Pat Tillman

I'm sure this has already been discussed, but word is coming out now that ex football star turned (slain)Army Ranger Pat Tillman, who Bush & Co. tried desperately to use for propaganda was actually a Democrat and Kerry supporter who was against the war in Iraq. I have to say however while looking into this on the net I came across several extremely disgusting articles from the left at the time of Tillman's death (I myself was serving at the time and was not in the position to follow the story closely). Hopefully this will be a wake up call to the people out there on the left who cannot seem to separate the soldiers who risk their life everyday for our freedom, from their Commander In Chief who we ALL bear equal responsibility for as Americans.

What you call disgusting articles from the "left" have about as much to do with Progressives/Liberals/Democrats as the actions of Timothy McVeigh and the NeoNazis have to do with Conservatives.

Notice however I said left not Progressives/Liberals/Democrats, that being said Ted Rall I would consider as someone many on this board have a good deal of affecton for...

In terms of actual quote density here on DU, I would suspect he ranks among the lowest of left wing luminaries.

entitled something to the effect of why I love Ted Rall, as for the actual percentage of people who feel that way on DU, I couldn't say, nonetheless the type of reactionary vitriol he spews is a pretty common theme around here sometimes....

Well, either it is sometimes or it is commonplace. You're trying to paint us all with a broad brush. I believe that some folks here are extremely angry and their language reflects that.

We have seen our military used for profit. We have seen elections stolen. We have seen deep deep corruption. Reactionary Vitriol is a measured response, I'm surprised there aren't riots.

There's no broad brush, if there was I would have to include myself since I post here too. Whether or not reactionary vitriol is understandable, it is completely counterproductive and the type of luxury "Democrats" cannot afford at this critical juncture in history.

Kinda defeats the purpose of DU. This isn't any sort of official voice of anything.

People have the right to say whatever they want, that doesn't make what they say any less wrong....

is that you forgive some people for their occasional excesses. And you recognize that you can agree with 90% of what someone is saying and still like them. If I were to condemn every person with strong opinions for having one or two of said opinions, I would have to stick to Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer for insightful commentary.....

between "occasional excesses" and the material in the comic strip, I can forgive Ted Kennedy for his "occasional excess", calling a recently deceased soldier an idiot for making the decision to give up a rich celebrity life to serve his country is beyond forgiveness...

It's his job to piss people off. If you're pissed at those that share this one of his views, that's good too. I disagreed with Rall's depictions of Tillman, I figured he put himself on the line and I admired that, he did an exceptionally honorable thing. I felt shitty that he died, and I really felt sorry for his brother, his brother gave voice to the bitterness and anger we all feel toward this administration and the blind support many in this country give to these lousy men in charge.

for the Army...and what does that say about this country that such an action should be so shocking? Making a trememdous sacrifice for something you believe in so strongly. We should all be so willing to sacrifice for our strongest beliefs...I think most of us are not so brave until truly pushed. I admired him for it, even if in a way I did believe it foolish (BTW, I served too, 1 YR Army NG, and 4 years active squid :)). I also distinctly remember having a great sense of foreboding about it. I am saddened to have that feeling come to fruition.

I do also want to point out though that while his tale has the public attention because of the career he gave up, he deserves no more attention than any other soldier that puts his/her ass on the line. All these families lose. All these soldiers had dreams and lives forever unfinished.

Olaf

... after Tillman's mother came out with his pro-Kerry stance, he suddenly became a 'hero' to those same DU'ers who called him a neanderthal, knuckle-dragger, testosterone junkie, he-man, etc etc ...

And of course was excoriated for mentioning that we too, are sometimes very quick to judge.

I can only speak for myself, but I never thought of him as anything but an apparently decent guy.

On the left, a very small minority think all military people are blood thirsty killers who enjoy war and are responsible for, and totally agree with, US foreign policy.

On the right, a significant number of people think the military is a tool of American empire. They wave the flag and cry "support the troops," but the truth is they consider soldiers expendable. I.e., "they volunteered - let 'em die!" These people enjoy watching war on tv because it makes them feel superior. It is probably the only source of pride in their miserable lives.

I have much more contempt for the latter group. They are brainwashed to support the war profiteering corporations. The former group desires peace. I am an Airborne Ranger and I desire peace. The latter group loves war, but does not want to personally fight in a war.

That pretty much sums up my feeling on the matter.

nt.

the Nation article (written by a socialist) plays up his admiration for Chomsky without mentioning his admiration for Kerry.

We don't attempt to put the same label on conservative and/or ie fascist, racist writers.

I have to say, I would be much more apt to trust a "socialist" writer these days than a "conservative" writer.

On a larger note, labels are designed to create assumptions and bias and I think that is counter productive.

who Tillman also admired.

he accentuated the parts of the story that were more conducive to his ideological beliefs, if the story was written in American Prospect (or by David Corn or someone more "moderate" at The Nation) it would be reasonable to believe that his support of Kerry would be as relevant as the fact that he read Chomsky books.

I don't know what his motivation was in joining up, except that it appears he bought into the concept of redemptive violence. This was manifested in the idea that the solution to the criminal act of September 11 was to wage a war against Afghanistan. The specious reasoning behind that decision was that because the Taliban and Al Qaeda are close relatives ideologically, then we should attack and invade Afghanistan.

It was a nutso response from beginning to end, and some people had the nerve to say so at the time, and I still say so.

The Taliban sheltered and supported Al Qaeda and we shouldn't have just turned the other cheek. The subsequent attempts at colonizing Afghanistan, as with pretty much any action undertaken by this Putrid Government, are criminal, but the action against the Taliban and Al Qaeda was justified.

What is the basis for your assertion that the Taliban "sheltered and supported" Al Qaeda? Was there material assistance? Was there simply a "you go, guys" from the Taliban to Al Qaeda? Did the Taliban actively help Al Qaeda plan and carry out the attacks of September 11?

And let's take just the teeniest, tiniest step back from there: Was Al Qaeda behind the September 11 attacks? The fact is, you don't know and neither do I. The administration promised a white paper detailing all the evidence against Al Qaeda in the weeks after September 11, but that has never been produced.

And is the only alternative to launching an all-out war turning the other cheek? September 11 was a criminal action; it should have been treated as a criminal matter, not as an act of war. That means identifying any surviving perpetrators, building a case against them based on evidence gathered, trying them, convicting them, and punishing them under the law.

The attack against Afghanistan was not made in defense of freedom, if that empty phrase is supposed to mean anything, and people who joined the military to assist in that invasion weren't defending freedom or engaging in anything even remotely noble. They were sold a bill of goods under the rubric of our true national religion of a belief in redemptive violence.

"Supported" may be too strong a word. But they certainly sheltered Al Qaeda. Bin Laden was a guest in his brother-in-law's home at one point shortly after the 9-11. Given that this same brother-in-law was the leader of the Taliban and ruler of Afghanistan at that time, the connection appears pretty strong to many of us.

Of course, I was one of those Liberal activist spreading petitions for several years before 2001 calling for western military intervention in Afghanistan. It was a popular cause among feminists BEFORE Baby Bush took it up. The Taliban was, in my opinion, the biggest monsters of that time.

There were some people on DU who assumed that Tillman was a rightwing nutjob and had no compassion for him or his family. Those were the people who think that everyone in the military is a rightwing nutjob. I'm glad that Tillman has exploded their narrow-minded view of people in military service. Still, our compassion for people should never be based on their religious or political or social or economic background. Every death in war is cause for sorrow.

100% agree

If by that, which I'm presuming you do include those " collateral" casualties caused by errant artillery,errant precision munitions and the like then yes. Those who voluntarily choose to participate get a more measured sympathy.

Who might "those" be? :dunce:

That many of the "we Leftists hate the soldiers" posts here appear to come from mystery posters?

... is a constant mischaracterization of what military service is in terms of (1) what is given as opposed to (2) what is promised or expected in return. Folks here (and elsewhere) repeatedly assign responsibilities (and credit) to military personnel that they just don't have.

When a person enters military service, they surrender their own personal liberties and subordinate their own choices to the will of others. Those 'others' are the military and political leadership - acting with the consent of We the People.

That's what they do; that's what they give.

Everything else is an expectation of something in return, both in how their service is used and how they are compensated.

may have been because of they way the Bush Administration was just using him and his story as a propaganda tool.

I know there were some rather disgusting posts here at the time of Tillman's death, but IIRC, the majority were respectful. No matter what Tillman's political leanings were, he turned down a big time football contract to do what he felt was right, and that's admirable. I said the same thing when I thought he was a Bush fan.

So I'd like to see some links to these articles. Anonymous posts on internet message boards carry no weight whatsoever, and certainly don't warrant an apology from people who never agreed with them to begin with.

...

On edit: I asked nobody to apologize nor did I single a specific person out, it was a general statement about SOME people on the lefts views toward the military, and specifically Tillman.

You cited "several articles".

Not to bust your chops here, but you make a rather broad condemnation. I just don't think mocking Pat Tillman was ever a part of acceptable dialogue on the left.

called "Pat Tillman" Dumb Jock, baby killer on indymedia, I can't find the link now for some reason, but its on there somewhere..

On edit: I never implied it was part of acceptable dialog, just that it was indicative of some on the left who have these views acceptable, or not.

Here it is (or at least- a quote from it, which is all I can find):


*edited out the link to Townhall.com*

You know, I don't think I can even cite that link. It looks like one of those cut-and-paste, out of context right-wing jobs. BUT- if the guy at townhall.com was making any sort of honest representation of the now-disappeared article from indymedia, then I would agree- that guy is a major fucking asshole. My apologies to you, sir.

You know what's weird- I can only find references to the article on right-wing sites like Townhall.com, Little Green Footballs, and World Net Daily. I suppose it's been pulled from Indymedia.

When people thought he was a gung-ho republican, he was criticised. Yet we routinely jab at "freepers" that are chickenhawks that do not fight for their beliefs. Well, which is it? If he had been a republican fighting for something he believed in, to an extent you have to respect the "putting your money where your mouth is", even if you disagree with the ideology behind it.

Olaf

i did`t understand why he did it and the bullshit from the nfl and the white house did`t help. then his death was hyped by the whitehouse and the nfl turning him into a martyr. because i fell for this crap of martyrdom i had negative feelings about him...then the truth came out. so i guess i`m guilty of dissing him because i let myself fall for the bush whitehouse bullshit to cover their asses by using a dead american soldier. yes, we as citizens, do bear equal responsibility

... had some idea of entering politics.

He entered the army and war with the idea of service, not necessarily in support of our policy. If you read about Kerry, you get the idea he did the same.

Perhaps Tillman thought that his ideas about peace and other "Chomsky-esque" ideals needed to be tested and deepened by actual experience. Maybe he wanted to be the Anti-Chickenhawk so that he could speak with personal knowledge about war.

If anybody on the left thought of him as a knuckledragger, those ideas have long since been replaced by admiration and a sense of real loss. Not simply because we discover that he aligned himself with us, but because more of his life and beliefs has come out since his death.

Never mind whether you and I are better off today than 5 years ago.... the real question is: How many more future leaders, like Tillman, can we lose to a war that never should have been?

Like most hyperbole, this contains a grain of truth but ignores the more substantive issue of serving in the military, other motivations of those serving, and the many ways the military is deployed. So, it is both a far more complex issue and one with a common thread that deserves attention.

I say this as one who, in high school, looked forward to a career as a U. S. Coast Guard officer, having been admitted to the U. S. Coast Guard Academy. When I was disabused of the notion of a career in the military, I left the Academy after nearly two years and pursued my college education elsewhere. In this part of my personal history I learned some lessons. In examining my motive for pursing a military service career, I see two elements: (1) the deep desire for a college education which I and my family believed we could not afford and, (2) a youthful naivete regarding the nature of national service in which I would subordinate my individual liberties to the will of our military and political leadership for the welfare of my countrymen -- for which, I expected, others would be grateful. (An expectation is a premeditated resentment!) These lessons were repeated after my college graduation when I was drafted into the Army and sent to Viet Nam.

It is imperative that we always comprehend the bargain of military service in terms of the transaction itself: What does the person give and what does the person expect in return? Virtually without exception, military service is the almost total surrender of one's individual liberties and subordination of one's personal choices to those of the military and political leadership, assumed to reflect the will of the people. There is almost no person in military service who does not recognize this, no matter how vaguely. "Ours is not to reason why; ours is but to do or die."

This cannot be overemphasized. It is the very soul of military service, without exception. It is not the mission - they have no choice in that. It has nothing to do with 'defending freedom' (except in the people's and leadership's choice of goals) and everything to do (from an individual perspective) with the surrender of freedoms. Whether or not our military 'defends freedom' is solely and exclusively the responsibility of The People! That responsibility cannot be abdicated in a democratic society.

Absolutely everything else is a matter of individual motivation, whether misguided or not, whether high-minded or not, whether fair or not. In matters of economics, including the prospect of higher education(!), the deliberate manipulation of our economy and the degree to which it does not achieve justice and equity amounts, in some part, to coercion of military service. We create the very context in which the 'bargain' of military service is struck - and profit from any injustice! After all, how 'fair' is any bargain or trade in which we'd not be willing to take either side??

We cannot, in any good conscience, shift the 'blame' to the military either for the bargains struck or for the goals pursued! Nor can we shift the credit. We don't have to. It is more than sufficient to appreciate and respect that which is given: the sacrifice of their individual freedoms and liberties.

My original statement was an oversimplification (it was not meant to be a main focus of the post). There is more that the military is used for then protect freedom,however as you comment in your post it is a decision made the (ostensibly) democratically elected government which ostensibly supports freedom, we certainly do at times fall short of those ideals, however relative to the rest of history we've made a honorable attempt and some real progress. I can appreciate your personal experiences in the military and joined for similar reasons myself, I also found myself serving in a war I did not believe should be fought. However while I (or you) may not agree with our means their is still a difference in end between us and our enemies that can rationalize the "fight for freedom", however senseless and unjust Vietnam may have been, it was a victory for freedom that we won the cold war. By the same token however senseless and unjust Iraq might have been (although for the record I see VAST differences between the two, and do at least least hope something decent can be salvaged there) the eventual crumble of ME despots would also be a victory for freedom, as you mention we make difficult bargains in the process, and many tragic mistakes along the way, Liberal Democracy is the best chance we have for freedom and that is what American soldiers defend, as you imply the mistakes made in its name are the responsibility of our populace and its democratically elected government, not the soldiers.

As I tried to make clear, whether or not that's true is not under the control of the soldiers themselves. For that, therefore, they can neither be credited or blamed.

I don't happen to believe it's true in the Middle East ... not at all. Not in the slightest. Indeed, I might take issue with the claim that there are "VAST differences between" Iraq and Viet Nam ... depending on what differences are claimed. Let's try hard to remember that we didn't invade Viet Nam. We didn't disband South Viet Nam's military. I would further suggest that the outright falsehoods concocted regarding Iraq dwarf the falsehoods regarding Viet Nam.


There is, however, what I call "the Don Quixote caveat." Let's remember that Don Quixote was a true hero, despite the fact that there was no actual threat. What made him a hero was the belief that there was a threat and that he was willing to defend others from that threat with his life.

Real life is not literary fiction. We know what the protagonist thinks and believes in fiction; we don't know that in real life.

The struggle for freedom takes place in the civilian world, as we strive to every day affirm and secure our freedoms in action. The best the military can do is give us the security from foreign threats to allow us to keep doing that. And in return for the willing sacrifice of personal freedom that the military makes, part of what we must always do with our freedom is to make sure that our men and women in uniform are not used for personal gain or political calculus.

I agree, of course. I regard both the glorification of war and the warrior to be as disgusting as 'We the People' blaming the troops for our failures.

"Let George Do It" is no way to run a democracy.

It appears most DUers were quite respectful of Pat Tillman and his decision. Even when portland.indymedia.org ran that asinine article calling him a "dumb jock" and "good riddance - he deserved it" that article was criticized by 9 out of 10 DUers.

I guess I'm failing to see what you're referring to.

Nowhere does the original poster say all or even most on the Left behaved in this manner.


"I have to say however while looking into this on the net I came across several extremely disgusting articles from the Left at the time of Tillman's death (I myself was serving at the time and was not in the position to follow the story closely). Hopefully this will be a wake up call to the people out there on the Left who cannot seem to separate the soldiers who risk their life everyday for our freedom, from their Commander In Chief who we ALL bear equal responsibility for as Americans."


"Several" neither means nor implies all or most.

And "who ..." limits the subject of that last sentence to a subset of the Left.

Actually, that news came out days afterwards. But if you were serving at the time it is not surprising you missed it. I am sure you are well aware of how much the Pentagon tries to limit (censor) information provided to men in the field. Not dissing the Pentagon for this. It would hardly have been good for their moral to listen to Rush Limbaugh talking about what a great guy the communist leader Milosevich was and how inept our military was while fighting in Kosovo for instance. Limbaugh had to limit these anti-military, pro-Milosevich rants to the latter two hours of his program since the first hour was broadcast on Armed Forces Radio.


But you are correct in that there ARE many people who believe military personnel are nothing but a bunch of baby killers. As to their being Right or Left ... that is a little like environmentalists or animal rights activists. I know a number of animal rights activists who are rabid rightwingers on all issues not pertaining to animal rights. They DO vote Democrat, however, because they are single issue voters.

In the same way those people who view the military as nothing more than a baby-killing machine are typically single issue pacifists. They hated Clinton for Kosovo every bit as much as they hate Idiot for Iraq. They may be Right, Left, Liberal or Conservative. They tend to vote for Democrats more than Republicans because Republicans beat the drumbeat of war so often even though Democratic presidents have a more extensive record of actually engaging this country in wars (not to mention the fact that isolationism is Conservative; internationalism, Liberal). They are also associated with the Left because Conservatives tend to believe it is our duty to shutup once the firing starts while Liberals tend to champion the cause of those who continue arguing even if the war was one that Liberals wanted and Conservatives did not.

Doesn't always work that way, as in the Kosovo example mentioned above. But the Gingrich Revolution was all about putting party before policy, and Limbaugh was the lead spokesman for that movement.

and both respect and admire what he tried to do. We hate the people, bushies, that created the environment that led to his death.

He was against the war and the asshat in the White House.

Read the story here.

With a few exceptions, we on the Left support the troops better than the Rah Rah USA! folks.

We would prefer our soldiers not die for a lie.

an anti Ted Rall thread:)

I was constantly bothered by it. Now, I just either don't read those threads or try to remind myself that the person is just narrow-minded and self-righteous and to ignore it. Nothing will change their mind.

Killing people in Iraq, has protected us from losing our "freedom" to:

Just asking.

know confidential information on how many Tillman an SF soldier killed in Iraq.

Just asking.


As for what freedom a soldier protects, I addressed this in post #51

Soldiers are killers. That's why they carry guns, drop bombs, and otherwise murder people.

Soldiers don't "defend" freedom. We didn't "win" the cold war, the Soviet Union collapsed. In the process of "defending freedom" during the cold war we murdered millions of people. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Angola, Congo, Honduras, Mozambique, Iran, Guatamala, and many more.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

BTW USMC 1961 - 1965 No, I didn't kill anyone. But, I probably would have if ordered to. Much to my shame.

Pacificism is an excellent philosophy, but I doubt that Emiliano Zapata was an adherent.

Gandhi shared the same sentiment, as did another anarchist, Tolstoy. Both also believed in non-violence as the best and most honest method of achieving it.

What I find troubling is the glorification of war and the military.

Unless things have changed immensely since I put in my time, the average GI knows very little about such philosophican notions as "freedom", "democracy", "liberation" and the like.

I joined the marines as a 17 year old HS graduate because I bought the crap about "The Marine Corps Builds Men". And, I was facing the draft anyway. What I discovered was a whole bunch of immature adolescents just like myself commanded by a bunch of aging, insecure, adolescents.

One fine fall morining in 1964, I was waiting for the targets to be pulled up so I could go through the semi-annual rifle qualification. Vietnam was just starting to become more than a skirmish and we were being prepared for it. I'll wager that among those hundred or so guys laying there, I was one of very few who knew where Vietnam was, and even fewer that knew anything about it's history or what was going on there.
For some reason, perhaps because it was such a lovely morning, the thought came into my mind that in a few minutes I was going to be popping away at man-shaped targets in preparation to kill people that I didn't know, had nothing against, and had no desire to harm. Why? Because Lyndon Baines Johnson wanted to prove his "anti-communism".

8 months later, they asked me to extend my enlistment to go to Vietnam and "defend freedem" or something very like that rationale for killing. 2 months after that I was out of the marines and at my first anti-war demonstration.

I am NOT anti-soldier. They are expendable tools wielded by politicians and generals. I am very much against war and the glorification and rationalization of killing.

Calling soldiers "heroes", proclaiming their "martyrdom" on the alter of "freedom" etc, because they were killed, only makes it possible for the politicians to send another batch off to kill and die.

It is the most hellish (in the Gehenna sense) activity any person can engage in. The only way I can ethically 'honor' another combat veteran is by joining him in a somewhat mutual grief over the mortgage we took out on our souls. (It's probably a 'good thing' we don't fully realize it when we do it.) It's that dirty job someone must do. That's the injury. When the People fail to keep the Trust vested in them in a democratic society, it is to be lamented that such sacrifices were besmirched. That's the insult. When the insult is compounded by those who'd then heap blame upon them for those misplaced responsibilities not rightfully shouldered by the People, the insult is compounded -- and we all lose our honor.


Please excuse this morbidity of spirit as I dwell on the subject. It's close to that time of year, again. :shrug: