that wasn't a rubber stamp for the administration.


So Mr. Tillman was in a bubble? His parents would not send him an E-mail or a phone call or a letter? Once he was home the truth came out. If the government wanted to keep it quiet we would never have known what happened.

"I mean, it's horrible that Pat was dead. Absolutely horrible. But it hurts even more to know that it was one of our own guys that did it . . .," one soldier told Jones. "We just, we didn't want to get anything, you know, bad said about the regiment or anything like that. ... We didn't want the world finding out what actually happened."sounds more like a textbook coverup than anything.


Again it sounds like it was done on the local level not the higher up's so the Government did not lie the local command lied and that lie was sent up the line to the press that carried it without looking into it. Sounds to me like the lazy press is at it again.

what is normally done and what is right are 2 very different things. i'll stick with truth, you stick with business as usual, or business as in the 1940's.


The choices are tell the man the truth and risk reprisals of some kind or keep it quiet until he is back in the world. My people are under enough pressure just being in combat why would I want to add to that? You take a real world situation and make an academic argument as if there is no consequences to the decision. Peoples lives are at risk.

and you can't claim that tillman's celebrity didn't exist when commenting about your personal football watching. tillman was a celebrity because people who didn't watch football were blanketed with the reports of his service. then acknowledge his celebrity only for your own partisan put-down. the 2 statements that are in contradiction are as follows...


This makes my point about the lazy press. They touted his death because he was a celeb, I learned about him after his death ftom the press reports and my thought was how many people died that day but this man was getting all the press time.

like i said palladin, if you want to side with liars, feel free. but don't try to think that you are doing anything even a hair more noble than that.


That is the difference you see it as siding with liars while I see it as a commander trying to reduce the risk to the rest of his people. The press followed it and reported it without any investigation of the facts. Since the military did not make any statements that propitiated the lie or hide the truth I don’t see where the government is to blame. It looks more to me that the lazy press is trying to cover its breezy butt.

The Army that Pat Tillman honored by his enlistment failed to honor his service and sacrifice, in every way possible. The soldiers and immediate superiors who served with him during his last tour should not just be ashamed, they should be court-martialed & mustered out dishonorably at minimum. Those higher up the chain of command who knew the lie and allowed it to go unchallenged should be court-martialed as well. If what they did isn't dereliction of duty, I don't know what would qualify. They were unworthy of serving alongside, let alone commanding, a soldier such as Tillman and showed a cowardice in the aftermath of his death that was shameful and pathetic.


I would suggest you discuss this with some people in the military and maybe you will understand why things are done the way they are. As a civilian you don't seem to understand because you don't live with them. The mindset is much different than in the civillian world.

Much as I want to give the troops the benefit of the doubt, this doesn't sound at all like simply 'protecting' his brother or anyone else, unless you count the guys who screwed up & killed him. For a supposed 'elite' Ranger unit, clear thinking and discipline seemed to be in rather short supply that day, both before and after he was killed. God forbid that unit was the best the Army could put on the ground.


The people that did the FFI have to deal with the fact that they killed someone in the family, I am willing to bet they are no longer in the military or have learned to deal with a mistake that never goes away.
These people were Spec Ops on their first assignment, peoeple make mistakes and poop happens. To go from civilian to hard core special operations does not happen in the first year or two. For example my first mission I took one in the chest at age 20 just before my 21st birthday. I am 51 now and still suffer from the shooting, I also see all the people that have died in my short time in the military just before I sleep each night. Life is not like the movies, since you have not idea what it is like let me paint a picture for you.

I went throgh Marine Corps boot camp, three months with 77 training days. Then I went through Infantry Trainig School. 35 days with 25 days of trainig. From there I went to my first overseas assignment while waiitng for a class opening for more schools. Force recon was fun but most of the time I was getting on the job training. I graduated boot camp in March and in my firt operation in September where I was shot in a fire fight. Recuperated from that in only 6 weeks and got a class at army jump school then went to another school arround San Diego, then went to Quantico for another school. Three years of schooling got me ready for my next operation. did not get shot or get any of my people killed. a month later I was in another operation. This is the life we live. But just because you finish schools until you get into the field you don't know squat. If one that was into the life can admit that people don't know until they get a few missions under their belt how can you who have no experience in the life make any serious statements that have any meaning.
on Apr 27, 2007
If the government wanted to keep it quiet we would never have known what happened.


ya wanna bet? maybe in 1942 it could have been. but what these fat old white men are learning is that we live in a much different age. sometimes it takes awhile, but the truth does come out eventually in most cases.

As a civilian you don't seem to understand because you don't live with them. The mindset is much different than in the civillian world.


NONSENSE! guess what pal. the military isn't the big ol mystery you think it is. but if you want to take that pompous position, feel free. lies are lies. your notion of defending them as something noble is laughable. it is you who doesn't understand. as a member of the military, you are part of the government. you work for us. and as your employer, i expect honesty.
on Apr 27, 2007
NONSENSE! guess what pal. the military isn't the big ol mystery you think it is. but if you want to take that pompous position, feel free. lies are lies. your notion of defending them as something noble is laughable. it is you who doesn't understand. as a member of the military, you are part of the government. you work for us. and as your employer, i expect honesty.


You say this because YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTS! And yes while in service we "belong" to the government. But we ARE NOT answerable to you, the taxpayer. The people above us "might" be (IE: President, Sec Def, Joint Chiefs of Staff, etc). But the non-com's most definetly are not. The one on the "pompous position" is you, nobody else. "If" we were responsable to you we'd have to take orders from you. Guess what? WE DON'T!
on Apr 27, 2007
The people above us "might" be (IE: President, Sec Def, Joint Chiefs of Staff, etc).


let me spell this out....the military works for the executive...the executive works for the people. we might not be the military's "direct supervisor" but we are it's boss.
on Apr 27, 2007
let me spell this out....the military works for the executive...the executive works for the people. we might not be the military's "direct supervisor" but we are it's boss.


Sorry, but this is untrue. Only Congress can declare war. Only the President can order troops around. Even with the war powers act Congress has little control. The only thing Congress can do is approve or disapprove funds. Individuals in our country can not and do not have a right or ability to demand to know what the military is doing unless the President wants you to know.
The oath of enlistment that the military takes states: I, (state your name) do solemnly swear to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states from all enemies foreign and domestic. I will obey all lawful orders from the President of the United States and all officers and non commissioned officers appointed over me, and bare true faith and allegiance to the same.
I may have messed this up some since it has been some 20 years since I last had to take this oath. Notice that the military is the defender of the constitution not the President, the Congress, or the People. Notice that only the president can give us orders even though the Congress is the only branch of government that can appoint commissioned officers.

The President reports to you because he is your elected official in chaarge of the military. This is a representitive government meaning that we elect representitives such as the Congress and the President. The Congress and the President appoint the Judges making up the third branch of government. Our representitiives hear from us and do what they think is best for the nation. The checks and balances are done at election time. If we don't like they way represent us we elect someone else.
Meta
Views
» 871
Comments
» 14
Category
Sponsored Links