An Unheeded Warning

By TChris, Section War on Terror
Posted on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 12:38:58 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This:

Seven days after Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal sent a memo to Gen. John Abizaid warning against "any unknowing statements by our country's leaders which might cause public embarrassment if the circumstances of Cpl. Tillman's death become public." In other words, "don't pretend that Tillman was killed by the enemy, because the truth will come back to bite you in the rear."

Advising the government to be truthful proved to be a wasted effort. The memo was written on April 29, 2004.

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.

Pat Tillman's mother has this to say:

"[President Bush] 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 not released as part of the Pentagon's official report [pdf] 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."

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.

Why doesn't the report call for Abizaid to be held accountable? Didn't he read the memo? Shouldn't he have made certain that Tillman's family, and the American public, were promptly told the truth?

< Americans Support March 2008 Iraq Withdrawal Date | New Member of the Out of Iraq Blogger Caucus? Bush's Former Pollster Says "Out of Iraq" >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

An Unheeded Warning | 14 comments (14 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I watched Bill Maher last (5.00 / 5) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 01:11:19 PM EST

night and for once disagreed with him about something. He thought that family would be better off not knowing that a soldier had been killed by friendly fire. It would be better that they were told the soldier had died in service. I felt insulted. I suppose some of it has to with personal guilt he may feel about not being able to end this illegal war bullshit and watching our young kids being sent into all of it. We were all young once and all did a lot of stupid things that we survived and told ourselves later we would never do again and didn't.

I can deal with it if my husband is killed by friendly fire. Just like someone married to a police officer or a fire fighter or many of the other serving occupations that can be very dangerous and can more frequently kill those employed doing them, I have already entertained all the worst case scenarios my imagination could dream up. Just tell me the truth because really I can handle it. It is worse to grieve and then discover that you have been told lies and now must grieve again, it complicates the whole thing.

I have personally known an M.I. officer that was with Abizaid in Iraq for a year. He became very good friends with my spouse after numerous "fights" at work. When he left here last month he even left my husband a beautiful bookcase and desk that he had made, and a small chest freezer. He couldn't get it all in the moving truck. It has all been a very slow wake up for him and suppose Abizaid too.

None of this went how anybody expected. Does war ever though? I believe that they thought they could control the press coverage of the whole deal. I think they based this analysis on past conflicts and the new resources they now had on hand but they didn't take into account that others had new resources on hand as well. Should Abizaid be held accountable? Yes, of course, officers are supposed to live a Christlike existence before their troop masses when it comes to integrity. I didn't tell Abizaid to become a military officer for the United States. He made that choice all by himself and he knew what the rules were when he signed all the dotted lines. Lying to his civilians is not permitted. He knows this and has always known this so throw the book at him please!

: Lying Is Not Permitted And Should Not Be Tolerated (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by john horse on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:03:47 PM EST

re: "Lying to his civilians is not permitted."
Tracy,
First of all, I hope your husband comes back safe and sound. I share your outrage at the disgraceful way the Army lied to the Tillman family about the circumstance surrounding the death of Pat Tillman. Lying to the family of a soldier who sacrificed his life for our country is especially not permitted. How dare the Army and Bush adminstration use our soldiers for public relations purposes. They deserve better.

[ Parent ]

I'm in... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by desertswine on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 03:46:57 PM EST

Mary Tillman's corner on this. She's right.

Has the right-wing labeled her a traitor yet?

Just a couple of things . . . (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by walt on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:53:23 PM EST

. . . I've commented on this in more detail, but the key elements are that Pat Tillman was going to be a poster boy for Army recruiting. Getting killed by friendly fire was not going to turn out all that well--so, fabricate a medal & a story to keep the NFL hero an Army icon.

The NFL donated $250,000 for a USO center at Bagram Air Facility, near Kabul, Afghanistan, & flew in John Elway to dedicate. Since a living hero was gone, some Army officers attempted to generate a dead hero.

None of this worked out very well for the Army, the Pentagon, or Bu$hInc.

Reality still seems to have a very liberal bias.

i'm not real clear (4.00 / 2) (#2)
by cpinva on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 01:58:16 PM EST

on what crime mrs. tillman is referring to, the death by "friendly fire" of her son, or the (unnecessary) coverup of the actual circumstances of his death, by the military and pres. bush?

if it's the friendly fire death, there's no crime that i'm aware of, absent additional evidence to the contrary. it was an unfortunate accident, committed in the heat of battle, which happens more frequently than we'd like to imagine. his sacrifice is no less honorable as a result.

with respect to the coverup, i'm still at a loss to understand why anyone felt it was necessary to begin with, unless some criminal activity was involved. again, that doesn't appear to be the case.

all those involved in this needless display of stupidity should be forced to deal with the tillman family in person, and explain themselves directly to them.

: With Respect to the Coverup (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by john horse on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:15:04 PM EST

cpinva,
re: "with respect to the coverup, i'm still at a loss to understand why anyone felt it was necessary to begin with"
For the Pentagon and the Bush administration, Tillman's death and funeral was an golden public relations opportunity. After all the lies that they told about Iraq what was one more lie to them (yes I know that Tillman was killed in Afghanistan)? They knew his funeral would be broadcast nationally. They knew the lies that they told at his funeral about the circumstances of his death would be repeated both on national news and on the sports channels. They couldn't have their most famous Army recruit being killed by friendly fire. That would be bad public relations. It certainly wouldn't help recruiting. So they made stuff up. The truth was a caualty of war long before Tillman was killed.
Regarding what Mrs. Tillman wants, here is a link to some video clips from crooks and liars. Short answer is she wants the truth and she wants justice.

[ Parent ]

Made up memo scandal (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by Fritz on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 02:32:24 PM EST

Funny how this "missing memo" was part of the report on page 43. "MG McChrystal stated, and the text of P4 message(memo) confirmed, that his alert to his higher chain of command was also to allow the receiving commanders to warn the Acting Secretary of the Army and the POTUS about comments they might make in speeches to preclude embarrassment if the public found out friendly fire was involved.

what part of ... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Sailor on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 03:18:49 PM EST

...

The memo "was not released as part of the Pentagon's official report [pdf] into the way the Army brass withheld the truth.

don't you understand?

Plus that report was only released a couple of days ago, it's not like the Tillman family had access to it very long and the memo itself was NOT INCLUDED. They've known this for almost 3 years and just now disclose it.

[ Parent ]

Didn't have time to read it? (1.00 / 1) (#5)
by Fritz on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 03:45:42 PM EST

Only 85 pages on information they were demanding, released Monday 3-26-07? So by Friday a partisan has to leak the actual document on information listed in 5 places, including the entire context in the time line appendix? This is simply poor journalism and a made up story to feed the Bush Derangement Syndrome crowd.

[ Parent ]

: continuing to stick up for ... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Sailor on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:00:48 PM EST

... the worst misAdministration in history after they deliberately used an unwilling (Tillman hated the iraq war) and dead soldier in lies to promote the war after they knew he'd been killed by friendly fire.
Go ahead, keep complaining about how facts are a conspiracy against bush.

[ Parent ]
: It's news when ... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Sailor on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:20:21 PM EST

...
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.
And as far as BDS goes, yes, all of you loyal bushies have it. To vote for a deranged war criminal twice indicates severe pathology.
My fav non-denial denial:
White House spokesman Blain Rethmeier said Friday that a review of records turned up no indication that the president had received McChrystal's warning.
IOW, we don't think you can find any evidence that we helped cover it up but in case you do we can claim that we never actually denied that we were a part of the cover up.

[ Parent ]
: Dude (none / 0) (#10)
by baba durag on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:24:09 PM EST

You can't seriously be championing this administrations conduct in this affair, can you?
Are you one of the dead enders? Is it "Bush forever" for you, regardless of facts?

[ Parent ]
: Oh Fritz, how sad my friend (none / 0) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:51:00 AM EST

that this is where you choose to stand on this. We would never condone lying to the family of a dead police officer or fire fighter. The honesty of the military leadership has the singularly most empowering or devastating affect on our troops and their moral. I saw military moral scrape bottom during Abu Ghraib because every soldier knows how the real Army works and every soldier knew this wasn't just about a few bad apples. They had all seen the photos that had M.I. officers and Contractors participating, and then the President sacrificed a bunch young kids to appear to be imposing justice. Without honesty and integrity the only soldiers that will be available to us and wanting to serve us will be the mercenary type. They will want larger paychecks by the way and they won't have any problem opening fire on you if the price is right.

[ Parent ]

Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by baba durag on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:40:31 PM EST

So instead of accepting responsibility for having been informed about the truth, the administration is going to tell the lie that it was this subordinates' fault. A classic propaganda technique - Machivellian, Rovian even.

Jerome a Paris put it nicely today:

"[It's] a very simple technique: repeat your lies on every occasion, dismiss any alternative position as partisan and extremist (or even treasonous), and cast yourself as moderate, balanced and in the mainstream. When caught in flat out lies, never admit to anything, just attack the source, attack your opponents of what you're criticized for, and change the topic." (link)

We've all seen it before, we're seeing it now, and I'm sure we'll all see it again.

[ Parent ]

fritz (none / 0) (#14)
by cpinva on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 03:18:03 AM EST

the current bush administration is so inept, nothing anyone could make up would possibly exceed the level of hubris and corruption that defines them. i'm not convinced they can even be equalled. hollywood would throw this script away, as totally unbelievable, were someone to pitch it.

so no, there's no "Bush Derangement Crowd" except in your mind, such as it is. hell, who needs delusion, when the facts are so odious?