"Answer: An investigation of the allegations were conducted by the command and
found to be false. In fact, members of Thomas' platoon and company were all
interviewed and no one could substantiate his claims. As to what will happen to
him? Answer: As there is no evidence of criminal conduct, he is subject to
Administrative punishment as determined by his chain of command. Under the
various rules and regulations, administrative actions are not releasable to the
public by the military on what does or does not happen."
While this is meaningless to those who believe that President Bush personally covered up the death of Tillman, it does appear to show that the tales are false. The problem is that this stories raised concerns from the beginning and they have never been solidly shown to be accurate. While the magazine has reportedly come to a conclusion that is opposite the Army's I think that it serves the interest of the magazine to do so. Further I doubt the ability of the magazine to do the ground work and the investigative work that would be needed to get the facts.
The second problem that I have with these stories is that it doesn't seem like the way to respond to the incidents that he talks about. If these events took place, what should have taken place is that he should have reported them to someone in the chain of command to make sure that they were dealt with. What the author choose to do was go to the press (or did the press come to him) with the story. This makes me think that he cared less about righting the wrongs and more about making a political point, being a hero, getting his name in the press.
No comments:
Post a Comment