TexasTiger 12,958 Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military. He spoke about the risks with signing the papers. How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people. How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition. How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice… until we get out. Much has happened since we handed over our voice: Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that. Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few “bad apples†in the military. Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat. Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes. Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground. Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started. Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated. Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated. Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated. Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated. Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe. Somehow torture is tolerated. Somehow lying is tolerated. Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense. Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world. Somehow a narrative is more important than reality. Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is. Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world. Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance. Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country. Somehow this is tolerated. Somehow nobody is accountable for this. In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow†was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites. Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday. Brother and Friend of Pat Tillman, Kevin Tillman http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601..._pats_birthday/ Editor’s note: Kevin Tillman joined the Army with his brother Pat in 2002, and they served together in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pat was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. Kevin, who was discharged in 2005, has written a powerful, must-read document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Somehow, he has stated things that have been discounted by rightwing sheeple on this very board. Somehow, he is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven_tiger 5 Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country. I can hear him being made out as a liberal, tree hugging kook, as we speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 How has the US become 'irrational' ? Per Iraq, time and time again, we gave them opportunity to come clean. Saddam chose not to. The so called sanctions we were TOLD were starving the children turned out to be a total sham. Western Europeans were profiteering , setting themselves up w/ contracts once all this WMD business settled down. Feared? Yes, and with good reason. Distrusted ? When have we ever gone against what we said we'd do ? That we actually do what we SAY we do is something so rare in the world today, some don't know how to respond. Bush is the reason , of course, because he actually does what he says he's going to do. No double talk here. He says it, he means it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,329 Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 My heart breaks for him losing his brother. Had he not wanted to sign up, his brother would still be playing football today. Guilt is a horrible thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country. I can hear him being made out as a liberal, tree hugging kook, as we speak. Whoa! I just heard Haig say today on Wolf Blitzer that his party has been taken over by Neocons. You gonna call him a liberal? AL HAIG, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, first, I think that this is a conflict that's essentially political. It's not just purely military. It's political and religious and ideological. And it was driven by the so-called neocons that hijacked my party, the Republican Party, before this administration...BLITZER: Name names, Mr. Secretary. Who are you talking about? HAIG: Well, I'm talking about... BLITZER: Because a lot of our viewers hear the word "neocon" and they don't know what you're talking about. HAIG: Well, they're a group of people who are ex-Democrats. Many of them hovered around the Seattle Conservative Democrats some years ago, who... I told you guys the neocons were ex-liberals. BLITZER: Who specifically are you referring to? HAIG: I'm talking about Wolfowitz. I'm talking about Richard Perle. I'm talking about some newly-made ones. I'm talking about the former editor of the Wall Street Journal. These people are very, very deeply embedded in Yale and certain intellectual circles. And for years, they've been against NATO... BLITZER: But did they hijack the strategy, the policy, from the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States? HAIG: Yes. BLITZER: The secretary of state, the secretary of defense? HAIG: Well, no, not the secretary of state, but he sat there and had to be a passenger on a train that he wasn't driving? BLITZER: Was Rumsfeld a neocon? Rummy is a Neocon too. HAIG: I wouldn't say he was. I wouldn't say... BLITZER: But was he in charge of the military strategy? HAIG: No, no. The outcome of the strategy was to create democracy with a bayonet. But it worked so well in Vietnam. Why not the rest of globe? LMAO! BLITZER: Is Cheney a neocon? Yes, Cheney is a Neocon. He is a member of PNAC. All of the PNAC members are the Neocons. HAIG: I think so. BLITZER: So he's part of that neocon conspiracy, or cabal, or whatever? HAIG: Those around him were, if he wasn't. BLITZER: And they could basically influence the president and dictate to the president what to do, in terms of going to war against Saddam Hussein? HAIG: Well, I'm not here to talk about that. There were a lot of influences on the president, but he's the president, and he's responsible. BLITZER: So what do you think of this argument? Because you hear it all the time, Dr. Brzezinski, that there were these group of of neoconservatives in there, like Paul Wolfowitz, who has the deputy secretary of defense; Richard Perle, who wasn't even in the government but he was an outside adviser, who were effectively shaping U.S. strategy. Do you buy that? BRZEZINSKI: I buy a great deal of that. I think Al Haig is absolutely right. We had, at the top a president, who was essentially uninformed about foreign policy, and then top policy-makers like Rumsfeld and, of course, Cheney who are, kind of, traditional, quote, end quote, "realists," hard nosed types. But the guys who provided the strategy and made the argument that we have to go into Iraq, that we have to link the war on terror with an attack on Iraq, were the guys that Al Haig is talking about. They provided strategy. They provided the argument that we would be greeted as liberators, that this would be a cake walk. And they have devastated American national interests as a consequence. BLITZER: Do you agree with that assessment? HAIG: Well, that was a term that Wolfowitz used twice, "cake walk." BLITZER: I don't know if he specifically used that term, but others suggested... HAIG: Yes, he did. BLITZER: ... that it would be relatively smooth sailing to get rid of Saddam Hussein, which it was relatively smooth sailing. The preparation for the post-Saddam Iraq, of course, lacked considerably, as you know. HAIG: But you know, finger-pointing isn't the problem today. The problem today is where we go from here. And I think there are some very, very disturbed reactions to what have been some misjudgments, which the president was the first to admit. And that is that no one has really analyzed carefully what would happen if we suddenly bugged out or cut and ran. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For the sake of the security of the United States of America, we must defeat the enemy in Iraq. For the sake of world peace, for the sake of peace for our children, we must not let the extremists have their way in this vital front in the war on terror. So America will stay, we will fight and we will win in Iraq. (END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: All right. Go ahead and respond to the president's argument. BRZEZINSKI: First of all, the president struck me as being rather nervous and excited. And I think it reflects his increasing realization that he's not headed for a victory, but for a major disaster. A disaster politically for his party, but much more importantly, a disaster for the United States. Because the fact is, we're bogged down in Iraq, and we have no way of getting out right now. The administration is absolutely blinded by its own rhetoric. Maybe the Baker-Hamilton commission will offer some alternatives, but I fear that for the moment we are stuck. The president senses it, so he's using inflammatory rhetoric, patriotic rhetoric as a refuge. BLITZER: I want to move on to other subjects and take a commercial break, but your quick response to this analogy that's increasingly being made between Iraq and Vietnam, and specifically the notion of a Tet Offensive under way in Iraq right now. Tom Friedman writing Wednesday in The New York Times: "In time we'll come to see the events unfolding -- or rather, unraveling -- in Iraq today as the real October surprise, because what we're seeing there seems like the jihadist equivalent of the Tet Offensive. The jihadists want to sow so much havoc that Bush supporters will be defeated in the midterms and the president will face a revolt from his own party, as well as from Democrats, if he does not begin a pullout from Iraq." Is the Vietnam analogy applicable to Iraq today? HAIG: Well, there are some overtones that are very applicable, and I'm a great admirer of Mr. Friedman, who has written well on the subject. He talked about having an aggressive policy but without providing the means to conduct that policy recently. And I think he was right on the mark. That was the problem with this war. We never had enough of anything, troops on the ground, strategy rather than tactics, and we've been floundering around. Now, the real question is, what will happen if we cut and run? Because this is the issue today, not all this who shot who. And this is the very critical issue. We have some outcomes that would be a disaster. First, your first question today, yes, it is part of the war on terrorism because we made it that. And it is, and it will be that, and you could be facing 30 -- or 3 billion Muslim fanatics rather than the 30 percent of that that we face today. BLITZER: Well, there aren't that many Muslims out there in the world yet, but... Whatever Blitz! HAIG: 1.3. 1.3. I think Al gets it. Bushco is goin' down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagleFL 0 Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Beautifully written. I couldn't agree more. Thank you for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 I have waited a fe days to post in this, because it has pissed me off so bad. Lets just say this guy is not well liked among the brethern right now. Has nothing to do with politics. He has apparently forgotten his buddies that are still serving in combat and has put them in harms way with his words. He has forgotten the Ranger Creed. Nothing wrong with having your opinion, but you have crossed the line when you say things that gives the enemy propaganda to use against those you swore to fight beside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 I have waited a fe days to post in this, because it has pissed me off so bad. Lets just say this guy is not well liked among the brethern right now. Has nothing to do with politics. He has apparently forgotten his buddies that are still serving in combat and has put them in harms way with his words. He has forgotten the Ranger Creed. Nothing wrong with having your opinion, but you have crossed the line when you say things that gives the enemy propaganda to use against those you swore to fight beside. He's entitled to his opinion but not allowed to express it? Or, is he only allowed to express it as long as it conforms to the 'company line?' I thought one of the things he/we swore to defend was our Constitution and the freedom it protects. That's a curious perspective you've got there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 I have waited a fe days to post in this, because it has pissed me off so bad. Lets just say this guy is not well liked among the brethern right now. Has nothing to do with politics. He has apparently forgotten his buddies that are still serving in combat and has put them in harms way with his words. He has forgotten the Ranger Creed. Nothing wrong with having your opinion, but you have crossed the line when you say things that gives the enemy propaganda to use against those you swore to fight beside. He's entitled to his opinion but not allowed to express it? Or, is he only allowed to express it as long as it conforms to the 'company line?' I thought one of the things he/we swore to defend was our Constitution and the freedom it protects. That's a curious perspective you've got there. Oh, c'mon TA. Apparently you did not read my post. I said there was nothing wrong with having his opinion, but he used some pretty strong words about the administration that crossed a line TA! He used words that basically the terrorists use when the try to justify their war on the west, such as calling the administration criminals and other accusations he makes. Nobody made him sign up. He signed up after the terrorists attacks for crying out loud! What were his intentions when he signed up? Did he think war was some glorious, thrilling adrenaline rush?!!! He can have his opinion all he wants, but he basically accuses the administration of everything terrorists claim about Bush and the United States. There are certain things that a soldier of his training should know better to do and one of those is not to let his views cause potential harm to those he served beside. You don't think the terrorists don't get ahold of high profile stories like this and use them for their propanganda? It would be very naive to think they did not. There is such a thing of being responsible with the words you choose when giving your opinion. Tillman has been very irresponsible and I am not the only 75th RRA member who thinks so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 I have waited a fe days to post in this, because it has pissed me off so bad. Lets just say this guy is not well liked among the brethern right now. Has nothing to do with politics. He has apparently forgotten his buddies that are still serving in combat and has put them in harms way with his words. He has forgotten the Ranger Creed. Nothing wrong with having your opinion, but you have crossed the line when you say things that gives the enemy propaganda to use against those you swore to fight beside. He's entitled to his opinion but not allowed to express it? Or, is he only allowed to express it as long as it conforms to the 'company line?' I thought one of the things he/we swore to defend was our Constitution and the freedom it protects. That's a curious perspective you've got there. Oh, c'mon TA. Apparently you did not read my post. I said there was nothing wrong with having his opinion, but he used some pretty strong words about the administration that crossed a line TA! He used words that basically the terrorists use when the try to justify their war on the west, such as calling the administration criminals and other accusations he makes. Nobody made him sign up. He signed up after the terrorists attacks for crying out loud! What were his intentions when he signed up? Did he think war was some glorious, thrilling adrenaline rush?!!! He can have his opinion all he wants, but he basically accuses the administration of everything terrorists claim about Bush and the United States. There are certain things that a soldier of his training should know better to do and one of those is not to let his views cause potential harm to those he served beside. You don't think the terrorists don't get ahold of high profile stories like this and use them for their propanganda? It would be very naive to think they did not. There is such a thing of being responsible with the words you choose when giving your opinion. Tillman has been very irresponsible and I am not the only 75th RRA member who thinks so. OK, so he can express his opinion with your blessing as long as it conforms to the 'company line.' Got it, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Expert Field Medical Badge there huh, Tiger Al. I love it. I have waited a fe days to post in this, because it has pissed me off so bad. Lets just say this guy is not well liked among the brethern right now. Has nothing to do with politics. He has apparently forgotten his buddies that are still serving in combat and has put them in harms way with his words. He has forgotten the Ranger Creed. Nothing wrong with having your opinion, but you have crossed the line when you say things that gives the enemy propaganda to use against those you swore to fight beside. He's entitled to his opinion but not allowed to express it? Or, is he only allowed to express it as long as it conforms to the 'company line?' I thought one of the things he/we swore to defend was our Constitution and the freedom it protects. That's a curious perspective you've got there. Oh, c'mon TA. Apparently you did not read my post. I said there was nothing wrong with having his opinion, but he used some pretty strong words about the administration that crossed a line TA! He used words that basically the terrorists use when the try to justify their war on the west, such as calling the administration criminals and other accusations he makes. Nobody made him sign up. He signed up after the terrorists attacks for crying out loud! What were his intentions when he signed up? Did he think war was some glorious, thrilling adrenaline rush?!!! He can have his opinion all he wants, but he basically accuses the administration of everything terrorists claim about Bush and the United States. There are certain things that a soldier of his training should know better to do and one of those is not to let his views cause potential harm to those he served beside. You don't think the terrorists don't get ahold of high profile stories like this and use them for their propanganda? It would be very naive to think they did not. There is such a thing of being responsible with the words you choose when giving your opinion. Tillman has been very irresponsible and I am not the only 75th RRA member who thinks so. Please allow me to ask you something Ranger: Did you serve in combat, and if so, did you have to kill anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.