Tillman's Parents Are Critical Of Army

As soon as it happened the troops knew. The commanding officers knew. The Bush administration knew. They still chose to cover it up to protect their fragile recruitment numbers and to hoodwink the American public. They milked this tragedy for all it was worth. Remember the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch? And they expect us to trust this government?
More than a year after their son was shot several times by his fellow Army Rangers on a craggy hillside near the Pakistani border, Tillman's mother and father said in interviews that they believe the military and the government created a heroic tale about how their son died to foster a patriotic response across the country. They say the Army's "lies" about what happened have made them suspicious, and that they are certain they will never get the full story.
Via The Washington Post


W. said...

***Operation Liberation from Idiots *** pass it along

This is to all you peacenik, anti-war, anti-American, socialist, left
wing, pro United Nations wackos who are essentially clueless. This
message will clue you in to the truth. If you cant handle the truth,
Canada and France are taking immigrants in every day.

First we don't want to hear how you have the right to protest, the
right to free speech, the right to disagree. We know you do. In
fact, millions of people have died for those rights that you use.
Don't forget this fact. If you do know this, then know from this
message that the current military conflict is to preserve those
rights as well for today and for our children. If you say that Iraq
is not an immediate threat to the United States and the free world
and you feel safe; would you be willing to say that on September 10,
2001 you felt the same way about being safe?

No one wants war. No one wants people do die. No one want innocent
lives to be lost. This isn't about loving Bush. This isn't about
waving your American flag. This is about everything. Do you
understand? We hope that you will...

"I never advocated war except as a means of peace."
Ulysses S. Grant


Facts ~ Saddam Hussein has:
for more than 25 years sought to acquire chemical, biological and
nuclear weapons, and has, in several documented cases, succeeded.
used mustard gas to kill 60,000 of his own people in 1986 in Halabja.
launched two catastrophic wars, sacrificing nearly a million Iraqis
and killing or wounding more than a million Iranians.
Ignored 16 United Nations resolutions over 12 years that have warned
him to disarm.
Has hosted terrorist training camps near the Northern border of Iraq.
Has admitted to having had biological and chemical weapons for
defense against Iran and Israel...but there's no record of the
destruction of this material.
Iraq is a relatively rich nation that has used it's oil profits to
support the regime and develop it's weapons, while 60% of it's
population lives in poverty. The key point here is that Iraq does
have money, and they are using this money to develop a variety of
weapons both known and unknown.
And what do we say to the thousands of Iraqis in America who
desperately want Uncle Saddam removed by the US so that the people
can have their country back?
What do we say to the Iraqi men who are showing up to U.S. military
offices offering to return to Iraq after the war to help provide
guidance concerning the building of a new infrastructure. Do we tell
them that they have exaggerating Hussein's brutality? Do we tell
them that they been brainwashed?
The protesters keep saying that we should be negotiating a peaceful
resolution to this situation, but in order to negotiate any type of
settlement you need to be dealing with a rational and trustworthy
party. Given Hussein's track record I don't know how anyone could
conclude that he is either. Our history has shown us that negotiating
with madmen leads to mass casualties.
As far as inspections, they do not work! We've been playing Three-
Card Monty with this guy for 12 years and we've been looking like
chumps. Hans Blix said that even if we had UN inspectors in Iraq for
the next 30 years that there would be no guarantee that we'd find
Hussein's weapons. It's time to deal with reality instead of
thinking that the U.N. stooges can out smart the con man.
The reality of our current situation is that the US will be attacked
again whether we go into Iraq or not...the point is that I would
ratherthose attack were attempted with hijacked planes, plastic
explosives, and dynamite rather than Anthrax, Mustard gas, or nuclear
weapons. To reiterate the point, Iraq is not a third-world country,
they have the money to pay for the materials and technology that can
produce weapons of mass destruction.
Given these facts I am unable to understand why people are willing to
give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the
sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his
country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of
man and woman." --Thomas Paine

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French
one behind me." --- General George S. Patton

"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching
into Paris under a German flag." --David Letterman

Romans 3:14 through Romans 3:18 (KJV)
14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15Their feet are
swift to shed blood: 16Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17And the way of peace have they not known: 18There is no fear of God
before their eyes.

Perhaps if the blame-America-first extremists, foreign and domestic,
got to experience life under a genocidal dictator for a few years
they would stop hating the U.S.

Time and again the U.N. has failed in its responsibilities, Richard
Perle ticked off examples of its ineffectiveness:

"During the cold war the security council was hopelessly paralyzed.
The Soviet empire was wrestled to the ground, and eastern Europe
liberated, not by the UN, but by the mother of all coalitions, NATO.
Apart from minor skirmishes and sporadic peacekeeping missions, the
only case of the security council acting during the cold war was its
use of force to halt the invasion of South Korea - and that was only
possible because the Soviets were not in the chamber to veto it. It
was a mistake they did not make again.

"Facing Milosevic's multiple aggressions, the UN could not stop the
Balkan wars or even protect its victims. It took a coalition of the
willing to save Bosnia from extinction. And when the war was over,
peace was made in Dayton, Ohio, not in the UN. The rescue of Muslims
in Kosovo was not a UN action: their cause never gained security
council approval. The United Kingdom, not the United Nations, saved
the Falklands."
Perle's conclusion: "The chronic failure of the security council to
enforce its own resolutions is unmistakable: it is simply not up to
the task. We are left with coalitions of the willing. Far from
disparaging them as a threat to a new world order, we should
recognize that they are, by default, the best hope for that order,
and the true alternative to the anarchy of the abject failure of the

More facts:

1991 we were on the verge of taking control of Iraq. Coalition
forces to be sure, but it was an American operation, no question.
Bush chose to accept a cease fire agreement signed and accepted by
the Iraqi government. A cease fire is not cessation of the state of
war, it is a time of peace to reach a negotiated settlement. Iraq
began to break the agreement within days of it's implementation.
Going in today is simply resuming a war that was suspended. That's
the biggest and most coherent argument.
Hussein supports terrorists. He admits himself to support Hamas and
Islamic Jihad. Therefore he is a legitimate target of the US war on
He trains terrorists in Salman Pak near Bagdahd. Defectors have
confirmed it multiple times.

"It is unpleasant business to eject a skunk, but someone has to do
Chicago Tribune Editorial Board

"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it
is, the sooner it will be over"
- Union General William T. Sherman said this shortly before beginning
his brutal March to the Sea
"Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can, and
strike him as hard as you can. And keep moving on!"
- Ulysses S. Grant's philosophy of war

There's many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory,but,
boys, it is all hell - Gen. William T. Sherman

In war there is no prize for the runner-up
--General Omar Bradley
It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.
--General Douglas MacArthur

The ancient Roman expression "if you want peace prepare for war" is
from "Epitoma Rei Militaris," by Vegetius.

In Latin: "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."

The architects of this wickedness will find no safe harbor in this
world. We will chase our enemies to the furthest corners of this
Earth. It must be war without quarter, pursuit without rest, victory
without qualification.
--Rep. Tom Delay majority whip, US House of Representatives

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry,
Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The
next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash
of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand
we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what
course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me
--Patrick Henry March 23,1775

Liberals, who call conservative hostility to the U.N. ``radical,''
disregard the recklessness, and the incoherence, of the U.N.'s new
presumption. The U.N., a collection of regimes of less than uniform
legitimacy, has anointed itself the sole arbiter of what are
legitimate military actions. And it has claimed a duty to leash the
only nation that has the power to enforce U.N. resolutions. How long
will that nation's public be willing to pay one-quarter of the U.N.'s

It is a measure of the intellectual vertigo into which the U.N. has
plunged ``the international community'' that America, which is going
to war to enforce Resolution 1441, is said to be doing so ``in
defiance of the U.N.'' The war will be followed by a presidential
election in which all candidates must answer this: ``Do you believe
that any use of U.S. military power lacks legitimacy unless approved
by France, Russia and China?'' The Republican candidate has already

What makes a war just? Leaders throughout history have grappled with
that question, and moral nations have used certain principles in the
past to determine whether waging war was the "right" thing to do.

Those principles primarily include these 5 criteria:

It must have a legitimate reason, war cannot be used to satisfy a
temper tantrum (for example).
It must be a last resort.
It must be declared by a proper authority.
The evil caused by the war must be less than the evil being righted.
It must have a reasonable probability of success.
More Facts:
Torture is systematic in Iraq. The most senior figures in the regime
are personally involved.
Saddam Hussein runs Iraq with close members of his own family and a
few associates, most of whom come from his hometown of Tikrit.
These are the only people he feels he can trust. He directly controls
the security services and, through them and a huge party network, his
influence reaches deep into Iraqi society.
All real authority rests with Saddam and his immediate circle. Saddam
is head of state, head of government, leader of Iraq's only political
party and head of the armed forces.
Saddam presides over the all-powerful Revolutionary Command Council,
which enacts laws and decrees and overrides all other state
Several RCC decrees give the security agencies full powers to
suppress dissent with impunity.
An RCC decree of 21 December 1992 guarantees immunity for Ba'ath
party members who cause damage to property, bodily harm and even
death when pursuing enemies of the regime.
Saddam has, through the RCC, issued a series of decrees establishing
severe penalties (amputation, branding, cutting off of ears, or other
forms of mutilation) for criminal offences.
In mid-2000, the RCC approved amputation of the tongue as a new
penalty for slander or abusive remarks about the President or his
These punishments are practised mainly on political dissenters. Iraqi
TV has broadcast pictures of these punishments as a warning to
According to an Amnesty International report published in August
2001, "torture is used systematically against political detainees.
The scale and severity of torture in Iraq can only result from the
acceptance of its use at the highest level."
Over the years, Amnesty and other human rights organisations have
received thousands of reports of torture and interviewed numerous
torture victims.
Although Iraqi law forbids the practice of torture, the British
Government is not aware of a single case of an Iraqi official
suspected of carrying out torture being brought to justice.
Under Saddam Huseein's regime women lack even the basic right to
life. A 1990 decree allows male relatives to kill a female relative
in the name of honour without punishment.
Women have been tortured, ill-treated and in some cases summarily
executed too, according to Amnesty International.
including the crushing of a two-year-old girl's feet.
Prison conditions:
Conditions for political prisoners in Iraq are inhumane and
At the "Mahjar" prison "prisoners are beaten twice a day and the
women regularly raped by their guards.
Arbitrary and summary killings:
Executions are carried out without due process of law. relatives are
often prevented from burying the victims in accordance with Islamic
practice and have even been charged for the bullets used.
Persecution of the Kurds:
Under Saddam's rule Iraq's Kurdish communities have experienced
terrible suffering.
Documents captured by the Kurds during the Gulf War and handed over
to the non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch provided
much information about Saddam's persecution of the Kurds. They detail
the arrest and execution in 1983 of 8,000 Kurdish males aged 13 and
Persecution of the Shia community:
The Shia community, who make up 60% of Iraq's population is Iraq's
biggest religious group.
Saddam has ensured that none of the Shia religious or tribal leaders
is able to threaten his position. He kills any that become too

In the past three decades Iranians, Iraqis, and Egyptians - not
Americans - all preferred to fight during Ramadan. And is the Muslim
world going to rise up to strike America - which saved and fed
Islamic Afghans, Kuwaitis, Bosnians, Kosovars, and Somalis? Or will
it hit the Russians, who killed 200,000 Muslims in Chechnya; or the
Iraqis, who butchered 500,000 Shiite Iranians; or the Kuwaitis, who
ethnically cleansed their kingdom of Palestinians?

The inaction of the Allies during World War II led to the deaths of
millions of Jews, let's not turn a blind eye to our current reality.

So what is the truth?

We are presently watching the last hand in a long-drawn-out poker
game. All the chips - the EU, NATO, the U.N., European anti-
Americanism, French chauvinism, domestic opposition, the future of a
democratic Iraq, the very nature of the Middle East, and of the war
against terror itself - are now stacked on the table, up for grabs.
As some of us once argued, it would have been far better and safer to
go in last autumn; but war is full of irony, and so by forcing us to
wait, our opponents have only upped the ante and may well lose all
that they have so recklessly wagered.

If this war is immediate, quick, and successful, and results in the
destruction of the Hussein regime and the liberation of its people,
the world abroad will be made anew as we call in our markers. We will
see either the reform - or perhaps the de facto end - of many flawed
and hypocritical trans-national institutions we have known for a half-
century. Then will follow the disgrace of our critics, the
embarrassment of the utopian Left, and the sudden appearance of all
sorts of European allies and Arab friends eager to mount our strong
horse and ride down the remaining scattered Islamic terrorists.

The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility -

Neither outspoken dovishness, mealy-mouthed straddling, nor me-tooism
will solve the Democrats' political problem on national security. The
party has two real choices. It can reinvent itself as a party that
thinks seriously about foreign-policy issues and has its own
distinctive and compelling answers to them. If it follows this route,
the party will have to be willing to use force to promote American
interests and to project moral confidence about American power. Or
the party can hope that national-security issues cease to matter to
American voters.

The winds of war blowing across Iraq yesterday helped clear away some
thick political fog here in America - revealing things about the
Democratic Party that sure weren't pretty.
Indeed, while the Iraq war has highlighted the courage and fortitude
of this nation's leaders and soldiers, Democrats (particularly those
eyeing the presidency in '04) have been making even the French seem

Sure, many have now expressed support for "our troops." Some even say
out loud that they hope America prevails in the current conflict.
(Imagine that!) Profiles in courage these guys ain't.

If any had even a mote of intellectual honesty, America might have
heard a word in praise of President Bush 's leadership. After all,
Bush has had to withstand the carping of hostile nations fiercely
jealous of America's global preeminence. He has shown remarkable
resolve - no less admirable for its necessity.

America's enemies - in Baghdad, in the caves south of Khandahar and
everywhere else - are on notice that this country will no longer
close its eyes while they plot America's destruction. But you won't
hear much appreciation of that from the Dems. Consider this scary
thought (as the noose slowly tightens around Saddam's neck, and Iraq
inches closer to freedom):

What if Al Gore were president?

Gore, remember, was part of a team that - for eight critical years -
allowed Saddam to flout his cease-fire obligations, flout
international law, persecute his own people, pursue weapons of mass
death, aid terrorists. And lock the doors on international
inspectors. The Clinton-Gore team, in fact, actually gave Saddam
billions, through the U.N. food-for-oil charade, with which to fund
his bellicose agenda.

And Gore has made clear that his preference even today - 18 months
after 9/11 - was to continue to talk, to dither, to dally as Saddam
grows stronger. How foolish. How risky.

At least he had the sense to drop his hopes for another shot at the
presidency in '04. As victory in Iraq grows nearer, other Dems might
want to do likewise. Take Vermont's antiwar ex-governor, Howard
Dean. As war began, the '04 hopeful agreed (reluctantly) that "we all
have got to support the troops." Not necessarily the president, whom
he blamed for sending soldiers into harm's way.

Sen. Joe Lieberman - who's usually moderate or even hawkish on
foreign affairs - backpedaled fiercely Wednesday night, saying there
wasn't "an inch of distance" between him and Bush. But, of course,
there is.

Lieberman criticizes Bush's "unilateralist, divisive diplomacy, which
has pushed a lot of the world away from us." Now, think that
through: Bush saw it necessary to put an end to Saddam's threat to
American global interests. And to America's regional allies. Bush
moved, unshakably, to disarm Saddam. He understood that it was
precisely the Clinton-Gore team's lack of resolve that emboldened the
Iraqi - and Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11.

And so the president stood firm. And that, according to Lieberman, is
divisive? But Lieberman, more than any of the fuzzy-thinking herd of
overly ambitious Democrats, knows better. Americans will soon be
appreciating a Bush-led victory over Saddam that will clearly leave
the entire world better off. Where will that leave the Democrats?

In a pickle. They'll have only themselves to blame.

Make no mistake about it: We should continue to prepare for worse
attacks than 9/11. the terrorists remain well organized and well
funded and continue to have global backing by rogue states around the
world. And these rogue states have long tethers to countries like
Russia and China.

The United States Navy is training sea lions to protect our ships.
They are teaching sea lions how to find bombs. Sea lions will help
us, but the French won't.

Why Get US out! of the United Nations?

World government through the United Nations is a serious threat to
the freedom of all Americans. Imagine being held prisoner in a
foreign land and tried in an international court with judges from
such countries as Afghanistan, China, or Iraq.

Fact: The United Nations (financed by American taxpayers!) has long
been a safe harbor for terrorist and oppressive regimes which target
America as the enemy.

President Bush has stated repeatedly that we are not going to war for
the purpose of conquering, dominating or annexing Iraq into some
imaginary American empire. We are going in to disarm Iraq of its
weapons of mass destruction, which necessarily requires removal of
the Saddam Hussein regime, which in turn means the liberation of the
Iraqi people. Get it?

The unpleasant truth -- unpleasant, that is, for the detractors.
Since there was no way to get some of our own allies off dead center
through negotiation and even less to talk Saddam into disarming, the
only way we could have resolved this matter diplomatically is if we
had given in, sacrificing our national security interests for the
sake of just getting along.

The detractors continue to cry peace, but the peace they advocate
ultimately would spell catastrophe for America.

The purpose of all war is ultimately peace.
--Saint Augustine

The American, British, and Australian troops now entering Iraq may
not face a war machine as formidable as Nazi Germany's, but the
stakes they are fighting for are as great. Speaking to the troops on
D-Day, General Dwight Eisenhower said, "The eyes of the world are
upon you. The hope and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere
are with you." Amen

The alleviation of Iraqi suffering, the liberation of the people of
Safwan and of all of Iraq, makes many puke. Some, quite literally.
Antiwar protesters in San Francisco organized a "vomit-in" yesterday
to show how the war "made them sick." They regurgitated on cue, their
bellies full of milk dyed red, on the steps of federal buildings in
downtown San Francisco. Meanwhile other, merely metaphorically
nauseous protesters snarled traffic and generally made asses of
themselves in the name of ensuring that the people of Iraq were never
liberated. Similar protests were held all over America and the world
by people who can most charitably be described as Saddam's useful

If the war goes well and the people of Iraq are saved, let the useful
idiots cheer the liberation if they like. Let them applaud the
alleviation of famine and disease should they feel so inclined.
Indeed, let them claim all they like that they wanted all of these
good things too. But don't let them forget that they never believed
these things would be worth it if the price was letting America have
its way.

War is a terrible thing. Students should know its dark side. But they
should also be asked to consider that America goes to war
reluctantly, only after agonized debate or after years of provocation
by reckless tyrants. We do not have to love war to understand that
some wars may be necessary or to appreciate the soldier's values:
self-sacrifice, honor, loyalty, and endurance.

We must face the reality that al Qaeda is not dead, but very much
alive and thriving in people's minds and hearts.

Sincerely yours,


John in Atlanta said...

Bush lied, people died.

Tom said...


I always find it amusing when they troll, cut and paste, and are NOT signed up and in the military.

Look out.. it's the 101st fighting keyboardists!

Cowards all...