General tried to warn Bush on Tillman

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

SAN JOSE, Calif. — Just seven days after Pat Tillman's death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press.

It was not until a month afterward that the Pentagon told the public and grieving family members the truth - that Tillman was mistakenly killed in Afghanistan by his comrades.

The memo reinforces suspicions that the Pentagon was more concerned with sparing officials from embarrassment than with leveling with Tillman's family.


Read more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/US/D8O6OA0O0.html

[youngdem]

1. They don't call it the Theatre of War for nothing

[habitual]

2. support the troops

by lying to their family when they have been killed.

ummmmm... something's terribly wrong.

[UpInArms]

3. worried about "embarrassing" the dimson??????

:nuke:

[brentspeak]

4. The outrages behind this episode never seem to end.

[CJCRANE]

5. It's B*sh's MO:

Hold the truth back.

Catapult the propaganda.

Then let the truth filter out one tiny piece at a time.

[Dover]

6. The whole thing is suspicious. Was their 'golden boy' unhappy with what he saw?

Was his original reason for joining soon seen for the scam it was?
Can't have an unhappy golden boy going to the media...

[Peace Patriot]

7. Makes you wonder how many times generals, CIA agents, FBI agents, US attorneys,

environmental scientists, teachers, doctors, various insider advisers (like Joseph Wilson), and experts and professionals of every kind tried to tell these criminals and warmongers the truth, and were rebuffed, or were demoted or fired. There seem to be hundreds of stories of this kind coming out now. It's a very hopeful sign that people are feeling safe enough to speak out, or to leak things out. But it's very odd to be in what feels like a post-coup period, with the criminals still in power, with their criminal fingers still on the 'red button' that could destroy all life on earth, and their blood-soaked hands on the US war machine, not to mention on our pocketbooks. Are we not seeing something? That this is a strategy of a thousand cuts, to slice their hubris down bit by bit--a strategy that we don't know the reason for? Many at DU--and the majority of Americans--want a frontal assault--end the war, start impeachment proceedings, now! Could there be something going on that we don't quite grasp--I mean, other than the "military-industrial complex" and its associated corporate predators trying to cover their butts on this filthy regime's worser activities, and distance themselves from it, while essentially retaining power?

I sometimes get that feeling. I had that feeling when Nancy Pelosi popped right up, just after the Democrats' great success in '06, and said, 'Impeachment is off the table.' Well, what had been ON the table? --would be a logical question. Why SAY that? Where did it come from? What ELSE was "on the table"? Where/when was this table? I was thinking Iran. 'No invasion of Iran, scale down Iraq, and we won't impeach.' I think there are sometimes great actors in history who pull things off for the good, behind the scenes, and nobody ever knows. Is that what is happening here? My democratic spirit cries out against it--because I strongly believe that we are in this disaster of Bushism because of specific failures of our democracy, like our lack of vigilance over our election system. And I also strongly feel that restoring democracy is the best and only way to go. We've had "rulers" of various kinds for too long. It's time that the people rule, as it should be. Still, I can only admire wily operators--if their goals are good. Or maybe Cheney said, 'if you impeach, we WILL attack Iran.' Dunno. Maybe it was something else--maybe just a general recognition, among those in power who wanted change, that Bush-Cheney are too entrenched. They can't just take them out. Blackmail of some kind. Or it's so-o-o-o-o-o dirty that it would destabilize the country, crash the stock market, cause riots in the streets, make us the laughingstock/pariahs of the world (worse than we already are), and shake things up too much for the moneyed class--so they're keeping a lid on things, but encircling the Junta with ever tighter constraints, and a steady stream of bits and pieces of Junta scandals and crimes, leading to quite an indictment, as they accumulate.

Certain things never--or rarely--get questioned, or treated as scandalous. Which bothers me a lot. That the war was illegal. Lying about the war is treated as scandalous, but not doing the war, not the actual invasion and slaughter of half a million people, by latest objective estimate. (Maybe that's the problem--that the US and all involved are vulnerable to outside legal indictment--by the UN, by the World Court, by other courts in a thousand legal proceedings, private and governmental--I mean, think of the lawsuits Iraqis could bring, or anyone held in indefinite detention.) Torture. (Another legal problem.) Massive corporate theft (too many fingers in the pie). Tax cuts for the rich in time of war. (Ditto.) Outing CIA agents--and an entire WMD counter-proliferation network. That's treated as scandalous by some--but it continues to amaze me how it can be turned into a "political" debate--when we are talking about treason.

Anyway, this latest disclosure--that Bush had again been told the truth, and proceeded to lie and let the Pentagon lie--stirred this up in my mind again. What is going on here, with all these disclosures--so many scandals you can't keep track of them--and yet these reprobates, who have committed a thousand times more offenses, and much worse offenses, than any politicians in our history, remain in our White House--embedded in mountain of dirt, but still in power?