[Editor's Note: You need to keep your thinking cap on when reading a story like this. It's not that Tillman wasn't fragged because he was about to become a political liability for the traitors in Washington; that part of the story doesn't surprise me in the least. It's the convenience, ease, and wide mainstream dissemination of this story that concerns me. First, let's consider who's bringing us the story? Keith Olbermann and the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe, General Wesley Clark on MSNBC News. Does Keith Olbermann equate to Alex Jones in your book?  Is Wesley Clark to be viewed in the same light as say, George S. Patton? And how about MSNBC News? Is that your idea of an alternative media news outlet?

Something's fishy here my friends.

Maybe we're suppose to be shocked and dismayed by this story, in much the same way that we were supposed to be shocked by the 'revelations' of   torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or perhaps even the Jessica Lynch story? Maybe we're being played by a fiddle constructed in 15th century Italy by Maestro Niccolo Machiavelli.

Consider this:

What's the ultimate goal of the NWO gang?
To destroy the United States from within and without in order to clear the decks for a one world feudal government

How do they do that?
They install blackmailed and compromised whores, usually described as "politicians", into positions of power at the federal and state level (I could also mention FEMA camps, Homeland Insecurity, underground bases/cities, the militarization of police, foreign troops on US soil, etc., etc., but you get the idea). They infiltrate mind controlled satanists into the hierarchy of decision making in all branches of the military, in the Pentagon, and among the Chiefs of Staff (and high level NATO commanders). They engage 'controlled opposition' plants to ferment the idea that we need a 'radical' change in order to upright the ship of state and get us 'back on course'. Radical change equates to ideas of 'revolutionary' change. The Illuminati likes to foment or manufacture revolutions because they can dictate and control the outcome of those revolutions-which always winds up serving their agenda. Consider the French Revolution of 1888, : a 'put up job' in its entirely. How about the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917? Same thing.

Revolutions wipe out former political structures of stability and create a new 'order'. The Illuminati likes to promote the idea that "order" comes out of chaos. They even gave it a name, the Chaos Theory. It's nonsense, of course, but much of what we are told via the media or academia is nonsense. We should be used to it by now.

In the case of the United States, it's the US Constitution that stands between us and revolutionary 'chaos'. The Illuminati wants more than anything to create the circumstances that will get the American people to willingly or begrudgingly forsake the protections of the US Constitution in order to achieve some 'revolutionary' gain, such as 'taking back control of our government', or some similar rallying cry.

Be careful America; there are wolves about and they don't usually announce themselves...Ken

P.S. In hunting down articles for this story, I notice that General Wesley Clark is making the rounds of syndicated talk shows, including Charlie Rose. An outsider (as in genuine government muckracker or anti-New World Order critic) simply doesn't get interviewed on the Charlie Rose Show-never.  An insider, especially one with presidential aspirations, gets interviewed on the Charlie Rose Show. Here.s a convenient link from "WESPAC" (http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/8) which lists all of of General Clark's recent interviews inlcuding video clips and transcripts of his comments with interviewers. Do you suppose "WESPAC" might stand for Wesley Political Action Committee?. hmmm ]

By Paul Joseph Watson
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/pattillmanexecuted30jul07.shtml
July 30, 2007

Forward courtesy of SF

Friday, July 27, 2007
As the world knows, Pat Tillman abandoned a lucrative career in pro-football immediately after 9/11 because he felt a fiercely patriotic urge to defend his country. As this utterly shocking revelation shows, he soon discovered the invasion of Iraq was based on a mountain of lies and deceit and had nothing to do with defending America. He became infuriated and was ready to return home to become an anti-war hero. Bad idea... Eileen Dannemann

---

Original title:
New Evidence Clearly Indicates Pat Tillman Was Executed

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/270707tillmanexecuted.htm

Army medical examiners concluded Tillman was shot three times in the head from just 10 yards away, no evidence of "friendly fire" damage at  scene...Army attorneys congratulated each other on cover-up...Wesley Clark concludes "orders came from the very top" to murder pro-football star because he was about to become an anti-war political icon.

Astounding new details surrounding the death of Pat Tillman clearly indicate that top brass decided to execute the former pro football star in cold blood to prevent him from returning home and becoming an anti-war icon.

These same criminals then engaged in a sophisticated conspiracy to create a phony"friendly fire" cover story.

Shocking new facts emerged about the case last night but were bizarrely underplayed by the Associated Press under nondescript headlines like 'New Details on Tillman's Death' -- a complete disservice to the horrific implications that the new evidence carries.

Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

The report also states that "No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene -- no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck."

The article also reveals that "Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments."

So there was no evidence whatsoever of friendly fire, but the ballistics data clearly indicated that the three head shots had been fired from just 10 yards away and then the Army tried to concoct a hoax friendly fire story and sent gloating back-slapping e mails congratulating each other on their success while preventing the doctors from exploring the possibility of murder. How can any sane and rational individual weigh this evidence and not come to the conclusion that Tillman was deliberately gunned down in cold blood?

The evidence points directly to it and the motivation is clear -- Tillman abandoned a lucrative career in pro-football immediately after 9/11 because he felt a rampaging patriotic urge to defend his country, and became a poster child for the war on terror as a result. But when he discovered that the invasion of Iraq was based on a mountain of lies and deceit and had nothing to do with defending America, he became infuriated and was ready to return home to become an anti-war hero.

As far back as March 2003, immediately after the invasion, Tillman famously told his comrade Spc. Russell Baer, "You know, this war is so fucking illegal," and urged his entire platoon to vote against Bush in the 2004 election. Far from the gung-ho gruff stereotype attributed to him, Tillman was actually a fiercely intellectual man with the courage of his convictions firmly in place.

Tillman had even begun to arrange meetings with anti-war icons like Noam Chomsky upon his return to America before his death cut short any aspirations of becoming a focal point for anti-war sentiment.

According to Daily Kos, General Wesley Clark appeared on Keith Olbermann's Countdown last night and stated that "the orders came from the very top" to murder Tillman as he was a political symbol and his opposition to the war in Iraq would have rallied the population around supporting immediate withdrawal.

The notion that the U.S. government gave orders for Army top brass to execute Pat Tillman in cold blood is the most damaging indictment of the Iraq war since it began, trumping the lies about weapons of mass destruction tenfold, but if the establishment media continue to soft-peddle and steam-valve one of the biggest stories of the century its impact will be completely diluted.

It is up to us to make this story go viral because the implications are so dire that they could act as the final death knell for the blood-soaked and illegal occupation of Iraq and become the clarion call to bring our troops home. --

Paul Joseph Watson

---

Wesley Clark On MSNBC: "Possible" Tillman Death Was Murder, Cover Up Came From Very Top

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, July 27, 2007

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/270707tillmandeath.htm

Keith Olbermann: General Clark, let me turn from this story. We expected to spend all of our time with you tonight talking about this, but there have been two developments in the Pat Tillman story - a fiasco,here's not other word for it now - and this awful report tonight. Parsing through these documents obtained by the Associated Press that indicate that Army investigators were denied permission to see whether or not Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan as an Army Ranger was a deliberate fragging, was a case of murder, even though the shots were seemingly so close together in his head that they, they looked to the doctors on the scene that they might've been fired from only ten yards away. Not only was there access denied here, but the Army lawyers were congratulating themselves in e-mail traffic from keeping this from becoming a criminal investigation. Do you think this case is still wide open?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely, and it should be. The, the evidence of some problems is very, very clear. Mary Tillman and the Tillman family have been incredibly courageous in pursuing the truth in this, and the truth is not yet out. If there's even a hint that there was something like a homicide or a murder in this case, it should've been fully investigated and proved or disproved, and we don't really know how far up- Was it the Secretary of Defense's office? Was it the White House? Where did the idea that you shouldn't give any indication of what happened to Tillman. 'Just go ahead and go through with the burial ceremony. Give him the Silver Star.' Where did that- where was that idea blessed? You can be sure that that idea did not originate or stop at the Two- or Three-Star level. That was- someone approved that all the way to the top, because Pat Tillman was a political symbol used by the administration when it suited their purposes.

Keith Olbermann: Well, we have assumed from the beginning that that was exactly the scenario that this possibility that his, his death from friendly fire would, would somehow effect, in some way that neither of us able- ever been able to understand, somehow effect people's appreciation for his patriotism and sacrifice. Does it not begin to look more and more like that, that we were going the wrong direction in this, that they were not trying to protect something, something slightly negative from coming out, but in fact coming- protecting the accusation that his mother has made and has not gotten a lot of attention to that, that perhaps he was indeed murdered? Were we, were, were we actually underestimating what was being covered up here?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It's very possible. We, we just don't know, Keith. I think the responsible thing for the Pentagon to do and for the Congress to do is to demand that the investigation be reopened and people all the way up the chain of command to the very top discuss what happened, when, why, we get to the facts about why the, the murder charge wasn't fully investigated. I looked at some of the investigations. I looked at the tape. I looked at the rerun of the scene. I've met with the Tillman family. And honestly, the distance, even in- the investigators said that the shots were fired at less than a hundred meters, and okay the light was failing, but he had a clearly recognizable silhouette. His weapon was clearly visible - the type of weapon. It, it ,it's, it's really hard for people to understand this. The investigation needs to be reopened and followed through to its conclusion.

Keith Olbermann: As opposed to the ruling today that a Three-Star General is likely to be demoted, and other officers will be admonished. And that's it so far.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yeah.

Keith Olbermann: General Wesley Clark, former Supreme, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe, our great thanks as always for being with us, Sir.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you, Keith.

---

General Wesley Clark on Countdown with Keith Olbermann

http://securingamerica.com/node/2577

July 26, 2007
transcript by RegNYC

Keith Olbermann: Edward R. Murrow put it best and put it simply, "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." True as it pertained to Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1954. True as it pertains to Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman in 2007. Our fourth story on the Countdown, Mr. Edelman's boss refutes Mr. Edelman over his answer to an inquiry from the Junior Senator from New York.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (on tape): In fact, I asked the Pentagon a simple question, "Have you prepared for withdrawing our troops?" In response, I got a letter accusing me of being unpatriotic, that I shouldn't be asking questions.

Keith Olbermann: Defense Secretary Gates having now replied to Senator Clinton's second letter, "I truly regret that this important discussion went astray and emphatically assure you that we do not claim, suggest or otherwise believe that Congressional oversight emboldens our enemies. I agree with you that planning concerning the future of U.S. Forces in Iraq - including the drawdown of those forces at the right time - is not only appropriate but essential." A spokesman for the Senator saying she's "disappointed that (Gates) did not repudiate (the) unacceptable political attack. There is absolutely no room," the statement continues, "for impugning the patriotism of those who rightfully engage in Congressional oversight." MSNBC analyst General Wesley Clark served for 38 years in the Army, including time as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. General Clark thanks again for some of your time tonight.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thanks. Good to be with you, Keith.

Keith Olbermann: You know a little bit about this delicate balance between military and civilian power. Undersecretary Edelman said Mrs. Clinton's questions reinforced enemy propaganda. Mr. Gates disassociated himself from that statement today. Why does Mr. Edelman still have a job working for Mr. Gates?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It's a very good question, because it was very bad judgement what he sent forward. I imagine that that letter was approved. It was probably coordinated through the Pentagon with the White House because of Senator Clinton's profile. So, I would suspect that this is all a political game by Karl Rove and, and the establishment in the White House as to how to handle the, the Democrats' approach.

Keith Olbermann: The Defense Secretary says he is planning a drawdown, but he's still not giving up any information until General Petraeus makes his report in September. From a military point of view, is that actually good policy contained in there.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the policy is what he's doing inside the Pentagon. If, if I were Secretary Gates, I'd be consulting with the Congress. I'd be trying to work with the Congress instead of making enemies of the Congress regardless of whether they were my party or, or the other party. And my experience in the Pentagon when I was on active duty is that's what we did. Whether the Congressmen and Senators were Republicans or Democrats, it didn't matter. We wanted support and understanding. I don't understand why Senator Clinton's questions weren't answered in the first place. Why wasn't she invited over for breakfast with Secretary Gates. That's the way it's normally done. They discuss these things privately. There's an understanding that you don't reveal the sensitive data. Senator Clinton could've said, 'Of course the Pentagon's doing its proper planning looking ahead.' Everything could've been okay. So, you have to ask yourself, well, this is a political quarrel. Who wanted such a quarrel? Only the White House.

Keith Olbermann: General Clark, let me turn from this story. We expected to spend all of our time with you tonight talking about this, but there have been two developments in the Pat Tillman story - a fiasco,here's not other word for it now - and this awful report tonight. Parsing through these documents obtained by the Associated Press that indicate that Army investigators were denied permission to see whether or not Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan as an Army Ranger was a deliberate fragging, was a case of murder, even though the shots were seemingly so close together in his head that they, they looked to the doctors on the scene that they might've been fired from only ten yards away. Not only was there access denied here, but the Army lawyers were congratulating themselves in e-mail traffic from keeping this from becoming a criminal investigation. Do you think this case is still wide open?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely, and it should be. The, the evidence of some problems is very, very clear. Mary Tillman and the Tillman family have been incredibly courageous in pursuing the truth in this, and the truth is not yet out. If there's even a hint that there was something like a homicide or a murder in this case, it should've been fully investigated and proved or disproved, and we don't really know how far up- Was it the Secretary of Defense's office? Was it the White House? Where did the idea that you shouldn't give any indication of what happened to Tillman. 'Just go ahead and go through with the burial ceremony. Give him the Silver Star.' Where did that- where was that idea blessed? You can be sure that that idea did not originate or stop at the Two- or Three-Star level. That was- someone approved that all the way to the top, because Pat Tillman was a political symbol used by the administration when it suited their purposes.

Keith Olbermann: Well, we have assumed from the beginning that that was exactly the scenario that this possibility that his, his death from friendly fire would, would somehow effect, in some way that neither of us able- ever been able to understand, somehow effect people's appreciation for his patriotism and sacrifice. Does it not begin to look more and more like that, that we were going the wrong direction in this, that they were not trying to protect something, something slightly negative from coming out, but in fact coming- protecting the accusation that his mother has made and has not gotten a lot of attention to that, that perhaps he was indeed murdered? Were we, were, were we actually underestimating what was being covered up here?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It's very possible. We, we just don't know, Keith. I think the responsible thing for the Pentagon to do and for the Congress to do is to demand that the investigation be reopened and people all the way up the chain of command to the very top discuss what happened, when, why, we get to the facts about why the, the murder charge wasn't fully investigated. I looked at some of the investigations. I looked at the tape. I looked at the rerun of the scene. I've met with the Tillman family. And honestly, the distance, even in- the investigators said that the shots were fired at less than a hundred meters, and okay the light was failing, but he had a clearly recognizable silhouette. His weapon was clearly visible - the type of weapon. It, it ,it's, it's really hard for people to understand this. The investigation needs to be reopened and followed through to its conclusion.

Keith Olbermann: As opposed to the ruling today that a Three-Star General is likely to be demoted, and other officers will be admonished. And that's it so far.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yeah.

Keith Olbermann: General Wesley Clark, former Supreme, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe, our great thanks as always for being with us, Sir.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you, Keith.
( see all Iraq | Pat Tillman Investigation | Transcripts | Videoclips )

*****
Transcript June 20 2007

http://securingamerica.com/node/2495

General Wesley Clark on Countdown with Keith Olbermann

June 20, 2007
Transcript by Melange

Keith Olbermann: Time bringing about a big change in spin from the US military regarding the weekend attack on a suspected al Qaeda hideout in Afghanistan which killed 7 children. At first the US said it had no idea that children were inside but now American officials are telling our Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski that the US military Special Ops forces who launched the attack knew that there were children present inside that compound. Their justification for going ahead anyway: that the al Qaeda leader that they were targeting was considered such a high-value target that it was worth the risk. As of this morning, still no word from the US military on whether or not that target they sought was killed. And as we mentioned, a far cry from what the military had been saying about the attack on Monday because it had claimed it did not know the children were there. The mere fact that the networks like this one were even reporting the story thus prompted criticism from some quarters.

An honor now to welcome to MSNBC our new military analyst, retired 4-star Army General Wesley Clark. Also, of course, a former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO as well as a former Democratic presidential candidate. General, thank you for being with us.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Great to be with you, Keith. I’m really happy to be here.

Keith Olbermann: As we are. Should the media, sir, ever be restricted on what it can and cannot report about a military offensive after it has taken place?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I think it’s hard to make a case for restricting the media in that circumstance unless there’s something that would put American troops, in the continuation of the operation, at risk.

If there was something about disclosing that it had begun that puts the follow-on force at risk, maybe you could make that case, but in general I don’t think it’s wise policy for the United States government to try to restrict what…what can and can’t be shown on television. The American people can see through that. We want to know how our troops are doing. They’re representing us, we love them, we want them to succeed, we want them to be safe and it’s the media that helps us interpret how well it’s going.

Keith Olbermann: It’s always been true that way.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It has.

Keith Olbermann: But now…this subject about the children in Afghanistan. That would not…not so much what happened, but the military’s assessment and revelations about what happened and whether or not they knew about the kids there…um, during the Afghan and Iraq wars, there have been other examples in which the military’s version of events have…have evolved. Um, Pat Tillman’s death, uh, the cover-up of the fact that he’d been killed by friendly fire, the capture, the rescue of Jessica Lynch in the Iraqi hospital. Stories change, circumstances change days, weeks, sometimes months after the fact. Does that not even further underscore the need for persistent, consistent reporting? I mean, without it, would we ever have learned the true story about Corporal Tillman’s death or Private Lynch’s rescue?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think you’re right. I think it’s…I think it’s really hard to know what happens in battle and usually the first reports are wrong. And, in my personal experience the first reports have been wrong. We had a case when I was leading the operation that was striking the Serb forces in Kosovo where we actually bombed a convoy. The airmen swore that it was a Serb force that was driving these tractors and burning houses and we intensively looked at it over a period of weeks and finally, finally at the end a year later or so, we talked to the Albanians who’d been there and they weren’t Serbs. And it was an extremely difficult thing to get the truth out of…out of these circumstances. Just…it’s difficult.

Sometimes there may be some misleading. I think there was misleading in the case of Pat Tillman. I think the investigation bears that out. In this latest case, we don’t know if there was misleading or not. It may be just that first reports weren’t correct and by the time they got the special forces guys back in and debriefed them, they realized they had in fact taken the calculated risk of calling in the bombs even though they saw the presence of children in the compound.

Keith Olbermann: On the other issue that has been made and raised, the argument that’s being made and criticizing news organizations for covering, at all, insurgent attacks, terrorist bombings in Iraq, in Afghanistan, that covering them only helps the insurgents. What…what’s your assessment of that charge?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I think it’s an absurd charge. I think the truth is that the word on military successes and defeats is important in a democracy and that word’s going to get out whether a TV station covers it or not.

And the American people have a right to know, they have a need to know and the idea that you could sort of decide not to show this because it might be discouraging or whatever, that’s the kind of…that’s the kind of censorship that undercuts faith not only in news organizations, but in governments. We’ve always believed in the truth. I think if you lay out the truth, if your policies are sound, if your motivations are correct, if your policies are honorable and legal, then the truth is the best policy. If it isn’t, if those aren’t your policies, maybe you’ve got something to hide.

Keith Olbermann: Amen. Let me ask you…this is more of a philosophical question, an assessment question than a breaking news question, but given that we had to do that, that there was an attack looking for an al Qaeda high-level target on the loose in Afghanistan, not to mention bin Laden and it’s 5 ½ years after the attacks of 9/11, and the start of a war in Afghanistan, do you think we are devoting our resources as we should when it comes to fighting what the administration calls the war on terror?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely not. It’s…it’s been mistaken almost from the beginning. We went into Afghanistan as we should. We did not have a plan for success in Afghanistan to get al Qaeda. We didn’t want to put the American troops in because the administration was already planning on going after Iraq even though there was no connection established between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. So, we short-changed the operation in Afghanistan repeatedly. It was an economy of force mission, now we’re really committed in Iraq, the Taliban is coming back because basically, in that part of the world, there are forces and people that don’t want to see the Americans there. When you go in there, you have to have a plan for success, you have to get your success and you have to get out again. You cannot occupy these countries, it’s…we wouldn’t want to be occupied in America, either. And, so why we think we can stay there year after year and build friends, it’s backwards. You’ve got to have a plan for success at the outset, you’ve got to have enough resources to bring that success together and then you’ve got to turn it over to local people. That’s…we haven’t done that. In the meantime, al Qaeda’s using all our efforts as a recruiting incentive and so they’re training against us, they’re recruiting people against us…it’s, it’s trouble.

Keith Olbermann: Retired General Wesley Clark. We’re proud to have you with us on MSNBC and particularly on Countdown. We look forward to talking with you again soon, sir.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you, Keith.

---