01-10-2009, 04:43 PM
On the Tillman death, yes, the coverage was so spotty as to be incoherent. I listen to KGO talkradio in San Francisco a bit. Tillman was a 49er I guess. KGO used to be the "Home of the 49ers" I believe. Anyway, what I've heard over the years is that the clothes he was wearing showed he was shot at point-blank range. Not sure how or why, but that's the story. The other thing is the letters home (presumably censored or at least read by the military) expressed dissatisfaction wit the moral position of the US in Afghanistan and allegedly contained a vow to spill the beans when he got back home. The general drift is he was fragged by fellow soldiers or special ops acting under orders.
Remember US pilots killed a whole mess of Canadians in Afghanistan. The excuse ended up being they were all high on GI issued amphetamines. Sounds better than twinkies I suppose.
Right now there is this song and dance going on in Washington between Obama and the Pentagon over troop numbers for Afghanistan. Bush set the precedent of abandoning his post as commander-in-chief in the name of allowing the "generals in the field" to tell him what they needed by way of troops. Right now McCrystal, if that IS his real name, is demanding too many and Obama is giving too few, the story goes. According to some US insurgency document, the number should be around 500,000 for a successful counter-insurgency. Either way, Obama is committed to the illegal occupation of Afghanistan, so the whole debate on numbers seems designed for public consumption, so Obama can say "Look, I'm trying, but I'm being opposed by the Hawks." It allows his administration to maintain some kind of credibility with the Left they betrayed, along with the rumor he will be assassinated if he doesn't go along with the military-industrial complex's interests.
Remember US pilots killed a whole mess of Canadians in Afghanistan. The excuse ended up being they were all high on GI issued amphetamines. Sounds better than twinkies I suppose.
Right now there is this song and dance going on in Washington between Obama and the Pentagon over troop numbers for Afghanistan. Bush set the precedent of abandoning his post as commander-in-chief in the name of allowing the "generals in the field" to tell him what they needed by way of troops. Right now McCrystal, if that IS his real name, is demanding too many and Obama is giving too few, the story goes. According to some US insurgency document, the number should be around 500,000 for a successful counter-insurgency. Either way, Obama is committed to the illegal occupation of Afghanistan, so the whole debate on numbers seems designed for public consumption, so Obama can say "Look, I'm trying, but I'm being opposed by the Hawks." It allows his administration to maintain some kind of credibility with the Left they betrayed, along with the rumor he will be assassinated if he doesn't go along with the military-industrial complex's interests.