Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
Donald Rumsfeld and a few other bigwigs were yakking about the death of Pat Tillman today. Things are a little foggy, it seems, for the lot of them.
"Rumsfeld and Myers both said they couldn't remember precisely how they learned of Tillman's death or that it might be friendly fire."
"I don't recall precisely how I learned that he was killed," Rumsfeld said. "It could have been internally or it could have been through the press."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3121924.shtml
I'm no Washington bigshot, but I remember hearing that the guy was killed and I remember hearing weeks later about the friendly-fire stuff. It's surprising, to me at least, that these blokes don't remember. The human mind does have its quirks, but this was a big story. You'd think they'd at least have an inkling. I guess not. |
Honestly I don't have a problem with what was said in the article, while Tillman's death was tragic and preventable, it was the job of the Army, not the defence council or the Joint Chiefs to be involved in this or investigate it.
There has to be some insulation between the 4 branches of the military and the members at the top of the chain, it prevents conflicts of interest.
Rumsfields job (and in my mind he's done a poor one) is not to micromanage every aspect of the war, his job is to set out a general guidlines and guidposts of achievement, and the end scenarios, the joint chiefs flesh it out and ensure that the troops are committed properly and equipted properly and then it goes down from there.
If every friendly fire episode and questionable death, and equipment failure was to be investegated or acknowleged at the highest level there would be mass accusations from the four branches of meddling by the executive branch.
All questions for Tillman's death should have stopped at the various investigation organizations within the military chain of command.