Posted on 04/24/2007 10:52:18 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Wouldn’t there have be an investigation before an official determination of fratricide was announced?
So what?
Exactly.
A few weeks to evaluate the actual cause is more than reasonable. I remember it annunced that it was friendly fire not that long after the announcement of his death. If it was covered up for years, that would be a different scenario.
This family, unfortunately, thinks it is entitled to more than other military families due to their son's fame. It is really quite embarrassing.
So it was fratricide. Happens. The real question is was he fragged?
What lie? This is where I lose contact. We were all told that Pat Tillman was killed in battle. I don't recall any specific narrative other than "in combat". If it was reported as "died heroically in combat"... That's *not* false. He *was* attacking an enemy position. That he was engaged by our side by mistake sucks, but it doesn't change his actions one bit.
If there was any embellishment of Tillman and his heroics, the people that did that are the *media* and not so much the Army. It was a compelling story and it wrote itself.
But I remember it coming out right away, within a couple of weeks IIRC, that the Army investigation confirmed instead that he was killed by his own unit by mistake. Not much of a coverup, if you ask me.
The media probably did not help matters, but if the Army had investigated the incident before saying anything they may have saved themselve much embarrassment. This could not have helped matters.
He knows what he is doing is wrong, but he does it anyway because he is so consumed by anger and bitterness that he prefers getting revenge to do what he knows is right.
This is a Satanic temptation - and the fact that Kevin Tillman has openly declared his contempt for God and people who believe in Him tells me that something has gone very wrong in his psyche.
It would be easier to understand if he were just a coward like Ehren Watada, but he isn't.
His Death was still heroic - he was trying his best to protect his soldiers - it was unfortunate that because he had an Afghan Soldier with him, his own compatriates who were under fire, mistook him for Taliban and opened fire on him.
Stonewall Jackson had a similar end and he is no less of a hero. I believe the bullet that got him was from his own troops.
Whoever is in charge of these ‘war-stories’ is quiet stupid and goes for short term glory and long term embarrassment.
Here are few that I can remember that started out as dramatic heart wrenching stories and then required shameful back pedalling, Jessica, Conversation with British Pilot during Bush’s surprise Thanks giving trip to Iraq, Tillman.
Enough already you STUPID MORON, stop pedalling crap and digging bigger hole for administration.
I don't remember the fictionalization. Can you point to a contemporaneous story from the Army that was fictionalized?
I'm not contesting your statement, I simply don't recall any, and would be interested to see if there were stories like that at the time.
I think you miss some of the point. Of course anyone would be angry at being lied to, and it goes without saying that I would be devastated to lose a loved one. However, I would like to think that at some point my common sense would click in and I would realize that no matter how angry I might be, at some point I would have to accept that no one had intentionally caused my pain. Lashing out would not lessen that pain. If changes in policy could be made to rectify the situation, by all means I would try to get the policy change made. But in the case of Friendly Fire there aren’t any substantive changes that can be made. No one charged with the safety of his men would let something like this happen on purpose. If the “fragging” stories have been looked at and found to have no merit, can you tell me what can be accomplished?
There are many people who gave up no money but joined out of pure patriotism to fight after 9-11. Some probably dies by friendly fire. The Army probably takes at least a month to investigate friendly fire incidents before telling the family the details. I am sure there is a standard “in the line of duty” when the parents are told.I smell a rat. I hope the government can come up with proof this was SOP.
Amen!
I misunderstood what you wrote. Please accept my sincere apology.
Preliminary reports of persons on the scene did not indicate friendly fire.
The Army considered it a combat death, and the Tillman family were informed of this before they buried their son.
In the meantime, the Army continued to gather information. Statements that were originally made did not add up, and so a formal inquiry was launched.
A few weeks later it became apparent that the original reports were simply not accurate.
The Tillman family is now alleging that the Army "knew" that it was friendly fire the day they buried their son, that the Army "lied" to them on purpose to make sure that Tillman's memorial would be good press and they are even suggesting that Tillman was killed intentionally - i.e. murdered - by his own brothers-in-arms, because Tillman had allegedly concluded that the war in Iraq was "illegal."
From the Army's perspective, they have admitted that maybe they should have told the Tillman family that some doubts were emerging on the original account of Tillman's death due to discrepancies in timelines, etc. - but I'm wondering how much responsibility the Army really has to report painful rumors that have not yet been substantiated.
The Tillman family are beginning to push a conspiracy narrative tailor-made by enemies of this Republic.
...well maybe fictionalize is the wrong word....but the field command misrepresented the facts and a Pentagon report a few months ago with 9 high ranking officers including 4 generals came to this conclusion....I think Tillman was and is a hero....and I’m not bashing the military at all....just this specific incident
You should make a distinction between the ENTIRE Army, and those who specifically dealt with the Tilman issue and were found to have made grave errors in determining what to do with the information that they had AT THE TIME.
For the family to think Bush knew, they are being grandiose. Yes, the President probably knew Tilman was serving and he may have heard that he died. But, does this mean he had an after-action report on his desk that was completed and accurate during the time frame that the family suspects? They are not thinking this through.
The president is the executive of the nation, with so many responsibilities on his desk. I doubt he was holding his breath waiting to hear all the details about Tilman. It was the underlings job to fill him in after they had all the information.
But they aren't - what they are is complaining that the inquiry the Army unilaterally undertook wasn't fast enough and didn't publicize the findings widely enough for their taste.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.