My colleague John Armor points out that the often clueless Ninth Circuit deserves one cheer for its ruling in support of Arizona's honest voter law. John may be too generous to note that this is one cheer more than Congress deserves for its "work," some of which is, unfortunately, on display this afternoon.
Case in point: the Pat Tillman hearing. Tillman left behind a lucrative NFL career to volunteer to fight in Afghanistan. There he was killed in combat. His death was initially reported to have come about in a firefight with the enemy. It turned out that this report was false; he was killed, as sometimes happens in the fog of war, by friendly fire.
Today's hearing adds next to nothing new to what we already know. Why, then, is it being held? I believe for two reasons. First, it's designed to muddle Tillman's heroism, and inferentially the heroism of others like him who wear the uniform. The most important fact about Tillman is not that his fate was erroneously, or even dishonestly, reported. The most important fact is that he saw what the blowhards shamelessly using his death ignore, namely, that we have a lethal enemy that must be confronted where it lives and taken down.
The second reason behind the Tillman hearing is to tarnish military action generally. We have seen this before from the Cindy Sheehan/Michael Moore crowd and their congressional apostles. These people are the rightful heirs of Jane Fonda et al., for whom America is too tarnished to deserve a robust defense, and consequently for whom there were no brave or decent or generous American soldiers. There were only "baby killers." Since 9/11, when the value of having an army became too obvious to deny, it has become impolitic for this group to use direct insults against the military. Accordingly, a different strategy (but identical thinking) has been brought to bear. In the service of that strategy, we heard 24/7 coverage of Abu Ghraib for weeks on end, while the hundreds if not thousands of episodes of bravery and friendship and benevolence by American soldiers toward the Iraqi people were dropped on the editing room floor.
So this is what it has come to: Congress uses Pat Tillman's death in the service of securing the very defeat Tillman correctly saw would be a disaster. The irony of such behavior is outstripped only by its venality.
But there's a catch. The American people are on to it. The widely heralded new Congress (heralded by the MSM, anyway) isn't doing so well. In the three most recent polls by Fox News, the Los Angeles Times and Gallup/USA Today, Congress finishes behind the President in job approval (see the non-partisan pollingreport.com). Perhaps venality can be seen behind its disguises after all.
Comments (3)
I'm a United States Army veteran (click my link), and I'm guessing you aren't. If you were a vet yourself you would be in favor of finding out the truth.
Today's hearing adds next to nothing new to what we already know. Why, then, is it being held?
I'm guessing it's so we can identify the field-rank officers who lied to the country. Surely you are in favor of holding people accountable for their actions.
First, it's designed to muddle Tillman's heroism
I saw a lot of Democratic representatives praising Tillman's heroism. I saw Republican representatives trying to "muddle" it. Why do you suppose the Republicans want to "muddle" Tillman's heroism, while the Democrats want to draw attention to what a hero he was? Why does the GOP hate the troops so much?
The second reason behind the Tillman hearing is to tarnish military action generally.
Since virtually ALL the veterans in congress are Democrats (McCain and Hagel are the exceptions), and since no one made any attempt to tarnish the military during the hearings, I guess you are wrong. Why would you say something so silly, with no evidence to support it?
Congress uses Pat Tillman's death in the service of securing the very defeat Tillman correctly saw would be a disaster.
Tillman's opinion that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and a war crime is not a secret. Accordng to his family, Tillman believed that the "disaster" was the invasion itself.
Republicans talk about "defeat," but have never defined the "mission" and the metric by which we will know we have "succeeded." If there is no definition of success, it means we wil be there forever.
You think it's a good war? Why aren't you in uniform? Manners prevent me from telling you what I think of people who like wars as long as they can send others out to fight them.
Oh, screw manners. You are a chickenhawk, a coward hiding behind a blog.
Posted by Repack Rider | April 24, 2007 8:16 PM
Posted on April 24, 2007 20:16
Repack, appropriate nick there buddy. You just managed to repack all the talking points and avoid any analysis.
So you're to tell me that we're so much better informed and it was a good use of the limited time that our government has to convene a "hearing" on the Tillman incident?
This dreaded "cover-up" lasted all of one month and was "blow wide open" by the Army issuing a public report! Thank goodness the media and all of the watchdog groups were there to keep them honest and hold their feet to the fire low these three years later.
Glad you were able to drag out the old character attack there right at the end, it certainly goes a long way towards bolstering your argument.
Posted by Rob Crocker | April 24, 2007 8:58 PM
Posted on April 24, 2007 20:58
As a vet of 22 years, this whole Pat Tillman deal gets under my skin. If I had been in a heated battle with the enemy and got shot in the back by accident, I would hope that the story my parents and family got was that I had been bravely fighting and died a hero, not that I was killed by my own men and died needlessly. Even the guy that rolls his hummer into the canal in Iraq should be hailed a hero because he was over where he could have been attacked. A training accident in the desert of Arizona needs to be investigated. A real life incident on the battle field needs to be a combat death and left at that.
Posted by Crazy Eddie | August 23, 2007 1:14 PM
Posted on August 23, 2007 13:14