-
Wincing at Cumberbatch
May 21, 2013 | 238 comments
-
Pain & Gain
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
As She Likes It
April 30, 2013 | 13 comments
-
42
April 23, 2013 | 19 comments
-
56 Up
April 17, 2013 | 7 comments
Movie Takes
The Tillman Story
Settling for cheap anti-war propaganda in the name of opposing pro-war propaganda.
Ari Karpel, writing in the New York Times asks, “When information about a war comes from a government eager to promote and justify it, how can we know which parts to believe and which to reject as propaganda?” It’s a good question, even if it does make the questionable and, as we shall see, self-contradictory assumption that all propaganda is to be rejected merely as such. Here’s another. When information about a war comes from an anti-war filmmaker eager to denigrate and discredit it and as many as possible of those who are in charge of fighting it, how then can we know which parts to believe and which to reject as propaganda? Somehow, that question never occurs to Mr. Karpel, or to Amir Bar-Lev, the director of the anti-war documentary, The Tillman Story, he is boosting. Both would have done well to have thought just a bit about it before they launched into their own careers as propagandists.
There is a superficial similarity between the unattractiveness of the two kinds of propaganda in this case — I mean apart from the fact that they are both propaganda which to some is unattractive enough in itself. The politics of America’s “creative” classes, especially the Hollywood local of the beautiful people’s union, bears approximately the same relation to reality as the Army’s concocted story about the heroic death in Afghanistan six years ago of Cpl. Pat Tillman, the Arizona Cardinals’ defensive back who gave up a multi-million dollar contract to join the Army Rangers. Now the two fantasies have a fantastical clash in Mr. Bar-Lev’s movie in which, as you will not be surprised to learn, the political fantasy comes out on top, leaving our nation’s armed services, like the Bush administration which is the movie’s real target, in a state of pitiable disgrace. Fortunately, this, too, is a merely fantastical product of the Hollywood dream factory.
As earnest of their bona fides, the filmmakers have taken the Tillman family with them into automatic conspiracy mode — an assumption of deceit and coverup that goes well beyond the evidence supplied by the original deception, which claimed that Cpl. Tillman had been killed by enemy fire while heroically rescuing some of his fellow Rangers caught in an ambush. But neither the nobility of Pat Tillman’s sacrifice nor the family’s bereavement nor the fact that they were lied to about it should put them beyond criticism. The vitriol of their angry exchanges with the Pentagon, in which they appear to have been egged on by the filmmakers and other anti-warriors, and their assumption, shared by the filmmakers, of the corruption of America’s political and military establishment may be gratifying to the kind of people who make up the majority of movie-goers these days but it will strike those outside that community of opinion as being almost as graceless as the drunken eulogy at a memorial for Pat of his younger brother Richard who, with glass of beer in hand, informed those gathered to pay their respects: “He’s not ‘with God,’ he’s f***ing dead!”
The justification for such boorish behavior is that Pat “wasn’t religious,” a fact which, to Richard and others, means “he’s not what these people” — that is, patriotic Americans who want to honor American heroes — “wished he was.” Fair enough, perhaps, but how is that a justification for insulting and repudiating those who seek to honor someone whose deeds, truly, speak more loudly than his words? To believe either in nobility and sacrifice or in God and the afterlife where the truth is murky — as it so often is on the battlefield and in religious faith as elsewhere in life — is not discreditable and certainly not the same thing as “lying.” It is, rather, an act of faith and generosity. And with all due allowance for the fact that the family were lied to in the initial story of Tillman’s heroic death, could not the same charitable construction be put upon the Pentagon’s mistaken fabrication? At any rate, it doesn’t follow that there was, as the filmmakers would wish us to believe, a vast conspiracy encompassing the whole of the military and civilian hierarchy in the Bush administration, or that they were all “lying” in order to justify the war in Afghanistan.
The assumption that they were comes, we gather, from the fact that the other Tillmans now and Pat retrospectively (in their eyes) were skeptical as to the war’s legality or necessity or both. Their political motive is also evident to me in the remarkable fact of the film’s utter incuriosity both about who actually killed Cpl. Tillman and why and who concocted the lie about his heroic death, facing the enemy, and why. Having such a mundane solution to the mystery would deprive them of their conspiratorial assumptions, I suppose. The answers to both questions should have been readily discoverable by any of the various internal Army investigations that followed the exposure of the deception, but neither Mr. Bar-Lev nor the Tillmans appear to have any interest in finding out the answers to them. Like certain prosecutors we could mention, they care nothing about the original crime, if it was a crime, or the truth of what happened that day in April 2004, but only about the bureaucratic cover-up which may be supposed by the conspiracy-minded to involve politically more important targets than the trigger-happy grunts who presumably did the deed or their immediate superiors who must have taken it upon themselves to tell a more publicly acceptable story about it — if only out of consideration for the family’s feelings.
Mr. Bar-Lev’s camera rejoices in the appearance en masse of the forces’ top brass, together with former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, before Henry Waxman’s congressional committee in 2007 to deny that they knew anything about the matter, and the possibility that they actually didn’t know anything about it, or remember when they first learned about it, which common sense might timorously put forward, is not even considered. The mere appearance of evasiveness on their part is enough, it seems, to confirm Mr. Bar-Lev in what I’m afraid comes across as his a priori assumption that the cover-up went, as they say, “all the way to the top.” That, in turn, would confirm him (and the family) in their now-stated view that Cpl. Tillman was being used as a “propaganda tool” or “a publicity pawn for the war,” as Mr. Karpel puts it. Yet what else is he here but a propaganda tool to Mr. Bar-Lev and his anti-war, anti-Bush champions and a publicity pawn for them to sell their movie? Though they obviously have an interest portraying him as eager to be the latter kind of tool or pawn as he was unwilling to be the former kind, it is by no means clear from the movie that he would have been so.
“Lies” are of course of many kinds, and the kind that were told to the family of Corporal Tillman by the Army, regrettable though they may be, seem to me to be far more benign and forgivable than the ones now being told — or, more often, insinuated — by the propagandists against America’s wars on terrorism. Throughout his piece, Mr. Karpel suggests that propaganda is ipso facto wrong and dishonest, irrespective of the war it serves. It may be so, but you’d think he would at least give a nod to the question of whether or not it is possible to fight a war without it. If, as I suspect, it is not, then it leads me to believe that the anti-war propagandists are, in fact, pacifists who oppose propaganda for the same reason that they oppose war: not because of any considered assessment of the justice or necessity of any particular conflict but because their aim is simply to make war, any war, impossible. Theirs is the attitude of those who sport the bumper-sticker, “I’m already against the next war.”
Of course what they will prevent, if they are successful, is not war but the defense of America, which has a long, rich and, some would say, suicidal tradition of indulgence towards those of its own citizens who oppose its self-defense. Such people, insofar as they have any influence in the world, can only prevent us from fighting back, not our enemies from attacking us. They are still in thrall to the old hippie pseudo-profundity, “What if they gave a war and nobody came?” But we know very well what would happen if “they” gave a war and “nobody” came. “They” would win and the clever nobodies who think they can avoid it by not showing up would lose. Losing a war obviously holds no terrors for them, but we might want to ask somebody who has lost one — a South Vietnamese, a Cambodian, an Iraqi Shi’ite after the first Gulf War, for example — how they feel about it before the rest of us accept such defeatism and insouciance as our national defense policy.
About the Author
James Bowman, our movie and culture critic, is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of Honor: A History and Media Madness: The Corruption of Our Political Culture, both published by Encounter Books.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (37) | Leave a comment
More Articles by James Bowman
More Articles From Movie Takes
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/30/the-tillman-story
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Consternated Conferences
- The (Real) Great Divide
- Hannah and Her Friends
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 7:23AM
War, said Clausewitz, rest upon a tripod whose legs are the state, the army and the people. When one of those legs fails, the war fails. Hence, maintenance of morale, among the military, the political leadership and the population, has always been a major component of warfighting.
During the Second World War, the United States and its allies--just like our enemies in the Axis--put forth a continuing barrage of propaganda intended to bolster their respective war efforts.
Now, propaganda is regarded as a bad word, but there are many kinds of propaganda, typically characterized as "white", "gray" or "black". White propaganda is essentially speaking the truth, or at least part of it, from a partisan perspective. You don't lie, but you don't necessarily reveal bad news, and you do so under official auspices. Gray propaganda mixes truth and deception, and often does so under false pretenses; i.e., a so-called "independent" new organization that is secretly in one's pay. Finally, black propaganda is what most people assume when they hear the word--bold-faced lies told through official outlets, like Joseph Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda.
In World War II, the U.S. and its allies engaged mainly in white and gray propaganda, but inadvertently slouched into black propaganda from time to time.
The "Why We Fight" films of Frank Capra would be good examples of U.S. white propaganda: they were produced under the auspices of the U.S. government, and they told the truth as we knew it at the time, albeit in a rather one-sided and simplistic manner. It served the purpose of creating a consensus about the war during its early phases, when residual isolationism was a potential issue.
In regards to gray propaganda, the U.S. made full use of the neutral press, sometimes planting misleading stories, sometimes partial truths.
Black propaganda fell into two categories: deliberate disinformation campaigns directed at the enemy (Churchill's "bodyguard of lies") and deliberately or unintentionally false stories aimed at civilian morale.
Usually the former consisted of undercounting U.S. losses and misdirection regarding future military objectives. The latter most often consisted of overestimating enemy losses, and gilding the lilly with regard to the exploits of American heros.
The earliest WW II example of this might have been Captain Colin Kelly, a B-17 pilot in the Philippines who (with his crew) made a solo attack on the Japanese invasion fleet in Lingayen Gulf. Achieving surprise, he dropped his bombs on a light cruiser (but missed) and was running for home when he was attacked by Japanese Zero fighters led by the ace Sakai Saburu, who inflicted serious damage on the plane, but could not shoot it down. Over his home base, Kelly ordered his crew to bail out, while he and his co-pilot attempted to land the badly damaged plane. They crashed, and both men were killed. Kelly was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions.
But this was not the story reported in the press. According to the popular account--which the military did nothing to rebut--Kelly attacked the Japanese battleship Haruna, and when his bombs missed, he ordered his crew to bail out of the damaged plane, then crashed it into the Japanese battlewagon, sinking it (the first of many times the Haruna was sunk by our guys)--for which he was supposedly awarded the Medal of Honor. Kelly was a genuine hero, but we needed larger than life heros at that time, and Kelly was posthumously recruited for the purpose.
I can't imagine the press doing that today, because then the Press was firmly on our side, without any pretensions to a disengaged objectivity. When it wrote stories back then, it was always, "Our troops are advancing", or "Our troops captured. . .", and not "U.S. forces allegedly moved in the general direction of. . ." or "U.S. forces supposedly captured. . . "
If the press had behaved in World War II as it has behaved since 9/11, I seriously doubt we would have made it past 1942.
John II | 8.30.10 @ 1:08PM
"If the press had behaved in World War II as it has behaved since 9/11, I seriously doubt we would have made it past 1942."
Good response. Except you can backtrack the reference to treasonous press behavior: it started with the so-called Tet offensive in early 1968. The offensive was a military disaster for the Communists but a colossal propaganda victory, thanks almost exclusively to the service rendered to the enemy by the American press.
A few years after America abandoned Vietnam in 1975, North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, one of the principal strategists of Tet and several other key offensives, allowed that the Communists could never have won without the help of the American press and the constant "anti-war" turmoil in American streets.
I put "anti-war" in quotation marks not because I'm quoting Giap but because the turmoil ended in 1973, when the military draft ended, two years before America's abandonment of Vietnam.
We're still living with the consequences.
Dai Alanye | 8.30.10 @ 3:04PM
Earlier yet. At the opening of the Korean War, when U S forces were pedaling backward, a columnist bitterly attributed the retreat to our superior attitude toward Asians, such as referring to them as Gooks.
Then came Inchon.
Bill| 8.30.10 @ 5:12PM
There are a number of good reasons to put the anti-war activities of the American left and its fellow-travelers in quotes.
1. They weren't anti-war; they were anti-being put in harm's way. I personally think that's acceptable (which is one reason for having a draft, at least when the chips are really down), but don't clothe self-interest in the garb of virtuous pacifism (assuming such a thing exists);
2. Once the draft was eliminated in 1973, anti-war activities in the United States essentially ended; the Vietnam War went on for another two years, but not with the American anti-warriors' involvement;
3. Most of the American anti-war movement had no problem with rearranging American society with a violent revolution;
4. Few American anti-warriors declared themselves as conscientious objectors (as witness Bill Clinton's famous remark that doing so would hurt his political future), but instead became draft-dodgers. Fewer still went to prison for their claimed beliefs.
There are lots of other reasons that could be articulated. The greasy, low hypocrisy of the anti-Vietnam War faction in those days will never be fully explained by anyone who truly understands the depths to which it went, to those in later generations who have come after, and who have fallen for the propaganda of the heroic anti-warriors of the Vietnam Era.
JP| 8.30.10 @ 8:04AM
The death of Pat Tilman was used by the DOD in the same way the stories of Audie Murphy and Sergeant York were used (and countless other servicemen). Propoganda is and still remains a component of any war. But, our effette, self absorbed elites believe that we are too sophisticated for such primative means of motivation.
Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 8:58AM
The stories of Murphy and York were fundamentally true--in fact, the "official line" on them was, if anything, less interesting than the truth, just not as straightforward. A simple, direct narrative is what the PA officers like--they think civilians are stupid. They may have a point.
The Tillman story is more akin to something like Colin Kelly, as I related above, or even more so to the story of Butch O'Hare, one of the early WW II heros, who saved the USS Lexington by single-handedly repulsing an attack by no fewer than nine Japanese Betty bombers--of which he was credited with shooting down six. In reality, he bagged four, which in any case still justified the Medal of Honor they gave him, not to mention the airport in Chicago.
After that exploit, the War Department sidelined O'Hare to make the war bond circuit and deliver speeches at defense plants--which he hated. He soon got back in the war as commander of an experimental night carrier air group. He disappeared on a night mission in 1943, which at the time was attributed either to enemy action or a mechanical malfunction. A close examination of all the evidence today indicates he was probably shot down by friendly fire--a TBF Avenger on night patrol reported shooting down a Zero at the time and place that O'Hare vanished, but Japanese records show no planes in the air.
But what kind of story would that be?
Similar exaggerated tales surrounded "Manilla John" Basilone and Ira Hayes.
Robert L. Scott's classic book "God is My Co-Pilot was largely ghost-written from a series of recordings Scott made in between war bond engagements, which the publisher and the War Department padded out with all sorts of Malarky (for which Scott was ribbed by fellow China hands).
In short, the Tillman story was not a story, just business as usual. The real story was the press' reaction to the Tillman story, which showed both their ignorance of military history, and a fundamental shift in their own attitude, from one of stalwart but critical supporter to outright critic and adversary.
At some point, the press will have to decide on whose side they want to be.
MAJ Mike| 8.30.10 @ 6:07PM
It's not that our elites believe that we are too sophisticated for such primitive means of motivation, it's that they believe that they, themselves, are too sophisticated, both for the means of motivation and the belief in what the motivation is for. Even if Pat Tillman had died as the DOD had originally said he had, our elites would have cheerfully trashed his sacrifice.
Mark S| 10.18.10 @ 3:34PM
I wonder there JP. Was his family too "effete" to be told the truth. Please let me know when you enlist Mr. Armchair Warrior.
You are an absolutely disgraceful, cowardly human being
Stammon| 8.30.10 @ 12:07PM
Every son's mother deserves to believe that her baby's life was not wasted. That is the basic story of Pat Tillman.
Evanston2| 8.30.10 @ 3:08PM
What if Pat Tillman had been one of those pulling the trigger, accidentally, on a fellow soldier? What would the Tillman family be saying then? Perhaps they'd understand why friendly fire incidents are bad enough for the participants without already...if there's a "cover up" it's to protect the dignity of fellow soldiers who certainly did not mean to kill their own. For the Tillmans to join the anti-war bunch is roughly equivalent to me saying that they're upset because when they lost Pat they lost their meal ticket. Pat's life wasn't wasted, but his death has been a waste.
Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 4:07PM
Friendly fire incidents are part of every war. Typically, they have run as high as 10% of the total. In World War II, in one day, more than 300 U.S. troops were killed when friendly bombs fell short of German positions at St. Lo--including LTG Leslie McNair, head of U.S. Army Ground Forces, and the highest-ranking U.S. general killed in action in World War II. I believe the press sat on that one.
Friendly fire incidents get more play these days because we have become so tactically proficient that the enemy doesn't really manage to kill very many of our troops, making us the most lethal thing on the battlefield, hence the greatest risk to ourselves, as well as the enemy. Since what can be seen can be hit, and what can be hit can be destroyed, errors of identification made in a split second, under tremendous pressure, can result in the death of a fellow soldier, sailor, Marine or airman.
Kevin| 10.1.10 @ 1:42PM
"they lost their meal ticket."
You're an idiot.
Mark S| 10.18.10 @ 3:49PM
"What if Pat Tillman had been one of those pulling the trigger, accidentally, on a fellow soldier"
I think it has been shown that he would have owned up to it and asked forgiveness, not play CYA and worry more about his career. Because if that were the case he would still be alive and playing for the Cardinals.
Tool.
Paul D| 8.30.10 @ 4:14PM
Americans always reject these types of movies at the box office. These movies are always flops.
But what we fail to appreciate is these movies find an audience overseas that is sometimes quite large. As a result, foreign audiences can feed on a cornucopeia of anti-American propaganda. Since many of them don't have a basic historical understanding of what America is, they don't have the B.S. filters that Americans have developed in order to avoid these types of movies. So is it any wonder that so many foreigners have developed a contempt for the United States? Propaganda works.
Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 5:24PM
"As a result, foreign audiences can feed on a cornucopeia of anti-American propaganda. "
And they say America isn't doing enough to solve the problem of world hunger!
Michele San Pietro| 8.30.10 @ 5:44PM
There is nothing new about such petty anti-war propaganda. On the other hand, nobody is for war: you fight a war only when forced to do so. For example, when monsters like the Taleban or Saddam Hussein represent a threat to freedom and democracy.
Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 7:06PM
"On the other hand, nobody is for war: you fight a war only when forced to do so. "
I would disagree. Our enemies cheerfully resort to war whenever they think they can get away with it. And whenever we let them get away with it, it only encourages them to try again.
Mark S| 10.18.10 @ 3:46PM
And I suppose Michele that if they are killed, then to lie about their death to drum up public support is perfectly acceptable.
Are you really naive enough to believe Iraq was ever in a real position to mortally harm the US?
Absolutely gullible you are!
MAJ Mike| 8.30.10 @ 6:13PM
The media's constant regurgitation of Pat Tillman's death, Abu Ghraib and every other negative story that they could latch onto is one side of a viciously partisan attack on those who have sought to fight and win the war against the Islamic jihadis who seek to destroy the United States, but it is only one side of the coin. Their agenda also demands silence in the face of heroism, valor or simple decency, which go unreported and ignored. For example, ask yourself how many negative stories you can recall about Iraq and Afghanistan. When you have made the list in your mind, take a breath and start over, but this time, ask yourself this: Of the six Medal of Honor recipients since the invasion of Afghanistan, how many can you name?
The media's narrative demands that we be seen as victims, dupes or monsters. It doesn't have room for men and women of honor who rationally choose to serve our country.
Mark S| 10.18.10 @ 3:39PM
Did Tillman rationally choose to be a propaganda tool?
Highly doubtful. This type of response is typical from deferment accepting, draft dodging cowards who now think of themselves as enlightened war theorists.
You are the same coward you were thirty years ago. And yoiur opinion is no more relevant now than it was then.
Guy Montag| 8.30.10 @ 10:46PM
I find the critcism that the "press has to decide what side they are on" to be uninformed. The press is on the government's side. The press has not been pushing the Tillman story, they've largely ignored it. Except when they've actively been a part of the whitewash of those involved in the cover-up such as Gen. McChrystal(eg. New York Time Pentagon Reporter Thom Shanker who "exonerated" McChrystal of all wrongdoing or CNAS's Andrew Exum).
Further, "The Tillman Story" missed the ”untold story” that both the Democratic Congress and the Obama Presidency have intentionally protected General Stanley McChrystal from scrutiny and punishment for his central role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death. This cover-up was a thoroughly bi-partisan affair. It wasn’t just a case of the Bush administration and the Army stonewalling the Democratic Congress. Congress didn’t just “fumble” the ball, they threw the game.
Five years ago, Pat Tillman’s family were handed a tarnished Silver Star. It was a travesty of justice that President Obama and the Senate promoted General McChrystal to the Army’s highest rank, and handed him his fourth star.
It’s not surprising that after their initial cover-up of Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death fell apart, Army officers and the Bush administration lied to protect their careers. But after they took control of both Houses of Congress in 2006, the Democrats (including Congressman Waxman, Senator Levin, Senator Webb, and Senator McCain) could have gone after those responsible. Or at least not promoted them twice!
Just before the 2006 mid-term elections, Kevin Tillman published his eloquent letter, “After Pat’s Birthday”. Kevin had hoped a Democratic Congress would bring accountability back to our country. But, just as with warrantless wiretapping and torture, those responsible for the cover-up of his brother’s friendly-fire death have never been held accountable for their actions.
Last week I posted “The [Untold] Tillman Story” – President Obama and the Bi-Partisan Congressional Whitewash of General Stanley McChrystal’s Cover-up of Pat Tillman’s Friendly-Fire Death, at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com and scribd.com
Stuart Koehl| 8.31.10 @ 6:44AM
What's wrong with a coverup, I wonder? Should we have fired all of the generals in World War II who covered up mistakes, who misrepresented the facts, who fabricated heros out of whole cloth/
After all, when the VIII Air Force dropped its bomb load on American troops at St.Lo, killing more than 300 in one instant, including a lieutenant general, nobody got fired. And nobody told the truth, either.
When the entire Pacific Air Force got caught on the ground the day AFTER Pearl Harbor, not only was it not reported in the papers, Douglas MacArthur got a promotion.
When Admiral Ernest J. King refused to implement the convoy system along the eastern seaboard of the United States in January 1942, allowing German U-boats to sink three or four ships a night within sight of the beaches of Atlantic City, not only did the press not report the sinkings, but King remained as Chief of Naval Operations and got a fifth star at the end of the war.
In other words, in war, you have to have your eye on the mission, a sense of proportion. And in the great scheme of things, how Pat Tillman died, while a tragedy on a personal level, is really small beer indeed.
So, to you, to all the critics of the Bush Administration and the military, including irate members of the Tillman family--Get Over It. It is not about you. It was never about you. Grow the F--k UP!
Mark S| 10.18.10 @ 3:52PM
Hey Stuart, Ki$$ my A$$ and man up, put on a uniform and go serve since you feel the govt's behavior is so honorable. You have to move out of your mom's basement sometime.
Brian| 9.10.10 @ 6:42PM
If you think that Pat Tillman's death was not an act of fraticide, then you are ingoring ALL of the facts of his case. I trust the family of Pat Tillman way more than the Pentagon when it comes to their own son. The Army did itself no favors in terms of their credibility from the onset of Pat's reported death.
Mr. Khoel, I suggest you go crawl back into the hole from you which you ascended. Your entire argument is based on the false logic of "the ends justifying the means". The ends do not justify the means when it comes to a soldier who has given the most sacred thing a soldier can give during war time: his life. And, please, can we not equate the life of an American soldier with "beer"! Your sentiment suggests you are the kind of person who has neither served in the military, and could care less about the peons who provide you the opportunity to vent your twisted, unsypathetic views under the guise of Freedom of Speech. I hope that you never have to suffer the loss of a child and have to read some pathetic a-hole saying that the life of your child means nothing in the grand scheme of things. We owe our veterans, and their loved ones, the truth about how they were killed, and by whom, and for what reason.
Name calling and wrapping yourself in the flag do nothing but make you feel better about your own twisted logic. If I may quote a true patriot, "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".
Jack E. Jett | 9.12.10 @ 11:04PM
I wanted to check this blog to see how the right was going to try and spin it. As I expected, all Spectator and verly little American. Bowman, if you had a soul, it would be pathetic.
Patriot| 10.2.10 @ 1:25PM
Attack the integrity and the motives of the filmmaker and the Tillmans, of course ---the tried and true model of the fearful right. Indeed, how dare the Tillmans' question authority? The answer is that they dare to question authority because they have integrity; a quality and power with which the fearful right is unfamiliar. Those in the fearful right know (or they have been convinced) that as individuals they have no integrity or power and therefore they must obtain it vicariously from their spiritual gurus and leaders-Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and their media jesters , O'Reilly, Beck and Limbaugh.
Mike Hamilton| 9.15.10 @ 5:53PM
"Your sentiment suggests you are the kind of person who has neither served in the military, and could care less about the peons who provide "
Brian, are you suggesting that you served ? And you are calling soldiers peons? I understand the pain that the Tilman family suffers and do not criticize them for their attacks on those they feel are responsible (for what?) but people who use them for their own political agenda are despicable, this includes you Brian. BTW How in the hell do you come up with the notion that there is a reason a soldier dies in war? War is insane chaos and you get killed by chance not for a reason.Try not to be so naive.
Mark S| 10.18.10 @ 3:43PM
And Mike plewase try to stop being so arrogant and self important. Cowards like you klnow nothing about putting on a uniform and putting yourt life on the line. I served and find the govt's behavior disgraceful and only provides reason for me to tell others that may consider the military to think again and point to comments such as yours as justification.
Mike Giles| 12.9.10 @ 1:21PM
"I served and find the govt's behavior disgraceful.."
Lying bullshit. Anyone who served in combat would have immediately understood Tillman's superiors acts. It's the same reason that personal effects are checked for embarrassing materials before they are returned to his/her families. It's why officers write that PFC Jones was a "good soldier who will be missed by his comrades" knowing full well he was a shithead, and everyone is glad he's dead instead of them. I noted someone above complaining that a poster referred to servicemen as "peons" - which is how we referred to ourselves. That, along with other opinions here, pretty much tell me that those who defend this film are not military - unless they're REMF's - they simply agree with the "films" anti-war premise and want add veracity to their preconceptions.
David Esrati | 4.24.11 @ 3:47PM
Odd- I just watched this movie, and didn't come away thinking anything close to what Mr. Bowman constructs here- as some sort of anti-war/conspiracy film. It was a story of an honest family, with an honest son, looking for honest answers.
The film showed Pat Tillman as a guy who put honor and country in front of the dollar sign that most Americans put first. I was inspired by his actions and those of his family to make sure his story wasn't turned into a defense department comic book.
What was wrong was the actions of those at the very top of the command chain- who knowingly tried to deceive the American public. War is never like a John Wayne movie- unless you are more interested in being a movie star than a solider.
Unfortunately- Retired Generals now get million dollar book deals, directorships in corporations and taken care of for life because they keep the war machine humming.
Please watch the movie before commenting.
Frankie Robirds| 5.18.11 @ 12:14AM
You do not have the right to espouse what you have in making an argument about the Tillman Story being propaganda. It is TRUTH! Have you lost a family member in war? Have you been lied to by the government? Have you ever been in a firefight? Did you serve in the military? Did you see real life "fight for your life" combat? Walk in those shoes before you shoot your mouth off.
Tom Calarco| 8.6.11 @ 11:40PM
What a bunch of crap. The film didn't even reveal the most damning piece of information: that the autopsy revealed that Tillman was killed by three bullets to the head fired by close range.
Propaganda my a-hole ... the propaganda is being spun by the govt and the Pentagon.