I'm not as impressed with the article...mainly because of the Tillman story.

First of all, I will say that the LOD report is generally overlooked by everyone in the Tillman case. Friendly fire LOD reports are especially important and I would hope that the Army took their time making sure that they had all of the right information. If there was any substantial delay (above and beyond normal filing procedures) inbetween the completion of the report and the notification of the family, then there is something kind of fishy. I doubt this is the case.

This is still a story because it is Pat Tillman. I mean come on, the guy is on the Yahoo list for the 100 greatest Americans. He is an American icon. Why is he an American icon? Becuase of his service and sacrifice. His parents comments are germane to his story. They are news.

No one is really saying that Tillman is somehow less heroic. Who is saying this? Who is implying this? Nobody! The implication with the father's comments is that the friendly fire death was covered up for maximum political benefit. Like I said before, I don't believe this is the case, but it is a hell of a lot different than saying that a friendly fire death is less important than one caused by enemy fire. If you follow the implication of the father's comments (and if they are true), the only people who would think that a friendly fire death is somehow less worthy would be the folks who tried to misinform/cover up.

This isn't a bias, it is a genuine lack of understanding. Every military detail can't be placed in an article. For instance, Mr. Yost leaves out some very important information...is he anti-military? Example:

Pat Tillman received the Purple Heart. While he was killed by friendly fire, his unit was still engaged with the enemy; therefore, he was still able to receive the award. Anyone who is familiar with the Purple Heart knows this detail of the award. Here is the provision:

(b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.

Pat Tillman was fighting Al Qaeda. Everyone knows and respects this. He was engaged with the enemy. Does Yost not get the miltitary because he overlooks this detail? This award is proof that everyone thinks he died in combat with the enemy. Does Yost not get our troops because he doesn't cite this provision?

The coverage of Tillman could be better. We could know a bit more about the timeline of the LOD report, the Purple Heart, the lapses in communication that caused his death (which, if you are pro-military, should be of great concern; we don't want something like this to happen again), and so on and so forth.

No one is saying or even implying that Tillman is somehow "less heroic" because of friendly fire. That is simply absurd.

As for the other example...well, this one will sound crass but unfortunately its true:

Randy Shugart never played in the NFL and Tom Cruise didn't speak at his memorial. Maybe that's why we didn't hear about it.

This unfortunate prioritization is not the media's fault. We all tune in for the sexy story. Buyer beware.

If you really want to read something that is anti-military, read this post from Powerline:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010542.php

I'm a liberal vet. How many military men and women voted for Kerry; I knew several liberal military folks....what the hell does Mr. John mean by "when did the left suddenly start caring?" Who the hell is he?

THIS...is anti-military. It aint about politics.

Re: cleversponge at May 24, 2005 09:47 PM

Obviously it's a generalization. However, active-duty members of the military have a consistent two to one preference for Republicans in all the polls I've seen. The American military seems to think there's a difference. I don't think they're just voting Republican for the promise of capital gains tax cuts.

RBMN:

Nobody joins the military becuase they are a Republican. Nobody joins the military because they are a Democrat. You join because you love your country and you want to be part of something bigger than yourself. You want to be a better person. You want to make something of your life.

All this BS put on top of service is political nonsense. Just becuase someone believes that there is a liberal bias and there are a lot of Republicans in the military, it doesn't follow that there is an anti-military bias.

Unfortunately, people forget this all of the time. Unfortunately, there are some genuine cases of naked anti-military junk. Just go over to Powerline and read the post about that is linked to in my last message. Pretend that you are a liberal soldier (if you are not one already). Now tell me what the hell is wrong with that post. THAT is anti-military. Remember, 1 out of 3 probably fall into the group he is talking about.

That post is a naked attempt to use the military in a political point. Unfortunately, he has no idea what the hell he is talking about and he shows his true colors.

The whole thing with Republicans in the military...give it some time. Things will change after a few more $1.9 billion supplemental amendments for veterans are voted down on a party line by the Republicans. Things will change when the House Armed Services Chair moves to stop enrolling priority 6 vets in the VA. There are many, many, many more reasons why this is going to change.

Still no answer as to why the media is flogging a story headlined everywhere in a way to suggest the Tillmans were deliberately lied to by the government.

You'd have to be pretty up on both politics and contemporary military history to know that Clinton stiffed our forces in Somalia and that one of the parents of the deceased publicly rebuked the President over the matter.

If the parent's confusion over the early media reports of Tillman's death is headline news, why wasn't the rancor over the needless tragedy involving Shugart?

Tillman is an American icon. People want to read/hear about him. He gave up a million dollar NFL contract to serve. Tom f-ing Cruise eulogized him at the ESPYs. He was on magazine covers, TV show, he has his own foundation, he has posters all over the web...the list goes on and on.

He sells papers!! This is your answer. People know his story. This is why it is news.

You don't hear about Shugart for the same reason you don't hear a lot about Riley Pape or any of the other Marines who died in the last week: they aren't former NFLers and American icons. There isn't rancor for the very sad reason that people care more about Paris Hilton hamburger ads than they do about dead soldiers.

Why do market forces suddenly get thrown out the window when we talk about the media? They have to sell stuff. Tillman? Easy sell. Shugart? Not so much.

Does this suck? Yes. Is it bias? No. Powerline's post...now THAT's bias.

You know, Sponge, I looked at that Powerline post and don't see anything "anti-military" about it in the least. I was a service brat before I was in uniform, and if the Dems ever gave a rat's ass about the military it was only when bases were being closed in their district or contracts were being handed out. Teddy K's hypocrisy on the subject is amply illustrated by his agitation for keeping Fort Devens open long after the Army wanted it closed and forcing A-7s down the Navy's throat long after they wanted to move on to something newer like the F-18.

Nowadays they're all "concerned" over the casualties because they see it as a tool to weaken Americans' support of the war. That's all Chrenkoff and Hinderaker are saying, and I absolutely agree. I don't doubt that there are Democrats who enlist or even take commissions; served with a few myself. But these days, or even ten years ago, they're not real common even in the Reserves. That's my personal experience, largely gained here in the metro area and supported by periodic surveys.

His comments are a direct attack on every single soldier on the "left". How many troops voted for Kerry last time around? I think it was about a third. A third is pretty common. He's not talking about Democrats or anything like that...he is saying quite clearly that people on the "left" don't care about the military. This is insane.

If you are saying that only Democratic congressmen use military bases as a political tool...well, then I don't think you are really looking at the whole picture. It's ALL politics. Just ask the Maine ladies. Non BRAC example: ask Trent Lott about why he needed to bring the USS Cole all the way around to Mississippi.

Shorter Hinderaker: Liberals don't care about the military.

Does he mean the 1/3rd who voted for Kerry? Does he mean the MN State Senate Majority Leader who is a BG in the Guard? Does he mean the party who voted for the $1.9 billion in emergency VA funding for mental health and OEF/OIF vets? What "left" is he talking about? He simply has no idea what he is talking about in this case.

His comments are beyond insulting to anyone who is liberal and has ever put on the uniform. How many of those 1,600 dead do you think are from the "left"? As a liberal vet myself, I cannot express how insulting his comments were. I don't get mad about politics too often, but this was definitely a case.

I agree that there's nothing admirable about Republicans lobbying for military pork either, but in contrast to the Dems the troops can usually rely on them not to gut the DoD budget, as happened in the 1970s and again in the 1990s. VA votes tend to be neutral in partisan terms, likewise; it's more money for the folks at home, and that always sells well. Cf. Wellstone's endorsements from veterans' groups for his hard work on getting VA appropriations passed.

However, it seems obvious to me that the primary targets of Hinderaker and Chrenkoff are the liberals in the MSM and the hard-left antiwar Dems in Congress, not somebody like you or Dean Johnson who happens to be that rare combination of DFL voter and servicemember. If you want to assume they're talking about you, though, not much I can do about it. You go right on ahead feeling insulted. *shrug*

It is not clear. And it deserves more than a shrug. For someone like Hinderaker, who gets all bent out of shape about "liberal bias" (for many things much less offensive than what he said in his own post), this is especially hypocritical. While I am glad that you can find the "nuance" in his complete generalization of the "left", I wish you could find the nuance in the irony of a man who writes in a major ideological periodical, owns one of the web's biggest political sites, and who appears on all of the major cable news networks as labeling the "MSM" as liberal.

How come Hinderaker gets the break when he complains that the "MSM" is "anti-military" for something like the Pat Tillman story? Where are you to find the nuance in that situation? "shrug."

1/3 of all military personnel is not a "rare combination".

And the non-partisan aspect of VA legislation is quickly being thrown out the window. This year's VFW conference in DC turned into a shouting match between congressmen on the House Armed Services Committee. It all started with Clinton freezing the VA budget in order to balance the entire budget. The VA system then fell behind to a point where it can't possibly keep up. Bush, to his credit, has increased the budget, but not nearly enough to make ends meet for the crap that Clinton pulled. Republicans in the House are now talking about scaling back enrollment to exclude priority 6 vets. They have even floated the idea of a 1 time cash pay out all the way down to priority 3 vets just to get them out of the system. The medicare bill is causing havoc with Tricare for Life because it is a secondary payee to medicare...if people stop taking medicare..they stop taking Tricare for Life. Basically, the current crop of Republicans have thrown gasoline on the fire that Clinton started. Either way, sides have been drawn and it is more political now than it has ever been; especially concerning the issue of mandatory funding of the VA.

And there is more to the current military climate than just gutting the money. The whole idea of the transformational force has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. The total force concept is screwing a lot of Guard and Reserve bases (Duluth).

The military budget cuts of the 90s were, in a sense, necessary. We couldn't maintain that large of a force post-Desert Storm and post-Cold War. Hell, even Republicans are still talking about scaling back our non CONUS forces.