Tillman questions abound

[babylonsister]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015386.php

Tillman questions abound
07.14.07 -- 5:16PM
By Steve Benen

In recent years, Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan has gone from being tragic to suspicious to scandalous. As you probably know, Tillman, a former NFL star who retired from football to become an Army Ranger, was killed in Afghanistan in 2004 and his death was quickly seized upon for public relations purposes. In fact, the Army said Tillman was killed by enemy gunfire when he led his team to help another group of ambushed soldiers.

That wasn't true -- Tillman died as a result of friendly fire. The Pentagon knew better, but was reluctant to say so. In March, we learned, "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.... The memo reinforces suspicions that the Pentagon was more concerned with sparing officials from embarrassment than with leveling with Tillman's family."

What's more, it took five weeks for Tillman's family to learn about the incident, in part because, "within hours of Pat Tillman's death, the Army went into information-lockdown mode, cutting off phone and Internet connections at a base in Afghanistan, posting guards on a wounded platoon mate, and ordering a sergeant to burn Tillman's uniform."

In April, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on the issue, and heard U.S. Army Spc. Bryan O'Neal explain that he was told by a higher-up to conceal information. It led the committee to request materials from the White House and the Pentagon describing how and when the administration learned the circumstances of Tillman's death.

Yesterday, the Bush gang delivered its answer: No.

The White House has refused to give Congress documents about the death of former NFL player Pat Tillman, with White House counsel Fred F. Fielding saying that certain papers relating to discussion of the friendly-fire shooting "implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests."

Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), the leading members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, objected to the refusal yesterday in letters to the White House and the Defense Department.

Waxman and Davis are clearly annoyed by the developments. They've scheduled another hearing for Aug. 1, after which, they'll probably consider subpoenas. (In their letter to Fred Fielding, Waxman and Davis said, "We would like to avoid a confrontation over these documents, if possible, but cannot accept the deficient production the White House has provided to the Committee.")

Stay tuned.

[Bluebear]

1. k/r

[the other one]

2. My take:

Tillman had turned against the war, and was prepared to use his celebrity to expose the lies which were feeding it. The "friendly fire" was planned.

[phildo]

3. That would be pretty extreme, and not the sort of thing a Ranger Team would do.

Intentionally lighting up your own guys is way out of character.

Since, generally speaking, troops at all levels act by their character --
The landmine went off, guys started shooting. (that behavior is based on US tactics to overwatch minefields -- the Rangers figured there was someone to shoot at them and return fire upon.) Next the low level troops were ordered to be quiet. They followed that -- so far all that is in character.

When the info started up the path, Senior Officers figured they could polish a turd and turn the bad incident into a glamor lie. That is in Senior Officer character. Once into the lie at the top end, being caught in the lie becomes worse than the event in the minds of liar -- think of Nixon or Bill Clinton, for example. Still all in character.

If the top end wanted to silence Tillman, they simply would have ordered him to be silent. He was a trained, disciplined, Ranger. He would have followed his orders.

[babylonsister]

4. I just want to know what they're so afraid of releasing. nt

[trumad]

5. They're afraid of releasing info that shows the Admin knew it was friendly fire from the get-go.

AND that they ordered the propaganda story that followed. It's as simple as that.

[Toasterlad]

6. Agreed.

This administration refuses to admit ANY mistakes whatsoever. That's the reason for ALL of these refusals to hand over files or allow testimony.

I'm getting more than a little sick of Congress rolling over and taking it, though. I want to see some Contempt of Congress decrees, and I want to see some arrests. And I want them NOW.

[phildo]

7. The top end is afraid of their own lies.

Since they made up the whole pack of lies that "justified" awarding Tillman the Silver Star, they also knew the real truth while they were doing so.

Let's jump back to Bill Clinton. It is the same model, Bill is just comical and no one gets hurt, and everyone knows the story -- Bill got him a BJ. Or probably a bunch of BJs. Bill was so slick he was not tapping a hooker -- he had home delivery by an intern. Sweet deal. And he got caught. Still no big deal. Most of US would have snickered and say "Bill likes chubby chicks." At Worse. Would have all passed. Instead he freaked and lied. THAT was what turned the whole BJ thing into a national circus. The lie.

Now, jumping back to Tillman. Silver Stars are big deals. Don't recall exactly but it takes some very high brass to approve that -- Full Colonel or maybe even a "one star" General. (anybody that knows exactly please correct me). Since they probably knew the truth, they also knew they were lying or at least approving a lie. Now it is national. Now think about Bill Clinton. Same deal. They are freaking out inside. And being Senior Officers that did this they are going to have to get fried. The military ethic is "Do Not Lie, Do Not Cheat, Do Not Steal, and Do Not Tolerate Those Who Do." In real practice it often becomes "or at least do not get caught." But these guys did lie, and now they are caught.