Bullets for BushCo

July 27, 2007 by barbara

by barbara

You know that god who is reportedly George W. Bush’s personal advisor? May that god take time away from Phony Moses to smite those who have been lying about Pat Tillman’s death. Because what is emerging this week is the distinct possibility that Pat Tillman was murdered by his comrades. And as that comes into focus, what comes along with it is an even clearer picture of the cold-blooded immorality of BushCo. Hyperbole? You decide. Read more about it.

Confession. Until recently, I haven’t paid much attention to the details of Pat Tillman’s death. That’s precisely what BushCo was hoping for, once things started to unravel. Hoping that we’re all sufficiently distracted by LiLo and ParHil and NicRich and the ludicrous subpoena issued to Michael Moore that our critical eye would never come back to Pat Tillman et al. Especially in the past few weeks, when it has become clear that Pat Tillman, along with Jessica Lynch (photo), is an American soldier whose military tragedy has been exploited by BushCo for political gain.

Background, in case you’ve been out-of-the-loop, too—and even if you haven't.

After 9/11, Pat Tillman walked away from pro football fame and riches to join the Army. He was killed in Afghanistan. We were told that the Taliban brought this American hero down. BushCo made a very big deal out of Tillman heroically sacrificing his life to protect his comrades in arms. But eventually, the Pentagon disclosed that Tillman had been hit by “friendly fire”—a long-used but disturbing term, especially when it kills. Tillman’s family has pressed ever since his death for unearthing truth that might bring some measure of closure for them.

The Pentagon released 2,300 pages of testimony to the Associated Press this week. According to the AP via Common Dreams, the Department of Defense did a criminal investigation of Tillman’s death. Yeah, I know. Fox and henhouse. Anyway, the DOD concluded Tillman was a friendly-fire casualty.

But the AP story also recounts the misgivings of a team of U.S. Army medical examiners about the three bullet holes in Tillman’s forehead. The docs said that “the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger (Tillman) was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.”

The documents who that a doctor who autopsied Tillman’s body was suspicious of the three gunshot wounds to the forehead. The doctor said he took the unusual step of calling the Army's Human Resources Command and was rebuffed. He then asked an official at the Army's Criminal Investigation Division if the CID would consider opening a criminal case.

"He said he talked to his higher headquarters and they had said no," the doctor testified.

Three bullet holes in Tillman’s head from a distance of 10 yards? I’m trying to suspend my disbelief here, but it’s hard. For one thing, how can you mistake identity (the supposed cause of the “friendly fire”) from a distance of 10 yards? If it’s too dark to identify an individual face-to-face at that range (and one who is calling out, identifying himself, as the original story went), then surely it’s too dark to accurately pump three bullets into his forehead. I’m not a shooter, so I don’t know for sure.

Why one of his own? Apparently there is no clear-cut answer. But Tillman was outspoken in his opposition to Iraq. And the unanswered question (raised by his mother, among others) is whether Tillman could have been unpopular with his unit. (See "opposition to Iraq" for starters.)

Be that as it may, it now appears that there has been a deceptive cover-up (is there any other kind?), and the pivotal question cited in all the sources I tapped (add to them this piece from Truthout) is this:

How much did the White House know and when did it know it?

Well, there’s a new one, eh?

I suppose no one from the White House will testify nor provide documents, based on BushCo’s prevailing stonewalling mantra, “executive privilege.”

I’m tempted to summarize here, but you know the drill. Tell ‘em what you’re gonna tell ‘em, then you tell ‘em, and then you tell ‘em what you told ‘em.

Not this time. Once is enough.

Posted in