Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (135487)	6/3/2004 4:55:56 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, there are so many possible scenarios that it's difficult to analyze what may have happened. It could have been that the two patrols were coordinated but that when the "boom" occurred one of them strayed on its own and ended up in an unexpected position. That means that the people on the ground who were responsible for keeping them informed of their proximity to each other failed. It could have been the radioman in one of the patrols that failed to report in or erroneously reported his position, it could have been someone farther in the rear who failed to coordinate their movements or it could have been that and some combination of other mistakes. That part of it really isn't the bigger issue. The more important issue is the army's reaction. I can just about guartantee that the army could clear this up immediately if it wanted to. Both of the patrols were American; They speak English. There was evidently no confusion in the "fog of war" because there was no "enemey fire." They knew they were shooting at each other before they even stopped shooting. They had a safe place to go to after the incident and they had the time and the opportunity for a full debriefing. But they got it all wrong when they reported the "ambush..enemy fire..charging up the hill..Tillman's actions stopped the enemy assault BS." Was there an effort to cover up mistakes? Was the effort to lie made at a lower level or at the highest levels of the command? Was the lie motivated by political or personal reasons? I'd like to know. We've had lies about the Jessica Lynch story, including a failed effort to award her a Silver Star for heroism. We've had lies about the "terrorists" we killed in Iraq when it turns out it was a family delivering chickens. We have what I believe will turn out to have been a massive undertaking to cover up the torture policy of our civilian and military's top leaders. We've had lies about the extent of the insurgency in Iraq and the makeup of the insurgents. We've had lies about the certainty of the wmd information upon which we went to war. We've been deliberately led to believe fabrications about the threat of Iraq in terms of their "coziness" with terrorist Islamic militants when they were deadly enemies. We had enough lies in Vietnam and they served to keep the war going in a direction that was doomed. I'm at the point where I attach limited credibility to ANY statement of the military or the Bush top level people unless it's against their interests to make the statement, including statements of Colin Powell. You can't win the support of the American people with lies and you can't stay at war without the support of the average Joe who sends his money, his votes and his kids to war. The "feel good" story of the life and heroism of Pat Tillman will quickly turn around, just as the Jessica story did, when the facts are out. One more nail in the coffin of the fiction of the Iraq war.