Wow, this proves that Republicans love their party more then their Country.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070727/D8QKOF7O0.html

He had time to shout "Don't shoot i'm Pat Tillman", something is fishy...

It doesn't say anywhere in that story, which I already posted elsewhere that Bush has claimed executive privallage. So why do you feel the need to lie about it?

Also you claim about what the story "proves" is bogus until it has an argument to go with it.

Wow, this proves that Republicans love their party more then their Country........

Where's that at?? And where is executive privilage?? I didn't see that either.

The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

I honestly dont think an assessment on distance can be made based on the spread of the bullets.:shrug:

I honestly dont think an assessment on distance can be made based on the spread of the bullets

I'm pretty sure if you draw triangles based on the bullets' angles of entry, you can figure something out about the distance of the shooter. And, besides, assault rifles, even when bolted into place, have a fairly large spread. I am neither a ballistics nor forensics effort, though.

I honestly dont think an assessment on distance can be made based on the spread of the bullets.:shrug:

And what qualifies you to make that determination?

Not going to comment on your lie, Ganymede?

Where's that at?? And where is executive privilage?? I didn't see that either.

I just love owning you Orleander. Now what you should do is take that zeal and skepticisim, and put it to good use. And support Justice for Pat Tilman.


White House, Pentagon cite executive privilege to hold up documents friendly fire victim Tillman Michael Roston
Published: Friday July 13, 2007


Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) revealed on Friday afternoon that the White House and Pentagon were holding up a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigation into the friendly fire death of former professional football player and Army Corporal Patrick Tillman.

"[T]he Committee wrote to White House Counsel Fred Fielding seeking 'all documents received or generated by any official in the Executive Office of the President' relating to Corporal Tillman's death," noted a press release from the Committee.

But the White House has apparently again invoked its executive privilege to hold up the documents sought by Waxman and Ranking Minority member Tom Davis (R-VA).

"The White House Counsel's office responded that it would not provide the Committee with documents that 'implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests' and produced only two communications with the officials in the Defense Department, one of which was a package of news clippings," the Committe noted. "The response of the Defense Department to the Committee's inquiry was also deficient."

In their letter to Fielding, Waxman and Davis doubted that the two documents were the limits of White House-Pentagon communication over Tillman's death.

"It is difficult to believe that these are the only communications that White House officials had with the Department of Defense between April 22,2004, the day Corporal Tillman died, and May 29, 2004, the day the Bush Administration publicly announced that Corporal Tillman's death was a result of fratricide," they wrote.

They also explained what they believed was at stake in this probe.

"These questions have implications for the credibility of the information coming from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan and raise significant policy issues about how to prevent the future dissemination of untrue information," Waxman and Davis wrote to Fielding. "They also have a profound personal impact on the Tillman family. It is for these reasons that the Committee requested documents from the White House."

The Committee said that it expected a response to the Friday letter by July 25. Waxman also scheduled an additional hearing on the announcement of Tillman's death for Aug. 1.

Full information can be found at the Committee's website.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/White_House_Pentagon_hold_up_documents_0713.html

The ability to read is a virute

Not going to comment on your lie, Ganymede?

Are you going to fight for Pat Tilman or for your party? Party over Country is your motto right?

Not going to comment on your lie, Ganymede?

White House Denies Request for Documents in Ex-NFL Player's Death

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 14, 2007; Page A03

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.



Cpl. Pat Tillman, shown in a 2003 file photo, was killed in Afghanistan by friendly fire on April 22, 2004. (Associated Press)



Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called the program an essential screening tool. (AP)


SEE FULL COLLECTION


Feedback



In Today's A Section
• FBI Chief Disputes Gonzales On Spying
• Travelers Face Greater Use of Personal Data
• A Sound Investment
• Judge Blocks City's Ordinances Against Illegal Immigration
• The Honor Scout Is Indeed Trustworthy

» More in Today's Print Edition


Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
The Carpetbagger Report
Obsidian Wings
BJN: Bush Junta News and Commentary for the Reality Based Community


Full List of Blogs (70 links) »


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301929.html



Now shut your piehole

************Crickets*************

Republicans, come out and play YAY!

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/WAR.jpg

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Warriors.jpg


Republicans, come out and PLAY YAY

Are you going to fight for Pat Tilman or for your party? Party over Country is your motto right?

I don't have a party. And asserting that I do and that I or it behave in some fashion that you can't prove with anything other than your own questionable subjective appreciation of reality is folly on your part...

Thanks for posting the link to The Washington Post story. I was unaware the Bush administration had evoked its privillage and denied papers pertaining to the case. Clearly, that wasn't in the story you posted, and I thought you were making allegations that could not be proved. Obviously, I was wrong.

I just love owning you Orleander. Now what you should do is take that zeal and skepticisim, and put it to good use. And support Justice for Pat Tilman.


http://rawstory.com/news/2007/White_House_Pentagon_hold_up_documents_0713.html

The ability to read is a virute

Own me? LMAO. Were you wearing your big boy pants when you typed that. :rolleyes:
Your first link didn't say a thing about executive privilege (not privillage) or a single Republican. Your second link did. It also stated:

The Committee said that it expected a response to the Friday letter by July 25. Waxman also scheduled an additional hearing on the announcement of Tillman's death for Aug. 1

has there been a response?

Oh, and by the way The ability to spell is also a virtue (not virute)

The spread of bullets on a body is not indication of the distance from the shooter. The reason why is simple, the human body does not stay still as it is hit with rounds. Considering that Tillman was wearing the standard armor at that time he would have been moving just under the effect of the impacts on the armor. Second we have no evidence thatTillman was remaing still as he was shot. Third. Just becuase the M-16 can have a wide dispresal pattern does not mean it automatically does. Statistically there will be a time that some one will fire a rifle and the rounds all hit the exactly same place.

In addition 10 meters is 33 feet, in a dusty sandy canyon, 33 feet might not be close enough to even make out uniform type.

The spread of bullets on a body is not indication of the distance from the shooter. The reason why is simple, the human body does not stay still as it is hit with rounds. Considering that Tillman was wearing the standard armor at that time he would have been moving just under the effect of the impacts on the armor. Second we have no evidence thatTillman was remaing still as he was shot. Third. Just becuase the M-16 can have a wide dispresal pattern does not mean it automatically does. Statistically there will be a time that some one will fire a rifle and the rounds all hit the exactly same place.

In addition 10 meters is 33 feet, in a dusty sandy canyon, 33 feet might not be close enough to even make out uniform type.

Ok, so you're saying that those Military Doctors, who have examined thousands of dead corpes, don't know that they're talking about, but you do? How many dead corpses have you studied? And when did you get your P.H.D?

First off, it sounds to me that the spread of the bullets is based on conjecture.


From evidence presented in article:

- In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling."

- No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene - no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.

Do you see the contradiction?

Seems to me he could very well have been killed by enemy fire after all.

First off, it sounds to me that the spread of the bullets is based on conjecture.


From evidence presented in article:

“ - In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling." ”

“ - No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene - no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck."



Do you see the contradiction?

Seems to me he could very well have been killed by enemy fire after all.

The other fact is that the M-16 has become a universal weapon, it is seen and is used by terrorist around the world.

I don't see why Pat Tilman is more important than anyone else who died in this war.

He is and he isn't.

He is in the sense that the media seized on him and made him into a hero by showing him (correctly, I think) as someone who turned his back on fame and fortune to fight for his country and his ideals after 9/11. The Pentagon and the Bush administration were only to happy to encourage the media in this. They needed a poster boy, and Tillman seemed ready-made.

When he died, he became a symbol of even greater heroism and sacrifice. Only now, it turns out that the brand of goods sold to the public (and trumpeted by politicians and commentators alike) was made up by a not-so-clever PR person at the pentagon, the same way the Jessica Lynch "rescue" was. In other words, the Pentagon lied about his death and covered it up because it didn't want its hero to have been gunned down by his own comrades in arms in the fog of war. As with most cover-ups, this one is now unraveling, and you have to wonder why it was done in the first place...

I don't see why Pat Tilman is more important than anyone else who died in this war.

Because he gave up 3mill a year to serve his country. Such honor(even if you think it was foolish) is very rare these days.

Because he gave up 3mill a year to serve his country. Such honor(even if you think it was foolish) is very rare these days.

Thats good, but the fact that its a good thing needs to be underlined is a sad commentary in itself.

Besides the war is humbug. As his death itself proves.

Yes that's true, this story highlights how the bravest and best men are lost and the weak live on.

Thats good, but the fact that its a good thing needs to be underlined is a sad commentary in itself.

Besides the war is humbug. As his death itself proves.

His death doesn't "prove" anything other than what the facts surrounding it turn out to be, something you'd understand if you knew anything about logic at all. Oh, and Tillman was killed in Afghanistan. Surely, you're not suggesting that war is "humbug?"

I also fail to see how highlighting a personal choice that stands in contrast to many other such choices is a "sad commentary."

His death doesn't "prove" anything other than what the facts surrounding it turn out to be, something you'd understand if you knew anything about logic at all. Oh, and Tillman was killed in Afghanistan. Surely, you're not suggesting that war is "humbug?"

I also fail to see how highlighting a personal choice that stands in contrast to many other such choices is a "sad commentary."

Your failure of comprehension is not my problem. :)

The war in Afghanistan is as much humbug as the war in Iraq.

It would be like Italy attacking the US for failing to turn in the CIA agents involved in kidnap and torture.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/16/europe/EU-GEN-Italy-CIA-Kidnap.php

It would be like Italy attacking the US for failing to turn in the CIA agents involved in kidnap and torture.

Well, if those same CIA agents were involved in the largest terrorist attack in Italian history, they'd have a pretty damned good reason to attack.

But, SAM-- with your rabit anti-Americanism, nothing America ever does is right or acceptable. Your consistent chest thumping bias proves only one thing: you cannot see past your own ideology to be neutral enough to see the truth for what it is. Afgansitan was an integral part of the 9/11 plot by harboring, aiding and protecting Al Qaeda. Only someone as off kilter as you can sit here and deny it's involvement when hundreds of news agencies and various governments (both involved in the war on terrorism, and neutral in said events) have all made the same claim (and then there's those pesky video tapes of Bin Laden). The only thing you make yourself out to be is the crazy street crier that you've been since day one.

Wow... a muslim who hates the USA and thinks that 9/11 was the result of something "other" than Al Qaeda. That's original.

Why not dress up and carry a sign screaming "THE END IS NEAR!" because that's about as serious as you can be taken.

~String

Well, if those same CIA agents were involved in the largest terrorist attack in Italian history, they'd have a pretty damned good reason to attack.

But, SAM-- with your rabit anti-Americanism, nothing America ever does is right or acceptable. Your consistent chest thumping bias proves only one thing: you cannot see past your own ideology to be neutral enough to see the truth for what it is. Afgansitan was an integral part of the 9/11 plot by harboring, aiding and protecting Al Qaeda. You can sit here and deny it's involvement, but when hundreds of news agencies, allied governments (both involved in the war on terrorism, and neutral in said events) have all made the same claim (and then there's those pesky video tapes of Bin Laden), the only thing you make yourself out to be is the crazy street crier that you've been since day one.

Wow... a muslim who hates the USA and thinks that 9/11 was the result of something "other" than Al Qaeda. That's original.

Why not dress up and carry a sign screaming "THE END IS NEAR!" because that's about as serious as you can be taken.

~String

Take your pick

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/death_squads.htm

Which ones are the US prepared to hand over without evidence? :)

Take your pick

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/death_squads.htm

Which ones are the US prepared to hand over without evidence? :)

None. Many. I couldn't care less. The CIA agents involved were acting on orders, so the best Italy can do is bitch at the USA about their actions. The US isn't going to turn them over.

I'm not even agreeing with their actions (nor disagreeing either)-- I just want to know how in your little twisted universe, their actions are evern remotely as evil as what Al Qaeda did.

Never mind. I'm sure you'll avoid answering that point, bring up another red herring, or just twist the whole thing into something else. Forget I mentioned it.

~String

None. Many. I couldn't care less. The CIA agents involved were acting on orders, so the best Italy can do is bitch at the USA about their actions. The US isn't going to turn them over.

I'm not even agreeing with their actions (nor disagreeing either)-- I just want to know how in your little twisted universe, their actions are evern remotely as evil as what Al Qaeda did.

Never mind. I'm sure you'll avoid answering that point, bring up another red herring, or just twist the whole thing into something else. Forget I mentioned it.

~String

Actually they were far far worse, which you might agree with if you bothered to read the extent of the damages they did. Or you might not, considering how cheaply you hold the lives of people not American. And if you think about it, killing innocent people on orders is what the al Qaeda terrorists do. Acting on orders does not legitimize it, not in civil society. Not even if the orders to kill the same innocent people come from the top of the rung of a so-called democratic society. That actually makes it worse.

I wasn't defending them or the CIA's actions... just pointing out that the US government would never turn them over because, for better or worse, those agents were acting on orders. Moreover, you post a link to a website that cannot substantiate word it says and quote it as if it were gospel. Does that mean that it isn't right in some instances? No. But, you'll have to do better than post some link to a website that can't back up a word it says.

And I did read the article... and I still fail to see how what the CIA agents did was somehow worse than flying fully loaded civilian aircraft into the Twin Towers.

~String

I wasn't defending them or the CIA's actions... just pointing out that the US government would never turn them over because, for better or worse, those agents were acting on orders. Moreover, you post a link to a website that cannot substantiate word it says and quote it as if it were gospel. Does that mean that it isn't right in some instances? No. But, you'll have to do better than post some link to a website that can't back up a word it says.

And I did read the article... and I still fail to see how what the CIA agents did was somehow worse than flying fully loaded civilian aircraft into the Twin Towers.

~String

You mean years and years of torture, mass graves of women, children and innocent people? You'll find much of the information is from releases from the CIA itself. Not opinion or gospel. Not that you care.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/cia-j28.shtml

You mean years and years of torture, mass graves of women, children and innocent people? You'll find much of the information is from releases from the CIA itself. Not opinion or gospel. Not that you care.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/cia-j28.shtml

Tell a secret. Best way to gain someone's confidence.

There, now are you satisfied. Stop asking questions already.;)

I wasn't defending them or the CIA's actions... just pointing out that the US government would never turn them over because, for better or worse, those agents were acting on orders. That would be more, not less, justification for Italy and many others (Cuba, Nicaragua, etc) to attack the US for not turning them over - on Afghanistan war logic, anyway.

The Afghani government never even received an extradition request to refuse.

What some of the terrorists harbored in the US have done is reasonably comparable, in everything but public spectacle, to 9/11.

One sidelight to Tillman's odd killing: his reputation as a critic of the Iraq war, and even of the Afghan war, was growing. The military was faced with the likelihood of a genuine folk hero with unimpeachable service credentials and TV access speaking out in public against the Iraq war - calling it illegal, immoral, etc.

That would be more, not less, justification for Italy and many others (Cuba, Nicaragua, etc) to attack the US for not turning them over - on Afghanistan war logic, anyway.

The Afghani government never even received an extradition request to refuse.

What some of the terrorists harbored in the US have done is reasonably comparable, in everything but public spectacle, to 9/11.

One sidelight to Tillman's odd killing: his reputation as a critic of the Iraq war, and even of the Afghan war, was growing. The military was faced with the likelihood of a genuine folk hero with unimpeachable service credentials and TV access speaking out in public against the Iraq war - calling it illegal, immoral, etc.


CNN.com - U.S. repeatedly asked Taliban to expel bin Laden - Jan ...
(CNN) -- The U.S. government asked the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to expel or hand over Osama bin Laden more than two dozen times between September 1996 ...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/30/taliban.talks/index.html

U.S. repeatedly asked Taliban to expel bin Laden
Declassified cable details years of negotiations
From Henry Schuster
CNN
Friday, January 30, 2004 Posted: 5:59 PM EST (2259 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(CNN) -- The U.S. government asked the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to expel or hand over Osama bin Laden more than two dozen times between September 1996 and summer 2001, according to a recently declassified State Department cable.

Three of those attempts were made after the Bush administration came into office in late January 2001.

Despite the various efforts, "these talks have been fruitless," the cable said.

The cable was written in July 2001 and was obtained recently by the National Security Archive at George Washington University through the Freedom of Information Act. The National Security Archive posted the document to its Web site Friday.

Sajit Gandhi, research associate at the NSA, said there are indications that the Taliban were approached more than 30 times during the time period.

One sidelight to Tillman's odd killing: his reputation as a critic of the Iraq war, and even of the Afghan war, was growing. The military was faced with the likelihood of a genuine folk hero with unimpeachable service credentials and TV access speaking out in public against the Iraq war - calling it illegal, immoral, etc.


Now I will call Bullshit, citation of fact is required, not your pontification, and spin.

The September 25, 2005 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper reported that Tillman held views which were critical of the Iraq war and did not support President Bush's re-election. According to Tillman's mother, a friend of Tillman had arranged a meeting with Noam Chomsky, to take place after his return from Afghanistan. Chomsky has confirmed this.[15] The article also reported that Tillman urged a soldier in his platoon to vote for John Kerry in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman

That would be more, not less, justification for Italy and many others (Cuba, Nicaragua, etc) to attack the US for not turning them over - on Afghanistan war logic, anyway.


They are welcome to try, but their are many treaties, and reasons mostly economic, that they won't, Italy doesn't have the Balls, or the ability, Cuba has its own, less than stellar history, of wars of communist aggression, and Castro doesn't have the Balls to back up his mouth that roared, Nicaragua? this one you have to explain in detail, as far as I know it is a thriving representative democratic republic, in the same vain as the U.S., with a strong economy, that took hold after the Sandinistas were thrown out.

U.S. repeatedly asked Taliban to expel bin Laden
Declassified cable details years of negotiations etc etc The US has never once filed a request for extradition for OBL with any government anywhere.

Back door threats and pressures and gameplaying, using the US military as a mafia don uses his thugs or a rich kid uses his toys, is part of what people like the Tillmans object to.

They are welcome to try, but their are many treaties, and reasons mostly economic, that they won't, Italy doesn't have the Balls, or the ability, Cuba has its own, less than stellar history, of wars of communist aggression, and Castro doesn't have the Balls to back up his mouth that roared, So you admit that they have the same basic right to treat the US as the US treated Afghanistan, simply lack the muscle ? That was my point.

Nicaragua? this one you have to explain in detail, as far as I know it is a thriving representative democratic republic, in the same vain as the U.S., with a strong economy, that took hold after the Sandinistas were thrown out. The representative democratic republic was established by the Sandinistas, who overthrew a dictator and held off for years a terrorist campaign financed and trained by the US.

The Sandinistas were voted out of office, not thrown, in elections established by themselves, and the new government is much friendlier to the US - which in turn has stopped blockading ports and pressuring trading partners and blowing up busses and so forth, leading to more stable economic prospects.

As is typical with economies held to be "strong" in such circumstances, child mortality and other signs of economic desperation have increased, under the new administration, even compared with the levels during the US terrorist campaign.

What some of the terrorists harbored in the US have done is reasonably comparable, in everything but public spectacle, to 9/11.

Maybe, but what the Italians are talking about and what you're talking about and what Sam is talking about have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The Italians, so far as I understand, as upset because the CIA snatched some terror suspects off the street in Milan and flew them to another country for America's famous "rendition" treatment. So bringing up "death squads" and acts that happened 30 or 40 years ago are not germane, and are, as String rightly pointed out, "red herrings" in the traditional sense of that word.

One sidelight to Tillman's odd killing: his reputation as a critic of the Iraq war, and even of the Afghan war, was growing. The military was faced with the likelihood of a genuine folk hero with unimpeachable service credentials and TV access speaking out in public against the Iraq war - calling it illegal, immoral, etc.

What do you base that on? And what are you trying to have us infer from it?

The US has never once filed a request for extradition for OBL with any government anywhere.

We didn't have to. We demanded it publicly. And as Buffalo documented, had been demanding it privately for years...

Back door threats and pressures and gameplaying, using the US military as a mafia don uses his thugs or a rich kid uses his toys, is part of what people like the Tillmans object to.

Back door threats? See the above: The president went on international television and demanded Bin Laden be turned over publicly... Afghanistan readied itself for jihad and refused.

In closing, what does Nicaragua have to do with Afghanistan or Tillman?

We didn't have to. We demanded it publicly. Of course we didn't have to, if we weren't really interested in obtaining OBL without starting a war. Any more than we "had to" accept the Taliban's offer to hand OBL over to our allies the Saudis.

Why didn't we? It's standard procedure in such circumstances, just a matter of a couple of forms filled out. We still have a few competent professionals in our foreign policy staffs who can show W&Co how to do something like that.

Public bullying and insult is how one starts fights, not how one avoids them. And the techniques of bullying are among the few areas of diplomacy in which W&Co have demonstrated some ability.

W&Co wanted war, in Afghanistan, and was careful to avoid any avoidance of it.

In closing, what does Nicaragua have to do with Afghanistan or Tillman? I dunno. Ask Buffalo. When guys like you and Buffalo bring this sideshow crap (OBL extradition, Nicaragua, whatever) in, sometimes I ride with it. It's a conversational forum, it takes tangents.

Of course we didn't have to, if we weren't really interested in obtaining OBL without starting a war. Any more than we "had to" accept the Taliban's offer to hand OBL over to our allies the Saudis.

Why didn't we? It's standard procedure in such circumstances, just a matter of a couple of forms filled out. We still have a few competent professionals in our foreign policy staffs who can show W&Co how to do something like that.

Public bullying and insult is how one starts fights, not how one avoids them. And the techniques of bullying are among the few areas of diplomacy in which W&Co have demonstrated some ability.

W&Co wanted war, in Afghanistan, and was careful to avoid any avoidance of it.

Yes, I've heard your opinion on all of this before. The pipeline, if I recall correctly? Regardless, let me know offer up a subjective take of my own. Bush wanted OBL or a war because the American people would not accept less. When it became clear the Taliban were not going to give us OBL, no strings attached, he launched his air strikes. The Taliban were stalling, offering up half-measures and unacceptable provisions. With 3,000 dead, they failed to understand diplomacy had reached a zero sum point: Give us what we want or else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman

Pure speculation;

[edit] Political views
1. The September 25, 2005 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper reported that Tillman held views which were critical of the Iraq war and did not support President Bush's re-election.

2.According to Tillman's mother, a friend of Tillman had arranged a meeting with Noam Chomsky, to take place after his return from Afghanistan.

3.Chomsky has confirmed this.[15] The article also reported that Tillman urged a soldier in his platoon to vote for John Kerry in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election.[11]

1.The San Francisco Chronicle, is anti war and it seems very convenient to be able to make these assertions about a Dead Hero, with out him being here to set the record straight. Not the first time that liberal news papers spun their own story.

2. Again I have great respect for the Loss the Tillmans have suffered, but she is presenting facts not in evidence from the Lips of her dead son.

3. I wouldn't believe Chomsky if he was swearing on the Quran and the Bible at the same time, he is nothing but a opportunist, using a dead man to further his own agenda, A men who cannot refute or confirm the accuracy of the report.


Memorials and tributes
After his death, the Pat Tillman Foundation was established to carry forward its view of Tillman's legacy by inspiring and supporting those striving for positive change in themselves and the world around them.


To carry forward its views? of Pat Tillmans legacy, ah... it's views, not Tillmans?

About the 3 closely spaced shot, that hit Tillman, the M-16 has three modes, 1. Safe, 2. Semi Auto, 3. Burst, in this mode you get 3 shots with one pull of the trigger, those are the method of operation of a M-16, at 10 meters, the cyclic rate of fire in the burst mode wouldn't spread the shot pattern more than a couple of inches.

Rounds react differently on impact at significantly different ranges. 3 rounds from the same weapon would provide ideal evidence. Pat Tillman may never have known what hit him, but his skull can still tell us the range.

Rounds react differently on impact at significantly different ranges.

Not after the first round has done so much damage. And which round did the damage first? And how can anyone know?

3 rounds from the same weapon would provide ideal evidence.

And what if it was one round from three different weapons? There were more than just one person firing that day in the hills.

Pat Tillman may never have known what hit him, but his skull can still tell us the range.

Not likely with the damage that was done from the first round. Just too much damage ...and which was the first round?

Baron Max

Baron Max: "Not after the first round has done so much damage."

At close range, the rounds don't tumble as much. Never do they take the same path.

"And which round did the damage first?"

On burst, it's the bottom one in the group.

"And how can anyone know?"

Second round usually just above and left of the first. Third above second. Smack-smack-smack.

"what if it was one round from three different weapons?"

Firing squad. Not much evidence for that, only short range. Tillman was not killed with a sniper weapon, and the group was suspiciously tight. There's enough evidence in the skull to figure it out. If I were a close relative, I would agree to new and independent forensics.

Regardless, let me know offer up a subjective take of my own. Bush wanted OBL or a war because the American people would not accept less. When it became clear the Taliban were not going to give us OBL, no strings attached, he launched his air strikes. I agree with that opinion of yours.

There is little contradiction between my rather cynical take and your more romantic one - once we factor in how the American people came to that state of mind.

And of course the American people soon moved on, and would not accept anything less than immediate invasion of Iraq, before the mushroom cloud rose up above an American city. And OBL's capture, dead or alive? The Taliban deposed? Not that big a deal after all.
I wouldn't believe Chomsky if he was swearing on the Quran and the Bible at the same time, he is nothing but a opportunist, using a dead man to further his own agenda, A men who cannot refute or confirm the accuracy of the report. You are now forced to question the integrity of everyone involved, from Tillman's entire family and squad companions to probably America's foremost working intellectual (with a reputation for painstaking accuracy and integrity, whatever you think of his opinions), simply in order to defend presumptions you have made without any evidence at all - mere projections of your bigotries.

Tillman admired Chomsky, by all accounts. Do you?
And what if it was one round from three different weapons? There were more than just one person firing that day in the hills. There was apparently no enemy fire at all, however. So one round from three different weapons would also be significant.

If you guys read the CID report on Tillman's fratricide you can see that all three rounds impacted him in the forehead. I just registered so apparently I can't post links, but if you type "Tillman CID report" into google, it is the first link you get entitled "army cid report". I would have linked to it at the start of my post because everything from here on is based on hard evidence documented by the agents that investigated this case.

Everyone is talking about the shot placement now because the doctors who did the autopsy were interviewed by the agents doing the CID on the incident. Their statements assert that the wounds suggest fire from a shorter range than the ~100m it was from Tillman's overwatch position at the ridgeline to the convoy on the canyon floor below. Their autopsy noted three bullet holes in his forehead, not his body. It would be a truly heroic feat for a soldier to get that kind of shot grouping with an M4 at 100m in a single burst, especially in combat. That is around four minutes of angle (~4" spot at 100m). The red dot of the M4's ACOG sight is 4 MOA in size, so the shooter would literally have to hit a target small enough to disappear behind the dot of his gun sight. Even if he does this, the first shot will hit but the other two will go wild as recoil from the first shot causes the muzzle to rise toward two o'clock, sending the following rounds off target. The AP article says the medical examiners suggested he was shot from a range of only 10m, but that isn't anywhere in either of their statements in the CID report. The interviews in the CID report involve very little speculation as to the engagement range, other than to say it was beyond five feet or so due to a lack of powder residue on Tillman's face but "probably less than 85m". I have no idea where the AP got the 10m number. The Rangers involved also dispute they were that close so it is probably bullshit anyway.

This is all a fruitless discussion though. Assuming it was just one guy with a single burst or three amazingly coordinated snipers, or whatever else, is ignorant of the documented facts of the incident. A much more plausible course of events is clear after reading them. There were over a dozen weapons in the convoy, including M249/M240B and .50 caliber machine guns. Two snipers were also dismounted from the vehicles at the time of the incident, and could have been providing sniper support to the convoy. Both assets can direct more substantial and/or more accurate fire than one dude with a carbine. The entire convoy directed their fire at Tillman's position en masse from the time they saw their muzzle flashes until cease fire. This is SOP in an ambush scenario. You achieve fire superiority first, then keep the enemy suppressed until you can either egress the ambush site, or counterattack. During this time Tillman could have been hit by any number of shooters. There were impact marks on the rocks all around his position from 5.56, 7.62 and .50 cal rounds, and at least one AT-4 rocket. He had shrapnel and spall fragments from nearby impacts in his arms at the time of autopsy. One 5.56 round was lodged in a grenade on his MOLLE, and fragments of many more were in his armor. The stock of his weapon had been grazed by fire as well. This gives a rough picture of how much fire was directed at his position. For one guy to close that distance and shoot him at close range during the engagement would have been suicide as he would have placed himself in the convoy's field of fire and been turned to swiss cheese. More likely, I think, is that he got pinned up against the rock his body was found leaning against and riddled with fire from multiple weapons. No ballistics evidence can be examined due to all three rounds exiting out the back of his head. Even if they could, the weapons that fired them have likely had thousands of rounds fired through them since 2004 and as a result their riflings have changed shape.

And just to be pedantic...I keep saying M4 because nobody in A/2/75 Rangers that day was carrying an M16. These days Rangers get the M4A1, which has a S-1-F trigger group. There is no three round burst option. In practice it doesn't matter one way or another because training allows a shooter to modulate the trigger fast enough to pop off one, two, or ten rounds as he sees fit.

There is little contradiction between my rather cynical take and your more romantic one - once we factor in how the American people came to that state of mind.

While it tickles me to death that you seem to agree with me on something, I think there is a rather large difference between our views on this topic, as has been espoused by us on numerous occasions.

- I do not think the US needed to file some official document to obtain OBL, because we demanded him publicly and received a half-measure in response. We had thousands of dead, and war was our right and our duty.

- I do not think Bush rushed to war in Afghanistan or that the war there has anything to do with your oil pipeline.

And of course the American people soon moved on, and would not accept anything less than immediate invasion of Iraq, before the mushroom cloud rose up above an American city. And OBL's capture, dead or alive? The Taliban deposed? Not that big a deal after all.

It is to me. As I've written elsewhere on this site, I think not committing enough troops to Afghanistan, then leaving and turning his back on it just when the ball was starting to break our way are two of the biggest failures of Bush's administration. We had OBL and Al Qaeda by the short ones and let them both go (as documented by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker), then hurried on to the current debacle...

Didn't OBL hide in Pakistan?

- I do not think the US needed to file some official document to obtain OBL, because we demanded him publicly and received a half-measure in response. We had thousands of dead, and war was our right and our duty. But war on whom? The Afghans?

And yes, however much the US would like to regard the rule of law and long-established customs of diplomacy as mere hindrances to decisive and effectual action, others disagree: it takes a few hours and a single act to formally request extradition, and publically demanding handover of such a figure without even bothering to request extradition is simply a prelude to war, a ritual insult, not an honest attempt to obtain the man.

So W&Co (whoever's in charge of stuff like this), having carefully painted themselves into a corner of their own choosing, was forced to come out swinging.

The question could be put: why didn't the US make an honest effort to obtain OBL from the Taliban ? Or the Sudanese, for that matter ? What was wrong with having him handed over to the Saudis, for example, as was offered ?

Yes, John. But it's pretty well documented he could have been captured at Tora Bora, but we lacked the guts to put the boots on the ground to get it done. Also, in Chain of Command, Seymour Hersh talks about how in the early days of the fighting the military had OBL and the head of Taliban (his name escapes me right now) in its sites and could have killed them with missiles from predator drones, but didn't do so because the duty officer didn't think he had that authority. This policy was later changed with an executive order, I think. There's a whole lot in that book. It's difficult to keep it all clear in my head...

iceaura

Tillman admired Chomsky, by all accounts. Do you?

Who's accounts? some one speaking for the dead with a political agenda?

As for my admiring Chomsky why should I he's nothing but a political hack, he should have stuck to linguistics,

Chomsky has stated that "My personal visions are fairly traditional anarchist ones

Yes, John. But it's pretty well documented he could have been captured at Tora Bora, but we lacked the guts to put the boots on the ground to get it done. Also, in Chain of Command, Seymour Hersh talks about how in the early days of the fighting the military had OBL and the head of Taliban (his name escapes me right now) in its sites and could have killed them with missiles from predator drones, but didn't do so because the duty officer didn't think he had that authority. This policy was later changed with an executive order, I think. There's a whole lot in that book. It's difficult to keep it all clear in my head...

The evidence seems to dispute that information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora

I would say he fled Afghanistan and ran away to hide in Pakistan early on, if he was even there after the shit hit the fan. Seems to me that the higher up's in military considered this to be the case from the onset. BUT they also may have thought he would stick around to fight.

ah, what do i know?:shrug:

But war on whom? The Afghans?

We fought the Taliban. Everyone understands this. The rank and file Afghans were our allies.

And yes, however much the US would like to regard the rule of law and long-established customs of diplomacy as mere hindrances to decisive and effectual action, others disagree:

Who are these others? I didn't hear a whole lot of people complaining about the US invading Afghanistan when it occurred. The few that did, per my recollection, were the usual anti-America crowd...

it takes a few hours and a single act to formally request extradition, and publically demanding handover of such a figure without even bothering to request extradition is simply a prelude to war, a ritual insult, not an honest attempt to obtain the man.

That's your opinion. I think the time of going through the bureaucracy and the usual motions went out the window when the buildings started coming down...

So W&Co (whoever's in charge of stuff like this), having carefully painted themselves into a corner of their own choosing, was forced to come out swinging.

That's another subjective judgment I can't agree with. I think if the Afghans said: 'OK, come and get him,' or, 'Let us give him to you,' Bush would have been more receptive. However, the Afghans did neither. They stalled and tried to get third parties involved.

There is also an important component you're leaving out of this equation: The Bush doctrine. That is, at the time, Bush said he was not making a distinction between terrorists and the regimes that allowed terrorists to exist within their borders. The Taliban government provided sanctuary to Al Qaeda and OBL. Bush knew this. The CIA knew this. And to have done nothing about it, in the eyes of the administration, would have been akin to giving the Afghan mullahs a pass for their tolerance and support of a group at war with the US.

The question could be put: why didn't the US make an honest effort to obtain OBL from the Taliban?

That's your opinion. I don't agree with it. The US asked for him. The Taliban replied with a response not to our liking. What about that is hard to understand?

What was wrong with having him handed over to the Saudis, for example, as was offered?

What was wrong with it? Americans never would have stood for it! This man killed 3,000 of our own. We wanted him. We wanted revenge and justice. Not to mention, giving him to the Saudis, the country that produced most of the 9/11 hijackers, would have been a political and a PR disaster Bush or any other sitting president would want to avoid.

The evidence seems to dispute that information.

So did you read the part that said:

"Also according to Berntsen, a number of al-Qaeda detainees later confirmed that bin Laden had escaped Tora Bora into Pakistan via an easterly route through snow covered mountains in the area of Parachinar, Pakistan. He also claims that bin Laden could have been captured if United States Central Command had committed the troops that Berntsen had requested. Former CIA agent Gary Schroen concurs with this view [2]. Pentagon documents [3] seem to confirm this account..."

So that's two CIA agents in the know, pentagon documents and a detailed account in the Hersh book that all say essentially what I claimed...

So did you read the part that said:

"Also according to Berntsen, a number of al-Qaeda detainees later confirmed that bin Laden had escaped Tora Bora into Pakistan via an easterly route through snow covered mountains in the area of Parachinar, Pakistan. He also claims that bin Laden could have been captured if United States Central Command had committed the troops that Berntsen had requested. Former CIA agent Gary Schroen concurs with this view [2]. Pentagon documents [3] seem to confirm this account..."

So that's two CIA agents in the know, pentagon documents and a detailed account in the Hersh book that all say essentially what I claimed...

yes, i made a slight revision. Of course the article goes on to state:

Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time...Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives ... but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp." Franks, who retired in 2003, was the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan at the time. The last time Osama bin Laden was overheard on the radio was 14 December.

Franks would say that, though, wouldn't he? It was him who dropped the ball in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sort of like George Tenet punts all responsibility for the intelligence failures during his tenure at the CIA in his book? I've got three or four sources on my side, so I remain unconvinced by your arguments...

I base my conclusion on human nature. He got away while he can.

So did Bush shoot Tillman and lawyer up when the cops took him downtown?

Human nature? The same human nature that manifests differently in different people?

Regardless, I fail to see how your statement refutes the claim the OBL got away from America's outstretched arm because we didn't have enough troops on the ground to seal off his escape route.

That's your opinion. I think the time of going through the bureaucracy and the usual motions went out the window when the buildings started coming down... That's the attitude, all right. Just like the niceties about warrants, the nitpicky little rules about detention and torture and treaties, all that stuff - just gets in the way when it's time to kick ass.

It worked on the junior high playground, why wouldn't it work to guide the foreign policy and domestic security of the world's superpower?

We're in the right, therefore we can do no wrong.
, having carefully painted themselves into a corner of their own choosing, was forced to come out swinging. ”

That's another subjective judgment I can't agree with. Seems like you do agree, though: There is also an important component you're leaving out of this equation: The Bush doctrine. That is, at the time, Bush said he was not making a distinction between terrorists and the regimes that allowed terrorists to exist within their borders. Nicely done, that bit of self-trapping. "She made me do it". These guys do know how to bully.
Not to mention, giving him to the Saudis, the country that produced most of the 9/11 hijackers, would have been a political and a PR disaster Bush or any other sitting president would want to avoid. How so? The Saudi connection was and is well buried in the US, and a show of Muslim alliance against the terrorists would have been easy to spin in favor of W&Co. What was wrong with it? Americans never would have stood for it! This man killed 3,000 of our own. We wanted him. We wanted revenge and justice. For a few weeks, as long as reminded about it repetitively, until something else came up that Rove&Co wanted us to heat up over - like the Saddam who was the main target from 9/12 on.

Americans have stood for not getting OBL at all, and hardly seem to have noticed - why would you, or Rove, think that using the Saudis as an intermediary to obtain OBL would have made any difference ?

Meanwhile, our approach in Afghanistan seems to have destabilized Pakistan - and Pakistan has nukes.

That's the attitude, all right. Just like the niceties about warrants, the nitpicky little rules about detention and torture and treaties, all that stuff - just gets in the way when it's time to kick ass.

What are you talking about? We're talking about the decision to invade Afghanistan, not any of the issues you pulled out of the air and decided to cast into this debate to make some spacious point about your perception of an entire administration's "attitude."

Unfortunately, this sort of behavior is typical from you. Whenever anyone fails to agree with your subjective judgments, out come the red herring grenades, which you pull pin and toss at will, until the subject matter is so varied and disparate that hardly anyone (other than you) can discern what the debate is about anymore and you can find something in some circumstance at some point in time that "proves" what amounts to your opinion. In other words, shut up with this garbage you lob like clumsy spit wads and stick to the subject.

We're in the right, therefore we can do no wrong.

That's not at all what I said, so quit trying to recast my position to one that makes it easier for you to ridicule. What I said was that I thought complicated diplomacy was not the order of the day after we were attacked on 9/11. It was time to make demands, see results and punish those responsible.

How so?

Americans wanted American justice. They didn't want to see another country get OBL, even for a short time, especially one that could be construed as having sympathy for him. If you can't understand the basic PR involved in this (I think the column headlines and talk radio bulletins would have written themselves), then cast your mind back to the Dubai ports deal and multiply times about 1,000. If you still don't get it, then you aren't as clever as I think you are...

The Saudi connection was and is well buried in the US, and a show of Muslim alliance against the terrorists would have been easy to spin in favor of W&Co.

Well buried? Like all those columns Thomas Friedman wrote in the world's mostly widely read newspaper? Or when Rudi gave the check back to the Saudi Prince? You have a unique appreciation of recent history...

Americans have stood for not getting OBL at all, and hardly seem to have noticed

I can't speak to what Americans have stood for. Personally, I'm outraged we haven't captured or killed the man.

why would you, or Rove, think that using the Saudis as an intermediary to obtain OBL would have made any difference?

Can't speak for Rove, but it was my understanding the Taliban were willing to turn OBL over to the Saudis for trial. They were not willing to see him tried in a Western or non-Muslim nation. Regardless, they weren't in a position to ask for or demand anything, and with the jets literally being fueled for takeoff, as you claim, they should have realized that and capitulated completely. The reason they didn't, in my opinion, is because they never intended to turn OBL over to the US or anyone else. I also think it's possible they weren't in a position where they could lay their hands on him and turn him over...

Meanwhile, our approach in Afghanistan seems to have destabilized Pakistan - and Pakistan has nukes.

That's a valid argument, but the two pieces I read about that country in the NYT and The Economist seemed to indicate that radical Muslims aren't widely accepted there and Pervez still has control. Oddly, enough the people who seem to be doing him the most damage is the western media, who simply love portraying him as a Bush poodle, ala Tony Blair...

Ok, so you're saying that those Military Doctors, who have examined thousands of dead corpes, don't know that they're talking about, but you do? How many dead corpses have you studied? And when did you get your P.H.D?

No what I am saying is that when you find one piece of very questionable evidence that directly contradicts MOUNTAINS of evidence, that perhaps you are misinterpreting the questionable evidence.

However the properties I mentioned are simple physics, a class not required to be an Army Doctor.

We're in the right, therefore we can do no wrong. ”

That's not at all what I said, so quit trying to recast my position to one that makes it easier for you to ridicule. What I said was that I thought complicated diplomacy was not the order of the day after we were attacked on 9/11. It was time to make demands, see results and punish those responsible. Uh, hello?
I can't speak to what Americans have stood for.
But you can speculate about what they would have stood for, despite the evidence I argued from: Americans wanted American justice. They didn't want to see another country get OBL, even for a short time, especially one that could be construed as having sympathy for him. Speculation as to what Americans will stand for is better based on observation of what they have, methinks - even the Dubai Ports matter has blown over, which did not involve advance spin preparation, and came on the heels of several other scandals.
What are you talking about? We're talking about the decision to invade Afghanistan, not any of the issues you pulled out of the air We were talking about the abrogation of international custom and lack of ordinary observance of international law involved in the justification and execution of the Afghan invasion - the oddity of it, given that there was plenty of time during the invasion preparations to get the formalities done, and no obvious reason not to do them.

It resembles other dismissals of law and custom by this administration - it appears to form a pattern with them.

W&Co did nothing to avoid having to invade Afghanistan, in order to obtain OBL for American justice. They made no honest effort to obtain OBL before the invasion, and dismissed or avoided several means and opportunities of possibly doing so. And in fact the invasion did not obtain OBL, under circumstances which remain controversial and puzzling. Further, the entire issue was set aside as much as possible by W&Co, even while the attempt to obtain OBL was early in progress - the headlines were filled with Saddam, soldiers and equipment redeployed to the new war.

It's hard to avoid the suspicion that W&Co didn't really want to obtain OBL, and that they manuevered - or seized the opportunity - for an invasion of Afghanistan, for other reasons.

None of this means that the invasion was not justifiable, in theory. Simply that W&Co have been acting as though they had another agenda than the rest of us, and the coverup of the fratricide of Pat Tillman (not ended even yet, despite being blown) carries implications for that.

W&Co did nothing to avoid having to invade Afghanistan, in order to obtain OBL for American justice. They made no honest effort to obtain OBL before the invasion, and dismissed or avoided several means and opportunities of possibly doing so.
We asked the Taliban to hand him over; they refused to even speak to Bush because he was not a Muslim, insisting that doing so would be an insult to Islam. Their only other offer was to try Osama in Afghanistan in an Islamic court, which was not realistic for obvious reasons.

Even asking the Taliban was impressive for Bush, as the Taliban were not recognized as the formal government of Afghanistan by anybody other than Pakistan at the time.

What else, specifically, do you think the Bush administration should have done?

Their only other offer was to try Osama in Afghanistan in an Islamic court, which was not realistic for obvious reasons. They also offered to hand him over to any country with an Islamic court - such as Saudi Arabia, with whom we have long alliance.

What else, specifically, do you think the Bush administration should have done? Filed a formal request for extradition with the Taliban government, accepted the Taliban offer to hand him over to Saudi Arabia, not bullied in public so as to prevent the Taliban from finding a way to hand him over without losing face, etc.

Not to say any of that would have worked - but the avoidance of it, the jamming of the situation so as to prevent any possibility of OBL's being obtained before an invasion could be launched, is either quite the coincidental incompetence or a deliberate strategy.

Filed a formal request for extradition with the Taliban government, accepted the Taliban offer to hand him over to Saudi Arabia, not bullied in public so as to prevent the Taliban from finding a way to hand him over without losing face, etc.

That may have worked for YOU ice, but it would have been political suicide for any western leader to allow the mastermind of such a destructive plot to go unpunnished in THEIR own courts. Love Americans or hate Americans, no matter what you think, there are few Americans alive that would have settled for handing him over to anybody else.

~String

Love Americans or hate Americans, no matter what you think, there are few Americans alive that would have settled for handing him over to anybody else. OBL is not even a citizen of Saudi Arabia. They certainly don't want to try him in Saudi Arabia. We have an extradition treaty with them. He never even gets off the plane on Saudi ground. We kidnap, if necessary for Saudi face.

For that matter, since locating him was always the going to be the hard part, we invade after the Taliban has taken him into custody - if they would have, which I doubt.

The point is, we had nothing to lose by actual attempts to have him handed over - not even time, we could have been preparing for invasion form the start, and launching on schedule - except that if OBL were handed over, our justification for invading would have evaporated.

But you can speculate about what they would have stood for, despite the evidence I argued from: Speculation as to what Americans will stand for is better based on observation of what they have, methinks - even the Dubai Ports matter has blown over, which did not involve advance spin preparation, and came on the heels of several other scandals.

The Dubai ports matter as "blown over" precisely because it was not passed, so I fail to see your point. I also referenced that as guide to how I think Americans would have reacted to OBL going to a Muslim or Arab nation for trial. OBL being extradited in such a way would have stirred more outrage, as the buildings were still smoking and peole were still looking for their loved ones. Again, if you can't see that, then you can't see (or won't) see it. It's not my job to serve as your seer.


We were talking about the abrogation of international custom and lack of ordinary observance of international law involved in the justification and execution of the Afghan invasion - the oddity of it, given that there was plenty of time during the invasion preparations to get the formalities done, and no obvious reason not to do them.

First, I fail to see where any international law was broken with the invasion of Afghanistan. (I've also not seen any reasonable international condemnation of that invasion). Second, you say there was "no obvious reason not to" suffer the formalities of international diplomacy. I've given you two, repeatedly: 3,000 dead Americans and an act of war.

W&Co did nothing to avoid having to invade Afghanistan, in order to obtain OBL for American justice.

Why should they avoid an invasion at all, besides the fact you think they should? As I mentioned, and as you've chosen to ignore, the Bush doctrine acknowledged no difference between terrorist groups and the nations who harbored and enabled them. Afghanistan could have thrown itself on the mercy of the US and cooperated, as Pakistan has done and continues to do (albeit problematically), but it chose not to do so.

Seriously, are you so critical of the Bush administration that you're going to defend the Taliban, defend them and argue that if they handed over OBL they should have been allowed to remain in power? Are you so sorry they're gone? You amaze me...

They made no honest effort to obtain OBL before the invasion, and dismissed or avoided several means and opportunities of possibly doing so.

Again, Bush asked for him on international television. What more do you want? Oh, wait. Here it is...

Filed a formal request for extradition with the Taliban government, accepted the Taliban offer to hand him over to Saudi Arabia, not bullied in public so as to prevent the Taliban from finding a way to hand him over without losing face

That's amusing. It really is. A muslim fanatic hiding in a theocracy kills 3,000 people, so we agree to send him to another theocracy so he can play name that surra with some kangaroo judge in Saudi Arabia. Sure, that would have worked.

It's hard to avoid the suspicion that W&Co didn't really want to obtain OBL, and that they manuevered - or seized the opportunity - for an invasion of Afghanistan, for other reasons.

You're no fool, so don't sit here and pretend the Bushies wouldn't do a dance of joy if OBL turned up dead or in custody. It would be the political and PR coup of the new century, especially if it had happened two or three years ago. You really think they didn't want him?

No what I am saying is that when you find one piece of very questionable evidence that directly contradicts MOUNTAINS of evidence, that perhaps you are misinterpreting the questionable evidence.

However the properties I mentioned are simple physics, a class not required to be an Army Doctor.

Please list the mountain of evidence you're referring to. Tilmans suit and and his body Armor were burned to cover up the crime. That's a fact. So please, tell me what moutains of evidence you're referring to. Or are you referring to the evidence that Bush has classified?

The Dubai ports matter as "blown over" precisely because it was not passed, so I fail to see your point. So who's in charge of security at those ports right now and for the indefinite future, do you suppose. Failure to capture OBL has likewise blown over. Is my point becoming clearer?
Second, you say there was "no obvious reason not to" suffer the formalities of international diplomacy. I've given you two, repeatedly: 3,000 dead Americans and an act of war. And I labeled that kind of excuse-mongering as a prime example of the attitude toward law and order that this administration manifests with every illegal wiretap, every violation of American principle and international law, every lawless, haphazard, flailing act of Rambo BS that this pack of thugs has committed.

And people like Pat Tilman get killed for them.

It's a form of incompetence, at best. It's evidence of a hidden agenda and deliberate crime, at worst. All those "formalities" could have been checked off during the preparations for invasion, by any competent diplomatic staff. No delay in retribution, no interference with "American Justice", would have been involved; just respect for international law and custom as established among the civilized countries of the world. The only possible cost would have been the actual handover of OBL, and the loss of justification for invading Afghanistan.
As I mentioned, and as you've chosen to ignore, the Bush doctrine acknowledged no difference between terrorist groups and the nations who harbored and enabled them. Ignored, when I used it above in one of my arguments and major points? Or are you just yanking chain again, as is your wont ? Reread, if honest. Shove, if not.
Why should they avoid an invasion at all, besides the fact you think they should? Gee, I dunno. Let's think real hard: Because invasion and war is hell, and hell is supposed to be a last resort, maybe? Because whenever someone points out the disasters and atrocities accompanying these ventures, apologists will say that such things are inevitable in war? Because the people who will suffer the most from such a war are the ones least culpable in its genesis? - so wars should be avoided

This is just common sense. Presidents should not play with armies like rich kids playing with their toys - as a couple of WWII vets have described W&Co's behavior.
Seriously, are you so critical of the Bush administration that you're going to defend the Taliban,

- - - so we agree to send him to another theocracy so he can play name that surra with some kangaroo judge in Saudi Arabia. No. Not what I said. You twist things like that a lot - habit, or tactic?
You really think they didn't want him? I don't know. They certainly haven't been trying all that hard to get him. And the failure of W&Co to capture OBL was predicted by the lefty media, in advance - based on cynical analysis of agenda and position, and the avoidance of strong diplomatic maneuvers.

If Tillman, a reasonably well-read young man, was coming to similar views - as everyone close to him claims - he was a unique PR danger. Which is the relevance, here.

Please list the mountain of evidence you're referring to. Tilmans suit and and his body Armor were burned to cover up the crime. That's a fact. So please, tell me what moutains of evidence you're referring to. Or are you referring to the evidence that Bush has classified?
Burning uniform articles soiled with blood is SOP due to the fact that they present a biohazard.

I'm not going to deny that the Army fucked this one up big time in the damage control department, but to suggest that the documented events are in some way diagnostic of an overarching plot is a bit ridiculous.

"Burning uniform articles soiled with blood is SOP due to the fact that they present a biohazard."

Not when there has occured a FF incident.

"to suggest that the documented events are in some way diagnostic of an overarching plot is a bit ridiculous."

No it isn't. 7 soldiers were punished over this case, but their stories still don't jibe... it's not over yet.

Not when there has occured a FF incident.
AR 735-5 disagrees with you as follows:

14–10. Destruction of contaminated clothing and equipment

a. Individual clothing. Replace contaminated individual clothing when directed to be destroyed by medical authority using DA Form 3078 (Personal Clothing Request) prepared as a gratuitous issue. (See AR 700–84, para 5–4b, for detailed instructions.)

b. Organizational clothing. Contaminated organizational clothing and individual equipment destroyed by direction of medical authority will be adjusted from property records. List this property on a memorandum, bearing a signed statement naming the medical officer who directed the destruction of the articles, and the signature of the unit commander. When received by the person maintaining the accountable record, a document number will be assigned to the memorandum, and the memorandum posted as a loss to the accountable record(s).
Again, you will have to google for it as I cannot yet post links. The paragraph is on page 108 of the document.

No it isn't. 7 soldiers were punished over this case, but their stories still don't jibe... it's not over yet.
Those individuals have been punished for various procedural infractions that are more or less commensurate with obstructing an official investigation (as they should be). There is a gulf of difference between the Army making a clumsy attempt to cover up a goatfuck and a vast conspiracy to murder a Ranger who was popular with his brothers and an asset to his unit. It certainly is not over, but breaking out the tinfoil hats over the current amount of documented evidence is going to land you in the same camp as those people who will try to tell you that TWA 800 was downed by the Navy.

So who's in charge of security at those ports right now and for the indefinite future, do you suppose.

I don't know. But it was my understanding the Dubai ports deal was scuppered.

And I labeled that kind of excuse-mongering as a prime example of the attitude toward law and order that this administration manifests with every illegal wiretap, every violation of American principle and international law, every lawless, haphazard, flailing act of Rambo BS that this pack of thugs has committed.

I give you reasons, you call them excuses. OK. Fine. It's just a difference of opinion. I still find it typical/boring that you drone on about so-called illegal wiretaps and non-specific violations of domestic and international law in your never ending endeavors to criticize the Bush administration, when in fact, we're talking about the invasion of one nation and the death of one soldier in that nation. Your ability to turn every discussion into a bird's-eye appreciation of the administration's many obvious foibles never ceases to amazes me. But as I said, it's getting boring. And in reality, it's nothing more than a clever way for you to climb up on a soap box and avoid being tied to legitimate discussion on one issue, which, in this case, Bush may have got right: The invasion of Afghanistan.

The only possible cost would have been the actual handover of OBL, and the loss of justification for invading Afghanistan.

The justification for the invasion, according to the Bush doctrine, was the act of terrorism itself. If the act has already been committed, as it was on 9/11, how can leaving the regime that allowed the act to happen in place after 9/11 not be abdication of duty?

Again, are you suggesting that it would have been reasonable to accept OBL and leave the Taliban in place? To essentially, give them a pass for their role as enablers for one of the worst attacks on America in its history?

Or are you just yanking chain again, as is your wont ? Reread, if honest. Shove, if not.

I'm sorry, but you've never specifically addressed the doctrine, which is why I've asked you the very pointed questions above. You're free to disagree with the doctrine, of course, but part of my argument is that if the doctrine is what the administration was operating under in 2001, then it's inconceivable they wouldn't invade.

wars should be avoided

I don't think so. Avoiding wars tends to lead to bigger problems down the road. History shows this. I would modify you statement. I think unnecessary wars should be avoided. And so far, you've given me no evidence that causes me to think the invasion of Afghanistan was an unnecessary military adventure.

No. Not what I said. You twist things like that a lot - habit, or tactic?

Well, you seem to be suggesting that a solution that left the Taliban in power would have been acceptable to you...

I don't know. They certainly haven't been trying all that hard to get him.

I don't know if either of us can speak to how "hard" they've been trying. I think the creation of a special ops/CIA team (Jawbreaker) is a pretty serious undertaking, but as for what they are doing this minute, today? I don't know...

I still think common sense demands that Bush would love to get Bin Laden before he leaves office. If nothing else, it would make for a nice display piece at his presidential library in Texas.

And the failure of W&Co to capture OBL was predicted by the lefty media, in advance - based on cynical analysis of agenda and position, and the avoidance of strong diplomatic maneuvers.

Yes, the lefty media. All hail their powers of prognosis. At one point, didn't they predict a workers paradise or something?

If Tillman, a reasonably well-read young man, was coming to similar views - as everyone close to him claims - he was a unique PR danger. Which is the relevance, here.

So he's less of a PR danger now that he is dead and there is a Congressional investigation. Do you really believe such nonsense? That he was murdered because of his (unproven) political views?

E3R: "Burning uniform articles soiled with blood is SOP due to the fact that they present a biohazard."

Not when there has occured a FF incident. You seem to be deliberately overlooking the facts of Tillman's fatality. Maybe you are ignorant to the fact that no enemy forces were engaged, or even evident in the area at the time of Tillman's shooting. If these and other aspects have escaped your awareness, then you might want to catch up on the case. Under the circumstance now admitted by the Army, burning Tillman's uniform was certainly not SOP.

"AR 735-5 disagrees with you as follows:"

Bullshit. I can quote AR 385-40 to you, and play the same silly game. Tillmann's uniform was evidence. Burning it was deliberate evidence-tampering.

We still don't know why and by whom Tillman was killed. We do know that the whole story has yet to be revealed by the Army.

E3R: "There is a gulf of difference between the Army making a clumsy attempt to cover up a goatfuck and a vast conspiracy to murder..."

That's true. This case would have been simple for the Army to investigate, explain, prosecute, and close if it had been an innocent goatfuck as you say. But it isn't over, because the Army has been exposed delivering misinformation in official and legal accounts, and their latest official narrative just doesn't make sense. Please remember that the only two possibilities for what actually transpired on April22 2004 are not limited to 1) innocent accident, and 2) vast conspiracy. There are many possible and plausible explanations. So far, the most clear thing about this case is that the Army has not been able to provide a credible explanation.

"...a Ranger who was popular with his brothers and an asset to his unit."

That facile hero-building characterization is also now in question. In several disparate Army cliques and communities (which you would be aware of if you have direct experience with the US Army) Tillman's Army "brothers"would not have agreed at all with his politics. It is entirely possible that one or more of Tillman's "brothers" may have decided (or been instructed) to suppress Tillman's celebrity rather forcefully.

Not when there has occured a FF incident. You seem to be deliberately overlooking the facts of Tillman's fatality. Maybe you are ignorant to the fact that no enemy forces were engaged, or even evident in the area at the time of Tillman's shooting. If these and other aspects have escaped your awareness, then you might want to catch up on the case. Under the circumstance now admitted by the Army, burning Tillman's uniform was certainly not SOP.
Truthfully, you seem to be the one ignorant of the documented evidence of this case. The ambush was triggered by somebody dropping a mortar round near the convoy. A/2/75 Rangers pursued the individuals who perpetrated the attack during the days following this incident. The mortar round triggered the fire that led Tillman and the AMF soldier back to the spur above the canyon, thinking that the convoy's second half was under fire needing support. While the guy(s) who lobbed the mortar round were not engaged that day, Tillman and the AMF soldier were skylined against the setting sun near the position the convoy believed the mortar crew to be operating from. They were consequently subjected to a torrent of fire as the convoy attempted its egress from the ambush site.

This is all in the CID report, which I referenced in my first post, which you have obviously not taken the time to read.

Bullshit. I can quote AR 385-40 to you, and play the same silly game. Tillmann's uniform was evidence. Burning it was deliberate evidence-tampering.
Then by all means please cite it. This "silly game" is the letter of the law and the way legal procedures are governed. It does your case no credit to make arguments predicated upon alleged procedural violations and then discount said procedures as superfluous when they do not support your claims.

That facile hero-building characterization is also now in question. In several disparate Army cliques and communities (which you would be aware of if you have direct experience with the US Army) Tillman's Army "brothers"would not have agreed at all with his politics. It is entirely possible that one or more of Tillman's "brothers" may have decided (or been instructed) to suppress Tillman's celebrity rather forcefully.
Speculation. Tillman was a positive asset to every level of his Company, well-liked and respected by all. You can read any number of news articles about that, or the interviews contained in the CID report.

I would also appreciate it if you would spare me the condescending attempts to educate me about "direct experience with the US Army" because I have plenty. Thank you.

I flew a mission in 1970, in Vietnam, for troops in contact, it was in a area called the Y, it was a point were 2 rivers joined, a recon team from the 1/9 Cav were moving north along the river, a company sweep of ARVN were coming down the river from the north west, and there was a NVA unit in position on the North North East branch, they all hit each other about the same time, and everybody was shooting at everybody else, and it took two hours to get the mess straightened out and that happened when one of the Arty Battery's got two fire mission one from the ARVN, and one from the 1/9 Cav calling strikes on each others position, the screw up was because the ARVN failed to co-ordinate their sweep with Division. This incident cost 4 ARVN KIA, 12 WIA, U.S. 2 KIA, 3 WIA, sound like a similar situation, troops moving about with out their positions being known and the enemy in contact.

It is entirely possible that one or more of Tillman's "brothers" may have decided (or been instructed) to suppress Tillman's celebrity rather forcefully.

You have no facts to back that assertion up. You only have opinions.

Pat Tilman was killed beacause of his Political views. He would of been the best anti Iraq activist if he was allowed to return home.

Soldiers aren't "allowed" to return home until they are discharged. And your claim about Tillman's political views is ridiculous. You have no proof to support it.

Pat Tilman was killed beacause of his Political views. He would of been the best anti Iraq activist if he was allowed to return home.

and you know exactly how he felt? WOW.

well there is evidence that he was fragged

well there is evidence that he was fragged

Exactly. And apparently Donlad Rumsfeld won't be tesitifying at Pat Tilmans hearing tommorow. What can be more important then clarifying the death of an American Hero?

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will not testify at a hearing scheduled for Wednesday on the friendly fire death of Army Specialist Patrick Tillman, RAW STORY has learned. The former Pentagon head 'has a conflict' that will prevent him from appearing, but will not face a subpoenap

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Rumsfeld_apparently_refuses_to_testify_at_0731.htm l

well there is evidence that he was fragged

i would hate to be on trial with you two on the jury.

Exactly. And apparently Donlad Rumsfeld won't be tesitifying at Pat Tilmans hearing tommorow. What can be more important then clarifying the death of an American Hero?

And what, pray tell, could Rumsfeld possibly know ANYTHING about what happened in Afghanistan, thousands of miles away from where he was? Duh?

Baron Max

and you know exactly how he felt? WOW.
It is pretty well publicized that Pat and Kevin Tillman were not big fans of the Iraq war or president Bush. Kevin wrote a rather ballsy critique of the Iraq war in 2006, a few weeks before the elections (google for "After Pat's Birthday). Pat was going to meet with Noam Chomsky after he finished the OEF deployment during which he was killed. You could probably find some of this with a few minutes of googling.

I agree with Ganymede that Pat Tillman would have been a true folk hero for the antiwar movement here at home. An educated, well-read, well-spoken GWOT veteran with an intellegible dialogue is hard not to notice, as opposed to the usual dreck you find at antiwar rallies (no blood for oil, pictures of Bush and chimp, "insert your leftist agenda here" banners, etc).

To those of you who have sent me PMs...I apologize for not responding, I do not get that privelege until 20 posts either.

To those of you who have sent me PMs...I apologize for not responding, I do not get that privelege until 20 posts either.

That is pretty good. I did not get a PM untill 1,500+ posts.

This is all in the CID report, which I referenced in my first post, which you have obviously not taken the time to read. I've read it. I've also read disputes as to its accuracy. The Tillman family seems to think they are being lied to still, and they have been right so far.
I don't know. But it was my understanding the Dubai ports deal was scuppered. The whole port security issue sort of scuppered, somehow. Last I heard, December of '06 DP completed sale of their American interests to AIG, a multinational with US base. But AIG doesn't really know how to manage so many such large ports - so in the purchase agreement they subcontracted (or leased back, or something) a lot of stuff , including security, to the seller, for the time being.
I'm sure the capture of OBL could have been spun advantageously by Rove&Co, regardless of how it happened, for as long as necessary.
Again, are you suggesting that it would have been reasonable to accept OBL and leave the Taliban in place? To essentially, give them a pass for their role as enablers for one of the worst attacks on America in its history? They didn't "enable" squat. The Taliban had less to do with 9/11 than the governor of Florida did (he was at least harboring the actual terrorists, and supplying them with flight simulators etc) - It was planned in Germany, financed by Saudis and Pakistanis, executed by Saudis and a couple of others; can you name a single Taliban official who even knew about it?
I'm sorry, but you've never specifically addressed the doctrine, which is why I've asked you the very pointed questions above. You're free to disagree with the doctrine, of course, but part of my argument is that if the doctrine is what the administration was operating under in 2001, then it's inconceivable they wouldn't invade. Jesus H Roosevelt Christ. I will repeat the particular argument at issue yet again: I argued, with various circumstantial evidence, that it appears W&Co did a clever job of painting themselves into a corner, so they could claim they had no choice but to invade. In that argument, everything that W&Co did to paint themselves into that corner counts as stuff they did to paint themselves into that corner. The issuance of "Doctrines" and similar PR crap all falls under that category - stuff that W&Co did that painted them into that corner. It's further evidence in support of my argument - goofy PR, with no obvious purpose beyond grandstanding, used for justifiying a dubious action with many underlying motives.
Avoiding wars tends to lead to bigger problems down the road. History shows this. History shows nothing of the kind. History shows that starting wars leads to bigger problems than the ones being fought over, almost every time.
Yes, the lefty media. All hail their powers of prognosis. At one point, didn't they predict a workers paradise or something? No. They predicted a long, bloody, messy, expensive, incompetent, corruption ridden occupation of Iraq - for which silliness thay were laughed at by the respectable media. And they predicted that W would never bring OBL to trial.
So he's less of a PR danger now that he is dead and there is a Congressional investigation. Do you really believe such nonsense? That he was murdered because of his (unproven) political views? He's a PR problem now because the coverup was blown - not because there was no coverup, at the 3-star level no less. And no, I do not - yet - believe he was murdered with the complicity of some agency directed from the White House. I find it more likely he was shot by mistake, or fragged for more personal reasons. But the possibility is not nonsense. Tillman was a unique danger, and W&Co are perfectly capable of recognizing that and handling it so.

So what if some people think Tillman would have be a perfect poster child for the anti-war left? Those people are assuming he would have thrown his lot in with them, which we have no way of knowing, and from that point are leaping across a chasm to assume he was "fragged" because of that possibility. This is all inference and rank speculation. Even if Tillman was fragged, which hasn't been proven yet, there's no evidence he was fragged for his politics...

This is all inference and rank speculation. Make that inference and informed speculation.

The point being: it's not likely, but it's not ridiculous - which tells you something about this war, and this administration.

I'm sure the capture of OBL could have been spun advantageously by Rove&Co, regardless of how it happened, for as long as necessary.

Then why don't they want to catch him?

They didn't "enable" squat. ... It was planned in Germany, financed by Saudis and Pakistanis, executed by Saudis and a couple of others; can you name a single Taliban official who even knew about it?

No, I can't. And it doesn't matter. I never said the Taliban knew about the plot or helped spawn it. They didn't. I said they enabled it, which they very obviously did by providing bib Laden with a safe heaven to train his men, meet with them, arm them and provide them with financing. That's what enabling means. It's the base of the pillar. It isn't the vase perched on top. They specifically accepted this man into their country. Thus, the moral and legal problem writ large here is similar to the responsibility an individual has if they let a known criminal stay in their house while they are plotting and committing crimes. You can be charged for that in this country. And the Taliban suffered a similar fate on a scale that was appropriate.

The Taliban had less to do with 9/11 than the governor of Florida did (he was at least harboring the actual terrorists, and supplying them with flight simulators etc)

That's an outrageous statement, completely devoid of any logic. The governor of Florida (who I assume you chose because he is Bush's brother) is now responsible for the actions of everyone residing within his state?

I will repeat the particular argument at issue yet again: I argued, with various circumstantial evidence, that it appears W&Co did a clever job of painting themselves into a corner, so they could claim they had no choice but to invade.

OK. Could the Taliban not have "painted" themselves out of the corner by handing OBL over, no strings attached? Using your logic and your premise, it would have been hard for Bush to wiggle out of that one...

In that argument, everything that W&Co did to paint themselves into that corner counts as stuff they did to paint themselves into that corner. The issuance of "Doctrines" and similar PR crap all falls under that category - stuff that W&Co did that painted them into that corner. It's further evidence in support of my argument - goofy PR, with no obvious purpose beyond grandstanding, used for justifiying a dubious action with many underlying motives.

The problem is you can't prove any of those motives and your entire premise depends on a subjective judgment that the doctrine was "PR crap." I don't think it was, so I reject your claims.

History shows nothing of the kind. History shows that starting wars leads to bigger problems than the ones being fought over, almost every time.

Like World War II? The War of 1812? The Civil War? The Revolutionary War? Do you want me to go on? Wars solve political conflicts that otherwise can't be solved and reset the playing board for future generations. I'm sure a person can expand whatever period of history their looking at to say that war led to this, which led to that, and that was more horrible than this, but I find that puerile sort of slip down the slope to be a game best left to the Marxists and whatever other misguided historical determinists want to engage in it.

No. They predicted a long, bloody, messy, expensive, incompetent, corruption ridden occupation of Iraq - for which silliness thay were laughed at by the respectable media. And they predicted that W would never bring OBL to trial.

They didn't predict a workers paradise? Are you sure? The "Lefty" press also gave us wonderful PR for Stalin and Mao. And I also seem to remember those cheerful, often bearded, lefties (who never predict anything positive, by the way) predicting that the US would get bogged down in its efforts to topple the Taliban, too. Even if turns out they are right on Iraq or anything else you mention (and the verdict is still out, mind you), I fail to see how that proves anything. You're aware of the old adage about broken watches? To that, I'd add that I think it's pathetic and sick the "Lefty" press takes great pleasure in being right on this issue so far, as do you...

He's a PR problem now because the coverup was blown - not because there was no coverup, at the 3-star level no less.

I'm not making excuses for the cover up or attempting to downplay its seriousness. I think it's pathetic and par for the course from this Pentagon (see Jessica Lynch) or any Pentagon from any bygone era. My take is they panicked when they realized what happened and to preserve the family's feelings and their media star's image, they lied. They should have known better. It's tough to keep secrets nowadays from the Press.

It's funny you malign the press all the time for not being hard enough on certain issues such as this. But here is another example of where it ferreted out a lie and cover-up that will ultimately make the President and the war effort look bad. Will you adjust your opinion? I doubt it...

But the possibility is not nonsense. Tillman was a unique danger, and W&Co are perfectly capable of recognizing that and handling it so.

They are capable of committing murder?

Make that inference and informed speculation.

The point being: it's not likely, but it's not ridiculous - which tells you something about this war, and this administration.

I stand by my statements. And I think it says more about the poster than it does about anything else.

i would hate to be on trial with you two on the jury.

the physcail evidence appears to point that his own men killed him exacution style the ballistics showed he was shot 3 times in the forhead by m-16s withen 20 yards

Exactly. And apparently Donlad Rumsfeld won't be tesitifying at Pat Tilmans hearing tommorow.

Apparently, he did.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QOAMM00&show_article=1

the physcail evidence appears to point that his own men killed him exacution style the ballistics showed he was shot 3 times in the forhead by m-16s withen 20 yards

It is hard for me to make an assessment based on 'reported' evidence or emotional letters from distraught family members. I make no assumptions on what people are thinking or how they feel. You cannot even say how many weapons were involved, you are just assuming the number, you should see the significance of this.

Let us deal with facts. There is not much known right now and lets not go by opinion or gut feelings.

I've read it. I've also read disputes as to its accuracy. The Tillman family seems to think they are being lied to still, and they have been right so far.
That does nothing to change the fact that the Criminal Investigation Division and Inspector General reports are by far the most comprehensive and publicly available investigations into this incident. For a bunch of random people talking about this on the internet it is the best resource available to us. If you know of a similarly exhaustive document that countermands an investigative finding, feel free to share it.

I understand the reluctance to take the official word on anything at this point, given how badly this entire thing has been goat roped from top to bottom. However, remember that the IG and CID - like the NCIS or internal affairs of any large police force - are by far the best investigative organs available to these situations. They are in no way connected to the individuals who deliberately concealed information and sabotaged prior investigative attempts. They also exist specifically to provide the unique set of capabilities required for investigation of possible criminal acts within military ranks, and have significant advantages to that end. As such I am inclined to take their findings as objective statements of fact over the skepticism of bereaved family members.

The strange thing is for all of the investigation, the Congress hasn't been able to prove that there was a organized cover up, yes the Military bungled the whole thing, but as far as a cover up it didn't happen. I feel for the Family, I have lot close friend in war, I have recovered their bodies, from the crash sites, and I know the grief of loosing best friends to enemy action.

I am tired of the Anti War crowed using a dead trooper for their political purpose, and speaking word for a dead Hero, they don't know jack about what he believed, and they as usual are using the Troops for their own political purpose with out ever supporting the Troops of the Military.

The phony's that they parade before us are pathetic, and now they want to Parade a true Hero, and speak for him from the grave, well I know of no one who can speak for the dead and tell us what their feeling and beliefs are, so this is pathetic, all for political advantage.

The "anti-war" crowd here is mostly his family, who were lied to and deceived.

How ungrateful and disloyal of them not to just suck it up. Perhaps the Tillman Traitors will be shot by their neighbors. There isn't anything wrong with that. Don't talk about it. Big W is, uh... dubya-ing.


[

The "anti-war" crowd here is mostly his family, who were lied to and deceived.

We were all lied to and deceived. His family may be more emotionally harmed by that deception, but I fail to see how their opinions and speculations are somehow more relevant than people who actually have knowledge about what happened.

Let's all just ignore this case. La-la-la,La-la-la,La-la-la,La-la-la,La-la-la,La-la-la,La-la-la,La-la-la,La-la-la,La-la-la,La-la-la,La-la-la,La-la-la,La-la-la,La-la-la,La-la-la.

House Committee on Oversight & Govt Reform- Rumsfeld, Abizaid, Myers, and Kensinger appear. (http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1446)

Would you shut your fucking mouth? God's not going to help you. You need to do something for yourself...
Tat-tat-tat. Tillman's last words are getting better with age. I'm asking my representatives to demand that Tillman's death be investigated all over again, witness by witness, in open Congressional inquiry. It would be healthy for our nation to openly and efficiently get to the very bottom of this case; to start with subpoenas for the nearest witnesses, and go right up the Chain to the CINC and his handlers.

No, I can't. And it doesn't matter. I never said the Taliban knew about the plot or helped spawn it. They didn't. I said they enabled it, which they very obviously did by providing bib Laden with a safe heaven to train his men, meet with them, arm them and provide them with financing. That's what enabling means. It's the base of the pillar. - - -
- - - -
That's an outrageous statement, completely devoid of any logic. The governor of Florida (who I assume you chose because he is Bush's brother) is now responsible for the actions of everyone residing within his state? I chose the governor of Florida because he provided safe haven, legal protection, flight simulator training facilities, financing options and facilities, etc, to a known terrorist who was then directly involved in 9/11. That is more than any Taliban official did, by way of enabling 9/11.
OK. Could the Taliban not have "painted" themselves out of the corner by handing OBL over, no strings attached? Using your logic and your premise, it would have been hard for Bush to wiggle out of that one... Yep. It would have involved betraying their code of honor and the basis of their self-respect, but they could have done it, and it would have presented W&Co with a difficult situation - which they could have handled, I've little doubt, but W did what he could to prevent it. As I said, those guys are good at bullying.
Like World War II? The War of 1812? The Civil War? The Revolutionary War? Do you want me to go on? I want you to back up and recall who started those wars, and what happened to them. It's starting wars, not fighting them, that was at issue.
And I also seem to remember those cheerful, often bearded, lefties (who never predict anything positive, by the way) predicting that the US would get bogged down in its efforts to topple the Taliban, too Score another for the cheerfully bearded. We have been bogged down in Afghanistan for years now.
Even if turns out they are right on Iraq or anything else you mention (and the verdict is still out, mind you), I fail to see how that proves anything. You're aware of the old adage about broken watches? The verdict on the Iraq, Afghanistan, W&Co, economic, environmental, Court, and domestic corruption predictions is in. The radical lefty press was generally right, and the rest of the media was totally wrong.
If even a broken watch is right twice a day, what are we to say about a watch that is always wrong ?
It's funny you malign the press all the time for not being hard enough on certain issues such as this. But here is another example of where it ferreted out a lie and cover-up that will ultimately make the President and the war effort look bad. Will you adjust your opinion? If the mainstream press had been the main ferreters even, let alone diligent publicisers of context as well as crime as they should be now, my opinion would be that they might be finally coming around. But they weren't and aren't.
They are capable of committing murder? ? You doubt that for a second?

I chose the governor of Florida because he provided safe haven, legal protection, flight simulator training facilities, financing options and facilities, etc, to a known terrorist who was then directly involved in 9/11. That is more than any Taliban official did, by way of enabling 9/11.

He did not provide a safe haven. He was governor of a state. Almost anyone could travel there and train themselves to commit a crime or act of war. That is very different from publicly accepting/inviting a known terrorist into the political geography and allowing him the freedom to organize more terror. Your comparison is crude, juvenile, intellectually hollow and just plain bizarre. But I've come to expect all of the above from you.

It would have involved betraying their code of honor and the basis