Right, and because the liberal press is so much more trustworthy than the military we can accept the press account which humiliates the military. Based on historical data (Dan Rather made a good high profile recent case), I can see why you're so blindly trusting of our liberal press. :rolleyes:

And Stu, seriously, you want this guy's medal taken away?

The "liberal" press' excuse is to try and boost ratings/profile.

What's the military's excuse? Why does "never lie, cheat or steal" not apply in this case?

Cam, if I didn't think you were serious, I'd be rolling on the floor laughing my a$$ off right now. :eek:

You're saying that it is okay for the press to lie and fabricate, just to sell a few newspapers, Just to sell some air time to their sponsors? Because they're lying for profit, that makes it okay? Are you kidding me?????

If you really believe that to be the case, how can you ever, seriously, trust a word they say?

And as far as the military, what did they gain from this. What could they HOPE to gain from this. It's really pretty simple, not nearly as "complex" as some would have you believe.

Army officials went with their first reports, prematurely, and released their initial version of what happened with Cpl. Tillman. I'll grant you, they should have waited for the final report before they released it, but they didn't. That, my friend, is far from a lie.

Then, on their own accord, not because they were found out by some reporter, or some disgruntled soldier, but because of their own OFFICIAL investigation into Tillman's death, they admitted their mistake. They PUBLICLY announced they were wrong.

Please explain to me what the Army, or just the US Military in general, has achieved by this incident. Bad things happen in war. Terrible things. It's inevitable. When you add the human element to anything, mistakes will be made. I'm not diminishing Tillman's death, just stating the facts.

The Army made a mistake in releasing their initial report so quickly. They corrected their own report, on their own. No this doesn't bring back Tillman, nor does it erase the mistake. It does, however, show that the Army is capable of admitting when they ARE wrong. Maybe that doesn't happen in every case. But in this case, it certainly did.

The press, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be capable of that. Even when they are proven to be liars. Look at the firestorm created by Dan Rather and his crew. Several people were fired over this, and Dan refuses to admit he lied. Rather himself was retired over this little debaucle, and yet he continues to deny any wrong doing.

Randy

Why try this deflection again? Its not about the press. Its not about the rights or wrongs of the circumstances of Tillmans death. Its about the military's manipulation of those events.

Do I want his medal taken away? Irrelevant. I recall at the time tho that decorated vets expressed that view.

Let me ask you- do you think an official CITATION, which is patently false, should stand?

If they're good enough for John Kerry, who am I to disagree? :rolleyes:

Randy

Not a deflection. You're comparing a press story to a military story. I'm saying that the military is no less trustworthy than the press. If you're missing the validity of the comparison, then this whole thing is pointless.

You just said that the fact that the medal hadn't been revoked meant that the military hadn't changed their story. Make up your mind.


One of these days, I'll develop the willpower to stop responding to trolls. (sigh) Until then ...

No. I am comparing the Army's official version of events, as reflected in the ciation, with the version that emerged later and as reported in various media- and was then acknowledged by the Army. This is not about press. Lets face it, its sybiotic. The Army needed the press to disseminate its untrue version of evenst in the first place.


Medal revoked. No, I didnt say that all. I have no view on whether or not Tillman's medal is warranted or should be revoked. I asked you whether or not a CITATION which is known to be incorrect should stand. Should it? That question in turn may indeed raise the question of the revocation of the medal, but I havent asked it in this thread.

I am sorry that you are having trouble grappling with this, but really, if you believe I am trolling, its indeed best that you dont particpate.

Randy - I'm going to quote Dan, but this applies to your post as you made the point first:

As Stuart goes onto say, the military is the one which "makes" the facts in the first instance. The majority of the time, the press simply reports facts. The Rather incident proves that the facts might not be true, but generally speaking this appears to happen infrequently in the mainstream media.

However, the Military itself is generally the source of information about events involving it. When the other sources say a different story, and the media reports both sources, I don't think its necessarily fair to immediately discount the non-military sources, precisely because the Military has proven itself to be untrustworthy.

Plus, you guys still haven't explained why it isn't ok for the liberal press to make stuff up, but it is ok for the military to do so.

Well, Cam, let's try this another way, shall we?

Read the article again. then read the timeline on the link I provided in one of my previous replies here.

The Army (that would be the Military) reported the incident. They also awarded the medal to Col. tillman. They were premature in doing BOTH! they went by the very first accounts of the incident, without having investigated the incident in detail at all. they were wrong.

Five weeks later, of their own volition, they corrected themselves. I stated this before, a few times. There was no expose' by some reporter that brought this on. The Army, after having completed their investigation into this incident, admitted they were wrong. In a public statement submitted on May 29, the Army admitted that Tillman was a victim of fratricide.

You stated that, " you guys still haven't explained why it isn't ok ...for the liberal press to make stuff up, but it is ok for the military to do so." I say "It's NOT okay." Nobody gains from ANYONE lying about this stuff.

This is not a case of the Army lying about something and getting caught in a lie. This is a case of the Army reporting something before they knew all the facts behind it. Once the facts were known, the correction was submitted. It really is just as simple as that.

Randy

WTF?????

I think herein lies the problem with some of you guys. How the he!! can something be "fact" if it is not "true"? Kinda goes back to the line, "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

FYI:

fact
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.

Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

Idiom:
in (point of) fact
In reality or in truth; actually.

Randy

Or the lies, as the case may be. Or some of the facts, or just the facts they feel like telling, while leaving out enough of the critical detail to make the story sound like something else happened.

See that, Dan? When you hit these guys with "facts", they scurry and hide like a bunch of cockroaches when you turn the lights on them. ;)

Randy

Or, they don't look at their computer over the weekend. I only look at Pelican when I'm getting paid to do so (kidding - I'm essentially self employed).

Five weeks later, of their own volition, they corrected themselves. I stated this before, a few times. There was no expose' by some reporter that brought this on. The Army, after having completed their investigation into this incident, admitted they were wrong. In a public statement submitted on May 29, the Army admitted that Tillman was a victim of fratricide.

I assume they did this because of the red hot torch of media scrutiny under them - the same as with the Jessica Lynch deal. Go re-read your link again - they had plenty of information to conclude that it was friendly fire, but (either deliberately or, in a WMD-esque screw-up, through incompetence) they determined he was "charging up a hill". It seems to me to be naive to think that they simply screwed it up the first time, and simply released the real info unprovoked the second.

I actually didn't concentrate hard enough on Rathergate, so I don't know who made the forgery.

You "assume", so that makes you correct? Come back when you can substantiate what you "assume" with facts. You remember 'facts', dont you? For a quick refresher, scroll up a bit and read the definition I've provided for you. :D

Randy

Damn facts :D

Best I can do, because I really don't care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman

I'm not feeling especially flexible on this - its my opinion that the military systematically paints itself in a good light and, if it can get away with it, deceives you and I. I see plenty of evidence (although no slam dunk).

Your opinion is that the "liberal" media does it. I see no proof that this is systematic.

Just curious Cam. You seem to only believe the military when they say something that would put them or the administration in a bad light...but are sure they are lying otherwise...How do you know that the military are not lying now that they claim friendly fire killed Tillman? Maybe it was aliens and it is a big cover-up like area 51.
By the way, do you think Wikipedia..where anyone can post anything they want...is a reliable source?

And its a big fat smelly red herring.

What the "liberal media" may or may not do is irrelevent. We choose, or not, to consume the product of the liberal media. You want an accoutable media, get yourself a publicly funded broadacaster in the BBC (UK), ABC (Aus), CBC (Can) mould. Until then, shut up yer *****in about what the privately operated for profit "liberal media" dishes up to you. Fer Chrissakes, look at the crap dished up FOX and you still complain about "liberal media". Your "liberal media" is actually somewhere out there past Atilla the Hun, it just looks "liberal" from where you sit, gently rocking on the porch, shotgun on yer lap.

What the US military dishes out however, as an instrument of govt, funded by your money, enacting your govts policies, is another matter altogether.

At risk of repeating myself (for, I believe, the third time in this thread), when the "official" military version of events and the eye witness (or some other) version of events differs, I've seen enough evidence to suggest that the military is fundamentally untrustworthy in these situations, so I may choose not to believe its version.

This whole discussion starts with an article about a wedding party shot up by the military in which the eye witness accounts are completely different to the military accounts. Episodes such as Abu Graib, Tillman and Lynch mean that I cannot take it as read that the military is the one telling the truth.


Go change it if you don't like it. Most of the stuff that matters is referenced. Or are you worried that the whole internet has a liberal bias :rolleyes:

http://counterpunch.org/cloughley06132004.html

Interesting op ed for you, lads, from the liberal media.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here is an item about the situation in Iraq from the New York Times on June 1, 2004. "After a loose power line on a side street [in Baghdad] began making noises that sounded like gunshots, one soldier fired a burst from his M-16 down the street, sending dozens of bystanders behind him racing for cover."

That sentence was buried in a piece by Edward Wong in Baghdad, assisted by "an Iraqi employee of the New York Times [who] contributed reporting from Najaf", and very good journalism it is, too. Mr Wong and his understandably anonymous colleague in Najaf tell it like it is, and we should all hope their reportage continues.

But one of the main points, missed by many who have never had military experience, is that a US soldier, with no threat whatever to his safety, fired his rifle along a street. He did not actually aim his weapon at anyone, because nobody had shot at him. There was a noise : a crack-crack-crack, that sounded something like small arms' fire. It wasn't. But he sprayed unaimed automatic fire along a street in a city : Brrrrrrrrrrrrpppp; just like that.

Once again, Cam, youand most liberals seem to have difficulty believing any military member that says good things about what we are doing but and quickly accept anything they say about the military screwing up as gospel. In each case you site, it appears that someone in the military was dishonest...and someone else in the military stood up and told the truth...and the military establishment investigated and confirmed it as such.

In other cases where the same military establishment determines otherwise....you assume lies and a coverup.

"The military" is made up of people...some honest and some who will lie to cover their rear....just like any other part of society. But typically the system.."the military establishment" seeks out the truth and does the right thing.

As far as eye witness accounts...there was surveillance aircraft video posted here just the other day...where a group of middle easterners were videoing a death march and burial of some poor "innocent." After they dropped the "body" a couple of times....the "dead" guy got up and walked away in disgust.

Your Wikipedia statement "change it if you don't like it" makes precisely my point.