"jon krakauer's credibility problem" (ver. 2.4.6) april 24, 2011; last updated...

“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem” Guy Montag, feralfirefighter.blogspot.com

April 24, 2011 [Ver. 2.4.6, last revised March 19, 2014]

“The most powerful form of lie is the omission, and it is the duty of the historian to make sure those lies do not

creep into the history books.”

-- George Orwell

"It's [Into Thin Air] there in print forever. It's part of history. People should be above taking someone else down.

And for what? For money and egos people are willing to destroy other people to further their careers." -- David Breashears, (Improper Bostonian, Sept 24, 1997)

“…some may wonder why his dishonesty about [Pat] Tillman should matter. It matters because deceit by a military

officer of [Gen. Stanley] McChrystal’s rank is a poisonous betrayal of trust that shouldn’t be countenanced.”

-- Jon Krakauer, “Gen. McChrystal’s Credibility Problem” (Oct. 14, 2009)

“Asked about Jon Krakauer's book about [Pat] Tillman, the soldier's youngest brother [Richard] told the screening

audience [at the 2010 Sundance premiere of The Tillman Story] of the author that "that guy's a piece of …”

-- Steven Zeitchik, (LA Times, January 24, 2010)

“Krakauer’s presentation of the matter seems stubbornly defiant at best. If his reasoning is not obstinately perverse,

his arguments are disingenuous. … grasping desperately for tenuous explanations to defend his fundamental belief

in the Poison Plant Fable [to explain Christopher McCandless’s death in Into the Wild].”

-- Samuel Thayer, (Nature’s Garden, 2010)”

“As a journalist, I understand you were faced with a problem: … your opinion vs. my statement of fact.”

-- Anatoli Boukreev, (personal letter to Jon Krakauer about Into Thin Air, August 6, 1996)

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page #:

Foreword 4

Description of Updates 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8

. . .

“With Three Cups of Luck?” -- How Jon Krakauer’s Take-Down of Greg 14 Mortenson Launched Byliner.com

“The Emperor’s General” -- The Bi-Partisan Whitewash of Gen. 29

McChrystal’s Role in the Pat Tillman Affair

“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem” -- Deceit in Jon Krakauer’s 33

“Where Men Win Glory” Book about Pat Tillman

“That Guy’s a Piece of …” – Jon Krakauer & the Pat Tillman Family 39

“The Poison Plant Fable” – Jon Krakauer’s “Into the Wild” 41

“Erasing Heroism from the Himalaya” – Jon Krakauer’s Trashing 46 of Anatoli Boukreev in his “Into Thin Air”

. . .

Annotated Bibliography of Everest ‘96 50

“A Day to Die For” – An Untold True Story of Everest ‘96 55

“Remember the Iconoclast, Not the Icon” 57

“Do Not Forget the Mountaineers” 60

. . .

Analysis of the Preface to Jon Krakauer’s Revised Paperback 62

Edition of “Where Men Win Glory – The Odyssey of Pat Tillman

Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem

2

APPENDICES Page #

A: Krakauer Interview Excerpts BEFORE September 17, 2009: 1

Summary: Krakauer Interviews BEFORE Sept. 17, 2009 2

The Truth Behind the Death of Pat Tillman? (Sept. 11, 2009) 7

Jon Krakauer’s Inside Story of Pat Tillman (Sept. 11, 2009) 7

Krakauer's New Book Examines Pat Tillman's Death (Sept. 17, 2009) 9

Pat Tillman, Anti-War Hero (Sept. 13, 2009) 9

Krakauer Explores Pat Tillman's Death And Cover-Up (Sept. 14, 2009) 10

Talk of Deceit Where Honor Is Taught (Sept. 14, 2009) 11

Afterwords With Jon Krakauer (Sept. 16, 2009) 12

NPR Diane Rhem Show – “Where Men Win Glory” (Sept. 16, 2009) 13

B: Krakauer Handed “Untold Story” at Sept. 17, 2009 Book Signing: 14

“Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet” Binder (May 27, 2009) 15

“Lies … Borne Out by Facts, If Not the Truth” Binder (Sept. 11, 2009) 16

September 12, 2009 Cover Letter to Jon Krakauer (Sept. 12, 2009) 18

September 17, 2009 “Postscript” Letter to Jon Krakauer (Sept. 17, 2009) 19

“Postscript”: Possible Corrections to Where Men Win Glory (Sept. 17, 2009) 24

“Postscript”: Comments on Where Men Win Glory (Sept. 17, 2009) 26

C: Krakauer Interview Excerpts AFTER September 17, 2009: 29

Summary: Krakauer Interviews AFTER Sept. 17, 2009 30

The Fans Come Out for Jon Krakauer's Glory (Sept. 25, 2009) 34

Jon Stewart Show Interview (Sept. 30, 2009) 34

Tillman's Journals Revealed in Book [Sept. 15, 2009] (Oct. 3, 2009) 34

Daily Beast: “Gen. McChrystal's Credibility Problem” (Oct. 14, 2009) 35

Is Gen. McChrystal The Best Man For Afghanistan? (Oct. 17, 2009) 40

Stanley McChrystal’s Long War (Oct. 18, 2009) 41

Jon Krakauer Interviewed on “Meet the Press” (Nov. 1, 2009) 43

Sound Off: Sunday Talking Heads (Nov. 1, 2009) 43

Krakauer: McChrystal shouldn't be in charge in Afghan. (Nov. 6, 2009) 44

“The Situation Room” Krakauer Interview (Nov. 7, 2009) 45

Sundance 2010: Michael Moore Loves the Pat Tillman … (Jan. 24, 2010) 48


3

Page #:

D: Oct. 14, 2009: JK Writes “Gen. McChrystal’s Credibility Problem” 49

Unabridged GMCP With Page References (Oct. 14, 2009) 50

New Material in GMCP (Not in First Edition) (Oct. 14, 2009) 57

GMCP Material NOT in Either Edition of Book (Oct. 14, 2009) 62

E: Revisions Made to 2010 Paperback Edition of Where Men Win Glory: 64

Preface to Anchor Edition (July 27, 2010) 65

New Citations in Notes & Bibliography (July 27, 2010) 66

From Guy Montag’s Corrections in 9-17-09 Letter (July 27, 2010) 68

From McChrystal’s Testimony in Guy Montag’s Binders (July 27, 2010) 71

From Guy Montag’s Binders Handed to JK (July 27, 2010) 76

From FOIA Interviews with Kirchmaier, Allen, Farrisee (July 27, 2010) 89

From FOIA Interviews with Bailey, Nixon, McChrystal (July 27, 2010) 92

Minor Revisions & Edits (July 27, 2010) 96

Miscellaneous Revisions & Edits (July 27, 2010) 103

F: Corrections & Omissions for Future Editions: 104

Possible Corrections (April24, 2011) 105

Omissions (April 24, 2011) 107


4

FOREWORD

On July 27, 2010 Jon Krakauer’s updated paperback edition of his book Where Men Win Glory -

- The Odyssey of Pat Tillman was released. A couple of weeks later, as an aside in my post “The

[Untold] Tillman Story,” I wrote my initial impressions of his revised edition:

“… Krakauer still hasn’t told what I call the “untold story” of the bipartisan

Congressional cover-up (although he did make some of the corrections I pointed out to

him last year in my letters). … upon cursory review, it appears that Jon Krakauer took

the credit for discovering ‘additional evidence.’ … Hell, much of his ‘discovery’

consisted in having my two binders laying it all out placed directly into his hands by my

aunt on September 17th

[2009] at a book signing in Boulder, CO!”

. . .

However, I didn’t make the time to read the updated edition until January 2011, when I finally

compared both editions line-by-line and documented each revision. Then, I got busy with other

projects and never finished up what I had titled “Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem.”

. . .

On April 17, 2011, I happened to read the CBS News expose on Greg Mortenson, which

motivated me to finish up “Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem.” From my April 17th

comment:

“It seems there could be more worthy targets of "60 Minutes" investigative attention and

wrath. Say, Gen. Stanley McChrystal who supervised the Army's cover-up of Pat

Tillman's friendly-fire death 7 years ago on April 22, 2004. Wait, "60 Minutes" did do a

puff-piece hagiography with McChrystal back in Sept '09!”

“I don't know the truth about Mortenson. However, Jon Krakauer accusing others of

being less than fully truthful is the ‘pot calling the kettle black.’ … “I'm glad JK used my

material to update his paperback edition. I'm not really that pissed that he took credit

(although it reflects some ego problems). I am pissed that he never used my material that

showed how President Obama & the Democratic Congress continued the Bush

administration's cover-up. … And President Obama's whitewash of Gen. McChrystal

continues to this day.”

-- Guy Montag, May 8, 2011

“Guy Montag” has been a firefighter the past twenty years. Previously, he was a yuppie with

Andersen Consulting (Accenture) after earning an Engineering MSE. For eight years he was an

Airborne Ranger with Co. “F” (LRSU) 425th

Infantry. His Pat Tillman research files are posted

at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com.

http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/


5

3-24-13 UPDATE: On December 4, 2012 I handed a copy of my post “The [Missing} Pat

Tillman Legacy” letter to Marie Tillman after a presentation in Chicago. After getting my book

signed, I had a pleasant short conversation with Marie about my visit to the Bahai temple. But, I

never received a response back from her.

Here’s the link to the audio recording: Marie Tillman in Conversation with Jon Krakauer

WBEZ91.5 http://www.wbez.org/series/chicago-amplified/marie-tillman-conversation-jon-

krakauer-104429 (My question for Krakaauer is at about 35:30)

On the other hand, Krakuaer signed my book, but he tried aggressively tried to BS me about how

I was wrong about “Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem.” His outrage appeared so sincere that

he almost succeeded (in my rush to finish “The [Missing} Pat Tillman Legacy” I hadn’t prepared

to confront him about it and didn’t have my hardcopy of this document JCKP with me).

Maybe he believes his own BS. He almost convinced me, until I got home, double-checked my

work, and hunted down the NPR Diane Rhem Show recording (September 16, 2009) from the

day before my Aunt handed him my material (it was the same stuff he said before; he changed

his tune after getting my material). Judging from my personal experience, he appears to be a

shameless bullying, bullshit artist.

Also, note that Christian Bale is supposed to star in a movie about the Everest 1996 disaster.

I’ve never had the time to finish my comments in the section “Erasing Heroism from the

Himalaya” (that would be another e-book in its’ own right). If I have the time, I’ll try to work on

that in a year or two.

http://www.wbez.org/marie-tillman-conversation-jon-krakauer-104142

http://www.wbez.org/series/chicago-amplified/marie-tillman-conversation-jon-krakauer-104429

http://www.wbez.org/series/chicago-amplified/marie-tillman-conversation-jon-krakauer-104429


6

DESCRIPTION OF UPDATES

Version 1.0 (April 24, 2011): Draft version of ‘Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem.”

Version 2.0 (May 9, 2011): Added Foreword, Executive Summary, Introduction, “Jon

Krakauer’s Credibility Problem,” and additional commentary to the Appendices.

Version 2.1 (May 12, 2011): Added page citations to my Tillman binders in the Appendices.

Version 2.2 (May 30, 2011): Revised Executive Summary; Added brief Boukreev comments to

JKCP.

Version 2.3 (July 12, 2011): Revised Title Page, Table of Contents, added “With Three Cups of

Luck,” “Into Thin Air” outline, outline of annotated bibliography, added draft of “a Day to Die

For,” “Remember the Iconoclast, Not the Icon,” and “Remember the Mountaineers.”

Will finish up “later”; probably a winter project?

Version 2.4 (Sept. 26, 2011): Revised TOC formatting; revised Executive Summary (added

condensed version of “With Three Cups of Luck?”); slight revisions to “With Three Cups of

Luck?” (added how JK recently prevaricated about the reason “60 Minutes” talked to him).

. . .

On February 12, 2012, Alex Heard, Editor of “Outside” published an update of the Mortenson

affair, The Trials of Greg Mortenson. However, he failed to mention my argument that JK

used his Mortenson take-down to launch Byliner.com (unless he referred to it with: “… their

arguments have often been based on past experiences with him. Sometimes they’re convincing;

sometimes they’re less about Mortenson and more about ad hominem attacks against

Krakauer.”). Why? Has he somehow never read my material? Hopefully, it’s not because he’s

pulling punches because the Byliner Co-Founders were his “Outside” colleagues.

. . .

Version 2.4.1 (Feb. 23, 2012): Updated “Three Cups of Luck?” with quotes from two articles:

Alissa Quart’s “The Long Tale” (Columbia Journalism Review Sept/Oct. 2011 and John

Tayman’s “It’s a Long Article. It’s a Short Book. No, It’s a Byliner e-Book” (Niemann Reports,

Winter 2011). Extensively revised Executive Summary.

. . .

Version 2.4.2 (March 31, 2013): Added 9-16-09 NPR Diane Rhem Show interview, note about

meeting Krakauer in Chicago on 12-03-12, note about new “Into Thin Air” movie going into

production with Christian Bale.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/greg-mortenson/The-Trials-of-Greg-Mortenson.html?page=all

http://www.cjr.org/reports/the_long_tale.php?page=all

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/assets/pdf/Nieman%20Reports/backissues/winter2011.pdf


7

Version 2.4.3 (September 23, 2013): Added commentary on Jon Krakauer’s piece about his

latest “poison plant fable.” Maybe he was kinda right for the wrong reasons.

Version 2.4.4 (November 11, 2013): Added link/note about chemists weighing in on ITW

ODAP issue; Added links to insurance company settlement over lawsuit costs.

Version 2.4.5 (December 20, 2013): Added link to Appeals Court rejecting Mortenson lawsuit

“marks end of two years of legal troubles.”

. . .

Version 2.4.6 (February 23, 2014): Added links & notes: Mortenson’s first interview since

April 2011 (of course, Krakauer still refuses to comment!); “Everest” movie scheduled for

release February 2015;

Version 2.4.6 (March 19, 2014): Jennifer Jordan’s forthcoming documentary “3000 Cups of

Tea: The Mission and the Madness of Greg Mortenson” -- Did 60 Minutes and the Media Get It

Wrong? (http://www.3000cupsoftea.org./)

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/09/how-chris-mccandless-died.html?mbid=social_retweet

http://www.today.com/video/today/54132574#54132574

http://www.3000cupsoftea.org./


8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

"It's [Into Thin Air] there in print forever. It's part of history. People should be above taking someone else

down. And for what? For money and egos people are willing to destroy other people to further their

careers."

-- David Breashears, (Improper Bostonian, Sept 24, 1997)

On April 17, 2011 CBS’s “60 Minutes” aired their expose of Greg Mortenson (best-selling

author of “Three Cups of Tea”). Jon Krakauer (best-selling author of “Into Thin Air”) said that

Mortenson tells a “beautiful story, and it’s a lie” and Mortenson “uses Central Asia Institute

(CAI) as his private ATM machine.”

In response, Daniel Glick wrote that he believes “in the importance of journalism to ferret out

charlatans, expose financial fraud, and hold people and institutions accountable. That said, it’s

hard to believe why “60 Minutes” decided that Greg Mortenson and the Central Asia Institute

qualified on any of those fronts – much less why Jon Krakauer joined in this recent barrage.”

But, Krakauer didn’t simply “join in” with an on-going “60 Minutes” investigation. Eleven

months before the broadcast, Krakauer began his own investigation, spoon-fed his story “ to “60

Minutes,” and months later timed the publication of his e-book, “Three Cups of Deceit,” to

“piggy-back” on the “60 Minutes” broadcast.

Jon Krakauer was not just a “jilted crank” or “crusading do-gooder” outraged at Mortenson’s

literary deceit and lax accounting practices. It appears that Krakauer was also motivated to

write his “take down” of Mortenson as a publicity stunt to create the “buzz” to raise investment

capital for the launch of Mark Bryant’s (an old friend) new e-publishing venture Byliner.com.

. . .

Byliner.com is “a publishing company for compelling stories that fall between magazine article

and full length books.” In April 2010, Byliner.com Co-Founder Mark Bryant described how he

claims Krakauer got onto the Mortenson story:

“around 2002 Krakauer started hearing rumblings about misuses of funds and possible

fraud at the organization” … “Krakauer stopped donating [in 2004] to the charity … but

he [Krakauer] continued to hear rumors and finally sat down to read Mortenson's book,

“Three Cups of Tea,” around May 2010” … [He] brought his initial findings to”60

Minutes,” … the show did not initially jump on the story but … [eventually] a broadcast

was ultimately scheduled. Krakauer … wanted to write something after the show aired

which Bryant said would be more informal than a book. “When Bryant … started talking

to the author about a new project he was working on … Krakauer offered up his piece on

Mortenson” … “For Bryant, Krakauer's piece… seemed an ideal way to launch his new

project, Byliner.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/15/60minutes/main20054397.shtml?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/15/60minutes/main20054397.shtml


http://danielglick.net/2011/04/60-minutes-expose-on-three-cups-of-tea-is-weak-%e2%80%93-and-wrong/

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/46926-how-krakauer-got-onto-the-mortenson-story-and-the-launch-of-byliner-com.html



http://www.baycitizen.org/blogs/culturefeed/sf-based-byliner-makes-waves-3-cups/

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Cups-Deceit-Humanitarian-ebook/dp/B004XHVOW4

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jySbMrs_7abp7E_PadrTQuU0wRtg?docId=CNG.ec55c62ca726e1ebdf83de8a2321c95b.521

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/28/BUIO1J9820.DTL&type=tech


http://byliner.com/



9

But, Byliner wasn’t actually a “new” project. Although Bryant officially co-founded Byliner in

May 2010, the other Co-Founder, John Tayman, wrote, “In January 2009 … I was chatting with

some writers [perhaps Krakauer was among that number?] and editors about an idea for a

company that would bring stories that fell into that dead zone [10,000 to 30,000 words] to life.”

“In 2009, Bryant and his former colleague [John Tayman] … had started talking about ways “to

help preserve long-form journalism” … they set the idea aside. Last summer [May 2010], with

the iPad ascendant, they went back into planning mode.”

Former NYT Magazine editor Gerry Marzorati “emphasized that the endeavor would need to

rely on popular, big-name journalists to establish its cachet.” Krakauer certainly fits that bill.

And, it’s worth noting that Byliner Co-Founders Mark Bryant & John Tayman were Krakauer’s

former editors at “Outside” magazine (and Bryant is a long-time friend of Jon Krakauer).

Mark Bryant’s story of how Krakauer got onto the Mortenson story appears disingenuous. First,

I find it difficult to believe that, prior to May 2010, Bryant never discussed his “new” Byliner

venture with his friend Krakauer even though it had been “in development” since 2009. Second,

I doubt that Krakauer brought his story to Bryant after he fed the story to “60 Minutes” during

the Summer of 2010. Instead, I would speculate that in Spring 2010 (or earlier) Bryant first told

Krakauer of his need for a controversial story to create the “buzz” to launch Byliner, then

Krakauer recalled his 2004 break with Mortenson and started digging into Mortenson’s books. I

find it difficult to believe that Bryant just happened to launch Byliner.com at the exact same time

(May 2010) that Krakauer just happened to have “finally sat down to read Mortenson’s book

seven years after his break with Mortenson. (Later, based on a Bryant interview, Alisssa Quart

wrote a similar account, but with Krakauer bringing his piece to Byrant).

. . .

John Tayman wrote, “These swiftly conceived and completed [Byliner Original] books would be

reported and written swiftly …Our strategy would liberate them from the pre-determined

schedules of traditional book and magazine publishing.” But, despite their claims otherwise,

Byliner’s theory of publishing e-books “reported and written swiftly” was not “tested” by their

first “Byliner Original” (which took almost a year before its publication). Why?

Mark Bryant claimed, “It was unlikely … even The New Yorker, would run a piece as long as

this … even by a journalist as famous as Krakauer. … [He] had news to break, and sooner than

traditional publishing would allow.” But was it really so unlikely that “The New Yorker”

wouldn’t run Krakauer’s piece (or one edited down a bit?) And if he had “news to break” why

did he sit on his piece almost a year? In contrast, Alissa Quart wrote that Byliner’s second e-

book in May 2011 “was edited and formatted in ten days, not the year between editing and

publication that tend to weigh down and periodize works produced by legacy publishers.”

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mark-bryant/35/686/2aa


http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/04/with-three-cups-of-good-luck-byliner-builds-pre-launch-buzz-for-its-longform-focused-publishing-platform/









10

Sometime during the Summer of 2010 “Krakauer … brought his initial findings to “60 Minutes,”

… the show did not initially jump on the story but did, eventually [Fall 2010], start looking into

Krakauer's claim and a broadcast was ultimately scheduled.” (In his own account, Krakauer

failed to mention he approached “60 Minutes,” instead he disingenuously claimed that because “I

had once been one of Mortenson’s most enthusiastic supporters … I was interviewed by

correspondent Steve Kroft for the show.”)

Krakauer and the Byliner co-Founders decided to hold off publishing “Three Cups of Deceit” for

another six months or so, until after the “60 Minutes” broadcast. They timed the publication of

their first “Byliner Original,” “Three Cups of Deceit,” for the day after the April 17th

broadcast

of the“60 Minutes” expose. And, as part of their PR strategy to create “buzz,” the Byliner co-

founders had given several interviews several weeks previously that were also published within

days of the broadcast.

. . .

“Three Cups of Deceit,” was the first e-book published by Byliner. The “60 Minutes” broadcast

generated a lot of free publicity for the launch of Byliner. Krakauer’s book shot to the top of the

best-seller lists, and the co-founders used the “buzz” to raise the investment capital needed to

finance their full launch of Byliner in June 2011.

On the other hand, Krakauer’s “take down” of Greg Mortenson resulted in a dramatic drop in

Mortenson’s book sales and donations to CAI. It’s rather ironic that in 2004 Krakauer wrote to

the CAI board, “I still believe in CAIs mission … I don’t want to make any public statements

that would have a negative impact on Greg’s work….” But, seven years later, Krakauer

changed his mind. Why? What motivated Krakauer to write his e-book “Three Cups of

Deceit”? And, why did he wait seven years to go public with his concerns?

Well, Jon Krakauer claims he was outraged by Mortensons’ literary sins and “way of running

things.” However, it appears that Krakauer was also motivated to “take down” Mortenson as a

publicity stunt (timed with the “60 Minutes” broadcast based largely upon his spoon-fed

research) to create the “buzz” to raise the investment capital needed to launch his old friend

Mark Bryant’s start-up of Byliner.com (and to pump up sales of his new book).

Perhaps, filmmaker David Breashears hit the mark with his 1997 comment about Krakauer’s

book “Into Thin Air”: "It's there in print forever. It's part of history. People should be above

taking someone else down. And for what? For money and egos people are willing to destroy

other people to further their careers."

While it certainly does appear that Greg Mortenson confabulated parts of his “inspirational

story,” Jon Krakauer has also had “credibility problems” with his own books: His most recent

book, Where Men Win Glory, omits President Obama & the Democratic Congress’s whitewash


http://byliner.com/jon-krakauer/stories/excerpt-three-cups-of-deceit#update-5


http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/19/byliner-launches-with-a-splash-aims-to-disrupt-long-form-journalism/





11

of Gen. McChrystal’s central role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death. In his

book Into Thin Air, Krakauer painted an unjustly harsh portrayal of climber Anatoli Boukreev

and he wrote a “poison plant fable” to explain Christopher McCandless’s death in Into the Wild.

Finally, it appears both he and the Byliners Co-Founders have been disingenuous in describing

how Krakauer got onto the Mortenson story. Krakauer displayed hypocrisy by “throwing

stones” when his own hands are not clean of deceit.

Overall, I believe Daniel Glick (at danielglick.net) has offered the most balanced commentary on

this affair: “[‘60 Minutes’ and Jon Krakauer’s assault was overkill] lacking in basic elements of

fairness, balance, perspective, insight and context. … Mortenson is neither a saint nor a

charlatan; Krakauer is not either a jilted crank or a crusading do-gooder. There are nuances,

debatable “facts” and conflicting motivations in almost every situation, messy and at times

seemingly irreconcilable. This is no exception.”

Once Mortenson comes out of seclusion, he certainly needs to answer questions about his literary

and financial practices. However, I believe Jon Krakauer also needs to answer questions about

he “got onto the Mortenson story,” his motivations for writing “Three Cups of Deceit,” and how

much cash (if any) he has invested in Byliner.com (but, just like Mortenson, Krakauer isn’t

talking to the press).1

. . .

Note: the eight-page unabridged version of the above discussion (with more complete quotes &

references) is found in the following chapter, “With Three Cups of Luck?”

And, it’s worth mentioning that CBS’s “60 Minutes,” in their September 2009 hagiographic

profile of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, didn’t bother to press him about his central role in the

Army’s cover-up of Pat Tillman’s 2004 friendly-fire death. I believe Gen. McChrystal would

have been a more worthy target for "60 Minutes" investigative wrath than Greg Mortenson.

1 Update 2/24/14: JK still refuses to comment on the story, even after Mortenson finally came out of seclusion in

his 1/20/14 NBC interview.

http://danielglick.net/

http://danielglick.net/2011/04/whats-the-big-problem/

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/article_33268026-e740-11e0-b719-001cc4c03286.html






12

“…some may wonder why his dishonesty about [Pat] Tillman should matter. It matters because deceit by a

military officer of [Gen. Stanley] McChrystal’s rank is a poisonous betrayal of trust that shouldn’t be

countenanced.”



author of “Three Cups of Tea”) accusing him of fabricating his “inspirational story.” Jon

Krakauer (best-selling author of “Into Thin Air) said that Mortenson tells a “beautiful story, and

it’s a lie.”

It certainly appears Greg Mortenson confabulated parts of his ”inspirational story.” However, I

haven’t researched [as of April 2010] the details enough to offer fully informed commentary on

the extent of Mortensen’s deceit. However, I do have first-hand knowledge of Krakauer’s own

deceit in his latest book “Where Men Win Glory – The Odyssey of Pat Tillman” (and in some of

his previous books). Krakauer displayed hypocrisy by “throwing stones” at Mortenson when his

own hands are not clean of literary deceit.

Pat Tillman was the NFL football player who enlisted with the Army Rangers and was killed in

2004 by friendly-fire in Afghanistan. Although Gen. Stanley McChrystal learned the next day

about Tillman’s friendly-fire death, he didn’t notify Tillman’s family, his legal officer withheld

that information from the medical examiner, and he supervised the writing of a “misleading”

Silver Star medal recommendation (with altered witness statements).

In the first edition of “Where Men Win Glory,” McChrystal was barely a footnote. But just a

month later, Krakauer published his “Daily Beast” piece, “Gen. McChrystal’s Credibility

Problem,” and nine months later he further described McChrystal’s “central role in the scandal”

in his updated paperback edition. In his Preface, it appears Krakauer prevaricated where he

wrote, “Following publication of the first edition in September 2009, I discovered additional

evidence of deceit by high-ranking Army officers.”

“I discovered”? In reality, just two days after the release of the first edition, my Aunt Candy

literally placed two binders of my research (about 200 pages) into Krakauer’s hands at his

Boulder book signing. My analysis shows my material was the source of Krakauer’s “additional

evidence of deceit.”

I don’t care (much) about Krakauer stealing my credit. But, his greater act of deceit was one of

omission. After reading his book, you’d believe the Democratic Congress was “stonewalled” by

President Bush. But, even after being handed my “untold story,” Krakauer still failed to describe

in his updated edition how President Obama and the Democratic Congress continued the Bush

administration’s whitewash of McChrystal’s central role in the cover-up of Tillman’s friendly-

fire death.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-14/gen-mcchrystals-credibility-problem/


http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2011/04/jon-krakauers-credibility-problem.html

http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2011/04/click-link-below-to-view-untold-tillman.html


13

Jon Krakauer never discussed President Obama’s May 2009 promotion of Gen. McChrystal over

the protests of the Tillman family (or Obama’s passage of a FOIA law to cover-up torture photos

by JSOC forces under McChrystals’ command). Or how Senators John McCain, Carl Levin, and

James Webb didn’t “probe deeply” into McChrystal’s role during the June 2009 Senate

confirmation hearing. Nor did Krakauer discuss Senator Webb’s secret 2008 Senate review and

the May 2008 Senate hearing during which McChrystal described his actions “in detail” behind

closed doors. And, incredibly, Krakauer neglected to even mention the second Congressional

Tillman hearing. At this August 2007 hearing, Congressman Henry Waxman allowed

McChrystal to “decline” to testify, despite McChrystal’s key role in writing both the fraudulent

Silver Star and the P4 memo that was the focus of much of that hearing.

In reality, the Tillman cover-up was a thoroughly bipartisan affair, with President Obama

continuing, to this day (see the following chapter “The Emperor’s General”), to shield General

McChrystal. In the 2010 Foreword to her paperback edition (at blurb.com) of “Boots on the

Ground by Dusk,” Mary Tillman wrote, “Over the last five years, the Pentagon and Congress

have had numerous opportunities to hold accountable those responsible for the cover-up of Pat’s

death. Each time they’ve failed. … “The Tillman Story” [2010 documentary] illustrates the

corruption, deception, and indifference that is systemic in our government. … The cover-up of

Pat’s death was orchestrated at the very highest levels of the Pentagon, and elsewhere in our

government … the government didn’t just lie to us; it lied to a nation.”

And, this story is not over yet; President Obama has continued to shield General McChrystal

from accountability. Just last month [April 2011], Obama appointed McChrystal to head the

“Joining Forces” program despite the protest of Mary Tillman. The White House said, “The

circumstances … have been thoroughly investigated, and General McChrystal was found to have

acted honorably…” and Michelle Obama said, “we’re proud to have him on board.”

Perhaps Krakauer choose to omit this “untold story” from his updated edition because it didn’t fit

into his simple black-and-white fable? Or out of Democratic bias? Or a lack of courage?

Perhaps, his ego would be bruised to admit he (once again) had gotten his story wrong the first

time around? Or maybe simply laziness?

Regardless, Krakauer embellished his story of how he “discovered” Gen. McCrystal’s central

role in the Tillman cover-up. But more important, his greater act of deceit was omitting the role

of President Obama and the Democratic Congress in the whitewash of Gen. McChrystal.

While it certainly appears Greg Mortenson confabulated parts of his ”inspirational story,” Jon

Krakauer displayed hypocrisy by “throwing stones” at Mortenson when his own hands were not

without literary sin. Krakauer certainly didn’t “win glory” with his deceit and his omission of

the “untold” Tillman story.

http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/1500065



http://www.tillmanstory.com/

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/04/pat-tillmans-mom-says-she-wants-general-stanley-mcchrystal-removed-in-abc-news-exclusive.html


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/04/michelle-obama-stands-by-mcchrystal-appointment-were-proud-to-have-him-on-board.html


14

“WITH THREE CUPS OF LUCK?” How Jon Krakauer’s “Take-Down” of Greg Mortenson Launched Byliner.com

"It's [“Into Thin Air”] there in print forever. It's part of history. People should be above taking someone else

down. And for what? For money and egos people are willing to destroy other people to further their careers." -- David Breashears, (Improper Bostonian, Sept 24, 1997)


author of “Three Cups of Tea” & “Stones Into Schools”) accusing him of fabricating his

inspirational story and mismanaging the funds of his charitable organization Central Asia

Institute (CAI). Jon Krakauer (best-selling author of “Into Thin Air & “Into the Wild”) said that

Mortenson tells a “beautiful story, and it’s a lie” and “uses Central Asia Institute as his private

ATM machine.”

The following day, Krakauer published his e-book “Three Cups of Deceit.” Nick Summers

commented in The Daily Beast:

“The famous journalist's revelations about Greg Mortenson are the latest in his relentless

quest to find the truth and expose fraud. … When Jon Krakauer writes, big things come

under his withering gaze. … Because of this, his latest target … seems tiny in comparison

… Used to elephant hunting, Krakauer brings the same gun to the smaller task,

obliterating Mortenson in the process.”

In contrast, Daniel Glick wrote in his blog,

“I believe in the importance of journalism to ferret out charlatans, expose financial fraud,

and hold people and institutions accountable. That said, it’s hard to believe why “60

Minutes” decided that Greg Mortenson and the Central Asia Institute qualified on any of

those fronts – much less why Jon Krakauer joined in this recent barrage.”

But, it’s important to note that Krakauer didn’t simply “join in” with an on-going “60 Minutes”

investigation. In May 2010 (eleven months before the expose was broadcast), Krakauer began

his own investigation & wrote a draft of his story, several months later he fed his story “ to “60

Minutes” (which based their broadcast largely on his research), and then he timed the publication

of his e-book, “Three Cups of Deceit,” for publication just after “60 Minutes” aired their April

2011 expose.

Jon Krakauer was not just a “jilted crank” or “crusading do-gooder” outraged at Mortenson’s

literary deceit and lax accounting practices. It appears that Krakauer was, at least partly,

motivated to write his “take down” of Mortenson as a publicity stunt to create the “buzz” to raise

investment capital for the launch of Mark Bryant’s (an old friend) new e-publishing venture

(Byliner.com) and to promote sales of his new book.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/15/60minutes/main20054397.shtml?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel



http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-04-22/jon-krakauer-exposes-greg-mortenson-and-his-hunt-for-truth/

http://danielglick.net/2011/04/60-minutes-expose-on-three-cups-of-tea-is-weak-%e2%80%93-and-wrong/





http://www.amazon.com/Three-Cups-Deceit-Humanitarian-ebook/dp/B004XHVOW4


15

The Genesis of Byliner.com:

In an interview, “SF-based Byliner Makes Waves with '3 Cups of Deceit',” with Reyhan

Harmanci (“Bay Citizen” April 20, 2011), Byliner COO Ted Barnett said,

“We are a publishing company, for compelling stories that fall between magazine article

and full length books" and “aim to be a repository for previously published long form

non-fiction as well, when they officially launch in May [launched June 21,2011].”

In his “Niemann Reports” (Winter 2011) piece, “It’s a Long Article. It’s a Short Book. No, It’s a

Byliner E-Book.”, John Tayman wrote:

“… A story that needed 10,000, 20,000 or even 30,000 words to be properly told

inevitably fell into publishing’s dead zone. … In January 2009 … I was chatting with

some writers and editors about an idea for a company that would bring stories that fell

into that dead zone to life. … These swiftly conceived and completed books would be

reported and written swiftly, not unlike a magazine piece. … … We wanted to give

writers the opportunity to … get it in front of potential readers while the event or action

or news is relatively current. Our strategy would liberate them from the pre-determined

schedules [months or up to a year delay] of traditional book and magazine publishing.”

Lois Beckett, in “With Three Cups of Luck, Byliner Builds Pre-Launch Buzz for iIs Longform-

Focused Platform” (April 25, 2011), wrote:

“When former NYT Magazine editor Gerry Marzorati spoke at Berkeley earlier this

spring about saving long-form journalism, he tossed out an interesting idea: Someone

should assemble a “hive” of long-form journalists and build a website to attract readers

and showcase the writers’ work. … Across the Bay in San Francisco, it turns out, a plan

[Byliner] very much like this one was already in the works.”

But, Byliner needed to build “buzz” and establish its’ “cachet.” Lois Beckett continued:

“…. Marzorati emphasized that the endeavor would need to rely on popular, big-name

journalists to establish its cachet. “[Byliner is] an ambitious project, led in part by

an editor [Mark Bryant] with deep connections to some of the country’s most established

nonfiction writers [including Jon Krakauer]. So yes, they’ve got cachet.”

“And as for the echoes between Marzorati’s “hive” proposal and Byliner? Not a

coincidence. “I had spent three years consulting full-time from The New York Times and

working directly with and for Gerry,” [Mark] Bryant said, “and I was fortunate to be able

to hear a lot of his ideas.”

It’s worth noting that Byliner Editorial Director and Co-Founder is Mark Bryant, an old friend of

Krakauer, and that both Bryant and Byliner CEO and Co-Founder John Tayman were Krakauer’s

former editors at Outside magazine where Krakauer published his big stories which became "Into

Thin Air" and "Into the Wild."






http://twitter.com/#!/gerrynyt

http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/03/a-hive-of-long-form-journalists-gerry-marzorati-and-mark-danner-on-a-new-model-for-long-form/



16

How Jon Krakauer Got Onto the Greg Mortenson Story:

Just after the “60 Minutes” expose aired, on April 20, 2011, “Publisher’s Weekly” published a

piece based on an interview with Mark Bryant that described how Krakauer got onto the

Mortenson story: “around 2002 Krakauer started hearing rumblings about misuses of funds and

possible fraud at the organization. Krakauer stopped donating to the charity…”

Jon Krakauer was an early supporter of Mortenson’s CAI. As Krakauer wrote in “Three Cups of

Deceit” (p. 26, TCD):

“[in September 2001] he [CAI Director Tom Hornbein] asked me to serve as

Mortenson’s opening act. I’d met Greg four or five times by then, and I was enormously

impressed by what he’d done in Pakistan. Over the previous three years [1999 to 2001]

I’d donated more than $55,000 to CAI, and I’d committed to donating another $20,000 in

2002. I told Hornbein I would be honored to introduce Greg at the fundraiser.’”

However, a year later in 2002, Hornbein and three other directors resigned from the CAI board.

Two years later, in 2004, Krakauer decided to withdraw his support for CAI (p.33, TCD):

“… but by 2004 I had begun to suspect that Mortenson was improperly using CAI funds.

… I sent a fax [March 23, 2004] to Mortenson’s office: … ‘I lost confidence in Greg’s

accountability. …. an organization run with so little oversight and such lax accounting

practices. … Make no mistake: I still believe in CAIs mission, but I am made extremely

uneasy by Greg’s way of running the show. Although I don’t want to make any public

statements that would have a negative impact on Greg’s work, I no longer feel

comfortable providing financial backing, or lending my name, to CAI.’”

Krakauer had written that he didn’t want to “make any public statements that would have a

negative impact on Greg’s work.” So, seven years later in 2011, what then motivated him to

change his mind and decide to publicly excoriate Mortenson? And why did he wait seven years

until going public with his concerns about Mortenson’s “way of running the show”?

Unfortunately, Krakauer is not talking (like Mortenson, he is not granting interviews).2

However, in his April 2011 book, Krakauer claimed that (p. 33, TCD), “… until recently [a bit

disingenuous, it was actually about a year before his book was published, in May 2010], I didn’t

know that the most dramatic anecdotes in “Three Cups of Tea” were fabricated.”

But, Mark Bryant, Krakauer’s old friend and former editor at Outside magazine, has talked about

how Krakauer got onto the Mortenson story. Rachel Deahl’s interviewed Bryant for her piece,

“How Krakauer Got Onto the Mortenson Story and the Launch of Byliner.com,” (April 20,

2011):

2 Update 2/24/14: Even after Mortenson finally came out of seclusion in his 1/20/14 NBC interview.

JK still refuses to comment on the story.






17

“… Krakauer stopped donating to the charity but continued to hear rumors and,

according to Bryant, finally sat down to read Mortenson's book, “Three Cups of Tea”,

around May 2010. … Krakauer felt the tale "was less than plausible … [He] brought his

initial findings to”60 Minutes,” … the show did not initially jump on the story but …

[eventually] a broadcast was ultimately scheduled. … When Bryant … started talking to

the author [Krakauer] about a new project he was working on that would feature long

form journalism, Krakauer offered up his piece [at least draft written by May/June 2010]

on Mortenson” …“For Bryant, Krakauer's piece, which he said grew out of a need to

reveal the behind-the-scenes wrongdoings at Mortenson's charity [then why wait seven

years?] more than a desire to shine a light on a literary fraud, seemed an ideal way to

launch his new project, Byliner.”

Apparently, Bryant thought Krakauer would be the “popular, big-name journalist” to establish

Byliner’s “cachet” that Marzorati said was needed for the launch of an endeavor such as Byliner.

In her Columbia Journalism Review (Sept/Oct 2011) piece, “The Long Tale,” Alisssa Quart

wrote a similar version of how Krakauer got onto the Mortenson story (apparently also based on

an interview with Mark Bryant):

“When author Jon Krakauer started [May 2010] looking into the altruistic claims of …

Greg Mortenson, he uncovered quite a story. … In [the Summer of] 2010, Krakauer

went to “60 Minutes” with his findings. … the show was slow to get his story on the air

… So Krakauer decided to write about Mortenson himself. He was advised to take it to

The New Yorker. … It was unlikely that a magazine … would run a piece as long as this,

at least promptly, even by a journalist as famous as Krakauer. … [if he] published it as a

book, it would take months, perhaps a year, to hit bookstores. Krakauer had news to

break, and sooner [B.S. he waited a year!] than traditional publishing would allow. He

mentioned the story [contradicts above version that says Bryant mentioned it to JK] to his

former editor at Outside magazine, Mark Bryant, who had been talking up a new e-book

venture … According to Bryant, Krakauer quickly decided [actually one year previously,

May 2010] to have the new web publisher put out his Mortenson takedown, “Three Cups

of Deceit.” Krakauer’s e-book/essay wound up number one on Amazon’s nonfiction list

in April.”

If Krakauer “had news to break” than why did he sit on his story for a year? (I’m sure “The New

Yorker” could have edited his piece a bit and published it sooner than a year). And it’s obvious

he had written much of his piece before he fed his story to “60 Minutes.” And this version says

Krakauer mentioned the story to Bryant, which contradicts the other account which had Bryant

mentioning his project to Krakauer.

. . .

And it’s worth noting that Byliner was not actually a “new” project in May 2010. In an

interview with Reyhan Harmanci (“Bay Citizen April 20, 2011) “[Byliner COO Ted] Barnett

said that “Byliner itself has been in development since 2009.”




18

And Lois Beckett, in “With Three Cups of Luck, Byliner Builds Pre-Launch Buzz for Its’

Longform-Focused Platform” (April 25, 2011), wrote: “In 2009, Bryant and his former

colleague, … John Tayman … had started talking about ways “to help preserve long-form

journalism” … they set the idea aside. Last summer [May 2010?], with the iPad ascendant, they

went back into planning mode.”

In his “Niemann Reports” (Winter 2011) piece, It’s a Long Article. It’s a Short Book. No, It’s a

Byliner E-Book., John Tayman wrote:

“In January 2009, a year before the iPad was launched and two years before Amazon

introduced Kindle Singles, I was chatting with some writers [perhaps Jon Krakauer was

among this number?] and editors about an idea for a company that would bring stories

that fell into that dead zone to life”

. . .

Mark Bryant has been Byliner Editorial Director & Co-Founder from “2010 – Present (1 year)”;

he officially started in May or June 2010 (depending on when he wrote his curriculum vitae).

It’s worth noting this is the same time, or shortly after, Krakauer started his investigation.

Mark Bryant’s story about how Krakauer got onto the Mortenson story appears disingenuous. I

find it difficult to believe that, prior to May 2010, Bryant never discussed his “new” Byliner

venture to his friend Krakauer even though it had been “in development” since 2009. I would

speculate that in May 2010 (or earlier) Bryant first mentioned his need to Krakauer for a

controversial story to create the “buzz” to launch Byliner, then Krakauer recalled his seven year-

old issues with Mortenson’s ‘way of running the show” as a possible subject, and started digging

into Mortenson’s books in May 2010 (just after finishing his revisions to his previous book

“Where Men Win Glory” in April 2010). I find it difficult to believe that Bryant’s need for a

juicy story and Krakauer’s just happening to finally read Mortenson’s book was coincidental.

Regardless of whether Bryant discussed Byliner with Krakauer before or just after he started to

investigate Mortenson, it appears that they decided to hold off publication of his book so they

could spoon-feed the “Three Cups of Deceit” story to “60 Minutes” to create a publicity stunt

that would generate the “buzz” to launch Byliner.com (and raise investment capital).





http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mark-bryant/35/686/2aa


19

Spoon-Feeding “Three Cups of Deceit” to “60 Minutes:”

Sometime during the Summer of 2010 (before Fall 2010) Krakauer spoon-fed the results of his

investigation to “60 Minutes” in the hopes of getting them to run a story on Greg Mortenson.

From the April 17, 2011 “60 Minutes” transcript): “… last fall, we began investigating

complaints from former donors [e.g. Krakauer], board members, staffers, and charity watchdogs

about Mortenson and the way he is running his non-profit organization.”

Continuing Bryant’s explanation of how Krakauer got onto the story, Racheal Deahl wrote,

“Krakauer, Bryant explains, brought his initial findings to “60 Minutes,” … but

continued his own research. … the show [“60 Minutes”] did not initially jump on the

story but did, eventually [last fall] , start looking into Krakauer's claim and a broadcast

was ultimately scheduled. … Krakauer, who had done his own research, wanted to write

something after the show aired [a bit disingenuous, since his book was published the

following day; even the mighty JK would need more than a day to write a book!] which

Bryant said would be more informal than a book.”

Krakauer disingenuously asserted in his August 10, 2011 Byliner.com update, “Greg Mortenson

Truth Check,” that “60 Minutes” interviewed him because of his 2004 break with Mortenson

(instead of because he had first spoon-fed the story to them):

“On April 17, the CBS News program “60 Minutes” broadcast an exposé of Greg

Mortenson, alleging that crucial parts of his bestselling book, Three Cups of Tea, were

fabricated … Because I had once been one of Mortenson’s most enthusiastic supporters,

and had given him more than $75,000 in the charity’s early years when it was teetering

on the brink of insolvency, I was interviewed by correspondent Steve Kroft for the

show.”

Krakauer’s assertion contradicts Mark Bryant’s account; “Krakauer … brought his initial

findings to “60 Minutes.” Besides, since Krakauer had never made “any public statements that

would have a negative impact on Greg’s work.,” how would Kroft even know about Krakauer’s

2004 letter to the CAI board?

In her Columbia Journalism Review (Sept/Oct 2011) piece, “The Long Tale,” Alisssa Quart also

mentioned Krakauer going to “60 Minutes”:

“When author Jon Krakauer started [May 2010] looking into the altruistic claims of …

Greg Mortenson, he uncovered quite a story. … In [the Summer of] 2010, Krakauer

went to “60 Minutes” with his findings. … the show was slow to get his story on the air

… So Krakauer decided to write about Mortenson himself.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/15/60minutes/main20054397.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody







20

Timing “Three Cups of Deceit” to Create Buzz & Raise Cash for Byliner.com:

Alissa Quart, in her Columbia Journalism Review (Sept/Oct 2011) piece, “The Long Tale,”

wrote (apparently based on an interview with Mark Bryant) about the supposed dilemma of

pieces that fell into the “dead zone” of 10,000 to 30,000 words:

“It was unlikely that a magazine, even The New Yorker, would run a piece as long as this,

at least promptly, even by a journalist as famous as Krakauer. … even if Krakauer had

published it as a book, it would take months, perhaps a year, to hit bookstores. Krakauer

had news to break, and sooner [BS he sat on it a year!] than traditional publishing would

allow.”

But it really so unlikely that “The New Yorker” wouldn’t run Krakauer’s piece (or one edited

down a bit?) And if he had “news to break” why did he wait almost a year to publish his piece?

In his “Niemann Reports” (Winter 2011) piece, “It’s a Long Article. It’s a Short Book. No, It’s a

Byliner E-Book.”, John Tayman wrote:

“In January 2009 … I was chatting with some writers and editors about an idea for a

company that would bring stories that fell into that dead zone [10,000 to 30,000 words] to

life. … These swiftly conceived and completed books … would be reported and written

swiftly, not unlike a magazine piece. … We wanted to give writers the opportunity to

draw out the complexities of a story and get it in front of potential readers while the event

or action or news is relatively current. Our strategy would liberate them from the pre-

determined schedules of traditional book [months, perhaps a year delay] and magazine

publishing. … At least, this was our theory, tested with our first Byliner Original by Jon

Krakauer. … He knew there was an important story to be told …. but the investigative

piece he wrote was 20,000 words long. At that length, it didn’t work as either a

conventional magazine piece or a book.”

However, Byliner’s theory of publishing e-books that were “reported and written swiftly” was

NOT “tested” by their first “Byliner Original” by Krakauer. He wrote his draft piece almost a

year before the April 2010 publication of his book. In actuality, he didn’t really have “news to

break”. Instead, he and the Byliner Founders decided to hold off on publication until “60

Minutes” broadcast the story, and use that exposure to generate “Buzz” (and raise money).

It’s worth noting that, in contrast, Alisssa Quart wrote about Byliner’s first actual “test” of

“basing its Singles on newsworthy topics” with William Vollman’s “Into the Forbidden Zone”

(Byliner second e-book) in May 2011: “… in two weeks he turned around that story [Japan

earthquake]. It was in front of readers within ten days of his plane landing back in the US.” In

other words, the book was edited and formatted in ten days, not the year between editing and

publication that tend to weigh down and periodize works produced by legacy publishers.”






21

On April 17th

, “60 Minutes” broadcast their expose of Greg Mortenson. Reyhan Harmanci wrote

how Krakauer timed the publication of his book to immediately follow the “60 Minutes”

broadcast:

“In the case of the Krakauer story, Byliner had to scramble a bit — the author wanted it

timed to the 60 Minutes piece — and the TV show gave them a 48 hour head's up before

it aired.”

However, both Krakauer and Byliner actually had much more than 48 hours advance notice of

the forthcoming broadcast. Krakauer mentions in his book (p. 69) he had sent an email on April

13, 2011 to Mortenson requesting an interview prior to going to press. And the founders of

Byliner granted several interviews about their launch several weeks prior to the broadcast.

The following day, on April 18th

, Krakauer’s e-book “Three Cups of Deceit” was published by

Byliner. The “60 Minutes” controversial broadcast generated a lot of free publicity for both

Byliner.com, Krakauer’s book shot to the top of the best-seller lists.

In his “Niemann Reports” (Winter 2011) piece, It’s a Long Article. It’s a Short Book. No, It’s a

Byliner E-Book., John Tayman wrote:

“There were timing challenges with publishing it, too: Krakauer wanted to release his

story when a “60 Minutes” report on Mortenson would be aired in mid-April. Yet he

wanted also to be able to keep reporting—adding details to his investigative essay, as he

unearthed them—up until its release. … We released Krakauer’s e-book on our website

immediately after “60 Minutes” aired its own exposé, in which Krakauer was featured. …

it quickly became the top selling e-book; it has sold steadily ever since…”

. . .

Byliner also used the “buzz” from the ’60 Minutes” broadcast to raise the investment capital

needed to finance its’ launch:

Sarah Lacy wrote, “Byliner Launches With A Splash, Aims To Disrupt Long-Form Journalism’

(April 19, 2011):

“The media is buzzing with allegations that Nobel Peace Prize nominee Greg Mortenson

fabricated his bestselling books and misused millions of dollars in donations. ...

Amazingly, within days [in the works for almost a year] of 60 Minutes breaking the

story, a new book [“Three Cups of Deceit] was already released about it. …. The

company [Byliner] releasing the book-like-thing burst on the scene yesterday too. I first

met with Byliner’s co-founder and CEO John Tayman a few weeks ago, at the request of

a friend who was thinking about investing and wanted an author’s take.”




http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/19/byliner-launches-with-a-splash-aims-to-disrupt-long-form-journalism/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/greg-mortensons-three-cups-of-tea--creative-nonfiction/2011/03/03/AFTbNy1D_blog.html

http://www.byliner.com/


22

And Andrew Ross, in “Byliner, S.F. digital publisher, has instant hit,” (April 29, 2011) wrote:

“Having your very first product [“Three Cups of Deceit”] become an instant best-seller is

not a bad way to start. … It also was the basis for a "60 Minutes" segment two Sundays

ago. The day after the program aired, 70,000 free PDF versions of "Three Cups of

Deceit" were downloaded within 72 hours of its release …. it shot to the top of the Kindle

Single list and has led Amazon's overall nonfiction sales ever since. ‘This is the first title

we've released; we're incredibly pleased,’ said [Byliner's founder and CEO John

Tayman].”

“Tayman and two partners, Mark Bryant, Krakauer's former editor at Outside magazine,

and Ted Barnett … drew on their own pockets to bootstrap the enterprise. Last week

[by April 19th

, just after the “60 Minutes” broadcast], the company received $935,000 in

funding from Bay Area early-stage venture capital firms Freestyle Capital and SoftTech

VC, and individual investors, including Russ Siegelman, a partner at Kleiner Perkins

Caufield & Byers.”

. . .

Since April, Krakauer’s e-book has sold more than 100,000 copies. On June 21, 2011, Byliner

launched in “beta mode”; Chris Lefkow wrote “… The site created a buzz earlier this year with a

piece written by Krakauer … about Greg Mortenson…” On July 7th

, Byliner rolled-out its fully

functional website. Since August 2011, Jon Krakauer has issued periodic updates at his “Three

Cups of Deceit” blog at byliner.com.





23

Neither Charlatan Nor Crusading Do-Gooder:

“Three Cups of Deceit,” was the first e-book published by Byliner. The “60 Minutes” broadcast

generated a lot of free publicity for the launch of Byliner.. Krakauer’s book shot to the top of the

best-seller lists, and the co-founders used the “buzz” to raise the investment capital needed to

finance their full launch of Byliner in June 2011.

On the other hand, Krakauer’s “take down” of Greg Mortenson resulted in a dramatic drop in

Mortenson’s book sales and donations to CAI.3 It’s rather ironic that in 2004 Krakauer wrote to

the CAI board, “I still believe in CAIs mission … I don’t want to make any public statements

that would have a negative impact on Greg’s work….”

But, seven years later, Krakauer changed his mind. Why? What motivated Krakauer to write

his e-book “Three Cups of Deceit”? And, why did he wait seven years to go public with his

concerns?

Well, Jon Krakauer claims he was outraged by Mortensons’ literary sins and “way of running

things.” However, it appears that Krakauer was also motivated to “take down” Mortenson as a

publicity stunt (timed with the “60 Minutes” broadcast based largely upon his research) to create

the “buzz” to raise the investment capital needed to launch his old friend Mark Bryant’s start-up

of Byliner.com (and to pump up sales of his new book).

Perhaps, filmmaker David Breashears hit the mark with his 1997 comment about Krakauer’s

book “Into Thin Air”: "It's there in print forever. It's part of history. People should be above

taking someone else down. And for what? For money and egos people are willing to destroy

other people to further their careers."

. . .

While it does appear that Greg Mortenson confabulated some parts of his “inspirational story,”

Jon Krakauer has also had “credibility problems” with his own books:

His most recent book, Where Men Win Glory, omits President Obama & the Democratic

Congress’s whitewash of Gen. McChrystal’s central role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s

friendly-fire death.

3 In a 2013 financial report (the most recent one filed online),contributions went from $15.39 million in FY2011 to

$4.79 million in FY2012




https://www.ikat.org/wp-includes/documents/Financials/annualreport2012-11.pdf

https://www.ikat.org/wp-includes/documents/Financials/annualreport2012-11.pdf


24

In his book Into Thin Air, Krakauer painted an unjustly harsh portrayal of climber Anatoli

Boukreev and he wrote a “poison plant fable” to explain Christopher McCandless’s death in Into

the Wild.

Finally, it appears both he and the Byliners Co-Founders have been disingenuous in describing

how Krakauer got onto the Mortenson story. Krakauer displayed hypocrisy by “throwing

stones” when his own hands are not clean of deceit.

. . .

Overall, I believe Daniel Glick (at danielglick.net) has offered the most balanced commentary on

this affair:

“[‘60 Minutes’ and Jon Krakauer’s assault was overkill] lacking in basic elements of

fairness, balance, perspective, insight and context. … Mortenson is neither a saint nor a

charlatan; Krakauer is not either a jilted crank or a crusading do-gooder. There are

nuances, debatable “facts” and conflicting motivations in almost every situation, messy

and at times seemingly irreconcilable. This is no exception.”

Once Mortenson comes out of seclusion, he certainly needs to answer questions about his literary

and financial practices. However, I believe Jon Krakauer also needs to answer questions about

he “got onto the Mortenson story,” his motivations for writing “Three Cups of Deceit,” and how

much cash (if any) he has invested in Byliner.com (but, just like Mortenson, Krakauer isn’t

talking to the press).4

. . .

And, it’s worth mentioning that CBS’s “60 Minutes,” in their September 2009 hagiographic

profile of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, didn’t bother to press him about his central role in the

Army’s cover-up of Pat Tillman’s 2004 friendly-fire death. I believe Gen. McChrystal would

have been a more worthy target for "60 Minutes" investigative wrath than Greg Mortenson.

. . .

Update October 10, 2013: From “Appeals court rejects fraud claim against ‘Three Cups of

Tea’ author Mortenson”:

A federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected claims that author and humanitarian Greg

Mortenson committed fraud by lying in his best-selling book “Three Cups of Tea” to

boost sales and donations to the charity he co-founded. A panel of 9th U.S. Circuit Court

of Appeals judges upheld a Montana judge’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit brought by

four readers of “Three Cups of Tea” and its sequel, “Stones Into Schools.”

4 Update 2/24/14: Even after Mortenson finally came out of seclusion in his 1/20/14 NBC interview.

JK still refuses to comment on the story.

http://danielglick.net/

http://danielglick.net/2011/04/whats-the-big-problem/





http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/appeals-court-rejects-fraud-claim-against-three-cups-of-tea-author-mortenson/2013/10/09/eb4d15c8-3146-11e3-ad00-ec4c6b31cbed_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/appeals-court-rejects-fraud-claim-against-three-cups-of-tea-author-mortenson/2013/10/09/eb4d15c8-3146-11e3-ad00-ec4c6b31cbed_story.html



25

The memoirs recount how Mortenson started building schools in Pakistan and

Afghanistan, with “Three Cups of Tea” selling about 4 million copies since being

published in 2006. The lawsuit was filed in 2011 after “60 Minutes” and author Jon

Krakauer reported that Mortenson fabricated passages in the books.

U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon dismissed the lawsuit last year, calling the allegations

“flimsy and speculative.” The plaintiffs appealed to the 9th Circuit, but the appellate

panel said Haddon ruled properly. The readers’ claims contained “minimal factual

allegations” and did not specify the defendants’ roles in the alleged racketeering scheme,

the judges said in the order.

Update November 11, 2013: From Greg Mortenson Lawsuit: Insurer To Pay $1.2 Million To

Settle 'Three Cups Of Tea' Charity (Matt Volz -- Huffington Post, November 11, 2013)

An insurance company will pay $1.2 million to a charity co-founded by "Three Cups of

Tea" author Greg Mortenson in a settlement over the legal costs of a lawsuit and an

investigation into Mortenson and the Central Asia Institute, attorneys involved in the

settlement said.

The settlement, if approved, will mark an end to more than two years of legal troubles for

Mortenson after "60 Minutes" and author Jon Krakauer published reports that alleged

Mortenson fabricated parts of his best-selling books and mismanaged the Central Asia

Institute.

Update December 20, 2013: From Lawsuit against 'Three Cups' insurer dismissed (Missoulian,

December 19, 2013):

A judge has dismissed a lawsuit by the charity co-founded by "Three Cups of Tea" author

Greg Mortenson against an insurance company. U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen

dismissed the lawsuit Thursday, more than a month after the Central Asia Institute and

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. reached a settlement. … The case's dismissal marks

an end to more than two years of legal troubles for Mortenson after "60 Minutes" and author

Jon Krakauer published reports alleging Mortenson fabricated parts of his best-selling book

and mismanaged the charity.

Update February 23, 2014: In his first interview since 2011, Greg Mortenson told NBC’s Tom

Brokow on January 21st, “I stand by the stories. The stories happened, but … not in the sequence or

the timing” and said, “In maybe a strange way, I’d like to thank CBS and Jon Krakauer because, had

they not brought these issues up, we could have gotten into more serious problems…”

http://www.today.com/video/today/54132574#54132574 (with link to transcript of interview)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/greg-mortenson-lawsuit_n_4238202.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/greg-mortenson-lawsuit_n_4238202.html

http://missoulian.com/

http://www.today.com/books/three-cups-author-greg-mortenson-i-let-lot-people-down-2D11961320#three-cups-author-greg-mortenson-i-let-lot-people-down-2D11961320



26

From my own transcription [At about 3:50]: “Any response from Jon Krakauer?” Brokow says,

“No, I’ve been in touch with him, I did tell Steve Kroft he was going to be on (?), I haven’t heard

back from Jon yet. He still has strong feelings about the operation, especially on the ground.”

From NBC Transcript: >> and tom brokaw 's here with us in the studio. couple of things, tom, any

response from john?

>> no, i did say i hadn't heard back from john yet. [missing quote about supposed to be on] he still

has strong feelings about the organization, especially on the ground over there and say they are

doing an audit. when greg thanks them for their intervention, it had to do with his heart condition ,

he probably would've died if he kept his original schedule.

Note: So, Jon still refuses to publically comment!

>> you talk about the organization on the ground, money is crucial to keep it going. did the funds

dry up after the scandal? and is the money returning in some way?

>> no, their donations are off about 80%, that's to be expected. it played big across the country.

and they still have some proving up to do so to speak. we knew him, i worked a lot in that part of

the world, thought it was important. john gave $17,000, he was very upset with what was going

on. something else here, viking, the publisher has not yet released their account of these

described inaccuracies.

Outside Magazine editor Alex Heard, in his January 20, 2014 piece “Greg Mortenson Steps (Back)

Into the Spotlight,” wrote, ”It’s been a long time since Greg Mortenson was a public figure who was

routinely seen or heard in public … Mortenson's re-emergence has not generated anything

approaching the pre-game hype that accompanied Lance Armstrong when he submitted to a grilling

by Oprah Winfrey …” But, Heard once again failed to mention how Krakauer’s book was used to

launch former Outside Editor Mark Bryant’s (his predecessor) launch of Byliner.

. . .

Update March 19, 2014: Got an email from Jennifer Jordan a few days ago. She’s an award-

winning journalist and filmmaker who launched a fundraising campaign under the nonprofit

umbrella of the Utah Film Center to complete production of her documentary, 3000 Cups of Tea:

The Mission and the Madness of Greg Mortenson:

The film's trailer poses the questions: Did the media principally 60 Minutes, get it wrong in

accusing Mortenson of fraud, mismanagement, and lying? If so, what are the consequences to the

man, his mission, and the future of education for girls in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and what

does it say about the state of American journalism?

"When I watched the 60 Minutes broadcast, it didn't match my experience of the man or what I

had witnessed on the ground, so Jeff and I decided to launch our own investigation to see what

had happened. What we have found is that this is a story worth telling - one of the world's most

successful education philanthropists is taken down in 20 minutes by one of the world's most


http://www.outsideonline.com/news-from-the-field/Greg-Mortenson-Interview-Airs-Tues.html?241208601&utm_campaign=googlenews&utm_source=googlenews&utm_medium=xmlfeed

http://www.outsideonline.com/news-from-the-field/Greg-Mortenson-Interview-Airs-Tues.html?241208601&utm_campaign=googlenews&utm_source=googlenews&utm_medium=xmlfeed

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001WbHuQfKLlPDlWfZywYAoLfL9Dh3-UwUfuUS_sMb1qmHWOCj5NydqeDwRY4znAIriRBRlsZq7VRUPknG-l-Edx2b1bklH3CpAbd4PIvZslz1fy_JRacMoYgJtPYgrgtutv-xpHyo7qFD-eF-Q1NUkt2gbL2Wjao4cO_a0qN_pgPUpVNIicgzEgLbE6K2OJFg_&c=YSYaF24VKN8MKaAwI-mY8tQy3ZabF8adPH77MSIzp8-ogSg3AUSTcw==&ch=KwNq4KVn9b6QoosH99p35IKjdMRt6Z5Gn4ICsiKnyIMdwKpEkKvNwg==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001WbHuQfKLlPDlWfZywYAoLfL9Dh3-UwUfuUS_sMb1qmHWOCj5NydqeDwRY4znAIriTQFY54fVvruWgBVm3Cj8bhdqhMiCUjBmrIyhVzSqWFM76jrFbiy5XOdTdSjLg5wPeNgrHnFhQtMtILDfYxP4oJMyeSkifcq0pKMWhWRt5eIbal7-Vwx1VQ==&c=YSYaF24VKN8MKaAwI-mY8tQy3ZabF8adPH77MSIzp8-ogSg3AUSTcw==&ch=KwNq4KVn9b6QoosH99p35IKjdMRt6Z5Gn4ICsiKnyIMdwKpEkKvNwg==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001WbHuQfKLlPDlWfZywYAoLfL9Dh3-UwUfuUS_sMb1qmHWOCj5NydqeDwRY4znAIriTQFY54fVvruWgBVm3Cj8bhdqhMiCUjBmrIyhVzSqWFM76jrFbiy5XOdTdSjLg5wPeNgrHnFhQtMtILDfYxP4oJMyeSkifcq0pKMWhWRt5eIbal7-Vwx1VQ==&c=YSYaF24VKN8MKaAwI-mY8tQy3ZabF8adPH77MSIzp8-ogSg3AUSTcw==&ch=KwNq4KVn9b6QoosH99p35IKjdMRt6Z5Gn4ICsiKnyIMdwKpEkKvNwg==


27

powerful news organizations. … Said Jordan, "Our initial findings are very different from 60

Minutes." (In recent months, the venerated CBS news program has come under attack for making

serious errors in other broadcasts.)

"I believe that our democracy depends on a free and viable Fourth Estate, keeping tabs on the

first three. But that means journalists must be held to the highest standards of ethics and

integrity. When we get it wrong, the consequences can be devastating. 3000 Cups of Tea: the

Mission and the Madness of Greg Mortenson is the result of our investigation."

In making public the documentary's trailer, Jordan is launching a fundraising effort to finish the

film. Under the 501(c)3 nonprofit umbrella of the Utah Film Center, they are able to accept tax-

deductible donations. To donate and to learn more, visit:www.3000cupsoftea.org

I’ll have to reply to Jennifer Jordan’s email. Hopefully, she’ll did into how Krakauer used his book

to launch Byliner.com.

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001WbHuQfKLlPDlWfZywYAoLfL9Dh3-UwUfuUS_sMb1qmHWOCj5NydqeDwRY4znAIrixa_4tgwPqs0AgOiaB5crk9X2eu1oCju76S8NwqKErFzs86s80CH_bMFkH5xkaFOOg7-S2xWYOCkMX-64x6Xf7iK7KgUkqI5ZrSsWA_jWQoeZlq_8mqSwEOtg50ehLA_aBA5hYAAb8zAUwnpD_1AFGRwI_XzGWQWjg1R1TilmFAWUXafb5Klcqn5CmHonhu2W&c=YSYaF24VKN8MKaAwI-mY8tQy3ZabF8adPH77MSIzp8-ogSg3AUSTcw==&ch=KwNq4KVn9b6QoosH99p35IKjdMRt6Z5Gn4ICsiKnyIMdwKpEkKvNwg==


28


29

“The Emperor’s General”

“I found myself awash with a sense of injustice that I could not define. Or perhaps it was merely that I was

young. I had never seen with such clarity that … courage could destroy one man while flight could make

another man king. … “I knew it was fruitless at this point but still I felt a call for justice, an anger that life

does not always reward the right intentions…”

-- Senator James Webb, The Emperor’s General (1999)

Pat Tillman was the NFL football player who (with his brother Kevin) enlisted with the Army

Rangers in 2002, did a tour in Iraq, and was killed by friendly-fire in Afghanistan on April 22,

2004. Within just two days, the first investigating officer confirmed Tillman was killed by

friendly-fire and passed that information up his chain of command (probably at least up to

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney). However, a decision was

made and passed down to cover up Tillman’s friendly-fire death and award him a fraudulent

Silver Star medal.

Five weeks later, on Memorial Day weekend, the Army finally told the family his death was

“probably” fratricide. During the following four years, the Army, Department of Defense

Inspector General (DoD IG), and the Democratic Congress conducted several “investigations.”

The DoD IG’s March 2007 report found that Gen. Stanley McChrystal was “accountable for the

inaccurate [Silver Star] award recommendation.” IG Gimble testified before Congress that the

Silver Star witness statements were altered “somewhere in the approval chain” (COL Nixon,

LTC Kauzlarich, and/or LTG McChrystal were in that chain). The citation itself was carefully

written to falsely imply that Tillman was killed by “devastating enemy fire.”

However, on July 31, 2007, Gen. Wallace overruled the IG’s findings, and cleared McChrystal

of all wrongdoing in the Tillman cover-up. The other officers involved were given slaps on the

wrist and have since been promoted. Retired Gen. Kensinger was made the official scapegoat;

he lost a star and a little pension money.

In reality, McChrystal had played the central role in the Tillman cover-up; he supervised the

writing of the fraudulent Silver Star recommendation and the Ranger Regiment commander’s

actions to conceal the fratricide from the medical examiner. It’s worth noting that, in the

summer of 2007, McChrystal was a rising star in the Army who led the Joint Special Operations

Command (JSOC) forces to whom many attribute much of the success of the Iraq “Surge.”

The following day, August 1, 2007, Congressman Henry Waxman’s House Oversight Committee

held the second hearing of their Tillman “investigation.” However, Waxman allowed Gen.

McChrystal to “decline” to appear (he was never later interviewed), and the Committee never

tried to determine if he was responsible for the altered Silver Star witness statements.


30

A year later, the Committee’s July 2008 report blamed “stonewalling” by the Bush

Administration for their failure to hold anyone accountable. In reality, the Democratic Congress

(and later, President Obama) continued the Bush administration whitewash to protect Gen.

McChrystal from punishment for his central role in the Tillman cover-up (see “The [Untold]

Tillman Story” for more details).

. . .

In May 2009, over the protests of the Tillman family, President Obama nominated Gen.

McChrystal as the new Afghan war commander (shortly thereafter he pushed through a new

FOIA law to block the court-ordered release of torture photographs, probably including some

with personnel under McChrystal’s JSOC command; see “The Emperor’s General”).

Conveniently, on May 25, 2009, The New York Times’ reporter Thom Shanker ”exonerated”

McChrystal of all ‘wrongdoing” (see “Lies Borne Out by Facts, If Not the Truth”) just before

his pro forma Senate confirmation hearing on June 2, 2009; the real hearing where McChrystal

discussed his role “in detail” was held behind closed doors in May 2008 after a secret review by

Senator James Webb (“Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet?’ & “The [Untold] Tillman Story”).

. . .

Just a year later, on June 23, 2010, supposedly for inappropriate remarks by his staff to a Rolling

Stone reporter (in reality, for failing to “show progress” in the Afghan War; see “Bob

Woodward’s Whitewash of Gen. McChrystal”), Gen. McChrystal was fired by President Obama,

and he put in his retirement papers a few months later.

To learn more about the Tillman story, I’d suggest Mary Tillman’s book “Boots on the Ground

by Dusk” (revised paperback edition with a new forward at www.blurb.com), Jon Krakauer’s

paperback edition “Where Men Win Glory,” the fine documentary “The Tillman Story,” and my

“The [Untold] Tillman Story” (and other posts) at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com

. . .

However, the Tillman story is not quite over yet. A couple of weeks ago, on April 12, 2010, Pat

Tillman’s mother, Mary Tillman, received yet another slap to her face. Despite his central role

in the Tillman cover-up, President Obama appointed Gen. Stanley McChrystal to lead the

advisory panel of the new “Joining Forces” program to support military troops and their families.

Michelle Obama said “we’re proud to have him [McChrystal] on board” and the White House

claimed, “The circumstances surrounding Pat Tillman's death have been thoroughly investigated,

and General McChrystal was found to have acted honorably…”

See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/04/pat-tillmans-mom-says-she-wants-

general-stanley-mcchrystal-removed-in-abc-news-exclusive.html and



http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2011/04/draft-emperors-general-1-29-11-revision.html

http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2009/11/appendices-lies-borne-out-by-facts-if.html

http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2009/11/did-they-teach-you-how-to-lie-yet_06.html


http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2011/04/click-link-below-to-view-draft-bob.html

http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2011/04/click-link-below-to-view-draft-bob.html





31

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/what_stanley_mcchrystal_did_to_pat_tillmans_family_201

10413/?ln

And, on April 18th, Gen. McChrystal’s reputation was further “restored” by his being officially

cleared by the Department of Defense of “all wrongdoing” in Le’Affair Rolling Stan (echoing

the NYT reporter Thom Shanker who supposedly cleared McChrystal of “all wrong-doing” in

the Tillman affair in 2009). Now, the newly rehabilitated McChrystal is out on the lecture circuit

(e.g. “Get Motivated,” etc.), pulling down lucrative speaking fees, serving on the board of

directors of several corporations, and writing his memoirs.

. . .

“A few months ago, I was asked to review Jon Krakauer's new book by the Washington Post ... the book was

awful. … going after Stan McChrystal, who is probably the least culpable guy in Tillman's chain of command

... he has written a crappy book and now has to sell it.”

-- Andrew Exum, (Abu Mugawama blog , Nov. 2, 2009)

As previously mentioned, Gen. McChrystal was appointed by President Obama to lead the

advisory panel of the “Joining Forces” program which will be run out of the Washington think

tank, Center for a New American Security (CNAS). CNAS has had close ties with both Gen.

Petreaus and Gen. McChrystal and led the push for the Afghan war surge. And, CNAS’s

Andrew Exum (a former Army Ranger officer) whitewashed McChrystal’s role in the Tillman

cover-up with his horribly biased Washington Post book review and his blog posts at Abu

Mugawama (discussed in detail in “He Who Shall Not Be Fact Checked”).

Here's an excerpt from Andrew Exum’s June 2, 2009 post "Confirm Him":

“The bottom line is, nothing is ever going to heal the wounds inflicted on the Tillman

Family … And while I have nothing but respect for the Tillman Family…, their personal

grief should not be a veto on the nomination of the man [Gen. Stanley McChrystal] …

These are serious questions and are more important than either the death of Pat Tillman

or the alleged abuse of detainees.”

In other words, the Tillman family can go to hell.

And CNAS guys like him are going to run this new program to "support" military families!

Considering their past betrayal of the Tillman family, Gen. McChrystal and CNAS was a

shameful choice by President Obama to run the “Joining Forces” program.

Ironically, I agree with Andrew Exum that Jon Krakauer’s book was “crappy”; just not just for

the same reasons. Whether out of willful ignorance or deceit, Exum claimed that McChrystal

was one of the “least culpable” guys in the Tillman affair. But, a look at the evidence shows that

McChrystal was actually the “hands-on” general who supervised the Tillman cover-up.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/what_stanley_mcchrystal_did_to_pat_tillmans_family_20110413/?ln

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/what_stanley_mcchrystal_did_to_pat_tillmans_family_20110413/?ln

http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2011/04/draft-he-who-shall-not-be-fact-checked.html


32

In his revised edition of Where Men Win Glory (using my material) Jon Krakauer did a decent

job of describing the Army’s cover-up of Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death. Using McChrystal’s

Senate testimony and FOIA interviews, he added more detail about McChrystal’s central role,

the role played by the Ranger Regiment commanders, and how the medical examiner was

stonewalled by Army officers.

However, despite being given my outline of the “untold story,” for some reason, Jon Krakauer

still failed in his revised edition to describe (or even mention) how President Obama and the

Democratic Congress continued the Bush administration whitewash of Gen. McChrystal (among

others) involved in the Tillman cover-up.

. . .

P.S. This Easter weekend is full of sharp irony for me.

Good Friday was the 7th

anniversary of Pat Tillman’s death. On Easter Sunday morning, the

smiling faces of Michelle Obama & Jill Biden appeared on the cover of "Parade Magazine.”

Inside was a puff piece interview with them speaking about the ‘Joining Forces” program

(without, of course, any mention of Gen. McChrystal's controversial appointment or Mary

Tillman’s objections).

This Easter, a somewhat sacrilegious Eucharistic liturgy came to mind:

Pat Tillman “has died.”

General Stanley McChrystal “is risen” (from his Rolling Stone “crucifixion”)

But, Pat Tillman . . . will not “come again.”

As his brother Richard said at his 2004 memorial service, “Pat’s a fucking champion and always

will be. Just make no mistake, he’d want me to say this, he’s not with God; he’s fucking dead.

He’s not religious. So, thanks for your thoughts, but he’s fucking dead”).

-- Guy Montag, April 24, 2010

. . .


33

“JON KRAKAUER’S CREDIBILITY PROBLEM”

“This substantially revised edition of Where Men Win Glory includes new material that … leaves little doubt

who directed the cover-up of his fratricide. … Following publication of the first edition in September 2009, I

discovered additional evidence of deceit by high-ranking Army officers.”

-- Jon Krakauer (Preface to Where Men Win Glory, 2010)

The April 17, 2011 broadcast of “60 Minutes” questioned whether some of the most dramatic

stories in Greg Mortenson’s books (Three Cups of Tea and Stones into Schools) were true and

raised serious questions about how the money raised to build schools in Afghanistan and

Pakistan was actually spent by Mortenson and his Central Asia Institute.

On April 27, 2011 Allen Best wrote, “Leveling the accusations is another mountain climber, Jon

Krakauer, with serious credibility of his own. Author of Into Thin Air and more recently Where

Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman,” Krakauer told “60 Minutes” that Mortenson’s

story is a ‘beautiful story, and it’s a lie.’”

Shortly afterwards, Jon Krakauer published his e-book, Three Cups of Deceit, accusing Greg

Mortenson of:

“writing a work of fiction presented as fact. … And by no means was this an isolated act

of deceit. … [his] books and public statements are permeated with falsehoods. The

image of Mortenson that has been created for public consumption is an artifact born of

fantasy, audacity, and an apparently insatiable hunger for esteem.”

In his April 22, 2011 Daily Beast piece, Nick Summers praised “Jon Krakauer's Hunt for Truth”:

“The famous journalist's revelations about Greg Mortenson are the latest in his relentless

quest to find the truth and expose fraud. … When Jon Krakauer writes, big things come

under his withering gaze… Whether he is investigating a single man or a high-ranking

conspiracy over a soldier's death … Inevitably for a writer of such extremes, Krakauer

has drawn his share of criticism, … Reaction to his Mortenson exposé, though, seems to

be running nearly unanimously in his favor. And other masters of literary journalism say

they recognize the single-minded pursuit of truth at its core.”

I haven’t closely followed the story, so I can’t provide informed commentary about the extent of

Mortensen’s deceit. However, I do have first-hand knowledge of Jon Krakauer’s own deceit in

the Preface to his revised paperback edition of Where Men Win Glory – The Odyssey of Pat

Tillman. Mortenson may be guilty of deceit, but Krakauer is a hypocrite to “throw stones” at

Mortenson when his own hands are not clean and without sin. Jon Krakauer has credibility

problems of his own, and failed to display “single-minded pursuit of truth” with his whitewash of

the Democratic role in the Tillman story.

http://coloradoindependent.com/85809/greg-mortenson-controversy-comes-to-telluride-but-not-the-man-himself

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-04-22/jon-krakauer-exposes-greg-mortenson-and-his-hunt-for-truth/


34

“…some may wonder why his dishonesty about Tillman should matter. It matters because deceit by a military

officer of McChrystal’s rank is a poisonous betrayal of trust that shouldn’t be countenanced.”


On September 15, 2009, Jon Krakauer released the first edition of his book Where Men Win

Glory – The Odyssey of Pat Tillman. In this hardcover edition, Gen. Stanley McChrystal was

barely a footnote. He was mentioned only as being among the Army officers who “expedited”

the Silver Star recommendation (despite knowing about Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death), and

who sent a P4 memo to “alert his superiors that someone needed to warn President Bush.”

But just two weeks later, Krakuauer was on Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” saying that

McChrystal was “probably the point man for this cover-up” and was “the guy they put in charge

of making this happen [false Silver Star recommendation].” And, just a month later, Krakauer

published “Gen. McChrystal’s Credibility Problem.” In this “Daily Beast” piece, he “expressed

skepticism about McChrystal’s honesty.” He wrote that McChrystal “had dissembled to the

Senate” … “he closely supervised the drafting of these [Silver Star] documents”… “administered

a fraudulent medal recommendation … thereby concealing the cause of Tillman’s death.”

But none of this new material appeared in Krakauer’s first edition. Why did he suddenly begin

talking about McChrystal’s central role in the cover-up shortly after his book was released?

. . .

On July 27, 2010, Kraukauer published the revised paperback edition of Where Men Win Glory.

In this updated edition, Krakauer described McChrystal as playing a “central role in the scandal”

and included more details of the Army’s cover-up by McChrystal and Army officers.

About a month later, on August 26, 2010, in my post “The [Untold] Tillman Story”, I briefly

described my initial impressions of Krakauer’s revised edition:

“… Krakauer still hasn’t told what I call the “untold story” of the bipartisan

Congressional cover-up (although he did make some of the corrections I pointed out to

him last year in my letters). … I just bought his revised book a few days ago …

However, upon cursory review, it appears that Jon Krakauer took the credit for

discovering ‘additional evidence.’ … ‘Discovered’? Hell, much of his ‘discovery’

consisted in having my two binders laying it all out placed directly into his hands by my

aunt on September 17th

at a book signing in Boulder, CO!”

It wasn’t until January 2011 that I found the time to compare both book editions line-by-line, to

find and document each revision. The April 17, 2011 60 Minutes expose motivated me to finish

documenting the revisions and to write the post “Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem.”



35

This substantially revised edition of Where Men Win Glory includes new material that … leaves little doubt

who directed the cover-up of his fratricide. … Following publication of the first edition in September 2009, I

discovered additional evidence of deceit by high-ranking Army officers.”

-- Jon Krakauer, from Preface to Where Men Win Glory (Anchor Books, 2010)

Jon Krakauer wrote a deceitful preface to his revised paperback edition of Where Men Win Glory

(July 2010). Krakauer prevaricated, at best, when he wrote, “…too late to make changes, I

learned important new information…” and following “publication of the first edition in

September 2009, I discovered additional evidence of deceit by high-ranking Army officers.”

In reality, just two days after his first edition was released about 200 pages of my material (two

letters and two binders) were literally placed in Krakauer’s hands by my Aunt Candy at his

Boulder CO book signing on September 17, 2009. This material described how Gen. Stanley

McChrystal played a central role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s 2004 friendly-fire death in

Afghanistan (paying particular attention to McChrystal’s own testimony at his June 2009 Senate

confirmation hearing). I find it “preposterous” just “not believable” that Krakauer coincidentally

just happened to “discover” this evidence during the two day window before his book signing!

A comparison of the Where Men Win Glory book editions, his piece “McChrystal’s Credibility

Problem,” and my material given to Krakauer shows that my documents were the source

(directly or indirectly) for nearly all of his significant updates in the paperback edition:

1.) Krakauer made suggested corrections pointed out to him in my Sept. 17th

letter.

2.) No updated material appeared in his interview remarks before the book signing.

3.) Most of the updated material is found in my “Did They Teach You How to

Lie Yet?” binder (especially the discussion of McChrystal’s Senate testimony).

4.) In both binders I suggested obtaining FOIA interviews of McChrystal & other

officers. (Krakauer later obtained these interviews and used them to make updates).

I don’t care (much) about Krakauer stealing my credit for the “discovery” of the new evidence.

But, he could have at least called or e-mailed to say “Thanks.” More importantly, if he had

contacted me, I could have helped him with additional updates. Although, I’m glad he used my

material to more fully describe Gen. McChrystal’s central role in the cover-up in his subsequent

interviews, his Daily Beast piece, and in the revised book edition.

Jon Krakauer has accused Greg Mortenson of deceit. However, Krakauer himself certainly

displayed deceit by embellishing his story of how he “discovered” McCrystal’s central role.

Was Krakauer embarrassed to admit that he had failed to uncover this new material by himself?

And missed it the first time around? Like Greg Mortenson, it appears that Jon Krakauer

embellished his story to boost his esteem and protect his ego.


36

“Congressman Waxman stated in frustration, ‘What we have is a very clear, deliberate abuse intentionally

done. Why is it so hard to find out who did it?’”

-- Jon Krakauer, Where Men Win Glory (2009)

In his July 2010 Preface to the revised edition of Where Men Win Glory, Jon Krakauer wrote

“one of the most culpable malfeasants turns out to be an exalted military leader [Gen.

McChrystal] who’s been shielded from accountability or punishment for the past six years.”

But who “shielded” McChrystal? Certainly, the Bush administration, the Army, and the

Department of Defense protected McChrystal who was a rising star in the Army in 2007. Jon

Krakauer noted, “The Army … took no action against McChrystal despite his central role in the

scandal.” and “… the White House … used every means at its disposal to obstruct the

congressional investigation into Tillman’s death and its aftermath…”

However, my letter handed to Krakauer on September 17, 2009 argued that his account of the

cover-up ended prematurely and let President Obama and the Democratic Congress off the hook:

“Your book ends with Waxman’s House committee being unable to find out who was

responsible for the cover-up, largely because of stonewalling by the Bush White House.

Congressman Waxman stated in frustration, “What we have is a very clear, deliberate

abuse intentionally done. Why is it so hard to find out who did it?” You properly cast

blame on the top leadership of the Army and the White House that “… used every means

at its disposal to obstruct the congressional investigation into Tillman’s death and its

aftermath…”

“But, I believe your account of the cover-up ends far too soon with Bush’s press

conference on August 9, 2007. The cover-up continued up through the June 2, 2009

confirmation hearing of General McChrystal as the Commander of the Afghan War.

Perhaps the end was the unanimous voice vote by the Senate begged for by Senate

Majority Leader Reid on June 12th

.”

“Blaming Bush and the Army for the cover-up, with the Democratic Congress as the

champions in pursuit of the truth is too simple. In reality, the cover-up has been a

thoroughly bipartisan affair, with Congress and the Obama Presidency continuing to

protect especially General McChrystal from punishment and to shield his actions from

scrutiny. Just as with warrantless wiretapping and torture, those responsible have not

been held accountable. “They’re moving forward, not looking back.”

“It’s not surprising that after the initial fratricide cover-up fell apart, Army officers

and the Bush administration lied to protect their careers. Reprehensible, but

understandable. But the Democratic Congress, after they took control of both Houses in

2006, could have gone after those responsible. Or at least not promoted them! Their

hands are dirty as well with the betrayal of Pat Tillman.”


37

In addition to my letters, Jon Krakauer was handed two binders: “Did They Teach You to Lie

Yet?” – Senator James Webb, General Stanley McChrystal, and the Betrayal of Pat Tillman and

“Lies … Borne Out by Facts, If Not the Truth” – Senator James Webb, Thom Shanker & The

New York Times, and the Whitewash of General Stanley McChrystal.” These two binders

described in detail how the Democratic Congress had actually shielded Gen. McChrystal while

supposedly “investigating” the Tillman cover-up.

So, it’s not for a lack of knowledge that Krakauer failed to describe this “untold story” in his

2010 revised paperback. (Note: Since 2009, I’ve documented my argument in greater detail,

along with President Obama’s role, in my 2010 posts “The [Untold] Tillman Story” and “The

Emperor’s General”).

. . .

In his October 2009 Daily Beast piece, “Gen. McChrystal’s Credibility Problem,” Krakauer did

briefly allude to the Senate’s pro forma hearing: “During the committee hearing [June 2, 2009

Senate confirmation] … none of McChrystal’s inquisitors probed deeply into either of these

issues [Pat Tillman cover-up and torture by McChrystal’s JSOC forces at Camp Nama].“

. . .

However, in Krakauer’s updated 2010 paperback edition (despite haven been given my material),

he continued to fail to describe how the Democratic Congress and President Obama continued

the Bush administration’s whitewash of Gen. McChrystal.

Krakauer never discussed President Obama’s May 2009 nomination of Gen. McChrystal or how

Senators McCain, Levin, and Webb hadn’t “probed deeply into either of these issues” during

McChrystal’s June 2009 confirmation hearing. Nor did he discuss Senator Webb’s secret 2008

Senate review and the closed 2008 Senate hearing during which McChrystal described his

actions “in detail” behind closed doors. Instead, Krakauer made just a few passing references to

President Obama’s nomination and the Senate hearing in connection with his discussion of

McChrystal’s Silver Star recommendation testimony.

And, incredibly, even in his revised edition, Krakauer still somehow neglected to even mention

the second Congressional Tillman hearing held on August 1, 2007 (the hearing transcript is not

even included in his References!). The documentary, The Tillman Story, shows Secretary of

Defense Rumsfeld and top generals at this hearing saying, “I don’t recall,” 82 times when

questioned about the Tillman case. And this is the hearing which Congressman Waxman

allowed McChrystal to “decline” to testify, despite McChrystal’s key role in writing both the

Silver Star and the P4 memo which were at the center of the hearing.



http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2009/11/appendices-lies-borne-out-by-facts-if.html





38

“The most powerful form of lie is the omission, and it is the duty of the historian to make sure those lies do

not creep into the history books.”

-- George Orwell

But more important than his stealing my credit for his “discovery,” Krakauer’s greater act of

deceit was one of omission. In his revised edition, despite having been handed my detailed

material, Krakauer still failed to describe how President Obama and the Democratic Congress

continued the Bush administration’s whitewash of Gen. McChrystal. After reading Where Men

Win Glory, you’d think the Democratic Congress tried to do the right thing, but their

investigation was “stonewalled” by the Bush administration. What utter rubbish!

So why did Krakauer choose to whitewash the role of President Obama and the Democratic

Congress in continuing the Bush administration’s cover-up? I don’t know. Perhaps Krakauer

had a partisan bias for the Democratic Party? Maybe he didn’t want to piss off a sitting President

or his Hollywood buddies? Maybe he was simply was too lazy to have to revisit his story and do

the work necessary to tell the full truth? Maybe “The [Untold] Tillman Story” simply didn’t fit

with his simple black-and-white storyline of the “Good Democrats” stone-walled by the “Bad

Bush administration”? (To echo Krakauer’s remark about Mortenson’s books, “It’s a beautiful

story, but it’s a lie”). Perhaps, once again, it would have bruised Krakauer’s ego to admit he had

failed to discover this “untold story” and had gotten the story wrong the first time around?

. . .

Regardless of his motivations, Jon Krakauer stole credit for his “discovery of evidence of deceit”

and failed in his “relentless quest to find the truth and expose fraud” in his revision of Where

Men Win Glory. To his credit, Krakauer didn’t spare Gen. McChrystal and other Army officers

from his “withering gaze.” However, to his shame, Krakauer did shield President Obama and the

Democratic Congress from accountability for their whitewash of Gen. McChrystal’s central role

in the cover-up. Krakauer certainly didn’t “win glory” with his telling of the Tillman story.

Greg Mortenson appears guilty of much of the literary deceit (or embellishments) Jon Krakauer

accuses him of in Three Cups of Deceit. But, Krakauer displayed hypocrisy by “throwing

stones” at Mortenson when his own hands were not without sin. Just as Krakauer pointed out

with regard to Gen. McChrystal, he displayed his own “credibility problem” by writing the

deceitful Preface to his updated Where Men Win Glory.

Krakauer embellished his story of how he “discovered” Gen. McCrystal’s central role in the

Tillman cover-up. Like Mortenson, it appears that Krakauer “wrote a work of fiction” to boost

his esteem and protect his ego. And, he couldn’t just steal my credit, he felt compelled to

prevaricate about it as well. But more important, his greater act of deceit was one of omission.

In Where Men Win Glory, Krakauer whitewashed President Obama and the Democratic

Congress’s role in shielding Gen. McChrystal. Krakauer certainly didn’t “win glory” with his

deceit and his omission of the “untold” Tillman story.


39

“THAT GUY’S A PIECE OF …” “Asked about Jon Krakauer's book about Tillman, the soldier's youngest brother [Richard] told the

screening audience [at the Sundance premiere of The Tillman Story] of the author that "that guy's a piece of

…”

-- Steven Zeitchik, LA Times, January 24, 2010

Mary Tillman wrote in her book Boots on the Ground by Dusk, “In January [2006], author Jon

Krakauer contacted Marie, Patrick, and me about writing a book about Pat. Over several months

Jon has met the whole family, and we have come to consider him a good friend.” However,

sometime between 2006 and 2008, Krakauer clearly lost the trust of Mary and most of the

Tillman family. In his Acknowledgements to Where Men Win Glory, Jon Krakauer wrote that

Marie Tillman’s (Pat Tillman’s widow) “contributions … were beyond measure.” However, he

goes on to write that “other members of the Tillman family declined to be interviewed on the

record for this book…”

Jon Krakauer said in a 2009 CSPAN interview, “Actually, I talked to them [the Tillman family]

quite a bit. But they decided they did not want to be quoted in the book. I showed them an

early draft, a very rough draft, they just weren’t happy with that, they wanted Mary’s book

[mother] to be their statement.”

I don’t know why the Tillman’s weren’t happy with his draft. I don’t know why Richard

Tillman said Krakauer “was a piece of …”

However, I would speculate that part of their dissatisfaction stemmed from Krakauer’s apparent

one-sided portrayal of the “Round Table brawl” (described in CH 5 & 6), where Krakauer only

quoted interviews from Darin Rosas and his friends (differs significantly from Mary Tillman’s

account). And I would speculate the Tillman family weren’t pleased with Krakauer publishing

quotes from Pat Tillman’s journals (later, they refused to let the director of The Tillman Story,

Amir Bar-Lev, even look at them during the making of his documentary).

Although Krakauer’s book was supposed to be published in 2008, he delayed publication of his

book over a year until September 2009. Krakauer said in a CSPAN interview [my notes from

audio]: ‘Delayed book due about 2/2008; to pursue Jessica Lynch angle & friendly-fire of

Marines that same day, spent 3 months investigating that, fried, took break for a couple of

months, (about time Mary’s book came out), then took another year.’

But, I’d guess some of the delay in the book’s publication was also due to Krakauer’s loss of the

trust of the Tillman family and the difficulties associated with writing a biography of Pat Tillman

without having the insight and support of most of Pat Tillman’s family and friends.


40

“… Pat died for this country, and he believed it was a great country that had a system that worked. … And

we shouldn’t be allowed to have smokescreens thrown in our face. … it is a betrayal, but it is not just a

betrayal to us, … and that is why we are in front of Congress because Congress is supposed to take care of

their citizens.” -- Mary Tillman, Congressional testimony on April 24, 2007

Mary Tillman (Pat Tillman’s mother) alluded to the “untold story” of President Obama and the

Democratic Congress’s whitewash of Gen. McChrystal (and others) in the Tillman affair:

From her 2008 book “Boots on the Ground by Dusk”:

“General Brown, retired generals Meyers and Abizaid, and Rumsfeld [during their

Congressional testimony August 1, 2007] have great difficulty remembering what they

knew and when they knew it”… “we were not happy with the hearing at all. We had

spent weeks helping getting questions prepared and sending information. The

Republicans on the committee were at best indifferent … Most of the Democrats

disappointed us as well. They were not prepared and they didn’t think on their feet. We

expected more from Congress.” … “I think of the Representative Henry Waxman’s

words at the close of the [April 24, 2007] hearing: … ‘Why is it so hard to find out who’s

responsible and hold them accountable?’ … it occurs to me that it’s so hard … because

no one in a position of authority has the will or courage to do so.”

From the Foreword to Mary Tillman’s August 2010 paperback edition of “Boots on the Ground

by Dusk” (available with a preview at blurb.com):

“McChrystal’s actions should have been grounds for firing. That is why it was so

disturbing to us when President Obama instead promoted McChrystal to the position of

top commander in Afghanistan last year. I had sent the President an email and a letter

reminding him of McChrystal’s involvement in the cover-up of Pat’s death.”

“I also contacted the staffs of Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator James Webb and

expressed my concerns. I had several conversations with members of the staffs of both

senators, but it was clear that neither senator wanted to get involved.” … [Senator]

McCain was already publicly endorsing the McChrystal appointment before the hearing

even began. … Sadly, McChrystal’s promotion had been sanctioned long before the

hearing. None of the congressmen pressed McChrysal about Pat’s case … or detainee

abuse and torture at Camp Nama …”

“Over the last five years, the Pentagon and Congress have had numerous opportunities to

hold accountable those responsible for the cover-up of Pat’s death. Each time they’ve

failed. … The Tillman Story [documentary film released August 2010] illustrates the

corruption, deception, and indifference that is systemic in our government. … The cover-

up of Pat’s death was orchestrated at the very highest levels of the Pentagon, and

elsewhere in our government … the government didn’t just lie to us; it lied to a

nation.”



41

THE POISON PLANT FABLE

“Krakauer’s presentation of the matter seems stubbornly defiant at best. If his reasoning is not obstinately

perverse, his arguments are disingenuous.” … “grasping desperately for tenuous explanations to defend his

fundamental belief in the Poison Plant Fable.”

-- Samuel Thayer, “Nature’s Garden”

I’m aware that there’s been controversy in the past over the accuracy of Jon Krakauer’s portrayal

of events in his previous books, including the “poisoning” death of Christopher McCandless

described in Into the Wild. I’m not able to offer informed commentary on this controversy.

However, last year I happened to purchase Samuel Thayer’s 2010 book Nature’s Garden – A

Guide to Identifying, Harvesting, and Preparing Wild Plants. Thayer includes a detailed critique

of Krauaker’s “poison plant fable” to explain the death of McCandless (pp. 43 – 55) and much of

his commentary about Jon Kraukauer’s mindset appears relevant to my own experience with him

(and to his credibility issues with his other books):

“… many intelligent people, convinced by Krakauer’s skillful prose, would argue, “No,

it’s really true!” … “I can sympathize with Krakauer’s desire to portray McCandless in a

positive light, but there comes a time when you must let go of extravagant, unsupported

guesses. There is simply no reason to believe that Chris McCandless was killed by a

plant.”

“It doesn’t bother me that Krakauer was wrong; it bothers me that he was wrong-headed.

These explanations of Chris’ death should have been recognized as deficient, if not the

moment they were conceived, then certainly after minimal investigation. Yet Krakauer

has labored and belabored for fifteen years to perpetuate them. Rather than make a

genuine effort to gather facts and draw sensible conclusions, he drew extravagant

conclusions first; then facts were conjured, contorted, or ignored to support them.”

“Journalism should be an exercise in finding and communicating the truth, not in

obfuscating the obvious explanations in favor of sexier ones that find no factual support.

Krakauer’s presentation of the matter seems stubbornly defiant at best. If his reasoning is

not obstinately perverse, his arguments are disingenuous.” … “grasping desperately

for tenuous explanations to defend his fundamental belief in the Poison Plant Fable.”

“If this movie [Into the Wild] was made “in memory of Christopher Johnson

McCandless,” as it claims, then why was a fraudulent, insulting scene fabricated for his

death? Chris’s life story has been usurped by the very same propaganda machine that he

so vehemently rejected, twisted into a fable for the purpose of casting fear and doubt into

those who would seek what he sought. The greatest lessons that could be learned from

his life are now buried under lies.”

I would also recommend reading The Cult of Chris McCandless (“Men’s Journal” Sept. 2007).

http://foragersharvest.com/into-the-wild-and-other-poisonous-plant-fables/

http://web.archive.org/web/20071124084905/http:/www.mensjournal.com/feature/M162/M162_TheCultofChrisMcCandless.html


42

Update 9-13-13: See Samuel Thayer’s post on the subject: http://foragersharvest.com/into-the-

wild-and-other-poisonous-plant-fables/ and http://www.tifilms.com/wild/call_debunked.htm and

http://www.christophermccandless.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5105

. . .

A couple days ago, Jon Krakauer wrote his latest theory of “How Chris McCandless Died” (The

New Yorker -- Sept 12, 2013): “After subsisting for three months on a marginal diet of squirrels,

porcupines, small birds, mushrooms, roots, and berries, he’d run up a huge caloric deficit and

was teetering on the brink. By adding potato seeds to the menu, he apparently made the mistake

that took him down.”

It’s worth noting Krakauer didn’t make this discovery himself. He wrote that despite his “sifting

through the scientific literature [for years], searching for information that would allow me to

reconcile McCandless’s adamantly unambiguous statement with Clausen’s equally unambiguous

test results. … [a few months ago] I stumbled upon Ronald Hamilton’s paper “The Silent Fire:

ODAP and the Death of Christopher McCandless”:

Hamilton wrote, “The one constant about ODAP poisoning, however, very simply put, is this:

those who will be hit the hardest are always young men between the ages of 15 and 25 and who

are essentially starving” … “ It might be said that Christopher McCandless did indeed starve to

death in the Alaskan wild, but this only because he’d been poisoned, and the poison had rendered

him too weak to move about, to hunt or forage, and, toward the end, “extremely weak,” “too

weak to walk out,” and, having “much trouble just to stand up.” He wasn’t truly starving in the

most technical sense of that condition. He’d simply become slowly paralyzed. And it wasn’t

arrogance that had killed him, it was ignorance.”

Krakauer concluded, “Had McCandless’s guidebook to edible plants warned that Hedysarum

alpinum seeds contain a neurotoxin that can cause paralysis, he probably would have walked out

of the wild in late August with no more difficulty than when he walked into the wild in April…”

And, in his follow-up letter to the Alaska Dispatch, Krakauer wrote: “there is ample reason to

believe that Chris McCandless was stricken with lathyrism from eating Hedysarum alpinum

seeds, became too disabled to hunt effectively or walk out to the road, and died from starvation

as a consequence.”

Perhaps McCandless could have walked out if he hadn’t eaten the seeds (although he also said he

was injured). It appears to me that Krakauer might have been (kinda) right, for the wrong

reasons. Maybe the poisonous seeds did push Chris over the edge. But, regardless, he was on

the edge because he had already been starving for months; “malnutrition” (i.e. starvation) might

made him susceptible to rapid poisoning.



http://www.tifilms.com/wild/call_debunked.htm

http://www.christophermccandless.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5105


http://www.scribd.com/doc/166341536/The-Silent-Fire



43

And, it’s not clear that McCandless was eating “pot seeds” in large enough quantities for a long

enough time to become paralyzed. Ronald Hamilton’s wrote that it usually takes “several

months” as a “principle food source”:

“Typically, if Lathyrus sativus comprises about 30 percent of more of a person’s diet

for several months, lathyrism is inevitable. But in some cases, much smaller amounts

bring about the onset of paralysis in much shorter periods of time. Why this occurs

remains unclear. … It takes five to six weeks as for the toxin to begin to exhibit its effect,

and then only when the seeds have been the principle food source in an individual’s diet.”

“those who will be hit the hardest are always young men between the ages of 15 and 25

and who are essentially starving or ingesting very limited calories, who have been

engaged in heavy physical activity, who suffer trace-element shortages from meager,

unvaried diets … within months, hundreds of the young male [who were on starvation

rations] inmates of the [Vapniarca death] camp began limping.”

Hamilton didn’t discuss in detail the cases mentioned above where “much smaller amounts bring

about the onset of paralysis in much shorter periods of time” (was he referring to 5 to 6 weeks?).

Krakauer wrote McCandless started eating the seeds on July 14th

and “was extremely weak” on

July 30th

. It’s not clear that only two weeks had been sufficient time to poison him even IF the

seeds were his “principle food source.”

Update 10-24-13: In the piece, “When Edible Plants Turn Their Defenses On Us’ (October 23,

2013), the editor of HPPR (with input from Amy Stewart, author of Wicked Plants; "Wildman"

Steve Brill, creator of the Wild Edibles app; and Dr. Ruth Lawrence of the University of

Rochester Medical Center). Also commented on the question of ODAP?:

“How much is too much? Generally, in order to develop lathyrism, someone would have

to eat grass peas for two or three months, and the plant would have to compose at least a

third of the total dietary intake. But there is wide variation in how much of the toxin one

grass pea seed contains, and also in how people are affected.”

. . .

I’m not alone in my skepticism. Craig Medred argued in his piece, “Krakauer Goes Further 'Into

The Wild' Over Mccandless Starving To Death In Alaska” (Alaska Dispatch, September 13,

2013), that “Jon Krakauer has outdone himself in his latest gyrations trying to justify his made-

up tale romanticizing the death of Chris McCandless…”:

This is a classic Krakauerism and the fundamental problem with the book "Into the

Wild." The author is prone to wild conjecture … The McCandless stories has been

written in presumptions. It is so easy to read so much into so little. Krakauer is a master

at it.



http://hppr.org/post/when-edible-plants-turn-their-defenses-us

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7244573



http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130913/krakauer-goes-further-wild-over-mccandless-starving-death-alaska

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130913/krakauer-goes-further-wild-over-mccandless-starving-death-alaska


44

Clausen, the chemist who debunked Krakauer's earlier poisoning theories, says that he is

equally skeptical of this one. … The Nazis, who were intentionally trying to poison Jews,

found this poison disabled them "within months," and yet it felled McCandless in just 16

days? … Would it make more sense for someone to tie their illness to something they've

been eating daily for more than two weeks, or to something new that had been eaten in

the last 24 or 48 hours?

And, Dermot Cole wrote in his piece, “Krakauer's Wild Theory On Mccandless Gives Short

Shrift To Science” (Alaska Dispatch, September 17, 2013), that “Jon Krakauer's latest theory on

the death of Chris McCandless suffers from the same flaws as the first two -- a sweeping

conclusion based on scanty evidence.”:

“Krakauer should take the advice of Tom Clausen, the retired organic chemist from UAF

who has spent much of his career studying plants in Alaska and their properties. Clausen

said that absent peer-reviewed scientific research he would not make any conclusions

about what amounts to a highly technical and complicated scientific question. … I don't

make any claims that the report is wrong since I have no data to analyze, but I am

skeptical and will remain so until I see a better forum for the results to be published in."

\

In response, Krakauer replied to Clausen in the piece, “Jon Krakauer responds: What killed Chris

McCandless?” (Alaska Dispatch -- September 19, 2013):

“Dr. Clausen is wrong to assume that proper care wasn’t taken to ensure that the toxic

beta-ODAP was the form actually tested. … Before my piece was posted on The New

Yorker website, its accuracy was independently confirmed by that magazine’s famously

meticulous fact-checkers, who consulted with organic chemists and lathyrism experts. ..

the standard peer-review process, in and of itself, is no guarantee of credibility. … Their

[Clausen & Treadwell’ 2008] paper’s conclusion — “no chemical basis for toxicity could

be found” in either species of Hedysarum — therefore shouldn’t be trusted.”

Clausen replied to Krakauer in the Comment section:

“both isomers would give IDENTICAL mass spectral results and, in most cases,

IDENTICAL HPLC results. So using the L isomer as a standard would have no

implications for the type of isomer found in the plant. Again, the take home point is that

results of this technical nature needs to be placed under a peer review process. To not do

so only encourages overstatements such as the one made by you on this subject as well as

your previous hypotheses regarding Chris' alleged poisoning. I am very willing to admit

the possibility that I missed ODAP in my earlier analysis but I am not willing to admit it

as a fact 'till I see the hard data. Isn't this reasonable?

So, it looks like we’ll have to wait for more peer reviewed research to see if Krakauer’s ODAP

“”explanation” is correct (I certainly don’t have the chemistry background to make an informed

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130917/krakauers-wild-theory-mccandless-gives-short-shrift-science



http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130919/jon-krakauer-responds-what-killed-chris-mccandless

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130919/jon-krakauer-responds-what-killed-chris-mccandless


45

judgement), or if his New Yorker piece is just Krakauer’s latest attempt “grasping desperately

for tenuous explanations to defend his fundamental belief in the Poison Plant Fable.”

Update 10-24-13: In the piece, “Chemists Dispute How “Into The Wild” Protagonist Chris

McCandless Died” (***, October 22, 2013) some chemists weighed in on the ODAP issue:

“… that data, from high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) separations of

potato seed extracts, doesn’t show what Krakauer says it does, according to experts who

reviewed it for C&EN. In fact, they say, the extract was barely separated at all, making it

impossible to tell what the seeds contain. … ‘These experiments are not conclusive in

any way’ … Krakauer tells C&EN that Avomeen is conducting another round of analysis,

this time with MS [mass spectrometer]. Both Krakauer and Avomeen declined to

comment for this story, pending the outcome of that test.

http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i43/Chemists-Dispute-WildProtagonist-Chris-McCandless.html

http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i43/Chemists-Dispute-WildProtagonist-Chris-McCandless.html


46

“ERASING HEROISM FROM THE HIMALAYA” “Anatoli Boukreev comes off [in Into Thin Air] as an intransigent Russian guide who doesn’t help clients …

he never paints the big picture of one of the most amazing rescues in mountaineering history performed

single-handedly a few hours after climbing Mt. Everest without oxygen…”

-- Galen Rowell, (Wall Street Journal May 29, 1997)

“Depending on your source, Boukreev was either the villain or the hero of the unfortunate events on Everest.

… Writing about a person invariably honors them or devalues them. … Krakauer draws his reader toward

tabloid-style assumptions that erase heroism from the Himalaya ….”

-- Galen Rowell, “American Alpine Journal” (1998)

Over the past couple of years, I’ve read comments on the web referring to a controversy over

Krakakuer’s harsh portrayal in his book Into Thin Air of Russian climber Anatoli Boukreev

during the May 1996 Mount Everest disaster. However, although I read the book years ago, I

didn’t know what the controversy was all about.

However, since May 2011, I’ve tried my hand at digging into this controversy. Thus far, my

look at the evidence has placed me into the Boukreev camp. Jon Krakauer’s explanations

sounded somewhat plausible and reasonable enough on my first forays into this controversy.

But, his arguments just don’t hold up well to detailed scrutiny (much along the lines of Samuel

Thayer’s analysis of the “poison plant fable” presented in his other book Into the Wild).

“It doesn’t bother me that Krakauer was wrong; it bothers me that he was wrong-headed.

… Rather than make a genuine effort to gather facts and draw sensible conclusions, he

drew extravagant conclusions first; then facts were conjured, contorted, or ignored to

support them. … Journalism should be an exercise in finding and communicating the

truth, not in obfuscating the obvious explanations in favor of sexier ones that find no

factual support. Krakauer’s presentation of the matter seems stubbornly defiant at best.

If his reasoning is not obstinately perverse, his arguments are disingenuous.” …

. . .

Unfortunately, I’ve got too much on my plate to document my take on the controversy. Maybe a

nice winter project? Following, are some notes and a draft annotated Bibliography if you want

to look into the matter for yourself.


47

However, here’s a few quotes of Krakauer’s that are difficult to reconcile:

From “Into Thin Air” (1999, trade paperback):

From the “Outside” magazine article (and in the book, p. 10): “At the very end of the line was

Scott Fischer … he pulled his mask aside to say hello. “Bruuuuuuce!” …With the Hillary Step

finally clear, I clipped into the strand of orange rope, swung quickly around Fischer as he

slumped over his ice ax, and rappelled over the edge.”

(p.211): “After we exchanged pleasantries, he [Scott Fischer] spoke briefly with Martin Adams

and Anatoli Boukreev … Then Fischer plodded slowly on toward the summit, while Harris,

Boukreev, Adams, and I turned to rappel down the Step.”

(p.313, Postscript): “My main reason for doubting the second conversation [between Scott and

Anatoli about his rapid descent] however, comes from what I saw as I began heading down the

Hillary Step: as I looked up one last time to check the rappel anchors before descending, I noted

that Fischer had already moved well above the small staging area …”

So which is it? Was JK’s last sight of Fischer slumped over resting on his ice ax, or plodding

slowly on and moving well above the Step?

It’s worth noting that Klev Schoening, the next climber to come down from the Summit (“The

Climb” in the Mountain Madness Debriefing tapes p. 330) said that “I’m going to estimate that I

saw Scott at approximately 2:30, just above the Hillary Step.”

. . .

It appears to me that the controversy started with the Mountain Madness debriefing where

Anatoli said he went down to “make tea” and then Lopsang said that Pemba had stayed down on

the South col … to “make tea”. Apparently, Klev Schoening lived near Krakauer and passed on

that information to Krakauer (at the time they didn’t know that Lopsang had told Pemba to stay

in camp; Fischer had told all the sherpas that they could climb).

This misunderstanding led to Breashers/Krakauer to say that Anatoli was “dissembling” when he

said he went down to be ready to bring O’s back up. Therefore, Krakuaur never even mentioned

in his article or book that Anatoli had said his reason for going down was because he had

discussed it with Fischer and got his OK.


48

So, why else would Anatoli descend so fast? They assumed he was cold because he was

climbing without O’s. I don’t buy that argument. It ignores the fact that Anatoli waited on the

summit for an hour before heading down, hardly “tagging the summit” (as Krakauer did).

Anataloi was in better shape and better acclimatized than anyone else.

See page ** and page ** for JK conflicting accounts; KS meeting SF just above.

**** JK said “cut and ran”

** AB ordered down,

My take on how it started with “making tea.” & KS & DB comments and Pemba down

Asked Lopsang for AB come up. Jeanie comment.

**** New to add? Crux that refuses to admit that conversation SF/AB.

Based magazine without Martin interview

Look at eyewitness. KS account. Construct timeline of where SF.

*** trouble with run out o’s on descent

*** EV not use O’s on Oyo Kyo

**** Changed postscript?

Add Beck’s ordeal (abandoned by guides, Dr wrote off, 2 climbers & Halls crew left in tent

alone)

Neal (too long on top, mistake to help Namba, didn’t see stars, abandoned her)

CONTINUE ACCOUNT LATER

. . .

Update 3-31-13: Note that Christian Bale is supposed to star in a movie about the Everest 1996

disaster. I’ve never had the time to finish my comments in this section “Erasing Heroism from

the Himalaya” (that would be another e-book in its own right). If I have the time, I’ll try to work

on that in a year or two before the movie comes out.


49

Update February 23, 2014: “Everest” is scheduled to be in theaters on February 27, 2015.

“Into Thin Air” by Jon Krakauer, will serve as partial inspiration. The script, from William

Nicholson and Justin Isbell, however, will also be drawn from supplementary sources including

other books and new interviews with the survivors.


50

EVEREST ’96: ANNOTATED BIBILIOGRAPHY

I have neither the time nor energy to present a detailed analysis here (a project for another day).

However, if you care to look into this matter for yourself, here’s a suggested outline for digging

into this controversy for yourself. Note, a bit of a Draft, will need to flesh it out a bit later.

Short on Time:

1.) For an introduction to the Everest ’96 story, I’d suggest reading Peter Wilkinson’s “The

Death Zone” (“Men’s Journal” August 1996). I wasn’t able to find a copy on line, but the piece

is included in the book “Wild Stories: The Best of Men’s Journal” (2002); you can read excerpts

at the google books preview.

2.) For Krakauers’ take on the story, read his original ”Into Thin Air” magazine article

(“Outside” August 1996), IF you can find it (“Outside” has removed it from its’ archives and it’s

very difficult to find a link to it).

3.) Next, I’d suggest Boukreev’s succinct account of Everest ’96 from his point of view in the

Everest chapter of his book, Above the Clouds (2001), a posthumous selection of his journal

writings.

4.) The August 1996 mountainzone.com exchange of letters between Krakauer and Boukreev is

illuminating.

5.) Anatoli’s “The Oxygen Illusion” (1998) for his perspective on oxygen use on Everest.

. . .

Time to Read the Books:

1.) About a year after his magazine article was published, Krakauer’s book-length version of

“Into Thin Air” was published. His absorbing book is well-written and presents a decent

overview of the Everest ’96 story (I stayed up late finishing it when I first read it 15 years ago).

Make sure you read his 1999 (or later) paperback edition with his Postscript.

2.) For DeWalt & Boukreev’s detailed take on Everest ‘96, read “The Climb” (1999 paperback

or later edition). This edition also includes a review by Galen Rowell, a transcript of the

Mountain Madness team’s debriefing tapes made just a few days after the disaster which gives a

detailed, raw account of their point of view, and a Response to Krakauer’s book.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0ATRBwNZ_gMC&pg=PA380&lpg=PA380&dq=%22the+death+zone%22+%22peter+wilkinson%22&source=bl&ots=4ebNLHOeo_&sig=-vPR6ciLjdAPLSF38cjXMOptWWw&hl=en&ei=XrPqTdnVDIn30gHI3JmWAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v

http://books.google.com/books?id=0ATRBwNZ_gMC&pg=PA380&lpg=PA380&dq=%22the+death+zone%22+%22peter+wilkinson%22&source=bl&ots=4ebNLHOeo_&sig=-vPR6ciLjdAPLSF38cjXMOptWWw&hl=en&ei=XrPqTdnVDIn30gHI3JmWAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yPHAXLl5kMoJ:www.svusd.org/p_subject.asp%3Fsid%3D10086+%22into+thin+air%22+%22original+magazine+article%22+pdf&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

http://classic.mountainzone.com/climbing/fischer/letters.html

http://www.boukreev.org/The%20Oxygen%20Illusion.htm


51

The Salon.com Debate:

1.) "Why Books Err So Often” – Steve Weinberg, The Columbia Journal Review July/Aug

1998. Prompted Krakauer to finally publicly comment on the controversy for the first time.

2.) “Coming Down” -- Dwight Garner, Salon.com, August 3, 1998. A pretty balanced

discussion of the controversy. This article resulted in the following salon.com debate:

Everest controversy continues -- Weston DeWalt, Salon.com, August 7, 1998

Rebuttal – Jon Krakauer, Salon.com, August 7, 1998

Everest Debate, Round Two: Weston DeWalt, Salon.com, August 14, 1998

Everest Debate, Round Two: Jon Krakauer, Salon.com, August 14, 1998

Weston DeWalt’s Latest Response, Salon.com, August 20, 1998

Dueling Postscripts:

The 1998 illustrated edition of “Into Thin Air” includes a “Postscript” written in “August 1998”

discussing the controversy. This postscript was written before the August 1998 salon.com

debate; it was adapted as Krakauer’s August 7, 1998 Rebuttal.

The 1999 edition of “The Climb” includes “Everest Update: A Response to Jon Krakauer”

which responded to Krakauer’s 1998 “Postscript” (not JK’s later revised “Postscript” in the 1999

and later paperbacks).

In August 1999, Krakauer revised this “Postscript” for his 1999 trade paperbacks and later

editions and added new material not present in the original. Most of the new material was drawn

from Krakauer’s salon.com “Round Two” of August 14, 1998 (See the salon.com debate for

DeWalt’s response). However, Krakauer did add his “eyewitness” account on p. 313 of the

1999 edition (DeWalt never addressed this “last word” of Krakauer).

There was no debate on Krakauer’s part! Even though DeWalt addressed many of Krakauer’s

concerns, Krakauer never changed his postscript material afterwards to reflect DeWalt’s

responses! Maybe he figures most people that read his book will never read “The Climb” or

look at the salon.com material?

. . .

http://www.salon.com/wlust/feature/1998/08/cov_03feature.html

http://www.salon.com/wlust/feature/1998/08/07featurea.html

http://www.salon.com/wlust/feature/1998/08/07featurec.html

http://www.salon.com/wlust/feature/1998/08/14featurea.html

http://www.salon.com/wlust/feature/1998/08/14featureb.html

http://www.salon.com/wlust/feature/1998/08/20feature.html


52

Books in the Krakauer Camp:

1.) “Everest: Mountain Without Mercy,” Broughton Coburn (1997).

A National Geographic coffee table book. Describes the IMAX expedition and Everest ’96.

Nice pictures. Drawn largely from Breashears and Viesturs accounts.

2.) “High Exposure,” David Breashears (1998)

Breashear’s (a friend of Krakauer, he did the foreword) either echoed Krakauer’s take on

Boukreev or was the source for his idea that Boukreev had to descend rapidly because he was

cold since he was climbing without O’s. I just don’t understand why he dismisses Boukreev’s

claim he descended to be ready to bring O’s back up to climbers who were running out.

Breashear’s himself had problems with that situation in ’85 while guiding Dick Bass down.

3.) “No Shortcuts to the Top,” Ed Viesturs (2006)

Ed (and/or his co-author) also echoed Krakauer’s arguments (also a friend of Krakauer). Ed had

guided for Hall in ’94 and ’95. He criticized Anatoli for guiding without using O’s. He said

(p.41): “I’ve made it an ironclad rule to climb the 8,000ers without bottled oxygen on my own

expeditions, when I’ve guided I’ve always used oxygen.” However, he didn’t always use O’s

while guiding (p. 179): “Since Cho Oyu is more than two thousand feet lower than Everest, I felt

well within my limits guiding it without bottled oxygen.” Well, I’m sure that Boukreev felt that

Everest was well within his limits (and he was a stronger climber than Ed).

I don’t understand why Ed would say “it doesn’t make sense” to go down to bring O’s back up.

He discussed (p. 169) how pushing on after 12 Noon “meant that one would inevitably run out of

oxygen on the descent.” Just the previous year, it took him and three other climbers drag down

a collapsed client off Everest.

Ed does give a nice plug for Boukreev’s “Above the Clouds” (p. 161).

4.) “Left for Dead,” Beck Weathers (2000)

Several noticeable inaccuracies. Echoes Krakauer’s remarks. Doesn’t add much info about

Everest ’96. More of a personal biography before & after.


53

Books in the Boukreev Camp:

1.) “Climbing High,” Lene Gammelgaard (1996)

Personal account from a Mountain Madness client. Edited excerpts from her journals. Friendly

with Anatoli. Mention of socializing with Henry Todd’s group and a couple brief references to

their group on the South Col.

2.) “A Day to Die For,” Graham Ratcliffe (2011)

New book. See longer description in the next chapter. Climbed with Anatoli on Everest in ’95

on the Tibet side. On South Col on May 10th

but didn’t know of trouble. Book is biographical

and describes his tracking down the weather forecasts that IMAX (Breashers & Viesturs) had

looking five days out that predicted a blizzard on May 11th

Krakauer, Breashears etc. accounts

of the whether appear disingenuous.

Other Books on Everest ’96:

1.) “Sheer Will,” Micheal Groom (1996). Excerpted in “Epics On Everest, Clint Willis (2003)

Chapter which adds a bit more detail from the perspective of one of Hall’s guides.

2.) “Mountain Madness” Robert Birkby (2008)

One chapter on Everest ’96. A biography about Scott Fischer from the viewpoints of those who

had adventures with him over 20 years.

3.) “The Other Side of Everest” Matt Dickinson (1997)

Well-written book about documentary filmmaker climbing the Tibet side of Everest in ‘96

For documentaries and other sources of information about Everest ’96:

1.) IMAX “Everest” movie (1997)

3.) PBS Frontline, “Storm Over Everest” (2006). See website also.

2.) PBS Nova, Everest: The Death Zone (1997). Transcripts on website.

4.) “Into Thin Air” TV Movie (1997). Terribly inaccurate portrayal.


54

Other Everest ’96 References:

1.) “The Altitude Experience” Mike Farris (2008)

2.) “Climbing without O’s” John B. West (PBS Nova, Everest: The Death Zone)

. . .

Update 3-31-13: This Bibliography is nowhere near complete. I wrote it in mid-July 2011, but

I kept reading more until September 2011 (and still have one book left to read). Nothing I read

contradicted my take on the affair. As I said before, I never finished writing up my research.

“one book” by South Africans, mentioned weather forecasts in ’96!

Reading latest by Ed Viestures 2011 Annapurna & 2013 Everest book.


55

“A DAY TO DIE FOR”

1996: Everest’s Worst Disaster

The Untold True Story

Graham Ratcliffe (2011)

“The most powerful form of lie is the omission, and it is the duty of the historian to make sure those lies do

not creep into the history books.”

-- George Orwell

This new book that just came out in the UK just a few months ago in March 2011. Ratcliffe has

uncovered new information about Everest ’96 and raises questions about the honestly of several

of those who recorded Everest history.

Ratcliffe was on the South Col on the night of May 10, 1996 with four other members of Henry

Todd’s team. However, he arrived just as the storm hit and he didn’t know people were missing

in the storm. Communications was shitty. Their radio was off after their 7 PM radio check. He

had climbed Everest the previous year with Anatoli and would have helped if he had known

there was trouble. Anatoli, when he needed help in his rescues, didn’t know Todd’s team was

just 50 feet away, with five fresh climbers.

Ratcliffe’s team checked with Hall and Fischer’s teams early AM on May 11th

and thought that

everyone was OK. They didn’t realize that Hall and Fischer were still up the mountain or that

Beck and Namba were still out on the Col. Todd told Ratcliffe to descend with a young climber

early the next morning. Ratcliffe didn’t know there were climbers in trouble until he was

descending down to camp three.

Years later, Ratcliffe found out that David Breashear’s IMAX team, as well as Mal Duff’s team

had been getting accurate 5-day forecasts of weather on Everest. They had been passing some

of this information to Hall and Fischer. Breashears decided to come down on May 9th

because of

high winds and a forecast of increasing wind (impossible to shoot IMAX which required bare

hands to change the film).

The blizzard which hit the climbers was not a “rogue” storm. Breashears knew for sure it was

coming; how much did he tell Hall & Fischer of the blizzard forecast for May 11th

? Apparently,

they thought they could get up and down just before it hit. Perhaps the forecast gave them too

much of a sense of security. But it was crazy to ignore a 2PM turnaround time given knowledge

of an approaching blizzard.


56

Krakauer never listed Ratcliffe in his first edition as being present on Everest in ‘96. Later, in

his 1999 edition, he included all the members of Henry Todd’s team and included a brief

mention that Anatoli never contacted them for help. But, Krakauer never interviewed any of the

members of that team to get their accounts (Brigitte Muir wrote an account “The Wind in Her

Hair” along with Ratcliffe).

Krakauer never mentioned Breashears & Veisturs coming down from the South Col meeting

with Hall & Fischer and their discussion of the weather. At least in retrospect, you would have

thought he would have passed on a warning of an approaching blizzard to other teams (including

on the other side of Everest) that were climbing that night.

Krakauer refers to the blizzard as a “rogue” storm, just another afternoon squall. Krakauer never

dug into this weather forecast issue, perhaps because of his friendship with Breashears?

Incompetence or cover-up?

And Breashears has been disingenuous in his varied accounts over the years. From reading him,

you would believe he (and others) only started getting forecasts after the disaster. In the 2008

“Storm over Everest” PBS program, Breashears was asked about the weather forecast and said

there wasn’t an accurate one then.

This book is definitely worth reading if you want to know more about why the Everest disaster

happened and to add more twists to the story.


57

REMEMBER THE ICONOCLAST, NOT THE ICON

Patrick Tillman, Sr.-- Memorial Service (May 2004)

Richard Tillman -- Memorial Service (May 4, 2004)

“I didn’t write shit because I’m not a writer. … I’m not just going to sit here and break down on you. But thanks for

coming. Pat’s a fucking champion and always will be. Just make no mistake, he’d want me to say this, He’s not

with God; He’s fucking dead. He’s not religious. So, thanks for your thoughts, but he’s fucking dead.”

http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2009/12/remember-iconoclast-not-icon-pat.html


58

REMEMBER THE ICONOCLAST, NOT THE ICON

[adapted from October 2005 “Letter to the Editor” (in ”A Sense of Honor,” Appendix “F”)]

Note: I handed this editorial to Stan Goff after one of his presentations in March 2006. Just a

couple of weeks later Stan published his first Tillman article, “Telling Transformative Tales: The

Strange Post Ranger Saga of Pat Tillman” on April 5th

2006.

. . .

Six years ago, I believed Pat Tillman was a patriotic “dumb jock”. I refused to watch any of the

flag waving coverage of his memorial service. It seemed like a sideshow distraction to the

breaking Abu Gharib story.

But the reality of Pat was much deeper than his iconic image. In October 2005, I read David

Zirin’s article, “Our Hero.” I discovered a side of Pat Tillman not widely known –a fiercely

independent thinker, avid reader (a favorite author was Noam Chomsky), and critic of the Bush

administration and the Iraq war (“…this war is so fucking illegal”). Pat was a remarkable man

who was driven by a core of honesty and integrity, led by personal example, and lived his life

intensely.

I’ve taken the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s death a bit personally. Like Stan Goff, I feel a sense of

kinship with Pat Tillman. In 1983, when I was “young and dumb,” I enlisted with an Airborne

Ranger Long-Range Recon Patrol (LRRP) company. I grew up in the Army, enjoyed the

camaraderie and the challenges. But, the lies of the first Gulf War were the last straw. After

eight years, I finally left the Army in March 1991, and have been a firefighter the past 19 years.

I was angered that the truth about Pat’s life and death had been buried by the media and

government. Tillman was enshrined as an icon while the man fell by the wayside, his parents

used as props at his funeral. Pat’s family still don’t have the meager consolation of knowing the

truth about his death. “The truth may be painful, but it’s the truth,” his mother said. “If you feel

you’re being lied to, you can never put it to rest.”

. . .

Let us honor Pat Tillman’s memory by honoring the man, not the myth. The iconoclast, not the

icon. As his mother said, “Pat would have wanted to be remembered as an individual, not as a

stock figure or political prop. Pat was a real hero, not what they used him as.”

Pat Tillman, never at a loss for words himself, is now silent. Of the many tragic aspects

surrounding his death, one is that he cannot define his own legacy. Now, it’s up to his family

and friends to reclaim the truth and integrity of Pat’s life and death.

http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2009/12/battle-for-truth.html

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/040506_telling_transformative.shtml

http://www.thenation.com/article/pat-tillman-our-hero


59

PATRICK TILLMAN

November 6, 1976 – April 22, 2004

Pat lived in New Alamaden for most of his life. He came to love it for its’ history

and community spirit. He roamed the hills with his brothers as a kid,

then hiked and trained in them as an athlete and soldier.

Pat was a loved son, brother, husband and faithful friend. He was a voracious

reader, inquisitive scholar, civic volunteer, aggressive athlete and a patriotic and

selfless soldier.

New Alamaden and the nation lost Patrick Tillman in Afghanistan

on April 22, 2004 in service to his country.

-- New Alamaden Bulmore Park Memorial Plaque

. . .

“I was stronger then, but I am fiercer now. I was so certain of life, and of my

place in it. I was so sure of my love, and of my future. I now have none of those

certainties, but at least I can comprehend pain. I was so ready, so eager to fight

and now I pay, richly pay, for having fought.” … “I guess that’s what the world

does to you. It makes you realize that honor and loyalty are traps with no

reward.”

-- Senator James Webb, “A Sense of Honor” (1981)

“I found myself awash with a sense of injustice that I could not define. Or

perhaps it was merely that I was young. I had never seen with such clarity that …

courage could destroy one man while flight could make another man king.”

“I knew it was fruitless at this point but still I felt a call for justice, an anger that

life does not always reward the right intentions, that the cycles of days and years

and seasons lull us into thinking that in all things there will be second chances,

and even thirds, when in some things we have only one. And sometimes we

never know we had that single chance until it disappears.”

-- Senator James Webb, “The Emperor’s General” (1999)

“If nothing ever works out all the way, and if all things change, what’s left? Your

family and your friends and your values, that’s what’s left. And your duty to

them … They’re the only important things in life. … And that the rest of it might

change a million times, be called wrong or right or anything else, but you must

never violate your loyalty if you wished to survive the judgment of the ages.

-- Senator James Webb, “A Country Such As This” (1981)


60

“DO NOT FORGET THE MOUNTAINEERS”

"Mountains are not stadiums where I satisfy my ambition to achieve, they are the cathedrals

where I practice my religion. I go to them as humans go to worship. From their lofty summits I

view my past, dream of the future and, with an unusual acuity, am allowed to experience the

present moment... my vision cleared, my strength renewed. In the mountains I celebrate creation.

On each journey I am reborn."

-- Anatoli Boukreev, “Above the Clouds” (2001)

“On Christmas Day, 1997, Anatoli Boukreev died in an avalanche on the slopes of Annapurna in

the Himalaya. … Anatoli was the true mountaineer. Straight and uncorrupted. He never

pampered people, but he would risk his life once you were in real trouble. He came from a

different culture and was sometimes misunderstood – as tough as the mountains he loved.

Anatoli was also a tender man with a philosopher’s soul. For those of us who took the time to

get to know him, we were rewarded by his fine qualities, which were abundant.”

-- Lene Gammelgaard, “Climbing High” (1999)

“Mountains have the power to call us into their realms and there, left forever, are our friends

whose great souls were longing for the heights. Do not forget the mountaineers who have not

returned from the summits.”

-- Anatoli Boukreev, inscription written in “The Climb” for Ervand Ilinski


61

“MOUNTAIN MADNESS”

Add MM quotes

AB: “sorry scott”


62

ANALYSIS OF THE PREFACE TO JON

KRAKAUER’S REVISED PAPERBACK EDITION

OF WHERE MEN WIN GLORY – THE ODYSSEY OF

PAT TILLMAN

Preface to the Anchor Edition [revised paperback edition, July 2010] (pp. xvii – xviii):

This substantially revised edition of Where Men Win Glory includes new material that casts the

Pat Tillman tragedy in sharper relief, and leaves little doubt about who directed the cover-up of

the fratricide.

To put these revisions in perspective, some background might be helpful. I submitted the

manuscript of the book’s first edition in February 2009, a few weeks after Barack Obama

became president. Shortly before the book was sent to the printer, and too late to make changes,

I learned important new information about the Army’s campaign to conceal the cause of

Tillman’s death from his family and the American public. Following publication of the first

edition in September [15,] 2009, I discovered additional evidence of deceit by high-ranking

Army officers. Some of these previously undisclosed facts were unearthed through multiple

Freedom of Information Act requests; other pieces of the puzzle were inadvertently divulged

when General Stanley McChrystal was obligated to testify before the Senate Armed Services

Committee in June 2009, following his nomination by President Obama to command NATO and

American forces in Afghanistan.

When considered as a whole, the wrongdoing described in the pages that follow is deeply

disturbing, in no small part because one of the most culpable malfeasants turns out to be an

exalted military leader [Gen. McChrystal] who’s been shielded from accountability or

punishment for the past six years.

Jon Krakauer, April 2010

. . .

1.) “This substantially revised [paperback] edition [released July 27, 2010] of Where Men

Win Glory includes new material that casts the Pat Tillman tragedy in sharper relief, and

leaves little doubt about who directed the cover-up of the fratricide.”

“Substantially revised …” might be a bit of a stretch. It appears that Jon Krakauer only added

about 10 pages of totally new material to his revised paperback edition (many of his revisions

involved edits of just a few words or phrases). The bulk of his new material is found in

Chapters 32, 33, and 34 which describe the actions the Army took to cover-up Tillman’s


63

friendly-fire death. Much of Chapter 33 was adapted from his “Daily Beast” article, “Gen.

McChrystal’s Credibility Problem,” published October 14, 2009.

Krakauer’s new material does “leave little doubt about who directed the cover-up” of Pat

Tillman’s friendly-fire death. Krakauer’s revisions cast the “tragedy in sharper relief” by

describing in more detail the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death by Army officers;

particularly the Ranger RGT commanders [COL Nixon, LTC Kauzlarich, LTC Bailey] and Gen.

Stanley McChrystal. And, he also describes in more detail how other Army officers deceived the

medical examiner who refused to sign-off on the autopsy.

In the hardcover edition, Gen. McChrystal was barely a footnote. He was only mentioned as

learning of the fratricide the next day, “expediting” the Silver Star, and sending a P4 memo to

“alert his superiors that someone needed to warn President Bush…”

However, in the revised paperback edition, Krakauer describes McChrystal as playing a “central

role in the scandal” and includes much more detail on McChrystal’s actions. Krakauer’s new

material “leaves little doubt” that Gen. McChrystal was the general officer who “directed the

cover-up” on the ground in Afghanistan.

2.) “To put these revisions in perspective, some background might be helpful. I submitted

the manuscript of the book’s first edition in February 2009, a few weeks after Barack

Obama became president. Shortly before the book was sent to the printer, and too late to

make changes, I learned important new information about the Army’s campaign to conceal

the cause of Tillman’s death from his family and the American public.”

Here, Jon Krakauer provided “some background” to justify why he didn’t include this new

material in the hardcover edition of his book. Krakauer claimed that he “learned

important new information,” in the six-month period before the book was published in

September 2009, but too late to include in the first edition.

However, I believe Krakauer is disingenuous here, at best. My analysis of his revisions didn’t

reveal any “important” new information that Krakauer discovered in this six month period prior

to his book’s publication.

And, Krakauer didn’t list any new sources of information in his References (besides the Freedom

of Information Act (FOIA) IG interviews and the transcript of McChrystal’s June 2, 2009 Senate

confirmation hearing, both of which he says he obtained only after publication of his book).

I carefully analyzed Krakauer’s revisions. I compared the text of the hardcover edition to that of

the softcover edition, paragraph by paragraph (and in more detail where necessary) to document


64

his revisions. In “Appendix E: Revisions Made to Paperback Edition of Where Men Win Glory,”

I’ve labeled each revised excerpt with the page number where it appears in each edition, and

indicated the changes. I’ve organized the revisions primarily by the source of the new material

(e.g. FOIA, transcript of Senate hearing, etc.)

Perhaps I missed something. However, I suspect that Krakauer attempted to justify his failure to

include the details of Gen. McChrystal’s central role in his first edition. Perhaps Krakauer was

merely embarrassed to admit that he missed uncovering this material before the publication of

his hardcover edition.

3.) “Following publication of the first [hardcover] edition in September [15,] 2009, I

discovered additional evidence of deceit by high-ranking Army officers [Ranger RGT

officers, Gen. McChrystal, etc.]”

“I discovered…” Only if your definition of “discovered” includes having 250 pages of research

material literally placed into your hands! Krakauer’s shows further deceit with his claim here.

Where Men Win Glory was released on September 15, 2009. Just two days later, at his book

signing in his hometown of Boulder CO on September 17, 2009, my Aunt Candy hand-delivered

my package of Tillman material to Krakauer (and got an autograph). My material consisted of a

cover letter (Sept. 12, 2009), a “postscript” letter (with corrections) reviewing his book (Sept. 17,

2009), and two large binders:

“Did They Teach You to Lie Yet? – Senator James Webb, General Stanley McChrystal, and the

Betrayal of Pat Tillman.” I argued that the top leadership of the Army, Waxman’s House

Oversight Committee, and Senator Carl Levin’s Senate Armed Services Committee acted to

shield McChrystal from scrutiny and protect him from punishment for his actions.


New York Times, and the Whitewash of General Stanley McChrystal.” This binder explored the

role of NYT Washington Pentagon reporter Thom Shanker in “clearing” McChrystal of any

wrongdoing. In addition, I described my interactions with Senator Webb’s office and speculated

at President Obama’s role in the Tillman case.

(See Appendix B for these letters and the Table of Contents of these binders. The full contents

of the binders are posted at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com)

Perhaps Krakauer somehow “discovered” his “new evidence” in the two days “following

publication of the first edition in September 2009.” However, it’s much more likely my material

was the ultimate source of the new material in his paperback edition.



65

Did Krakauer read my Tillman material? (Krakauer has never bothered to contact me). Well,

my analysis showed he used some of my corrections, many of his revisions appear to echo words

& phrases from my binders (or the information can be found in my binders), and his article

“Gen. McChrystal’s Credibility Problem” focused on the same revelations of McChrystal’s

Senate testimony that were also described in “Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet?” (See

Appendix E). In addition, a look at Krakauer’s media interviews before and after Sept 17th

is

revealing.

Before Sept 17th, Krakauer said:

“… McChrystal, … is probably the best man for the job [command of Afghan War].

Nevertheless, he was as deeply involved in the cover-up as anyone. …“very deliberately

expedit[ed] a recommendation for a Silver Star in which the witness statements had been

falsified and the report states he was killed by enemy fire.” …“I don’t know if he [Gen.

McChrystal] knew the [Silver Star recommendation] witness accounts had been falsified

[when he forwarded them]. I do know, he was absolutely certain that Tillman was killed

by friendly fire” … “He signed off on what he knew was a falsified recommendation for

a Silver Star.”

After Sept. 17th

, Krakauer said:

“They immediately decide to give him [Tillman] the Silver Star medal … and the guy

they put in charge of making this happen is Gen. Stanley McChrystal.”… “There was no

enemy fire, yet McChrystal authored, he closely supervised over a number of days this

fraudulent medal recommendation that talked about devastating enemy fire.”… “You

know, in the past, he's made it sound like, oh, yeah, I was sort of peripherally involved

and I was handed these documents that I signed for the Silver Star, this is what he told the

Senate.” … “Not only involved; he was at the center of it. He played a pivotal role.”

…”was instrumental, probably the point man for this cover-up” … “He claims, I didn't

read it carefully enough to notice that it didn't mention friendly-fire. Now, anyone who

knows McChrystal knows that's preposterous.” …

“He's lied to the Senate Armed Services Committee.” …”I don't think he should be in the

job. I think he is the best man for the job.” … “…someone who has this blemish on his

record should not be our commander in Afghanistan.” … “Seven investigations, two or

three Congressional investigations, and every time they get stonewalled at the top, at the

level of the administration and top generals. … McChrystal should come clean, and tell

what really happened.”

So, in less than two weeks, Krakauer’s opinion changed from McChrystal being “the best man”

to “… someone who has this blemish on his record should not be our commander in

Afghanistan.


66

4.) “Some of these previously undisclosed facts were unearthed through multiple Freedom

of Information Act [FOIA] requests;…”

None of these “previously undisclosed facts” appeared in his “McChrystal’s Credibilty

Problem” nor were they mentioned in his November 2009 interviews.

Sometime after November 2009, Jon Krakauer used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to

obtain Inspector General (IG) interviews with the following officers: LTC Jeffrey Bailey, COL

James Craig Nixon, LTG Stan McChrystal, Major Charles Kirchmaier, LTC Norman Allen,

Commander Craig Mallak, and BG Gina Farrisee.

The FOIA interviews provided more detail on the stonewalling of the Medical Examiner Mallak

by Nixon & McChrystal’s JAG lawyers (Kirchmaier and Allen), and BG Farrisee (who Krakauer

appears to credulously believe was not part of this deception).

In addition, the FOIA interviews provided some more details of how Gen. McChrystal directed

the Ranger RGT’s cover-up.

. . .

But, ultimately, Krakauer is disingenuous to claim he “discovered “these “previously

undisclosed facts” from the FOIA interviews. True, none of these facts appeared in the Tillman

material I sent to him. However, his claim is deceitful since he apparently learned about the

existence of these IG interviews from reading my binders:

From “Did They Teach You to Lie Yet?”:

“So, McChrystal, Nixon, and/or Abiziad lied about when they learned about “suspected”

fratricide during their interviews with the DoD Inspector General and before Congress.

A look at their IG interviews would be illuminating and resolve this question [Scott

Laidlaw at AP got these interviews through FOIA, but I haven’t seen them].”

From “Lies Borne Out by Facts, If Not the Truth”:

“A couple of weeks ago, while reading your article, “Pat Tillman’s Mother Recalls

Journey for Facts” (5-13-08), you mentioned AP had obtained new documents under

FOIA … Do your FOIA documents also include testimony from GEN McChrystal …”


67

5.) ”… other pieces of the puzzle were inadvertently divulged when General Stanley

McChrystal was obligated to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee in June

2009, following his nomination by President Obama to command NATO and American

forces in Afghanistan.”

In May 2009, over the objections of the Tillman family, President Obama nominated Gen.

McChrystal to be his new Afghan commander. On June 2, 2009, McChrystal testified before the

Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation hearing. This hearing was strictly

pro-forma (the real hearing had been heard the previous year behind closed doors in executive

session where McChrystal testified “in detail”).

Notice that Jon Krakauer never explained why he “discovered” McChrystal’s Senate testimony

only after his book release on September 15, 2009. Apparently Jon Krakauer hadn’t paid much

attention to this hearing at the time (perhaps he only saw the news clips or read the newspaper.

You would have thought he would have watched it on CSPAN or gotten the transcript).

In his interviews prior to September 17th

, Krakauer never mentioned McChrystal’s Senate

testimony. Once again, it’s apparent that he “discovered” the existence of this testimony from

my binders (unless he miraculously discovered it within two days of publication).

The first time Krakauer mentions McChrystal’s Senate testimony was on Jon Stewart’s Daily

Show on September 30, 2009 (just two weeks after getting my material). On October 14, 2009,

Krakauer published the Daily Beast article “McChrystal’s Credibility Problem.”

This article had new information not present in the hardcover edition: Gen. McChrystal’s

Nomination by President Obama to Head Afghan War Confirmed After Pro Forma Senate

Hearing, McChrystal Closely Supervised the Fraudulent Silver Star Recommendation, Gen.

McChrystal Spun the P4 Memo As Proof He Didn’t Conceal Friendly Fire, and Although the

Best Man for the Job, Gen. McChrystal’s Deceit Matters.

Much of the new information appears to be drawn from (or inspired by the chapter, “Senate

Armed Services Commttee’s Confirmation of General McChrystal,” found in the binder “Did

They Teach You How to Lie Yet?” (See Appendix D & E)

. . .

Once again, Krakauer was deceitful in claiming to have discovered “other pieces of the puzzle”

in McChrystal’s testimony when this information was spoon-fed to him.

Note: Despite writing in his Daily Beast piece that, “During the committee hearing … none of

McChrystal’s inquisitors probed deeply into either of these issues [Tillman & torture at Camp

Nama],“ Krakauer failed to discuss the Senate Confirmation hearing in his book.


68

6.) “When considered as a whole, the wrongdoing described in the pages that follow is

deeply disturbing, in no small part because one of the most culpable malfeasants turns out

to be an exalted military leader [Gen. Stanley McChrystal] …”

Yes, Krakauer is correct to state that Gen. McChrystal was “one of the most culpable

malfeasants.” His own testimony and other evidence shows that he was the general officer with

“boots on the ground” who supervised the Ranger RGT’s cover-up and falsified Silver Star.

However, I’ve got some “sympathy for the Devil” here. Ultimately, McChrystal was a cog in the

machine. The entire Army (and Department of Defense) chain of command to the very top was

involved in this cover-up (Krakauer writes of McChrystal’s close ties with both Cheney and

Rumsfeld, who “kept in close touch with him”).

I’ve focused in my research on McChrystal not because he’s worse than the rest of the officers,

but because he left a paper trail with the Silver Star and “inadvertently” admitted his culpability

in his Senate testimony.

I’ve reserved my greatest disdain for the Democratic Congress and President Obama who

continued the Bush administration and Army cover-up to protect Gen. McChrystal and others

from being held accountable for their actions.

7.) “…who’s been shielded from accountability or punishment for the past six years.”

Jon Krakauer doesn’t say who “shielded” McChrystal “from accountability or punishment for the

past six years.”? Certainly, the Army and Department of Defense protected McChrystal who

was a rising star in the Army in 2007. As Krakauker noted, “The Army … took no action

against McChrystal despite his central role in the scandal.”

However, in his revised paperback edition, despite being given an outline of that argument in the

binder “Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet?,” Jon Krakauer still failed to describe how the

Democratic Congress “shielded’ McChrystal (Since 2009, I’ve described that argument in

greater detail, along with President Obama’s role, in my “The [Untold] Tillman Story” and “The

Emperor’s General”).

In my September 17, 2009 letter to Krakauer (Appendix B) I wrote:

“ Your book ends with Waxman’s House committee being unable to find out who was

responsible for the cover-up, largely because of stonewalling by the Bush White House.

Congressman Waxman stated in frustration, “What we have is a very clear, deliberate

abuse intentionally done. Why is it so hard to find out who did it?” You properly cast

blame on the top leadership of the Army and the White House that “… used every means

at its disposal to obstruct the congressional investigation into Tillman’s death and its

aftermath…”


69

“But, I believe your account of the cover-up ends far too soon with Bush’s press

conference August 9, 2007. The cover-up continued up through the June 2, 2009

confirmation hearing of General McChrystal as the Commander of the Afghan War.

Perhaps the end was the unanimous voice vote by the Senate begged for by Senate

Majority Leader Reid on June 12th

.”

“Blaming Bush and the Army for the cover-up, with the Democratic Congress as the




scrutiny. Just as with warrantless wiretapping and torture, those responsible have not

been held accountable. “They’re moving forward, not looking back.”

“It’s not surprising that after the initial fratricide cover-up fell apart, that Army officers

and the Bush administration lied to protect their careers. Reprehensible, but

understandable. But the Democratic Congress, after they took control of both Houses in

2006, could have gone after those responsible. Or at least not promoted them! Their

hands are dirty as well with the betrayal of Pat Tillman.”

So, it’s not for a lack of knowledge that Krakauer failed to describe this “untold story” in his

revised paperback. Krakauer didn’t spare McChrystal in his book. But he has “shielded” the

Democratic Congress and President Obama for their failure to hold McChrystal and other Army

officers responsible for the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death.

Krakauer wrote in his Daily Beast piece that, “During the committee hearing … none of


Nama].“ However, in his revised book, Krakauer didn’t include any discussion of the June 2,

2009 Senate Confirmation hearing except in reference to McChrystal’s testimony.

Incredibly, Krakauer never even mentions the second Congressional Tillman hearing held on

August 1, 2007 in which Congressman Waxman allowed McChrystal to “decline” to testify (he

only includes a passing reference to “a hearing last week on Capitol Hill … officials used some

version of “I don’t recall” 82 times”). The transcript isn’t even listed in his Notes!

So why did Krakauer choose to whitewash the role of President Obama and the Democratic

Congress? Perhaps he has a partisan bias for the Democratic Party? Maybe he was too lazy to

revise the end of his book? Maybe he wanted a simple storyline (with the Good Democrats

“investigated” but were stone-walled by the Bad Bush administration)? Perhaps it would bruise

his ego to admit he had failed to find out this part of the story by himself? It’s a mystery to me.

1

APPENDIX A:

Krakauer Interviews BEFORE September 17, 2009


“… McChrystal, … is probably the best man for the job [command of Afghan War].

Nevertheless, he was as deeply involved in the cover-up as anyone. …“very deliberately

expedit[ed] a recommendation for a Silver Star in which the witness statements had been

falsified and the report states he was killed by enemy fire.” …“I don’t know if he [Gen.

McChrystal] knew the [Silver Star recommendation] witness accounts had been falsified

[when he forwarded them]. I do know, he was absolutely certain that Tillman was killed

by friendly fire” … “He signed off on what he knew was a falsified recommendation for

a Silver Star.”

After Sept. 17th

, Krakauer said:




fraudulent medal recommendation that talked about devastating enemy fire.”…

“You know, in the past, he's made it sound like, oh, yeah, I was sort of peripherally

involved and I was handed these documents that I signed for the Silver Star, this is what

he told the Senate.” … “Not only involved; he was at the center of it. He played a pivotal

role.” …”was instrumental, probably the point man for this cover-up” … “He claims, I

didn't read it carefully enough to notice that it didn't mention friendly-fire. Now, anyone

who knows McChrystal knows that's preposterous.” …



record should not be our commander in Afghanistan.”

“Seven investigations, two or three Congressional investigations, and every time they

get stonewalled at the top, at the level of the administration and top generals. …

McChrystal should come clean, and tell what really happened.”

. . .



Afghanistan.


2

Summary of Excerpts from Jon Krakauer Interviews

BEFORE September 17, 2009 Book Signing In

Boulder, CO

Note: All quotes are from Jon Krakauer unless indicated otherwise. Some quotes have been

rearranged for clarity. See the Appendices for links to original interviews and longer excerpts.

“On Martial Virtue … and Selling Jon Krakauer’s Crappy New Book”

The book [Where Men Win Glory] has received mixed reviews so far. … In The Washington

Post, Andrew Exum, a former Army officer in Afghanistan [and fellow at the Washington think

tank CNAS], praised the early material but took issue with the book’s coverage of Afghan war.

Note: Exum was later admonished by the Washington Post ombudsman for not revealing his

close personal & professional ties with Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Exum angrily responded to

Krakauer’s statement on Meet the Press, that McChrystal lied during testimony before the

Senate, with his post “On Martial Virtue … and Selling Jon Krakauer’s Crappy New Book” on

his blog “Abu Mugawama”.

In writing the book, Krakauer denied having political motives or a dislike for the Bush

administration. … However, he later said that, “… A lot of these soldiers don't share my

[?Democratic Party?] political views.”

What were the greatest lessons you learned from Pat Tillman’s life and the way he lived it?

What did Mr. Tillman's sacrifice mean?

“It didn't mean anything. It speaks to the mythology of war and how we glorify it for our national

interests. There is nothing glamorous or romantic about war. It's mostly about random pointless

death and misery. And that's what his death tells us. It reminds me that the good aren't rewarded,

there's no such thing as karma. Maybe it says something about the dangers of any sort of

idealism that isn't tempered by pragmatism or experience.”

“There were a lot of them. That it’s not easy to be virtuous. That there is no guarantee that it will

be rewarded. Also: Doing the right thing can be dangerous. And there’s probably no such thing

as karma.”

Note: “I guess that‘s what the world does to you. It makes you realize that honor and loyalty

are traps with no reward” -- Senator James Webb, A Sense of Honor (1981)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091102614.html


3

Are you certain that the events surrounding Mr. Tillman's final hours unfolded exactly as

you've described them?

“Yes, I'm quite confident. It took a lot of time and effort. I've been working on this book for

three-and-a-half to four years, and it's been a long, difficult haul. It's the most challenging book

I've written. I tried very hard to get this right. I sent chapters in full to every soldier that I

interviewed and quoted so that they could see their quotes. A lot of these soldiers don't share my

political views. It was a risk, but it created real benefits in terms of accuracy. I also read 3,000 or

4,000 pages of testimony.”

"I've been very conservative with my fact checking," he said. "The stuff in my book is true. Stuff

that I believe to be true but I couldn't prove is not in the book." …

. . .

“Actually, I talked to them [the Tillman family] quite a bit. But they decided they did not want

to be quoted in the book. I showed them an early draft, a very rough draft, they just weren’t

happy with that, they wanted Mary’s [Pat Tillman’s mother] book [Boots on the Ground by Dusk

5/2008] to be their statement.”

Note: Krakauer delayed his book that was due to the publisher on 2/2008; he wanted to pursue

the Jessica Lynch angle & the friendly fire of Marines that same day. He spent 3 months

investigating that, fried, took break for a couple of months; took a year to finish up book.

The Bush Administration & Army’s Cover-Up of Pat Tillman’s Friendly-Fire

Death:

“Where Men Win Glory is extremely critical of the military and its role in concealing that

Tillman … was the victim of friendly fire. Mr. Krakauer documents a web of deceit and cover-

up that most likely extended all the way to the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld

and certainly involved a number of top generals, including Stanley A. McChrystal…”

“The Bush administration placed more emphasis on spinning the war, on managing perceptions

of the war, than on waging it well.” …”You don't normally see the feverish manipulation of

information that you saw with Tillman.”… “This was an extraordinary case of manipulation of

public perception, which is what the Bush administration specialized in.”

"Within hours, certainly, and probably less, the Ranger regiment — officers, high-ranking

officers back in the States [actually COL Nixon, LTC Kauzlarich, and LTC Bailey] were in

Afghanistan] — were conspiring to cover this up," Krakauer says.”


4

Ranger RGT Officers Had Pat Tillman’s Uniform, Body Armor, and Journal

Burned & Lied to the Medical Examiners about the Cause of his Death:

“All the forensic evidence … were burned.” … "When they sent Pat's body back to the States

for the autopsy they burned his uniform, they burned his body armor, they burned his journal.”

“… and his weapon, helmet, even a part of his brain, which fell to the ground after the attack,

disappeared.”

“Army officials told the medical examiners that Tillman had been killed by the Taliban — and

they stuck by this story when they reported the death to his family. "The Army intentionally lied

[to the medical examiners]," Krakauer says. "They just broke regulation after regulation."

Ranger RGT Officers Wrote a Fraudulent Silver Star Recommendation with

Falsified Witness Statements & Gen. McChrystal Expedited the Medal and

Signed Off on It Although They Knew It Was a Friendly Fire Death:

“A recommendation to award Tillman with a Silver Star medal, one of the U.S. military's highest

honors, immediately began moving through the Army ranks — something that is not done for

deaths by friendly fire, Krakauer says.” … “Instantly, everyone knew it was friendly fire. But

within hours, by sworn testimony, a move was made to give him a Silver Star. That's not typical

in a friendly fire situation.”

Krakauer points out that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, … signed off on the Silver Star

recommendation, even though he knew that Tillman's death was a result of friendly fire.

…“I don’t know if he [Gen. McChrystal] knew the [Silver Star recommendation] witness

accounts had been falsified [when he forwarded them]. I do know, he was absolutely certain that

Tillman was killed by friendly fire, 24 hours later he knew that.”

“We’re talking about Gen. McChrystal, knowing without a doubt, that it was friendly-fire and

very deliberately expediting a recommendation for a Silver Star in which the witness statements

had been falsified and the report states he was killed by enemy fire. Now, that’s not

‘buffoonery’, [reference to Andrew Exum’s book review] that’s something else.”

McChrystal signed it [the Silver Star recommendation] the day before he sent the urgent P4

memo [supposedly warning President Bush not to mention Tillman’s heroics in speeches to

avoid possible embarassment] “It was not meant for the generals, they already knew that [it was

friendly fire]. It was meant for the White House.”


5

"He has apologized to the family. It was one of these 'mistakes were made' kind of things, but he

has not come clean. He has not told what really happened and he needs to," Krakauer said. …

“He has not told what conversations he had with Rumsfeld or Cheney’s office.”

If you were able to report this, why didn't government investigators dig more deeply?

“They were able. They didn't want to. Their conclusions weren't based on a reading of the facts.

They didn't want to find out the worst. It's the opposite of a criminal prosecution or a plane crash

investigation. Military investigations are designed not to find anyone guilty. And you can't

investigate up the chain of command, which is a huge impediment.”

“Did you find any smoking gun?”: “There was a lot of circumstantial evidence”. … “At

Congressional hearings, the generals said ‘I don’t recall 80 times.’ There’s been this

stonewalling. …The Defense Dept. is not interested. Going through the motions.”

Note: This 8-01-07 hearing alluded to with the “80 times” remark was never discussed in

Krakauer’s book.

Gen. McChrystal is “Probably the Best Man for the Job” in Afghanistan:

A central figure in the book is Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the current commander in Afghanistan,

who Krakauer says was "one of the main instigators." … “The story still hasn’t been fully told.

The commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who I think is probably the best man

for the job. Nevertheless, he was as deeply involved in the cover-up as anyone. He signed off on

what he knew was a falsified recommendation for a Silver Star. He apologized for that, but he

hasn’t come clean about much else. He hasn’t revealed his involvement, or who he spoke to, or

when he knew, or when Rumsfeld knew. It’s not like we know everything. We still don’t.” …

"McChrystal is extremely quiet. He covers his tracks, he avoids publicity." Krakauer said.

The Army “Still Hasn’t Come Clean” About Pat Tillman’s Death:

"That's a very conscious effort to cover things up, up and down the chain of command. And the

Army still hasn't come clean," Krakauer said in the interview. "That bothers me. So I guess,

when that kind of stuff happens, it's easy for me -- my outrage seeps in and I don't feel any

qualms about naming names." … "You've got to explain what happened, and when you explain

what happened, you've got to name names," Krakauer said in an interview in Boulder, where he

lives. "It doesn't do any good to say, 'Mistakes were committed, mistakes were made,' in that

passive voice that's so annoying."


6

“The Army still hasn’t come clean,” he said. Referring to an inscription on [the West Point

Military Academy] campus he added: “Out there you have the Honor Code: ‘A cadet will not lie,

cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do.’ What happened to lead those officers to do the wrong

thing?” …“I was just at West Point two days ago” (9-14-09). Honor Code. What happened to

those guys? They become corrupted. A lot of officers risk their lives for their country, very few

their careers.”

“In my mind, and in the book, I’m an advocate for the infantryman,” he said. “They’re the guys

who always get exploited.” On the other hand, the officers, he said, were creatures of a culture in

which certain commands were not always spelled out but nevertheless everyone knew what was

expected. “There are a lot of officers who will risk their lives for their country, but damn few

who will risk their careers,” he explained. “This isn’t little stuff to me. It’s not like you lied about

your expense account. This kind of deceit is endemic in the military and goes to the highest

levels of government.”


7

Excerpts from Jon Krakauer Interviews BEFORE

September 17, 2009 Book Signing In Boulder, CO

From The Truth Behind the Death of Pat Tillman?

Christine Romo and Stephanie Wash -- ABC News Nightline, Sept. 11, 2009

Krakauer said he believes the military and President George W. Bush's former administration

will argue with his findings. But he is confident in his book. "I've been very conservative with

my fact checking," he said. "The stuff in my book is true. Stuff that I believe to be true but I

couldn't prove is not in the book." …

The role of the current leading commander of the military operation in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley

McChrystal, is discussed in the book. "McChrystal is extremely quiet. He covers his tracks, he

avoids publicity." Krakauer said. McChrystal sent an e-mail to warn that the Tillman

investigation might reveal he was killed by friendly fire. McChrystal refused to answer

Woodruff's questions about Tillman during an interview in Afghanistan in July.

Rumsfeld refused to be interviewed.

In writing the book, Krakauer denied having political motives or a dislike for the Bush

administration.

From “Jon Krakauer’s Inside Story of Pat Tillman

Jeffery A. Trachtenberg – Wall Street Journal, Sept. 11, 2009

WSJ: You note that the military has always had difficulty acknowledging casualties from

friendly fire. How did this situation differ?

Mr. Krakauer: The Bush administration placed more emphasis on spinning the war, on

managing perceptions of the war, than on waging it well. …You don't normally see the feverish

manipulation of information that you saw with Tillman. Instantly, everyone knew it was friendly

fire. But within hours, by sworn testimony, a move was made to give him a Silver Star. That's

not typical in a friendly fire situation. All the forensic evidence, including his uniform and

journal, were burned. This was an extraordinary case of manipulation of public perception,

which is what the Bush administration specialized in.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/PatTillman/krakauer-army-colleagues-pat-tillman/story?id=8541279

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574406732146520274.html


8

WSJ: Are you certain that the events surrounding Mr. Tillman's final hours unfolded exactly as

you've described them?

Mr. Krakauer: Yes, I'm quite confident. It took a lot of time and effort. I've been working on

this book for three-and-a-half to four years, and it's been a long, difficult haul. It's the most

challenging book I've written. I tried very hard to get this right. I sent chapters in full to every

soldier that I interviewed and quoted so that they could see their quotes. A lot of these soldiers

don't share my political views. It was a risk, but it created real benefits in terms of accuracy. I

also read 3,000 or 4,000 pages of testimony.

WSJ: If you were able to report this, why didn't government investigators dig more deeply?

Mr. Krakauer: They were able. They didn't want to. Their conclusions weren't based on a

reading of the facts. They didn't want to find out the worst. It's the opposite of a criminal

prosecution or a plane crash investigation. Military investigations are designed not to find

anyone guilty. And you can't investigate up the chain of command, which is a huge impediment.

WSJ: You end the book with a gloomy visit to Afghanistan in early 2007. What did Mr.

Tillman's sacrifice mean?

Mr. Krakauer: It didn't mean anything. It speaks to the mythology of war and how we glorify it

for our national interests. There is nothing glamorous or romantic about war. It's mostly about

random pointless death and misery. And that's what his death tells us. It reminds me that the

good aren't rewarded, there's no such thing as karma. Maybe it says something about the dangers

of any sort of idealism that isn't tempered by pragmatism or experience.


9

From Krakauer's New Book Examines Pat Tillman's Death

Dan Elliott – Associated Press, September 13, 2009

But the sharpest rebukes are aimed at those Krakauer accuses of covering up the truth of

Tillman's death, fabricating a more heroic story and then using it to distract the media and the

public from bad news coming out of Iraq.

"You've got to explain what happened, and when you explain what happened, you've got to name

names," Krakauer said in an interview in Boulder, where he lives. "It doesn't do any good to say,

'Mistakes were committed, mistakes were made,' in that passive voice that's so annoying."

"That's a very conscious effort to cover things up, up and down the chain of command. And the

Army still hasn't come clean," Krakauer said in the interview. "That bothers me. So I guess,

when that kind of stuff happens, it's easy for me -- my outrage seeps in and I don't feel any

qualms about naming names."

Pat Tillman, Anti-War Hero

John Douglas Marshall – Daily Beast, September 13, 2009

What were the greatest lessons you learned from Pat Tillman’s life and the way he lived it?

There were a lot of them. That it’s not easy to be virtuous. That there is no guarantee that it will

be rewarded. Also: Doing the right thing can be dangerous. And there’s probably no such thing

as karma.

Note: “I guess that‘s what the world does to you. It makes you realize that honor and loyalty are

traps with no reward” -- Senator James Webb, ”A Sense of Honor” (1981)

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2009-09-11-krakauer-book_N.htm

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-13/pat-tillman-anti-war-hero/


10

Krakauer Explores Pat Tillman's Death And Cover-Up

Melissa Block -- NPR All Things Considered, September 14, 2009

.

"Within hours, certainly, and probably less, the Ranger regiment — officers, high-ranking

officers back in the States — were conspiring to cover this up," Krakauer says.

A recommendation to award Tillman with a Silver Star medal, one of the U.S. military's highest

honors, immediately began moving through the Army ranks — something that is not done for

deaths by friendly fire, Krakauer says.

…Tillman's uniform and body armor were burned, says Krakauer, and his weapon, helmet, even

a part of his brain, which fell to the ground after the attack, disappeared. Army officials told the

medical examiners that Tillman had been killed by the Taliban — and they stuck by this story

when they reported the death to his family. "The Army intentionally lied [to the medical

examiners]," Krakauer says. "They just broke regulation after regulation."

Krakauer points out that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, now the U.S. commander in Afghanistan,

signed off on the Silver Star recommendation, even though he knew that Tillman's death was a

result of friendly fire. In confirmation hearings earlier this year, McChrystal acknowledged that

the Army had failed the Tillman family, and he apologized for his part in that. But he

maintained that he "didn't see any activities by anyone to deceive," and that he "absolutely"

believed that Tillman earned the Silver Star.

. . .

Notes from transcript of NPR Interview with Jon Krakauer:

4:59 The Army intentionally lied to the medical examiners …

6:33 “The story still hasn’t been fully told. The commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley

McChrystal, who I think is probably the best man for the job. Nevertheless, he was as deeply

involved in the cover-up as anyone. He signed off on what he knew was a falsified

recommendation for a Silver Star. He apologized for that, but he hasn’t come clean about much

else. He hasn’t revealed his involvement, or who he spoke to, or when he knew, or when

Rumsfeld knew. It’s not like we know everything. We still don’t.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112816210


11

Talk of Deceit Where Honor Is Taught

Charles Grath – The New York Times, September 17, 2009 [Interview 9-14-09]

… he was a little apprehensive about venturing onto the campus of the United States Military

Academy here on Monday [9/14] to sign copies of “Where Men Win Glory” and to answer

questions about it. … That book, which came out Tuesday [9/15] from Doubleday, …

The book has received mixed reviews so far. … In The Washington Post, Andrew Exum, a

former Army officer in Afghanistan, praised the early material but took issue with the book’s

coverage of the Afghan war.

“Where Men Win Glory” is extremely critical of the military and its role in concealing that

Tillman … was the victim of friendly fire. Mr. Krakauer documents a web of deceit and cover-

up that most likely extended all the way to the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld

and certainly involved a number of top generals, including Stanley A. McChrystal, currently the

commander of American forces in Afghanistan.

“In my mind, and in the book, I’m an advocate for the infantryman,” he said. “They’re the guys

who always get exploited.” On the other hand, the officers, he said, were creatures of a culture in

which certain commands were not always spelled out but nevertheless everyone knew what was

expected. “There are a lot of officers who will risk their lives for their country, but damn few

who will risk their careers,” he explained. “This isn’t little stuff to me. It’s not like you lied about

your expense account. This kind of deceit is endemic in the military and goes to the highest

levels of government.”

Mr. Krakauer called the Army’s response “despicable.” “The Army still hasn’t come clean,” he

said. Referring to an inscription on campus he added: “Out there you have the honor code: ‘A

cadet will not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do.’ What happened to lead those officers

to do the wrong thing?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/books/17krakauer.html?ref=jonkrakauer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091102614.html

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/donald_h_rumsfeld/index.html?inline=nyt-per

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/stanley_a_mcchrystal/index.html?inline=nyt-per


12

Afterwords With Jon Krakauer

CSPAN – September 28, 2009 [9-16-09]

Note: This interview was recorded on September 16, 2009 (“two days after West Point

appearance).

2:12 “Actually, I talked to them [the Tillman family] quite a bit. But they decided they did not

want to be quoted in the book. I showed them an early draft, a very rough draft, they just

weren’t happy with that, they wanted Mary’s book [mother] to be their statement.”

5:22 Bush administration political agenda

6:14 “Buffoonery” [reference to Andrew Exum’s book review). “We’re talking about Gen.

McChrystal, knowing without a doubt, that it was friendly-fire and very deliberately expediting a

recommendation for a Silver Star in which the witness statements had been falsified and the

report states he was killed by enemy fire. Now, that’s not buffoonery, that’s something else.”

6:40 “Did he know the witness statements had been falsified when he forwarded them?”

“I don’t know if he knew the witness accounts had been falsified. I do know, he was absolutely

certain that Tillman was killed by friendly fire, 24 hours later he knew that.”

7:45 McChrystal signed it day before he sent urgent P4 memo “Not meant for the generals, they

already knew that. It was meant for the White House. McChrystal has apologized. But he has

not come clean. He has not told what conversations he had with Rumsfeld or Cheney’s office.”

8:32 “I was just at West Point two days ago” (9-14-09). Honor Code. What happened to those

guys. They become corrupted. A lot of officers risk their lives for their country, very few their

careers.”

9:40 “Did you find any smoking gun?”: “A lot of circumstantial evidence”. … “At

Congressional hearings, the generals said “Don’t recall 80 times”at hearing. There’s been this

stonewalling. …The Defense Dept. is not interested. Go through the motions.”

Note: This 8-01-07 hearing never discussed in his book.

23:50 Delayed book due about 2/2008; to pursue Jessica Lynch angle & FF of Marines same

day, spent 3 months investigating that, fried, took break for a couple of months, then took

another year, (about time Mary’s book came out).

41:21 “Kevin [Tillman] is a private guy.”

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/288974-1


13

Jon Krakauer: "Where Men Win Glory" NPR Diane Rhem Show – September 16, 2009

25:45 Mentions Andrew Exum calling his book “buffoonery”

25:50 SM4 consciously submitted and signed SS knowing friendly fired, SS with false witness

statements, expedited SS

35:00 SM4 “central role,” goes under radar, “apologized for mistakes” but not owned up, higher

ups in hearing (8/07)

42:30 Held accountable? Gen. Kensinger top of chain of command (sic) retired, others

promoted, SM4 2 to 4 star general.

43:50 JK at West Point two days ago (9-14-09)

49:25 ? in charge Afghan war

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2009-09-16/jon-krakauer-where-men-win-glory-doubleday


14

APPENDIX B:

Krakauer Given “Untold Tillman Story” at Sept. 17,

2009 Booksigning Event in Boulder, CO



my package of Tillman material to Krakauer (and got an autograph).

My material consisted of a cover letter (Sept. 12, 2009), a “postscript” letter (with corrections)

reviewing his book (Sept. 17, 2009), and two large binders:










These binders (and others) are posted at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com

. . .

Last August, in “The [Untold] Tillman Story,” I described my reaction to the paperback edition:

“I just bought his revised book a few days ago (August 9th

) I’ll post a review when I get the

chance to read it; I’m far too busy finishing up “The [Untold] Tillman Story.” However, upon

cursory review, it appears that Jon Krakauer took the credit for discovering “additional

evidence.” … ‘I discovered’? Hell, my two binders pointing to this “evidence” were placed

directly into his hands by my aunt on September 17th

at his book signing in Boulder, CO! I don’t

care (much) about the credit. But, it would have been nice to have at least received a call or

email saying “Thanks”. More importantly, if Krakauer would have at least sent his contact info,

I would have been able to pass on updates and had the chance to discuss my Tillman Files

material with him. But I am glad that my material prompted him to more fully describe the

Army’s cover-up.”



15

“DID THEY TEACH YOU HOW TO LIE YET?” Senator James Webb, General Stanley McChrystal,

and the Betrayal of Pat Tillman

Marie Tillman (wife), Mary Tillman (mother), Rich Tillman (brother),

Kevin Tillman( brother), Patrick Tillman, Sr. (father)

“… we have all been betrayed. It isn’t just our family. Every time they betray a soldier, they

betray all of us.” … “We had officers that we trusted. We had high regard for them. … in your

heart they are your kids and you turn them over, and we trusted. … we knew they [Pat & Kevin]

could die or they could come back wounded … But we never thought that they would use him

the way they did” …

-- Mary Tillman, House Oversight & Reform Committee Hearing (4-24-07)

“I found myself awash with a sense of injustice that I could not define. Or perhaps it was merely

that I was young. I had never seen with such clarity that … courage could destroy one man

while flight could make another man king.”

-- James Webb, “The Emperor’s General’ (1999)

“They ought to make a movie about this. Mr. Smith comes to Washington.” “Yeah, I called my

pa last night and he says, Judd boy, you been up there with them muck-a-mucks two days, now.

Did they teach you how to lie yet?”

-- James Webb, “A Country Such As This”(1983)


16

DID THEY TEACH YOU HOW TO LIE YET?

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page #: Memorial Day Letter to Senator James Webb (May 25

th 2009): 1

Senate Armed Services Committee’s May 15th

2008 Confirmation Hearing: 7

Senate Armed Services Committee’s June 2nd

2009 Confirmation Hearing [Postscript 9/09]: 15.1

General Wallace’s Review of Tillman Fratricide (2007): 16

House Oversight & Reform Committee’s Tillman Fratricide Hearings (2007-2008): 21

April 3rd

2008 Letter to Senator James Webb: 29

Notes from James Webb’s Novels -- 1978 to 1991: 37

APPENDICES: A: General McChrystal Responsible for Fratricide Investigation & Notification to Family:

Operational & Administrative Chain of Command for Tillman’s Unit DoDIG 1

Appendix D: Casualty Reporting & Next of Kin Notification Process DoDIG 3

Appendix C: Fratricide Investigation Process [Postscript 8/09] DoDIG 6.1

B: General McChrystal’s Early Knowledge of Tillman Fratricide Confirmation:

Appendix B: Chronology DoDIG 7

Timeline of Tillman Fratricide Notification & Notes D. Parish 12

IG Gimble Testimony Waxman 4/07 26

Sworn Statement of General McChrystal Jones 15-6 28

General Abizaid Testimony DoDIG, Waxman 8/07 30

Interview of LTC Bailey & CSM Birch Jones 15-6 33

C: General McChrystal “Declines” to Appear at Waxman Hearing: www.oversight.house.gov 38

D: General McChrystal’s Misleading P4 Memorandum:

P4 Concerning Information on CPL Tillman’s Death McChrystal 40

“Is Military Integrity a Contradiction in Terms?” www.johntreed .com 41

E: General McChystal’s Fraudulent Silver Star Citation:

Appendix E: Silver Star Award Process DoD IG 45

Appendix F: Silver Star Award Details DoD IG 47

Appendix G: Justification Submitted to Support Silver Star DoD IG 48

Valorous Award Witness Statement (PFC O’Neal) www.oversight.house.gov 49

Discussion - Silver Star Award (p.53-59) DoD IG 50

F: General McChrystal’s Testimony at June 2nd

2009 Confirmation Hearing [Postscript, 8-29-09]: 58

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------

DoDIG: Review of Matters Related to the Death of Corporal Patrick Tillman, Inspector General Department of

Defense, Report Number IPO2007E001, 3-26-07http://defencelink.mil/home/pdf/Tillman_Redacted_Web_0307.pdf

Jones 15-6: CPL Tillman AR 15-6 Investigation, BG Gary M. Jones, 12-28-04

Waxman 4/24/07: Oversight Committee Holds Hearing on Tillman, Lynch Incidents (oversight.house.gov)

Waxman 8/01/07: The Tillman Fratricide: What the Leadership of the Defense Department Knew

(oversight.house.gov)


17

“LIES … BORNE OUT BY FACTS,

IF NOT THE TRUTH” Senator James Webb, Thom Shanker & The New York Times and the

Whitewash of General McChrystal’s Role in the Aftermath of Pat Tillman’s Death

By GuyMontag425, feralfirefighter.blogspot.com

September 11, 2009

“Allegations, lies, denials, dissembling, distortions … And all the while they secretly

whispered to the media … And the media gave them their forum, always ascertaining

beforehand that their allegations were borne out by facts, if not the truth.”

--- James Webb, “Something to Die For” (1991)


18

“LIES … BORNE OUT BY FACTS, IF NOT THE TRUTH”

TABLE OF CONTENTS PDF Page #: September 11

th 2009 Letter to New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt 4

. . .

Thom Shanker & The New York Times, and the Whitewash of General 17

McChrystal’s Role in the Aftermath of Pat Tillman’s Death

Rebuttal of Thom Shanker’s Pre-Hearing NYT Article: 35

“Nomination of U.S. Afghan Commander Revives Questions in Tillman Case”

Rebuttal of Thom Shanker’s Post-Hearing NYT Articles: 60

“Nominee to Command U.S. Afghanistan Forces Stresses Civilian Safety”

& “U.S. Report Finds Errors in Afghan Airstrikes”

. . . Senator James Webb and the Whitewash of General Stanley McChrystal’s Role 77

in the Aftermath of Pat Tillman’s Death

May 25th

2008 Letter to Senator James Webb (from “Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet?) 89

April 3rd

2008 Letter to Senator James Webb (from larger untitled document) 99

APPENDICES: A: “Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet?” (refer to separate Volume II binder):

Operational & Administrative Chain of Command (from IG Report)

Fratricide Investigation Flowchart (Appendix C, IG Report)

Casualty Reporting and Next of Kin Notification Flowchart (Appendix D, IG Report)

Timeline of Tillman Fratricide Notification (GuyMOntag425 5-17-08)

Transcript of General McChrystal’s June 2nd

2009 Senate Testimony

Senate ASC 6-02-09 Confirmation Hearing (from “Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet?)

B: E-Mail Correspondence Between Guy Montag & The New York Times 101

C: New York Times Articles about General Stanley McChrystal:

(5-12-09) “Pentagon Ousts Top Commander in Afghan War”

(5-13-09) “A General Steps from the Shadows”

(5-14-09) “New Commander for Afghanistan” (NYT Editorial)

(5-15-09) “Afghan Villagers Describe Chaos of U.S. Airstrikes”

(5-26-09) “Nomination of U.S. Afghan Commander Revives Questions in Tillman Case”

(6-01-09) “Questions for General McChrystal” (NYT Editorial)

(6-02-09) “Nominee to Command U.S. Afghan Forces Stresses Civilian Safety”

(6-02-09) “U.S. Report Finds Errors in Afghan Airstrikes”

D: “5 Years Ago: When the Pentagon and Media Lied About Jessica Lynch Rescue”

1

September 12, 2009 Cover Letter to Jon Krakauer

Note: Hand-delivered to Jon Krakauer at 9-17-09 Boulder, CO book signing. Bold-faced added.

Jon Krakauer,

I’ve closely followed the Pat Tillman story over the past four years. Like Stan Goff, I’ve felt a

certain kinship with Pat (I’ve also been an avid reader and independent thinker). In 1983, as a

“young and dumb” seventeen year old, I enlisted into an Airborne Ranger LRRP Company in the

MI Army Guard. But the lies of the first Gulf War were the last straw for me. In 1991, after re-

upping twice, I finally quit after eight years. Since then, I’ve been a firefighter for eighteen

years.

I’m looking forward to reading your new book “Where Men When Glory.” I’m especially

interested in learning what you were able to uncover about General McChrystal. After

McChrystal was nominated as the new Commander of the Afghan War, I took a closer look at

his role in the Army’s cover-up of Pat’s fratricide.

In your recent interviews, you’ve cast blame on the Bush administration for the cover-up (and

they bear guilt!) However, I believe the on-going series of cover-up by “investigations” was a

thoroughly bi-partisan affair involving the Democratic Congress (both House and Senate),

and the Obama presidency.

Accompanying this letter are two binders laying out my detailed arguments:

At the end of May, I wrote the binder, “Did They Teach You to Lie Yet? – Senator James

Webb, General Stanley McChrystal, and the Betrayal of Pat Tillman.” I argue that the top

leadership of the Army, Waxman’s House Oversight Committee, and Senator Carl Levin’s

Senate Armed Services Committee acted to shield McChrystal from scrutiny and protect him

from punishment for his actions. I especially focus on Senator Webb’s role in a secret “review”

prior to McChrystal’s 2008 confirmation (I’ve updated this binder to include the 2009 Senate

confirmation hearing and three new revelations from McChrystal’s testimony).

Today, I just finished the binder “Lies … Borne Out by Facts, If Not the Truth” – Senator

James Webb, Thom Shanker & The New York Times, and the Whitewash of General Stanley

McChrystal.” This binder explores the role of NYT Washington Pentagon reporter Thom

Shanker in “clearing” McChrystal of any wrongdoing. In addition, I describe my interactions

with Senator Webb’s office and speculate at President Obama’s role in the Tillman case.

Thanks for spending your time and effort on writing your book. Please feel free to contact me

for follow-up with any questions or comments on my work. P.S. If possible, could you send

me your contact information? I’ve got some additional information that might be of interest

to you (e.g. the parallels between Yoni Netanyahu and Pat Tillman).

“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”

20

September 17, 2009 “Postscript” to Jon Krakauer

4-22-11 Note: Hand-delivered to Jon Krakauer at 9-17-09 Boulder, CO book signing. Bold-

faced added to text for emphasis . It appears that Krakauer incorporated three of my suggested

corrections I pointed out to him, since they appear in his revised paperback edition.

. . .

“War is always about betrayal, betrayal of the young by the old, of idealists by cynics and of troops by politicians.”

-- Chris Hendges

September 17, 2009

Jon Krakauer,

This letter is a “postscript” to add to the binders my Aunt Candy will hand you at the book

signing in Boulder tonight [9-17-09].

I haven’t yet had the time to finish reading “Where Men Win Glory.” After a quick skim, I’ve

only read the last part of your book that describes Pat’s fratricide and the cover-up of his death.

I’ve attached a few comments [and corrections] about specific items at the end of this letter.

. . .

At his April 24, 2007 hearing, Congressman Henry Waxman observed, “… but our government

failed them … The least we owe to courageous men and women who are fighting for our

freedom is the truth.”

Your book ends with Waxman’s House committee being unable to find out who was responsible

for the cover-up, largely because of stonewalling by the Bush White House. Congressman

Waxman stated in frustration, “What we have is a very clear, deliberate abuse intentionally done.

Why is it so hard to find out who did it?” You properly cast blame on the top leadership of the

Army and the White House that “… used every means at its disposal to obstruct the

congressional investigation into Tillman’s death and its aftermath…”

But, I believe your account of the cover-up ends far too soon with Bush’s press conference

August 9, 2007. The cover-up continued up through the June 2, 2009 confirmation

hearing of General McChrystal as the Commander of the Afghan War. Perhaps the end

was the unanimous voice vote by the Senate begged for by Senate Majority Leader Reid on

June 12th

.

Blaming Bush and the Army for the cover-up, with the Democratic Congress as the




21


scrutiny. Just as with warrantless wiretapping and torture, those responsible have not been held

accountable. “They’re moving forward, not looking back.”

Note: I am not a Republican. Nor a Democrat. I’m an independent, disgusted with the

corruption of both parties. Hell, I even voted for Nader in 2008!

Perhaps you were a bit credulous taking Waxman’s rhetoric at face value. Congressman

Waxman’s so-called investigation (like the IG report) was not an honest attempt to get at

the truth. Arguably, it may have started out that way with the April 2007 hearing. I’d suggest

you review the Waxman documents again (Note: I was surprised to find that the August 1,

2007 hearing transcript is not listed in the bibliography or your chapter notes. It contains

crucial testimony). When I did so in May 2009, it became clear that a principal role of

Waxman’s investigation, as with the IG investigation and the Army investigation, was to protect

those involved, particularly McChrystal from scrutiny and protect them from punishment

(McChrystal is one of the few generals involved that is not yet retired).

I believe that sometime after the April 2007 hearing, Waxman got the word the “fix” was in, to

lay off McChrystal. Perhaps because of McChrystal’s important covert contribution to the

“surge” in Iraq? Waxman dropped him from the list of witnesses for the August 1, 2007 hearing

and the testimony during that hearing was a praise-fest for McChrystal. Despite the concerns

raised by the Committee during the April 2007 hearing about the falsified Silver Star, P4

document, etc. they never looked at McChrystal, who was at the center of these actions.

It’s not surprising that after the initial fratricide cover-up fell apart, that Army officers and the

Bush administration lied to protect their careers. Reprehensible, but understandable. But the

Democratic Congress, after they took control of both Houses in 2006, could have gone after

those responsible. Or at least not promoted them! Their hands are dirty as well with the betrayal

of Pat Tillman.

. . .

I’ve enclosed, inside one of the binders, a copy of “The Nightingale’s Song” that provides a

biography of James Webb (it’s a gripping account and well worth your time). Like Pat Tillman,

Webb’s been a maverick and a fascinating character. I’ve read his novels for thirty years.

Senator James’s Webb betrayal of the Tillman family cuts me the deepest. I’ve trusted his

sense of honor for thirty years. If anyone in Congress should have cared, it would have been him

(see especially my 4-03-08 letter and notes from his novels). For example, Webb, as a young

Marine veteran spent 8 years to clear the name of a dead Marine for his mother’s sake!


22

Yet, during the same time in April – May 2008, after he received my letter imploring him to help

Mary Tillman, he was conducting the secret “review” of McChrystal’s actions in the Tillman

cover-up. Shortly afterwards, while Mary Tillman was in DC on her book tour, the Senate

Armed Services Committee (headed by Levin and McCain) held their secret “executive session”

to hear McChrystal testify. Shortly thereafter, the Senate promoted him to Director of the Joint

Staff.

I’m hard on Webb not because I dislike the man, but that I’m disappointed by him. As an old

man and politician, he’s turned into exactly what he once reviled as a young soldier! I find it

tragic to see Webb compromising his sense of honor (perhaps even Pat Tillman would have done

so as well, if he had lived long enough?). I even believe Webb’s doing it with the best of

intentions, that he believes McChrystal is indispensable to the Afghan war. But I still don’t

forgive him for it. Or like it.

And I’m certainly not casting all the blame for the sins of Congress onto him. Henry Waxman,

Chairman Carl Levin, Senator McCain, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid and others in

Congress bear greater responsible than Webb. It just happens I know more about Webb and his

role and have had personal interactions with his office.

. . .

In the binder, “Lies’s … Borne Out by Lies If Not the Truth,” I discuss The New York

Times role in whitewashing McChrystal’s role in the cover-up of the Tillman fratricide. I

pretty much lay it all out in the binder, starting with an overview and going into more detail. I

didn’t come away from my personal experience with Thom Shanker and “The Gray Lady” with

any confidence in our “watchdog” media.

I’d like to point out that Thom Shanker also participated in the Jessica Lynch story in 2003. I

haven’t dug into that side of the story much, although I included an article in the binder by Gregg

Mitchell about it.

And, please note that I haven’t yet sent out my letter to Clark Hoyt at the NYT’s yet [I sent him

the binder a couple of weeks later. No response]. I wanted to wait a bit, revise my introductory

letter. It’ll be interesting to see what response I get from him.

. . .

Inside one of the binder’s I’ve enclosed a document “Battle for the Truth.” Jonathan (Yoni)

Netanayahu was another character cast from the same mold as Pat Tillman. When I first

learned of Pat the iconoclast (vs the media icon), I was immediately reminded of Yoni.

Although they were separated by 27 years, both were charismatic individuals driven who lived

and died with intensity and integrity. Both Achilles-like and “slain in the high places.” The

similarities, despite the obvious differences, between their stories is eerie. Ironically, Yoni truly


23

died heroically, killed while saving hostages at Entebbe. But it would have been embarrassing to

mention that he died because the mission went FUBAR and that there were friendly fire deaths,

so the IDF told the story he was shot in the back by a stray burst of fire.

Afterwards, Max Hastings wrote a book “Yoni - Hero of Entebbe” similar to your “Where Men

Win Glory” in that it provided a bibliography of Yoni, described the battle at Entebbe, and used

interviews with family members and his own words from his letters. Later, Yoni’s brothers

edited Yoni’s letters and published them as “Self Portrait of a Hero.” A powerful book.

I believe that President Obama was certainly aware of General McChrystal’s involvement

in the cover-up of Tillman’s fratricide. [Update 4-24-11: See my “The Emperor’s

General” for a detailed discussion of his role] I cannot imagine that his staff did not thoroughly

vet McChrystal before his nomination on May 12th. Yet Obama chose to give him a pass, and

promote him to the Army’s highest rank and make him the new commander of the Afghan War.

It’s ironic that the previous general was fired to make way for McChrystal.

However, it’s even more ironic that the following day Obama gave a commencement address at

Arizona State University inside Sun Devil Stadium without once mentioning Pat Tillman! I’m

sure that he didn’t want to bring up Tillman’s name to avoid anyone pointing out the connection

to McChrystal’s nomination. (Note: see “Text: Obama’s Commencement Address at Arizona

State University” (May 13, 2009 NYT) and Bob Young’s “Obama’s Big-Time Fumble”

(Arizona Republic 5-17-09) And, here’s a picture for good measure.

Finally, I bear a bit of blame myself for not getting this information out sooner to you. After the

craziness of May and early June I was burnt out. I spoke briefly with Mary Tillman and sent her

a copy of “Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet?” then laid all this stuff aside, back into my

Tillman box.

I puttered a little on “Lies … Borne Out by Facts, If Not the Truth” a few days in July. Then

August was crazy with no time for anything. So, I didn’t get to work seriously until the end of

August. At the time, I thought your book was coming out October 3 so I figured I had plenty of

time. Then, I discovered your book was coming out the 15th

, the scope of my project expanded

dramatically and I didn’t finish until Sept 12th

.

I now realize it’s perfectly obvious that I should have tried to get at least some of my material

out to you months ago. Perhaps you could have made some changes to your book before it went

to print. Or, you could have at least used this material during your media interviews. I did

email Mary Tillman on the [May] 13th

[2009] and asked her to forward this material to you. I

hope that you can use my material to start your own investigation into this untold story.

Perhaps this story can be told in the next edition of your book or in magazine publications

or interviews.


24

Possible Corrections for “Where Men Win Glory”:

[4-22-11 Note: The three suggested corrections that are bold-faced below, were adopted by

Krakauer in his paperback revision.]

I haven’t yet read through your entire book yet. I noted a few minor discrepancies that you may

want to check for future editions of your book:

p. 291:“The Rangers … arrived back at Salerno on the morning of April 25 …”:

April 25th

? The IG Report (Appendix B: Chronology) has “April 24, 2004: 2nd

platoon

(CPL Tillman’s Platoon) returns to the battalion Forward Operation Base [at Salerno].

Also, I believe that the 24th

also matches testimony from the Jones 15-6 report and the

findings of the IG and Waxman Reports.

[4-22-11 Note: Correction made: PB 337]

. . .

p.305:“Scott’s investigation, which confirmed the fratricide, was completed on May 8 and then

expunged …”

Confirmed? Perhaps written confirmation. However, I believe that LTC Bailey’s testimony

(Jones 15-6, Section Z, p. 53) shows that Scott notified Bailey of verbal confirmation (‘I’m

certain, I’m sure) on the 24th

. “And then I called [Nixon?].”

May 8th

? The IG Report (Appendix B: Chronology) has “May 4, 2004: CPT [Scott] submits

his AR 15-6 recommendations and findings to COL Nixon.

. . .

p.303:“The day after the memorial service [May 4] CPT Scott delivered the final report of his

15-6 investigation … Scott’s report when up the chain of command … and then disappeared.”

Although the official IG Chronology Appendix B states that Scott’s final report was delivered on

May 4th

, I believe it was probably first delivered on the 29th

; sent back for revisions, then re-

submitted on May 4th

. However, my memorial is a bit hazy since it’s been a long time since I

reviewed this series of events.

The Waxman 7-17-07 report references: “Captain Richard M. Scott, Commander, Headquarters

& Headquarter Company, 2nd

Battalion, 75th

Ranger Regiment, AR 15-6 Final Report

[Incomplete Draft] (Apr. 29, 2004). Note that the 29th

is the same date that McChrystal sent out

his P4. Did Scott’s report motivate him to send the P4 to cover his ass?


25

. . .

p.231:Tillman’s Chain of Command, April 22, 2004:

This graphic doesn’t show McChrystal as directly above Nixon. However, McChrystal was

directly above Nixon in the operational chain of command. The Chain splits above Nixon

into an operational and administrative chain.

See Mary Tillman’s book graphic (just past p. 280) or the IG Report p. 12-13 discussion.


. . .

254:“… I realized we were getting hit by mortars”:

I remember reading that Stan Goff (in one of his “The Fog of Fame” articles) wrote that reports

of mortars impacting in the canyon walls were incorrect. Instead, he thought it was probably

RPGs.

p.289:‘So I [Bailey] called Major Hodne (Nixon?) and told him my gut feeling was that

Tillman had been killed by friendly fire… there was no doubt about it.’ … “Hodne (Nixon?)

recommended that Bailey select an officer … Scott was appointed to head the so-called 15-6

investigation.”:

When I read the redacted Jone 15-6, I thought that Bailey called COL Nixon. However, I

may well be mistaken. However, you may want to double-check (See IG Report p.13) and

other reports.



26

Comments on “Where Men Win Glory”:

Predator Drone:

261:“The forward observer … heard an airplane flying overhead …’As I listened closer I knew it

was a Predator drone.’ … equipped with cameras … headquarters later confirmed that a

Predator was overhead during the firefight, and a civilian contractor at Bagram said that he

remembered seeing the Predator’s video feed …the Army and the CIA nevertheless asserted that

no such video existed.” (see also P.310 Mary Tillman book)

Andrew Exum in his book review “He Didn’t Come Home” (9-13-09, Washington Post),

wrote: [Update 4-24-11: see my “He Who Shall Not Be Fact Checked” for a discussion of

CNAS’s Exum’s on-going role in the whitewash of McChrystal.]

“depending on your point of view, [how fratricide was kept from family] was either a gross error

of judgment or a conspiracy engineered by the U.S. military and the Bush administration. … he

is more eager to launch an inquisition into the crimes of the Bush administration than to explore

this single extraordinary life.

However, Exum himself provides eyewitness testimony to your “conspiracy” theory!

“On April 22, 2004, I was standing in an operations center in Bagram, Afghanistan, watching

two firefights on the monitors and screens in front of me. A platoon of U.S. Army Rangers and a

special operations reconnaissance force were both under fire and in possible need of assistance.

As the leader of a 40-man quick-reaction force of Rangers, I asked my squad leaders to gather

our men while I awaited orders.”

I’m assuming he was watching the video feed from the overhead Predator drone!

Jessica Lynch & the New York Times:

179:“The definitive account of Lynch’s ordeal was published on the front page of the

Washington Post on April 3.”

I haven’t yet read the part of your book about the friendly fire on the Marine convoy and the spin

put onto the Jessica Lynch story by the press. However, in my binder “Lies… Borne Out by

Facts, If Not the Truth,” I discuss NYT Reporter Thom Shanker’s role in whitewashing

McChrystal in the Tillman case both before and after the June 2nd

2009 Senate confirmation

hearing. I noted that Thom Shanker played a role in the Jessica Lynch story as well!:

On April 4th

2008, Greg Mitchell (Editor & Publisher) wrote “5 Years Ago: When the Pentagon

and Media Lied About Jessica Lynch Rescue”:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/5-years-ago-when-the-pent_b_95057.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/5-years-ago-when-the-pent_b_95057.html


27

Precisely five years ago the U.S. media were transfixed on the heroic rescue of a captured U.S.

Army Pfc. named Jessica Lynch, A New York Times story on April 3, 2003, by Thom Shanker

and John Broder followed the outline, with Lynch suffering gunshot wounds in a dangerous

rescue: "It was an Iraqi who got word to the Americans, Bush administration officials said,

launching a mission that included Marine Corps artillery to distract enemy soldiers and Army

Rangers securing the hospital grounds while Navy Special Operations forces, called Seals,

extracted Private Lynch while being fired upon going in and coming back out."

James Webb:

283: Part IV: “He who learns must suffer … comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God”:

From James Webb “A Sense of Honor” (1983)

“I was so certain of life, and of my place in it. I was so sure of my love, and of my future. I now

have none of those certainties, but at least I can comprehend pain. I was so ready, so eager to

fight and now I pay, richly pay, for having fought”

p.344:“Because Tillman’s story conforms in some regards to the classic narrative of the tragic

hero, and the protagonist of such a tale always possesses a tragic flaw, … the sad end he met in

Afghanistan was more accurately a function of his stubborn idealism – his insistence on trying to

do the right thing. In which case it wasn’t a tragic flaw that brought Tillman down, but a tragic

virtue.”:

. . .

From James Webb “A Sense of Honor (1983):

“I guess that’s what the world does to you. It makes you realize that honor and loyalty are traps

with no reward.”

xvii: “But the Rangers on the ground weren’t keen to take unnecessary risks simply to meet an

arbitrary bureaucratic timeline set by “fobbits:” officers who seldom ventured beyond the

security of the forward operating base … and therefore … had no clue what it was actually like

to fight a war in this unforgiving country.”

. . .


28

From James Webb’s “Fields of Fire” (1978):

“As long as he’s looking good to the Man, he couldn’t give a rat’s ass how many people are

bleeding.” … He had met a dozen Kerseys in the Marine Corps already. They held all ranks,

although to him they seemed to be mostly Majors.”

“Just fuck ‘em. Fuck everybody who doesn’t come out here and do this. Let them go and check

that treeline. What do they know?”

“… he pounded the dust some more, making a vow of rage. He would not allow their blood to

have soaked into that unproductive dust merely for some mad amorphous folly. … waiting to be

killed so they can have more bodies on their tote boards when the react pulls us from where we

never should have had to go. Those Bastards sit somewhere with air conditioners around them

and Coca-Cola inside them while we drink this goddamn wormy water.”


29

APPENDIX C:

Krakauer Interviews AFTER September 17, 2009


“… McChrystal, … is probably the best man for the job [command of Afghan

War]. Nevertheless, he was as deeply involved in the cover-up as anyone. …“very

deliberately expedit[ed] a recommendation for a Silver Star in which the witness

statements had been falsified and the report states he was killed by enemy fire.” …“I

don’t know if he [Gen. McChrystal] knew the [Silver Star recommendation] witness

accounts had been falsified [when he forwarded them]. I do know, he was absolutely

certain that Tillman was killed by friendly fire” … “He signed off on what he knew was a

falsified recommendation for a Silver Star.”

After Sept. 17th

, Krakauer said:




fraudulent medal recommendation that talked about devastating enemy fire.”…

“You know, in the past, he's made it sound like, oh, yeah, I was sort of peripherally

involved and I was handed these documents that I signed for the Silver Star, this is what

he told the Senate.” … “Not only involved; he was at the center of it. He played a pivotal

role.” …”was instrumental, probably the point man for this cover-up” … “He claims, I

didn't read it carefully enough to notice that it didn't mention friendly-fire. Now, anyone

who knows McChrystal knows that's preposterous.” …



record should not be our commander in Afghanistan.”

“Seven investigations, two or three Congressional investigations, and every time they

get stonewalled at the top, at the level of the administration and top generals. …

McChrystal should come clean, and tell what really happened.”

. . .



Afghanistan.


30

Summary of Excerpts from Jon Krakauer Interviews

AFTER Sept. 17, 2009 Book Signing In Boulder, CO

Gen. McChrystal was at the Center of the Tillman Friendly-Fire Cover-Up:

“…You know, the friendly fire was a terrible accident. There were some screw-ups involved.

But the real tragedy happened afterwards, and it happened about this cover-up from top to

bottom in the Army, up and down the chain of command.”

“[McChrystal was] Not only involved; he was at the center of it [the cover up of Pat Tillman’s

friendly fire death]. He played a pivotal role.” …”… at the very center of that deception.”… …

is highly regarded, but nevertheless, was instrumental, probably the point man for this cover-up”

“And to this day, the Army claims unbelievably that it was just a series of innocent mistakes,

that there was no intent to deceive. That's what McChrystal says [at his Senate hearing], ‘…‘I

never saw any intent to deceive.’ That, on the face of it, is just unbelievable.”

McChrystal Closely Supervised the Fraudulent Silver Star Recommendation,

Deliberately Lied by Signing that Silver Star Recommendation, and Lied to

the Senate:

“…after Tillman died, the most important thing to know is that within--instantly, within 24

hours certainly, everybody on the ground, everyone intimately involved knew it was friendly

fire. There's never any doubt it was friendly fire. McChrystal was told within 24 hours it was

friendly fire.”

“They immediately decide to give him [Tillman] the Silver Star medal … and the guy they put in

charge of making this happen is Gen. Stanley McChrystal …” … “And the Silver Star ended up

being at the center of the cover-up. So McChrystal--Tillman faced this devastating fire from his

own guys, and he tried to protect a young private by exposing himself to this, this fire. That's

why he was killed and the private wasn't. Without friendly fire there's no valor, there's no Silver

Star. There was no enemy fire, yet McChrystal authored, he closely supervised over a number of

days this fraudulent medal recommendation that talked about devastating enemy fire.”


31

“You know, in the past, he's made it sound like, oh, yeah, I was sort of peripherally involved and

I was handed these documents that I signed for the Silver Star, this is what he told the Senate.

He claims, I didn't read it carefully enough to notice that it didn't mention friendly-fire. Now,

anyone who knows McChrystal knows that's preposterous. He is meticulous. He is known to be

perfectionist. I asked a soldier who served under him, can you imagine that he - for a document

this important and this high profile - he would not read it carefully enough to recognize that there

is no mention of friendly-fire? And the soldier reluctantly said no.”

“… he [McChrystal] just said [video from his Senate hearing testimony] now he didn't read this

hugely important document [Silver Star recommendation] about the most famous soldier in the

military. He didn't read it carefully enough to notice that it talked about enemy fire instead of

friendly fire? That's preposterous. That, that's not believable.”

“It's perjured. It's not believable. It's preposterous. He [McChrystal during Senate testimony] is

saying that after spending a number of days on the ground in eastern Afghanistan with the

commander, Tillman's commander [LTC Bailey] of the 2nd Ranger battalion, that he signed his

name to this fraudulent document recommending a Silver Star. This document that he signed his

name to, he was the author of record. He reviewed [it] carefully, … not only did it make no

mention of friendly fire in reference to Tillman's death, it used a phrase, "He faced devastating

enemy fire."

[“You’re saying McChrystal deliberately lied in signing that Silver Star recommendation”]

“Absolutely. There's no other way to interpret that. You don't have to take my word for it.

There was a very thorough investigation by the inspector general of the Defense Department,

and they found that McChrystal's -- the same explanation he gave to the Senate -- was not

credible. They criticized him. They determined that he should be held accountable for the

fraudulent Silver Star. They determined that the Army should take action against him. … a crony

of McChrystal's, a four-star general named William Wallace), simply overruled the inspector

general of the Pentagon and let McChrystal completely off the hook.”

. . .

We [CNN] asked the Pentagon for reaction to Jon Krakauer's claims and got this statement from

the Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell: "General McChrystal acknowledges that in the

aftermath of this confusing and emotionally-charged incident, he did not review the award

citation carefully enough before forwarding it up the chain of command. But to this day, he

steadfastly believes Corporal Tillman's actions before his death warrant the honor."


32

McChrystal Was Certain of Friendly-Fire, Yet Submitted the Silver Star

Recommendation to the Secretary of the Army:

“At the time, McChrystal knew this was not true. McChrystal at the time was absolutely certain

Tillman had been killed by friendly fire, yet he submitted this document [Silver Star

recommendation] to the secretary of the Army. He implies in this testimony that, Oh, at the same

time, we sent this [P4] e- mail, you know, warning people that, well, he was killed by friendly

fire. He sent that e-mail 24 hours later. And he didn't send it to the secretary of the Army, the

person who ultimately approved the Silver Star.”

“He sent it [P4 memo] -- it was intended for President Bush's speech writers, warning them that

if the information of fratricide leaked out -- not when, but if it leaked out, they had to be careful

what they wrote for the president because if he quoted from this bogus Silver Star document, he

would embarrass himself by appearing as a liar.”

“Now, that's a very different thing than that testimony suggests. There's simply no way to get

around the fact that McChrystal knowingly submitted this fraudulent document to the secretary of

the Army. He never called the secretary of the Army back and said, Oh, I forgot, you know, I

unintentionally -- you need to know this was friendly fire. Maybe we should put the Silver Star

on hold until we sort this out.”

“I don't think he should be in the job. I think he is the best man for the job.”

[“You called General McChrystal "…the best man for the job in Afghanistan."] “I don't argue

with people who say he is the most effective commander in the Army. … But … I have looked

into this and there's no doubt in my mind that he has repeatedly lied to the American people, he's

deceived the nation, and he has lied to the Senate. He's lied to the Senate Armed Services

Committee.” …”I don't think he should be in the job. I think he is the best man for the job.”

“…I think what he's done is tragic. It's not just tragic for him. It might be tragic for the country.

Here you have who is perhaps the best man for job, who has disqualified himself by this act of

deceit - a very serious one.”

"If a lesser officer did what McChrystal did, he would be court marshaled according to Article

107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, submitting a false official statement," Krakauer

said. "It's a very serious offense for which you, if you're found guilty, you can be dishonorably

discharged and you can be locked up for five years."


33

“Someone who is guilty of that kind of offense, and I believe McChrystal is, should not be

commander of the forces. It sends a terrible message. I mean, Afghanistan is fighting corruption.

The nation is being asked to sign off on this long-term commitment that's very problematic and

very risky for the nation, and here's a guy who five years ago lied to the Senate. He lied to Army

investigators, and he submitted this fraudulent document. That's not something -- you know, if

you just -- if you just walk away from that and ignore it, that's a terrible thing.”

It’s Time for the Army to Come Clean & Hold McChrystal Accountable:

“… But I think that General McChrystal for five years has been getting by. I mean, I'm not the

first person to bring this up. The Tillman family's been bringing this up ever since Pat died, and

they've just been brushed off. They've gotten- they've been stonewalled at the highest reaches.

It's time for someone finally to hold General McChrystal accountable.

“So it's time for, finally, you know, the Army to just come clean. And for everyone to say,

‘Well, gosh, you know, he's this very effective commander’ -- he's considered the most effective

in the Army, and I don't dispute that. But someone who has this blemish on his record should not

be our commander in Afghanistan.”

“Seven investigations, two or three Congessional investigations, and every time they get

stonewalled at the top, at the level of the administration and top generals. … McChrystal should

come clean, and tell what really happened.”


34

Excerpts from Jon Krakauer Interviews AFTER

September 17, 2009 Book Signing In Boulder, CO

From The Fans Come Out for Jon Krakauer's Glory Rob Fisher -- Denver Westwood, September 25, 2009

The second-floor event hall at the Tattered Cover LoDo was packed last Monday as people

anxiously awaited author Jon Krakauer, who was going to speak about his new book, Where Men

Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman. … Following the twenty-minute reading, Krakauer

took questions for more than thirty minutes on subjects ranging from his opinion on the current

course of the war to the natives of Afghanistan.

Note: nothing here indicates whether or not Krakauer added my new info to this appearance.

From Jon Stewart Show – Jon Krakauer Interview (Sept. 30, 2009)

Transcript (4:15): “They immediately decide to give him [Tillman] the Silver Star medal …

and the guy they put in charge of making this happen is Gen. Stanley McChrystal … is highly

regarded, but nevertheless, was instrumental, probably the point man for this cover-up” …”

Seven investigations, two or three Congressional investigations, and every time they get

stonewalled at the top, at the level of the administration and top generals. … McChrystal should

come clean, and tell what really happened.”

From Tillman's Journals Revealed in Book

E.J. Montini -- The Arizona Republic, September 15, 2009 [October 3, 2009]

… goes on sale today. … Krakauer will appear at a discussion and book signing on Oct. 3 at

Dobson High School in Tempe.

From “Gen. McChrystal's Credibility Problem” (Daily Beast, 10-14-09):

“During a presentation on October 3 of this year in Mesa [Tempe], Arizona, to promote Where

Men Win Glory, my book about Tillman, I described the [Senate] testimony cited above and

expressed skepticism about McChrystal’s honesty. Afterward, while I was signing books, an

Army veteran approached me and said that he had served under McChrystal, admired him

immensely, and took issue with my accusation that his former commander had dissembled to the

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/09/jon_krakauers_latest_book_find.php

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/09/14/20090914Montini0915.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385522266/thedaibea-20/



35

Senate, or knowingly participated in any sort of coverup. He said that in his experience

McChrystal was a man of unimpeachable integrity.

I countered that McChrystal’s words were taken verbatim from a transcript of the Senate

hearing, and then added, “Gen. McChrystal is known to be meticulous, a perfectionist. He

doesn’t tolerate sloppiness or excuses. Do you really believe that he would sign his name to such

an important, high-profile document without first reading it carefully enough to realize it was

bogus?” The ex-soldier frowned thoughtfully before answering. “No,” he admitted. “For him to

do something like that, he’d have to be under incredible pressure.

New Material from Gen. McChrystal's Credibility Problem

Jon Krakauer – Daily Beast, October 14, 2009

Note: In July 2010 much of this article reappeared as revisions to Chapter 32 & 33 of Jon

Krakauer’s revised softcover edition. The full article, with complete references to both the HB

& PB editions appears in the “McChrystal’s Credibility Problem” Appendix.

Below, the following excerpts include only “new” material; that is, information that was not in

the first hardcover edition (HB) edition in the same or slightly edited form. I’ve indicated the

page numbers where each excerpt appeared in the paperback edition (PB) or HB edition.

I’ve underlined new material in passages that were otherwise unchanged. I’ve added italics

unless otherwise noted. Excerpts without references never appeared in either edition. I’ve done

this to highlight the developments Krakauer had supposedly “discovered” between the 3 weeks

after receiving my material on 9-17-09 and the publication of this piece.

Much of Jon Krakauer’s new material was taken from the transcript of McChrystal’s Senate

testimony. It appears some new material came from the package of letters & binders he received

at the Sept. 17, 2009 booksigning. There are no information presented here from the interviews

he later obtained through FOIA.

. . .

Shortly after President Obama nominated Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal to command U.S. and

NATO forces in Afghanistan, the general was summoned to the U.S. Senate to be grilled by the

Armed Services Committee. Although McChrystal had enthusiastic admirers on both sides of the

congressional aisle and was regarded as an innovative, uncommonly effective leader, he was

expected to face difficult questions about two incidents that occurred during his tenure as leader

of the Joint Special Operations Command (or JSOC): the torture of detainees in 2003 at the



36

secret facility in Iraq known as Camp Nama, and his role in the coverup of Pat Tillman’s

fratricide in Afghanistan in 2004.

During the committee hearing [June 2, 2009], though, none of McChrystal’s inquisitors probed

deeply into either of these issues, and on June 10 the Senate unanimously confirmed his

nomination.

McChrystal has lately been the subject of numerous media profiles, most of them adulatory.

Dexter Filkins has a long story in the upcoming New York Times Magazine. In an October 5

Newsweek article, Evan Thomas referred to the general as a “Zen warrior… with a disarming,

low-key style, free of the bombast and sense of entitlement that can come with four stars…. He

has great political skills; he couldn’t have risen to his current position without them. But he

definitely does not see himself as the sort of military man who would compromise his principles

to do the politically convenient thing.”

In the week after Tillman was killed, however, this is precisely what McChrystal appears to have

done when he administered a fraudulent medal recommendation and submitted it to secretary of

the Army, thereby concealing the cause of Tillman’s death.

* * *

Tillman was accidentally gunned down by members of his Ranger platoon on the evening of

April 22, 2004.

HC 289/PB 334: Lt. Col. Jeffrey Bailey, commander of the 2nd Ranger Battalion, visited the

site of the calamity the following morning. A few hours later, he called his boss, Col. James

Nixon, commander of the 75th Ranger Regiment, and said (according to Bailey’s sworn

testimony [Jones 15-6]), “My gut feeling was that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire….

There was no doubt about it. It was a case where there were six or seven Rangers that saw the

vehicle shooting at them.”

HC 290/PB 336: Before the day was out, Nixon [McChrystal] notified three [two?] of his

superiors [HC: just Kensinger & McChrystal; PB: Kensinger & Brown], including McChrystal,

that Tillman’s death was a fratricide.

PB336: According to Army regulations [see Teach Lie notification regs.], this information

should have been immediately shared with the Tillman family, even if friendly fire was only a

possibility. Instead, Army officers embarked on an elaborate campaign to suppress the truth and

persuade both the family and the public that Tillman was killed by enemy fire.

PB 342: According to McChrystal’s Senate testimony [6-02-09], he “sat down with the people

who recommended [the Silver Star]… and we went over a whiteboard, and we looked at the

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/magazine/18Afghanistan-t.html

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216237


37

geometry of the battlefield, and I queried the people to satisfy myself that, in fact, that his actions

warranted [the Silver Star], even though there was a potential that the actual circumstances of

death had been friendly fire.”

PB 342: The latter clause [potential friendly fire] is a lawyerly flourish on McChrystal’s part,

intended to suggest that there was still doubt about the cause of death, when in fact he knew with

near-absolute certainty that Tillman was the victim of fratricide.

During the medal-recommendation process, McChrystal was shown the preliminary findings of a

so-called Article 15-6 investigation that had been launched the day after Tillman died, which

included detailed eyewitness testimony from more than a dozen soldiers in his platoon.

Transcripts of these interviews described how Tillman, in order to protect a young private under

his command, had exposed himself [by throwing grenade] to a ferocious squall of bullets—

hundreds of rounds from three machine guns shooting at him from close range.

PB 343: McChrystal ascertained, correctly, that the extraordinary valor of Tillman’s act was in

no way diminished by the incontrovertible fact that the lethal fusillade had come from his

American comrades.

“So,” McChrystal testified, “I was comfortable recommending, once I believed that the people in

the fight were convinced it warranted a Silver Star.”

[HC297]/PB 343: The recommendation package [Teach to Lie] received by Brownlee

consisted of four documents: a one-paragraph “award citation” that summarized Tillman’s

courageous deed; a five-paragraph “award narrative” that offered a more nuanced account of his

actions; and two brief statements from soldiers who witnessed those actions. Astoundingly, none

of these documents mentioned, or even hinted, that Tillman was killed by friendly fire. The

award citation alleged, “Corporal Tillman put himself in the line of devastating enemy fire,”

even though there was never any enemy fire directed at Tillman’s position during the incident.

HC297/DB/PB344: The witness statements (which also suggested he was killed by the enemy)

were not signed, and the two soldiers whose names were attached to them later testified that both

statements had been fabricated, apparently by one or more members of the Silver Star

recommendation team [McChrystal, Nixon, Kauzlarich; Bailey was out of the picture by then].

PB 344: In June of this year, during McChrystal’s confirmation hearing, Sen. John McCain

asked the general to explain why, five years earlier, he had submitted the perjured Silver Star

recommendation “in the form that it was in.”

McChrystal replied, “We sent a Silver Star that was not well written—and, although I

went through the process, I will tell you now that I didn’t review the citation well enough


38

to capture—or, I didn’t catch that, if you read it, you can imply that it was not friendly

fire.”

McChrystal insisted that the package of four short documents bearing his signature wasn’t meant

to deceive. Although he closely supervised the drafting of these documents, he simply failed to

notice that all of them had been painstakingly written to omit any reference to friendly fire.

During a presentation on October 3 of this year in Mesa[Tempe], Arizona, to promote Where

Men Win Glory, my book about Tillman, I described the testimony cited above and expressed

skepticism about McChrystal’s honesty.

Afterward, while I was signing books, an Army veteran approached me and said that he had

served under McChrystal, admired him immensely, and took issue with my accusation that his

former commander had dissembled to the Senate, or knowingly participated in any sort of

coverup. He said that in his experience McChrystal was a man of unimpeachable integrity. I

countered that McChrystal’s words were taken verbatim from a transcript of the Senate hearing,

and then added, “Gen. McChrystal is known to be meticulous, a perfectionist. He doesn’t tolerate

sloppiness or excuses. Do you really believe that he would sign his name to such an important,

high-profile document without first reading it carefully enough to realize it was bogus?”

The ex-soldier frowned thoughtfully before answering. “No,” he admitted. “For him to do

something like that, he’d have to be under incredible pressure.”

* * *

[HC299]/PB346: Many months later, after the coverup unraveled and the Tillman family

demanded the Army reveal who was responsible for the many lies they’d been told, McChrystal

would spin the P4 memo as proof that he never meant to conceal the fratricide. But McChrystal

took no action to halt the coverup and divulge the truth; his memo merely sounded the alarm that

someone needed to warn speechwriters to be ambiguous about the cause of death when crafting

statements about Tillman, in order to provide President Bush with deniability.

PB 347: If McChrystal had a change of heart after submitting the falsified medal

recommendation and wanted the truth to be revealed, all he needed to do was pick up the phone,

inform the secretary of the Army that Tillman was killed by friendly fire, and ask him to put the

Silver Star on hold until the paperwork could be corrected. That didn’t happen.

* * *

PB 351: McChrystal, who was promoted from Brigadier General to Major General nine days

after Tillman’s death [May 1, 2004], was, and remains, intensely ambitious.




39

Were he to be held accountable for the fraudulent Silver Star recommendation, his Army career

would likely end in disgrace. Why, then, did he take such a risk?

Last June, near the conclusion of McChrystal’s Senate confirmation hearing, it seemed as

though an answer to this question might be at hand when Sen. Jim Webb told the general, “You

have not, to my knowledge, been on record in terms of how you personally feel about this

incident, and I would like to give you the opportunity to do that.”

PB 347: Appearing genuinely contrite, McChrystal confessed, “We failed the family. And I was

a part of that, and I apologize for it.” But then the tenor of his remarks abruptly shifted and he

reiterated the same disingenuous claims made by virtually every officer who participated in the

subterfuge: “It was not intentional…. I didn’t see any activities by anyone to deceive.”

A moment later, nevertheless, McChrystal may have inadvertently revealed what motivated the

entire coverup. “To provide context,” he explained to Webb, “we were still in combat when we

were doing all of that…. We were in the first battle of Fallujah in Iraq at the same time, so we

were making mistakes.”

[HC294]/PB 348: One week before Tillman’s death, compounding the bleak news coming out

of Fallujah, CBS News notified Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, that 60 Minutes II was about to broadcast a story about the torture and abuse of

Iraqi captives by U.S. soldiers at a prison called Abu Ghraib. On April 28, the program aired,

followed two days later by even more disturbing revelations about Abu Ghraib by Seymour

Hersh in The New Yorker.

PB 351: Had it been disclosed at the outset that Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire, the press

coverage would have been no less voluminous, but its effect on the nation’s mood would have

been very different.

Given the overwhelming challenges the United States faces in Afghanistan, and President

Obama’s determination that Gen. McChrystal is the most qualified person to command our

military campaign there, some may wonder why his dishonesty about Tillman should matter. It

matters because deceit by a military officer of McChrystal’s rank is a poisonous betrayal of trust

that shouldn’t be countenanced. The possibility that his subterfuge was intended to mislead the

public during the run-up to a presidential election is especially troubling.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact



40

From Is Gen. McChrystal The Best Man For Afghanistan?

Guy Raz -- NPR All Things Considered, October 17, 2009

Writer Jon Krakauer says McChrystal could have been, if not for his involvement in the

controversy surrounding the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. Krakauer … talks

about what he calls Gen. McChrystal's "credibility problem."

RAZ: You say General McChrystal was involved in a cover-up.

Mr. KRAKAUER: Not only involved; he was at the center of it. He played a pivotal role. You

know, in the past, he's made it sound like, oh, yeah, I was sort of peripherally involved and I was

handed these documents that I signed for the Silver Star, but I - he claims - this is what he told

the Senate. He claims, I didn't read it carefully enough to notice that it didn't mention friendly-

fire. Now, anyone who knows McChrystal knows that's preposterous. He is meticulous. He is

known to be perfectionist. I asked a soldier who served under him, can you imagine that he - for

a document this important and this high profile - he would not read it carefully enough to

recognize that there is no mention of friendly-fire? And the soldier reluctantly said no.

RAZ: Jon Krakauer, a month ago, you talked with [see 9-14-09, Krakauer Explores Pat

Tillman's Death And Cover-Up] my colleague, Melissa Block, about your new book… You

called General McChrystal quote, "probably the best man for the job in Afghanistan."

Mr. KRAKAUER: I don't argue with people who say he is the most effective commander in the

Army. He's done - he's come up with some really important ideas about what to do about cutting

down on Afghan civilian deaths, for instance. But I, you know, I have looked into this and

there's no doubt in my mind that he has repeatedly lied to the American people, he's deceived the

nation, and he has lied to the Senate. He's lied to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

RAZ: But if you're making those allegations and you're saying he's lied, then why does any of it

matter if you think he is the right man for the job?

Mr. KRAKAUER: I don't think he should be in the job. I think he is the best man for the job.

RAZ: You don't think he should be in the job?

Mr. KRAKAUER: No. I think what he's done is tragic. It's not just tragic for him. It might be

tragic for the country. Here you have who is perhaps the best man for job, who has disqualified

himself by this act of deceit - a very serious one. If it wasn't Stanley McChrystal, if it was some

field grade officer who no one had heard of, who was found guilty of what McChrystal has done,

he would be court marshaled.





41

From Stanley McChrystal’s Long War

Dexter Filkins – The New York Times, October 18, 2009

“I took this job because I was asked to take it, and because it is very, very important,”

McChrystal told me. “Admiral Mullen” — head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — “specifically said

to me: ‘You go out, you decide what needs to be done, and you tell me whatever you need to do

that. Don’t constrain yourself because of politics. You tell me what you need.’ ”

And so if it was Petraeus who saved Iraq from cataclysm, it now falls to McChrystal to save

Afghanistan. Petraeus and McChrystal are in fact close — their bond solidified in the crucible

of Iraq. Petraeus, now head of the U.S. military’s Central Command, with overall responsibility

for both Iraq and Afghanistan, pushed McChrystal for the job. “He was a key part of the team in

Iraq,” Petraeus told me.

Yet for all his asceticism, McChrystal displays a subtlety that suggests a wider view of the world.

“If you were to go into his house, he has this unreal library,” Maj. Gen. Michael Flynn,

McChrystal’s intelligence chief and longtime friend, told me this summer. “You can go over and

touch a binding and ask him, ‘What’s that one about?’ And he’ll just start. His bad habit is

wandering around old bookstores. He’s not one of these guys that just reads military books. He

reads about weird things too. He’s reading a book about Shakespeare right now.”

Breaking the cycle of attack and revenge was crucial to stopping the civil war, and it was here,

McChrystal and his colleagues say, that JSOC played a critical role. In a series of operations that

climaxed in 2006 and 2007, McChrystal’s commandos set out to destroy Al Qaeda of

Mesopotamia.

McChrystal’s tenure as JSOC’s commander was not flawless. JSOC never got its most wanted

quarry, neither Osama bin Laden nor Ayman al-Zawahiri. One of JSOC’s units, Task Force 6-26,

was cited for abusing detainees, many of them at a site known as Camp Nama, in Baghdad.

McChrystal himself was not implicated, but at least 34 task-force members were disciplined.

“There were cases where people made mistakes, and they were punished,” McChrystal told me.

“What we did was establish a policy and atmosphere that said that is not what you do. That is not

acceptable.”

He also signed off [sic] on the Silver Star recommendation for Cpl. Pat Tillman, the N.F.L. star

and Army Ranger killed in Afghanistan in April 2004. The medal recommendation erroneously

suggested that Tillman was killed by enemy fire; in fact he was killed accidentally by his own

men, which McChrystal suspected [sic] at the time. The medal was awarded at a memorial

service for Tillman, in which he was lionized as a man killed by the enemy.


http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/j/joint_chiefs_of_staff/index.html?inline=nyt-org

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda_in_mesopotamia/index.html?inline=nyt-org

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda_in_mesopotamia/index.html?inline=nyt-org

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/osama_bin_laden/index.html?inline=nyt-per

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/z/ayman_al_zawahri/index.html?inline=nyt-per

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/pat_tillman/index.html?inline=nyt-per

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_football_league/index.html?inline=nyt-org


42

McChrystal said he did indeed sign off on the recommendation for Tillman, because he believed

it was warranted. The award was for valor, and Tillman had been extraordinarily brave,

regardless of who killed him. McChrystal said he never intended for Tillman’s death to be

exploited politically or to convey an incorrect impression about his death. “I certainly regret the

way this came out,” McChrystal told me.

SHORTLY AFTER HIS ARRIVAL in Afghanistan in June 2009, …When the briefing was

finished, McChrystal looked around the room. “Gentlemen, I am coming into this job with 12

months to show demonstrable progress here [he was fired in June 2010] — and 24 months to

have a decisive impact,” he said. “That’s how long we have to convince the Taliban, the Afghan

people and the American people that we’re going to be successful. In 24 months, it has to be

obvious that we have the clear upper hand and that things are moving in the right direction.

That’s not a choice. That’s a reality.”

When you see a place like Mian Poshteh — wild, broken and isolated — it’s not difficult to see

why McChrystal believes he doesn’t have enough troops to do what President Obama has asked

him to.

. . .

“Believe me,” he told Jan. “I work for a lot of impatient people, too.”


43

From Jon Krakauer Interviewed on Meet the Press Meet the Press – November 1, 2009

GREGORY: … Because it does involve General Stanley McChrystal, who was obviously critical

on the stage now and was critical in the Tillman story of well. … So Pat Tillman was killed in a

friendly fire incident and ultimately won the Silver Star, and that's what you focus on in the book

and in a subsequent piece that you wrote for The Daily Beast. …Briefly explain what happened.

MR. KRAKAUER: The--after Tillman died, the most important thing to know is that within--

instantly, within 24 hours certainly, everybody on the ground, everyone intimately involved

knew it was friendly fire. There's never any doubt it was friendly fire. McChrystal was told

within 24 hours it was friendly fire. Also, immediately they started this paperwork to give

Tillman a Silver Star. And the Silver Star ended up being at the center of the cover-up. So

McChrystal--Tillman faced this devastating fire from his own guys, and he tried to protect a

young private by exposing himself to this, this fire. That's why he was killed and the private

wasn't. Without friendly fire there's no valor, there's no Silver Star. There was no enemy fire,

yet McChrystal authored, he closely supervised over a number of days this fraudulent medal

recommendation that talked about devastating enemy fire.

…

GREGORY: Even those who were critical of him and the Army say they don't think he willfully

deceived anyone. [clip of McChrystal speaking at Senate hearing]

MR. KRAKAUER: That's correct. He, he just said now he didn't read this hugely important

document about the most famous soldier in the military. He didn't read it carefully enough to

notice that it talked about enemy fire instead of friendly fire? That's preposterous. That, that's

not believable.

GREGORY: All right, part of this debate. Thank you all very much. We'll continue our

discussion with Jon Krakauer in our MEET THE PRESS Take Two Web Extra. Plus, read an

excerpt from his book, "Where Men Win Glory." It's all on our Web site at mtp.msnbc.com.

And we'll be right back. (Announcements) That's all for today. We'll be back next week. If it's

Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS.

From SoundOff: Sunday Talking Heads

Jason Linkins – Huffington Post, November 1, 2009

And like that, we have an abrupt end to MEET THE PRESS, because we wouldn't want anything

provocative to happen!\

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/01/tv-soundoff-sunday-talkin_n_341399.html


44

From Krakauer: McChrystal shouldn't be in charge in Afghanistan

Lauren Kornreich – CNN, November 6, 2009

Tillman was killed by friendly fire while serving in Afghanistan. Krakauer, author of "Where

Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman," said that despite seeing reports describing the

real cause of Tillman's death, McChrystal signed paperwork to award him a Silver Star, which is

not normally given to victims of friendly fire.

"I think he has a serious blemish on his record," Krakauer said.

When asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer if he thought McChrystal should be in charge of U.S. Forces

in Afghanistan, Krakauer answered, "No."

"If a lesser officer did what McChrystal did, he would be court marshaled according to Article

107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, submitting a false official statement," Krakauer

said. "It's a very serious offense for which you, if you're found guilty, you can be dishonorably

discharged and you can be locked up for five years."

McChrystal, now the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, told Congress

during his confirmation hearing in June that he made a mistake and misread the report about

Tillman's cause of death. But Krakauer said his explanation was "purged. It's not believable. It's

preposterous."

"Someone who is guilty of that kind of offense, and I believe McChrystal is, should not be

commander of the forces," Krakauer said. "It sends a terrible message. I mean, Afghanistan is

fighting corruption… And here's a guy, who five years [5 months before?] ago lied to the Senate.

He lied to Army investigators. And he submitted this fraudulent document."

But a Pentagon spokesman said McChrystal still believes that Tillman deserves the Silver Star

medal.

"General McChrystal acknowledges that in the aftermath of this confusing and emotionally-

charged incident he did not review the award citation carefully enough before forwarding it up

the chain of command, but to this day he steadfastly believes Corporal Tillman's actions before

his death warrant the honor," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in a statement.

Tune into The Situation Room on Saturday beginning at 6 p.m. ET for Wolf Blitzer's full

interview with Krakauer.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/06/krakauer-mcchrystal-shouldnt-be-in-charge-in-afghanistan/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnns-lauren-kornreich/


45

From THE SITUATION ROOM

Wolf Blitzer – CNN, November 7, 2009

BLITZER: I want to play a little clip from the testimony that General Stanley McChrystal gave

during his confirmation hearings to become the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, about

his role in deciding that Pat Tillman should be granted the Silver Star. Listen to how he defended

himself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL, U.S. ARMY: I arrived back into Afghanistan from a

meeting in Qatar with General Abizaid on about the 23rd, and I was informed at that point that

they suspected that friendly fire might have been the cause of death and they had initiated what

we call a 15-6, or an investigation of that.

At the same time, we looked at his potential award for valor. And any lost soldier, they

immediately look and determine whether an award was appropriate. In the case of Corporal

Tillman, a Silver Star was recommended. I sat down with the people who recommended it, but

that was higher than some had been given, and we went over a white board and we looked at the

geometry of the battlefield and I queried the people to satisfy myself that, in fact, that his actions

warranted that, even though there was a potential that the actual circumstance of death had been

friendly fire.

So I was comfortable recommending, once I believed that the people in the fight were convinced

it warranted a Silver Star, and I was, too, with forwarding that. I also sent a message informing

my chain of command that we believed it was fratricide, and we did that when we were told there

were going to be fairly high-profile memorial services.

Now, what happens, in retrospect, is -- and I would do this differently if I had the chance again.

In retrospect, they look contradictory because we sent a Silver Star that was not well written, and

although I went through the process, I will tell you now I didn't review the citation well enough

to capture, or I didn't catch that if you read it, you could imply that it was not friendly fire.

So I say that in the two things which I believe were entirely well intentioned on my part, and in

my view, everyone forward that I saw was trying to do the right thing, it still produced confusion

at a tragic time. And I'm very sorry for that because I understand that the outcome produced a

perception that I don't believe was at all involved, at least in the forces that were forward.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: And you believe that Corporal Tillman earned the Silver


46

Star by his actions before he died.

MCCHRYSTAL: Sir, I absolutely do. I did then. I do now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, Jon Krakauer, what, if anything, is wrong with his explanation?

KRAKAUER: It's perjured. It's not believable. It's preposterous. He is saying that after

spending a number of days on the ground in eastern Afghanistan with the commander, Tillman's

commander of the 2nd Ranger battalion, that he signed his name to this fraudulent document

recommending a Silver Star. This document that he signed his name to, he was the author of

record. He reviewed carefully, made -- not only did it make no mention of friendly fire in

reference to Tillman's death, it used a phrase, "He faced devastating enemy fire."

At the time, McChrystal knew this was not true. McChrystal at the time was absolutely certain

Tillman had been killed by friendly fire, yet he submitted this document to the secretary of the

Army. He implies in this testimony that, Oh, at the same time, we sent this e- mail, you know,

warning people that, well, he was killed by friendly fire. He sent that e-mail 24 hours later. And

he didn't send it to the secretary of the Army, the person who ultimately approved the Silver Star.

He sent it -- it was intended for President Bush's speech writers, warning them that if the

information of fratricide leaked out -- not when, but if it leaked out, they had to be careful what

they wrote for the president because if he quoted from this bogus Silver Star document, he would

embarrass himself by appearing as a liar.

Now, that's a very different thing than that testimony suggests. There's simply no way to get

around the fact that McChrystal knowingly submitted this fraudulent document to the secretary

of the Army. He never called the secretary of the Army back and said, Oh, I forgot, you know, I

unintentionally -- you need to know this was friendly fire. Maybe we should put the Silver Star

on hold until we sort this out.

KRAKAUER: He didn't do that, so... BLITZER: You're saying, Jon -- let me just interrupt.

You're saying that General McChrystal deliberately lied in signing that document.

KRAKAUER: Absolutely. There's no other way to interpret that. You don't have to take my

word for it. There was a very thorough investigation by the inspector general of the Defense

Department, and they found that McChrystal's -- the same explanation he gave to the Senate --

was not credible. They criticized him. They determined that he should be held accountable for

the fraudulent Silver Star. They determined that the Army should take action against him. And


47

they would have accepted -- a crony of McChrystal's, a four-star general named William

Wallace (ph), simply overruled the inspector general of the Pentagon and let McChrystal

completely off the hook.

. . .

BLITZER: Should he be... the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan?

KRAKAUER: No, he should not. … Someone who is guilty of that kind of offense, and I

believe McChrystal is, should not be commander of the forces. It sends a terrible message. I

mean, Afghanistan is fighting corruption. The nation is being asked to sign off on this long-term

commitment that's very problematic and very risky for the nation, and here's a guy who five

years ago [no, 5 months ago] lied to the Senate. He lied to Army investigators, and he submitted

this fraudulent document. That's not something -- you know, if you just -- if you just walk away

from that and ignore it, that's a terrible thing.

KRAKAUER: … But I think that General McChrystal for five years has been getting by. I

mean, I'm not the first person to bring this up. The Tillman family's been bringing this up ever

since Pat died, and they've just been brushed off. They've gotten- they've been stonewalled at the

highest reaches. It's time for someone finally to hold General McChrystal accountable.

…You know, the friendly fire was a terrible accident. There were some screw-ups involved. But

the real tragedy happened afterwards, and it happened about this cover-up from top to bottom in

the Army, up and down the chain of command.

And to this day, the Army claims unbelievably that it was just a series of innocent mistakes, that

there was no intent to deceive. That's what McChrystal says, There was -- I never saw any intent

to deceive. That, on the face of it, is just unbelievable.

So it's time for, finally, you know, the Army to just come clean. And McChrystal is at the very

center of that deception. And for everyone to say, Well, gosh, you know, he's this very effective

commander -- he's considered the most effective in the Army, and I don't dispute that. But

someone who has this blemish on his record should not be our commander in Afghanistan.

BLITZER: We asked the Pentagon for reaction to Jon Krakauer's claims and got this statement

from the Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell: "General McChrystal acknowledges that in

the aftermath of this confusing and emotionally-charged incident, he did not review the award

citation carefully enough before forwarding it up the chain of command. But to this day, he

steadfastly believes Corporal Tillman's actions before his death warrant the honor."


48

From Sundance 2010: Michael Moore Loves the Pat Tillman

Documentary, but Will Middle America?

Steven Zeitchik – LA Times, January 24, 2010

Bar-Lev directs "The Tillman Story" (formerly "I'm Pat ____Tillman," after what may have been

the soldier's last words) with aplomb. …

But for all the movie's creative virtues, (it's also a pretty compelling meditation on hero worship),

there's a marketing snag to whatever distributor winds up buying it out of Park City. Tillman's

fan base is comprised at least partly of the patriots and pro-militarists, the hawks and the Fox

News watchers, who found inspiration in the story of a football player who decides to fight for

the U.S. entirely of his own accord. Indeed, part of the appeal of the movie -- as A&E Indie

FIlms, which made it, and CAA and Submarine Entertainment, which is selling it, have reminded

-- is that the Tillman name recognition will help it play to a right-wing audience.

In the film, Tillman's mother, Dannie, is especially impressive -- thoughtful, controlled and

articulate -- and will no doubt be an asset when it comes to getting the word out. The family

generally cuts a magnetic and candid figure. Asked about Jon Krakauer's book about Tillman,

the soldier's youngest brother[Richard] told the screening audience of the author that "that guy's

a piece of ..." Dannie then chimed in, with a shrug of her shoulders, "I can't muzzle him." The

movie honestly vocalizes plenty of truths. But it could be a trick to get people to listen.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/01/michael-moore-pat-tillman-dannie-tillman-sundance.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/01/michael-moore-pat-tillman-dannie-tillman-sundance.html


49

APPENDIX D:

Krakauer Writes “Gen. McChrystal’s Credibility

Problem” (Daily Beast, October 14, 2009)

On September 15, 2009, Jon Krakauer released the first edition of his book Where Men Win

Glory – The Odyssey of Pat Tillman. In this hardcover edition, Gen. Stanley McChrystal was

barely a footnote.

Just a month later, Krakauer published “Gen. McChrystal’s Credibility Problem.” In this “Daily

Beast” piece, he “expressed skepticism about McChrystal’s honesty.” He wrote that

McChrystal “had dissembled to the Senate” … “he closely supervised the drafting of these

[Silver Star] documents”… “administered a fraudulent medal recommendation … thereby

concealing the cause of Tillman’s death.” But none of this new material appeared in Krakauer’s

first edition. Why did he suddenly begin talking about McChrystal’s central role in the cover-up

shortly after his book was released?

Well, just two days after his first edition was released about 200 pages of my material (two

letters and two binders) were literally placed in Krakauer’s hands by my Aunt Candy at his

Boulder CO book signing on September 17, 2009. This material described how Gen. Stanley

McChrystal played a central role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s 2004 friendly-fire death in

Afghanistan (paying particular attention to McChrystal’s own testimony at his June 2009 Senate

confirmation hearing).

A comparison of the Where Men Win Glory book editions, his piece “McChrystal’s Credibility

Problem,” and my material given to Krakauer shows that my documents were the source

(directly or indirectly) for nearly all of his significant updates in the paperback edition:

In “Gen. McChrystal’s Credibility Problem,” Krakauer did briefly allude to the Senate’s pro

forma hearing: “During the committee hearing [June 2, 2009 Senate confirmation] … none of

McChrystal’s inquisitors probed deeply into either of these issues [Pat Tillman cover-up and

torture by McChrystal’s JSOC forces at Camp Nama].“

However, in Krakauer’s updated 2010 paperback edition (despite haven been given my material),

he continued to fail to describe how the Democratic Congress and President Obama continued

the Bush administration’s whitewash of Gen. McChrystal.


50

Unabridged “General McChrystal’s Credibility Problem”

With Page References to Where Men Win Glory

Jon Krakauer -- The Daily Beast -- October 14, 2009 | 11:10pm

Note: Each paragraph has a reference to the page #’s of Jon Krakauer’s hardcover and/or

paperback editions of his “Where Men Win Glory” However, the paragraph is often not

identical in each edition; the most drastic differences are indicated by [ ]; see Appendices for

Paperback Revisons for a more detailed comparison). All underlining was added for emphasis.

Abbreviation Key: HC – Hard Cover, PB – Paper Back; No page number indicates the

paragraph appeared only in this piece and was not included in either edition of the book.

. . .

The man chosen by Barack Obama to lead the war in Afghanistan also helped cover up the

friendly-fire death of NFL player turned soldier Pat Tillman, writes Jon Krakauer. He

administered a fraudulent medal recommendation to keep the public in the dark. So why isn’t

anybody talking about it? [italics added by Daily Beast editors]



Armed Services Committee. Although McChrystal had enthusiastic admirers on both sides of the

congressional aisle and was regarded as an innovative, uncommonly effective leader, he was







nomination.















51

* * *


April 22, 2004.



Nixon, commander of the 75th Ranger Regiment, and said (according to Bailey’s sworn

testimony [Jones 15-6]), “My gut feeling was that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire….

There was no doubt about it. It was a case where there were six or seven Rangers that saw the

vehicle shooting at them.”

Chapter Thirty-Two:

HC 290/PB 336: Before the day was out, Nixon [McChrystal] notified three [two?] of his

superiors [HC: just Kensinger & McChrystal; PB: Kensinger & Brown], including McChrystal,

that Tillman’s death was a fratricide.

PB336: According to Army regulations [see Teach Lie notification regs.], this information

should have been immediately shared with the Tillman family, even if friendly fire was only a

possibility. Instead, Army officers embarked on an elaborate campaign to suppress the truth and

persuade both the family and the public that Tillman was killed by enemy fire.

HC291/PB 337 [condensed account]: Soldiers [O’Neal] were ordered to lie. Tillman’s

notebook, uniform, ammo vest, and body armor were burned, in clear violation of other

important protocols.

HC290/PB 335: At the time of Tillman’s fratricide, McChrystal was only a one-star [corrected

from HC] general, but as commander of JSOC he ran the most covert branch of the U.S. armed

forces. Shrewd, driven, and willing to bend rules to get results, 13 months earlier he’d

commanded the Navy SEALs, Delta Force operators, and Army Rangers who’d rescued Jessica

Lynch from her captors in Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald

Rumsfeld held McChrystal in the highest esteem, and regularly bypassed the chain of command

to communicate with him directly. He was trustworthy. He worked under the radar and got stuff

done. He didn’t suffer from “the slows,” as Rumsfeld characterized the risk-averse nature of

some of McChrystal’s superiors.

Chapter Thirty Three:

HC297/PB 342: Within two days of Tillman’s death, officers in the 2nd Ranger Battalion

initiated paperwork to give Tillman the Silver Star, the military’s third highest decoration for

valor.


52

HC298/PB 342: McChrystal was put in charge of writing and expediting the medal

recommendation so that the award could be announced in advance of a nationally televised

memorial service scheduled for May 3.








near-absolute certainty that Tillman was the victim of fratricide. During the medal-

recommendation process, McChrystal was shown the preliminary findings of a so-called Article

15-6 investigation that had been launched the day after Tillman died, which included detailed

eyewitness testimony from more than a dozen soldiers in his platoon. Transcripts of these

interviews described how Tillman, in order to protect a young private under his command, had

exposed himself [by throwing grenade] to a ferocious squall of bullets—hundreds of rounds from

three machine guns shooting at him from close range.

PB 343: McChrystal ascertained, correctly[?], that the extraordinary valor of Tillman’s act was

in no way diminished by the incontrovertible fact that the lethal fusillade had come from his

American comrades.



HC298/PB343: On April 28, 2004, six days after Tillman’s death, McChrystal reviewed a final

draft of the medal recommendation, signed his name to it, and emailed it to the acting secretary

of the Army, R.L. Brownlee.

[HC297]/PB 343: The recommendation package [Teach to Lie] received by Brownlee consisted

of four documents: a one-paragraph “award citation” that summarized Tillman’s courageous

deed; a five-paragraph “award narrative” that offered a more nuanced account of his actions; and

two brief statements from soldiers who witnessed those actions. Astoundingly, none of these

documents mentioned, or even hinted, that Tillman was killed by friendly fire. The award

citation alleged, “Corporal Tillman put himself in the line of devastating enemy fire,” even

though there was never any enemy fire directed at Tillman’s position during the incident.

HC297/PB343: The witness statements (which also suggested he was killed by the enemy) were

not signed, and the two soldiers whose names were attached to them later testified that both

statements had been fabricated, apparently by one or more members of the Silver Star

recommendation team.


53



recommendation “in the form that it was in.”

McChrystal replied, “We sent a Silver Star that was not well written—and, although I

went through the process, I will tell you now that I didn’t review the citation well enough

to capture—or, I didn’t catch that, if you read it, you can imply that it was not friendly

fire.” McChrystal insisted that the package of four short documents bearing his signature

wasn’t meant to deceive. Although he closely supervised the drafting of these documents,

he simply failed to notice that all of them had been painstakingly written to omit any

reference to friendly fire.

During a presentation on October 3 of this year in Mesa, Arizona, to promote Where Men Win

Glory, my book about Tillman, I described the testimony cited above and expressed skepticism

about McChrystal’s honesty. Afterward, while I was signing books, an Army veteran approached

me and said that he had served under McChrystal, admired him immensely, and took issue with

my accusation that his former commander had dissembled to the Senate, or knowingly

participated in any sort of coverup. He said that in his experience McChrystal was a man of

unimpeachable integrity. I countered that McChrystal’s words were taken verbatim from a

transcript of the Senate hearing, and then added, “Gen. McChrystal is known to be meticulous, a

perfectionist. He doesn’t tolerate sloppiness or excuses. Do you really believe that he would sign

his name to such an important, high-profile document without first reading it carefully enough to

realize it was bogus?”

The ex-soldier frowned thoughtfully before answering. “No,” he admitted. “For him to do

something like that, he’d have to be under incredible pressure.”

* * *

HC298/PB 345: On April 28, 2004, the same day McChrystal sent the Silver Star

recommendation to the secretary of the Army, he received word from Rumsfeld’s office that the

White House was working on a speech in which President Bush would eulogize Tillman at the

annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. Because the true cause of Tillman’s

death had been restricted to a tight cadre that did not include the president’s speechwriters,

McChrystal fretted they might inadvertently script something that would make the president look

like a liar should the truth about Tillman eventually be leaked.

HC298/PB 346: To forestall such a gaffe, one day after submitting the falsified medal

recommendation, McChrystal emailed a high-priority personal memo (known as a “Personal

For” memo, or simply a “P4”) to Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of all troops in Iraq and

Afghanistan, and two other general officers [Brown, Kensinger]:

“Sir, in the aftermath of Corporal Patrick Tillman’s untimely yet heroic death in

Afghanistan on 22 April 04,” McChrystal wrote, “it is anticipated that a 15-6

investigation nearing completion will find that it is highly possible that Corporal Tillman

was killed by friendly fire. This potential finding is exacerbated by the unconfirmed but




54

suspected reports that [the president of the United States] and the secretary of the Army

might include comments about Corporal Tillman’s heroism and his approved Silver Star

medal in speeches currently being prepared…. I felt that it was essential that you received

this information as soon as we detected it in order to preclude any unknowing statements

by our country’s leaders which might cause public embarrassment if the circumstances of

Corporal Tillman’s death become public.”







HC299/PB347: (In the speech Bush gave at the correspondents’ dinner two days after the P4

was sent, the president praised Tillman for his courage and sacrifice, but pointedly made no

mention of how he died.)





HC298/PB347: Instead, Secretary Brownlee approved the medal based on the spurious

documents submitted by McChrystal, and on April 30 the Army issued a press release

announcing that Tillman had been posthumously awarded the Silver Star.

HC298/PB 347: Because it made no mention of friendly fire, none of the hundreds of news

stories based on the press release reported anything about friendly fire, and the nation was kept

in the dark about the fratricide. As Brigadier General Howard Yellen later testified, “For the

civilian on the street, the interpretation would be that he was killed by enemy fire.”

* * *


after Tillman’s death [May 1, 2004], was, and remains, intensely ambitious.



Last June, near the conclusion of McChrystal’s Senate confirmation hearing, it seemed as though

an answer to this question might be at hand when Sen. Jim Webb told the general, “You have

not, to my knowledge, been on record in terms of how you personally feel about this incident,

and I would like to give you the opportunity to do that.”


55




subterfuge: “It was not intentional…. I didn’t see any activities by anyone to deceive.” A

moment later, nevertheless, McChrystal may have inadvertently revealed what motivated the




HC 295/PB 348: Three weeks before Tillman was killed, horrific violence engulfed Fallujah.

The bloodshed commenced when Iraqi insurgents killed four American contractors working for

Blackwater USA, burned their bodies, dragged them through the streets, and then hung their

charred remains from a bridge over the Euphrates River. In response, 2,000 U.S. Marines

launched an assault on the city, initiating furious urban combat that continued until the Marines

were pulled out of Fallujah on May 1, 2004, by which time 27 American troops were dead, and

more than 90 had been wounded.

[HC294]/PB 348: One week before Tillman’s death, compounding the bleak news coming out

of Fallujah, CBS News notified Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, that 60 Minutes II was about to broadcast a story about the torture and abuse of

Iraqi captives by U.S. soldiers at a prison called Abu Ghraib. On April 28, the program aired,

followed two days later by even more disturbing revelations about Abu Ghraib by Seymour

Hersh in The New Yorker.

HC295/PB349: Public support for both the Bush administration and the war in Iraq was

plummeting. The president was engaged in a bare-knuckled campaign to win a second term. The

election was barely six months away. When Tillman was killed, White House perception

managers saw an opportunity to divert the nation’s attention from the glut of bad news.

HC295/PB 349: The administration had tried to make Tillman an inspirational emblem for the

Global War on Terror when he was alive, but he had rebuffed these efforts by refusing to do any

media interviews.

HC295/PB349 [condensed version]: On April 23, the day after Tillman perished,

approximately 200 emails about Tillman were transmitted or received by White House officials,

including staffers from Bush’s reelection campaign, who suggested to the president that it would

be advantageous for him to respond to Tillman’s death as quickly as possible. A press release

about Tillman’s patriotic sacrifice was hastily written and disseminated to the media before noon

that same day. Communications Director Dan Bartlett later explained that he rushed out the

statement in order to accommodate overwhelming interest in Tillman from the media, noting that

the story “made the American people feel good about our country… and our military.”

HC297/PB 351: When he walked away from a $3.6 million National Football League contract

to enlist in the Army with his brother Kevin in 2002, Pat Tillman became the object of

tremendous public fascination, and White House officials calculated that celebrating him as a

fallen hero would send the media into an orgy of reverential coverage. They were not




56

disappointed. Thousands of tributes to Tillman appeared in all manner of media over the weeks

that followed.

HC297/PB351: On April 25, 2004, just two days after the initial White House press release, a

“Weekend Media Assessment” compiled by the Army chief of staff’s Office of Public Affairs

reported that stories about Tillman had generated the greatest interest in the Army since the

president’s “Mission Accomplished” speech the previous May, adding that the Tillman stories

“had been extremely positive in all media.”

HC297/PB351: The Army’s announcement on April 30 that Tillman had been awarded the

Silver Star prompted another torrent of favorable press.

PB 351: Had it been disclosed at the outset that Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire, the press


been very different.

HC319/PB375: This is the context in which the Tillman cover-up, and Gen. McChrystal’s

central role in the deception, must be considered. As Kevin Tillman testified, “Revealing that

Pat’s death was fratricide would have been yet another political disaster during a month already

swollen with political disasters…. So the facts needed to be suppressed. An alternative narrative

needed to be constructed.” McChrystal’s chicanery, Kevin [Mary?] explained, was “an insult to

the Tillman family, but more importantly, its primary purpose was to deceive a nation…. We

have been used as props in a public-relations exercise.”







HC321/PB 377: “What we have here is a very clear, deliberate abuse intentionally done,”

lamented Rep. Henry Waxman at the conclusion of a [April 24] 2007 hearing into the Tillman

coverup by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “Why is it so hard to

find out who did it?”

.

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080714111050.pdf


57

Summary of New Material in Jon Krakauer’s

“Gen. McChrystal’s Credibility Problem”

October 3, 2009: “Where Men Win Glory” Book Signing in Tempe, AZ

Note: the following excerpts are taken from Jon Krakauer’s October 14, 2009 Daily Beast piece,

“Gen. McChrystal’s Credibility Problem.”

. . .

“During a presentation on October 3 of this year in Mesa [Tempe], Arizona, to promote Where

Men Win Glory, my book about Tillman, I described the [Senate] testimony … and expressed

skepticism about McChrystal’s honesty.”

“Afterward, while I was signing books, an Army veteran approached me and said that he had

served under McChrystal, admired him immensely, and took issue with my accusation that his

former commander had dissembled to the Senate, or knowingly participated in any sort of

coverup. He said that in his experience McChrystal was a man of unimpeachable integrity.”

“I countered that McChrystal’s words were taken verbatim from a transcript of the Senate





do something like that, he’d have to be under incredible pressure.”

. . .

October 14, 2009: Krakauer Posts “McChrystal’s Credibility Problem”

Jon Krakauer published “Gen. McChrystal’s Credibility Problem” in The Daily Beast on October

14, 2009. In July 2010 much of his article reappeared in Chapter’s 32 & 33 of Jon Krakauer’s

revised paperback edition of Where Men Win Glory. See my Appendices to read the complete

article, with complete annotations to both the HB & PB editions.

Below, the following excerpts include only “new” information; that is, information that was not

in the first hardcover edition (HB) edition in the same or slightly edited form. I’ve indicated the

page numbers of each excerpt in the paperback edition (PB) and/or HB edition. I’ve underlined



58

new information in passages that were otherwise unchanged. Italics are mine, usually indicating

new information, unless otherwise noted. Excerpts without page references never appeared in

either edition of his book.

I’ve done this to highlight the material that Krakauer claims he “discovered” in the month after

receiving my material on September 17, 2009 and the publication of this piece on October 14,

2009.

. . .

Most of Jon Krakauer’s new material was taken from the transcript of McChrystal’s Senate

testimony. Other information appears to have been obtained from information in my letters to

him and the two binders handed to him at the Septemer 17, 2009 book signing.

. . .

Gen. McChrystal’s Nomination by President Obama to Head Afghan War

Confirmed After Pro Forma Senate Hearing:



Armed Services Committee.

Although McChrystal had enthusiastic admirers on both sides of the congressional aisle and was

regarded as an innovative, uncommonly effective leader, he was expected to face difficult

questions about two incidents that occurred during his tenure as leader of the Joint Special

Operations Command (or JSOC): the torture of detainees in 2003 at the secret facility in Iraq

known as Camp Nama, and his role in the coverup of Pat Tillman’s fratricide in Afghanistan in

2004.



nomination.

There was no Doubt About Friendly Fire and Ranger RGT Officers Began

Cover Up:




59

Nixon [MAJ Hodne in HC], commander of the 75th Ranger Regiment, and said (according to

Bailey’s sworn testimony [Jones 15-6]), “My gut feeling was that Tillman had been killed by

friendly fire…. There was no doubt about it. It was a case where there were six or seven Rangers

that saw the vehicle shooting at them.”

PB336: According to Army regulations, this information should have been immediately shared

with the Tillman family, even if friendly fire was only a possibility. Instead, Army officers

embarked on an elaborate campaign to suppress the truth and persuade both the family and the

public that Tillman was killed by enemy fire.

McChrystal Closely Supervised the Fraudulent Silver Star Recommendation

& Submitted It Despite Knowing of Friendly Fire:



recommendation “in the form that it was in.” McChrystal replied, “We sent a Silver Star that

was not well written—and, although I went through the process, I will tell you now that I didn’t

review the citation well enough to capture—or, I didn’t catch that, if you read it, you can imply

that it was not friendly fire.”

McChrystal insisted that the package of four short documents bearing his signature wasn’t meant

to deceive. Although he closely supervised the drafting of these documents, he simply failed to

notice that all of them had been painstakingly written to omit any reference to friendly fire.








near-absolute certainty that Tillman was the victim of fratricide.

PB 342: During the medal-recommendation process, McChrystal was shown the preliminary

findings of a so-called Article 15-6 investigation that had been launched the day after Tillman

died, which included detailed eyewitness testimony from more than a dozen soldiers in his

platoon. Transcripts of these interviews described how Tillman, in order to protect a young


60

private under his command, had exposed himself [by throwing grenade] to a ferocious squall of

bullets—hundreds of rounds from three machine guns shooting at him from close range.

PB 343: McChrystal ascertained, correctly, that the extraordinary valor of Tillman’s act was in

no way diminished by the incontrovertible fact that the lethal fusillade had come from his

American comrades. “So,” McChrystal testified, “I was comfortable recommending, once I

believed that the people in the fight were convinced it warranted a Silver Star.”

[HC297]/PB 343: The recommendation package received by Brownlee consisted of four

documents: a one-paragraph “award citation” that summarized Tillman’s courageous deed; a

five-paragraph “award narrative” that offered a more nuanced account of his actions; and two

brief statements from soldiers who witnessed those actions. Astoundingly, none of these

documents mentioned, or even hinted, that Tillman was killed by friendly fire. The award

citation alleged, “Corporal Tillman put himself in the line of devastating enemy fire,” even

though there was never any enemy fire directed at Tillman’s position during the incident.

DB: The witness statements (which also suggested he was killed by the enemy) were not signed,

and the two soldiers whose names were attached to them later testified that both statements had

been fabricated, apparently by one or more members of the Silver Star recommendation team

[McChrystal, Nixon, Kauzlarich; Bailey was out of the picture by then].

Gen. McChrystal Spun P4 Memo As Proof He Didn’t Conceal Friendly Fire:












61

Gen. McChrystal Constructed a False Narrative to Avoid Another Public

Relations Disaster:


after Tillman’s death [May 1, 2004], was, and remains, intensely ambitious. Were he to be held

accountable for the fraudulent Silver Star recommendation, his Army career would likely end in

disgrace. Why, then, did he take such a risk?

Last June, near the conclusion of McChrystal’s Senate confirmation hearing, it seemed as

though an answer to this question might be at hand when Sen. Jim Webb told the general, “You

have not, to my knowledge, been on record in terms of how you personally feel about this

incident, and I would like to give you the opportunity to do that.”




subterfuge: “It was not intentional…. I didn’t see any activities by anyone to deceive.”

A moment later, nevertheless, McChrystal may have inadvertently revealed what motivated the




Although the Best Man for the Job, Gen. McChrystal’s Deceit Matters:

McChrystal has lately been the subject of numerous media profiles, most of them adulatory. …

But he definitely does not see himself as the sort of military man who would compromise his

principles to do the politically convenient thing. In the week after Tillman was killed, however,

this is precisely what McChrystal appears to have done when he administered a fraudulent

[Silver Star] medal recommendation and submitted it to secretary of the Army, thereby

concealing the cause of Tillman’s death.








62

Excerpts From “General McChrystal’s Credibility Problem”

That Do Not Appear in Either Edition of Jon Krakauer’s

Book “Where Men Win Glory”

Note: I’ve only included the excerpts here that do not appear in the paperback edition of Jon

Krakauer’s book “Where Men Win Glory.” Underlining has been added to the text for emphasis.

I’ve rearranged the quotes for greater organization.


April 22, 2004.

. . .











. . .



Armed Services Committee.

Although McChrystal had enthusiastic admirers on both sides of the congressional aisle and was

regarded as an innovative, uncommonly effective leader, he was expected to face difficult

questions about two incidents that occurred during his tenure as leader of the Joint Special

Operations Command (or JSOC): the torture of detainees in 2003 at the secret facility in Iraq

known as Camp Nama, and his role in the coverup of Pat Tillman’s fratricide in Afghanistan in

2004.





63



nomination.







. . .



Last June, near the conclusion of McChrystal’s [June 2, 2009] Senate confirmation hearing, it

seemed as though an answer to this question might be at hand when Sen. Jim Webb told the

general, “You have not, to my knowledge, been on record in terms of how you personally feel

about this incident, and I would like to give you the opportunity to do that.”

. . .



. . .

During a presentation on October 3 of this year in Mesa [ Tempe], Arizona, to promote Where

Men Win Glory, my book about Tillman, I described the testimony cited above and expressed

skepticism about McChrystal’s honesty. Afterward, while I was signing books, an Army veteran

approached me and said that he had served under McChrystal, admired him immensely, and took

issue with my accusation that his former commander had dissembled to the Senate, or knowingly

participated in any sort of coverup. He said that in his experience McChrystal was a man of

unimpeachable integrity.

I countered that McChrystal’s words were taken verbatim from a transcript of the Senate





do something like that, he’d have to be under incredible pressure. . . .”


64

APPENDIX E: Revisions to Paperback Edition of Where Men Win Glory

It appears that Jon Krakauer only added about 10 pages of totally new material to his revised

paperback edition (many of his revisions involved edits of just a few words or phrases). The

bulk of his new material is found in Chapters 32, 33, and 34 which describe the actions the Army

took to cover-up Tillman’s friendly-fire death. Much of Chapter 33 was adapted from his “Daily

Beast” article, “Gen. McChrystal’s Credibility Problem,” published October 14, 2009.

. . .

I compared the text of the hardcover edition to that of the softcover edition, paragraph by

paragraph (and in more detail where necessary) to determine the revisions. I also indicated the

probable source of the revision from my letters or binders handed to Krakauer.

I’ve labeled each excerpt with the page number where it appears in each edition, and indicated

the changes usually with italics (underlining is for my emphasis). Each group of a revision is

separated by “. . .”

I’ve organized the revisions into categories by the reference used to obtain the new material (e.g.

FOIA, transcript of Senate hearing, etc.) Some have been placed in more than one category.

Glossary of Abbreviations Used:

HC – page # of Double-Day, Sept. 2009 hard-cover first edition

PB – page # of Anchor Books, July 2010 paperback (with foreword & revisions)

DB – Krakauer’s “Gen. McChrystal’s Credibility Problem ” (Daily Beast, 10-14-09)

JK12 – Jon Krakauer Letter 9-12-09


TL – “Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet?” Binder May 26, 2009

LT -- “Lies Borne Out by Facts, If Not the Truth” Binder September 11, 2009

DOD IG – Department of Defense Inspector General, FOIA Interview

DA IG -- Department of the Army Inspector General

JONES 15-6 – Gen. Jone’s 2004 15-6 Army Tillman Investigation

OSCR – Waxman’s Congressional Oversight Committee Report 7-14-08


65

Preface to the Anchor Books Edition

Revised Paperback Edition, July 2010 (pp. xvii – xviii):

This substantially revised edition of Where Men Win Glory includes new material that casts the

Pat Tillman tragedy in sharper relief, and leaves little doubt about who directed the cover-up of

the fratricide.

To put these revisions in perspective, some background might be helpful. I submitted the

manuscript of the book’s first edition in February 2009, a few weeks after Barack Obama

became president. Shortly before the book was sent to the printer, and too late to make changes,

I learned important new information about the Army’s campaign to conceal the cause of

Tillman’s death from his family and the American public. Following publication of the first

edition in September [17?] 2009, I discovered additional evidence of deceit by high-ranking

Army officers. Some of these previously undisclosed facts were unearthed through multiple

Freedom of Information Act requests; other pieces of the puzzle were inadvertently divulged

when General Stanley McChrystal was obligated to testify before the Senate Armed Services

Committee in June 2009, following his nomination by President Obama to command NATO and

American forces in Afghanistan.

When considered as a whole, the wrongdoing described in the pages that follow is deeply

disturbing, in no small part because one of the most culpable malfeasants turns out to be an

exalted military leader [Gen. McChrystal] who’s been shielded from accountability or

punishment for the past six years.

Jon Krakauer, April 2010


66

NEW CITATIONS IN THE NOTES &

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE REVISED PAPERBACK

EDITION OF WHERE MEN WIN GLORY

From the paperback’s Preface:

To put these revisions in perspective, some background might be helpful. I submitted

the manuscript of the book’s first edition in February 2009, a few weeks after Barack

Obama became president. Shortly before the book was sent to the printer, and too late to

make changes, I learned important new information about the Army’s campaign to

conceal the cause of Tillman’s death from his family and the American public.

Here, Jon Krakauer provided “some background” to justify why he didn’t include this new

material in the hardcover edition of his book. Krakauer claimed that he “learned

important new information,” in the six-month period before the book was published in

September 2009, but too late to include in the first edition.

However, I believe Krakauer is disingenuous here, at best. My analysis of his revisions didn’t

reveal any “important” new information that Krakauer discovered in this six month period prior

to his book’s publication (at least not any that appeared in his updated edition).

The only new citations listed in Krakauer’s Notes or Bibliography of the revised edition were the

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) IG interviews and the transcript of McChrystal’s June 2,

2009 Senate confirmation hearing, both of which he says he obtained only after publication of

his book.

. . .

PB 420: “Hearing to Consider the Nominations of … LTG Stanley A. McChrystal”

(Transcript, US Senate, Committee on Armed Services, 6-02-09)

. . .


obtain Inspector General (IG) interviews with: LTC Jeffrey Bailey, COL James Craig Nixon,

LTG Stan McChrystal, Major Charles Kirchmaier, LTC Norman Allen, Commander Craig

Mallak, and BG Gina Farrisee.

PB 408: … to Amy Fitzgibbons for assistance with Freedom of Information Act requests, …


67

The FOIA interviews provided more detail on the deception of the Medical Examiner Mallak by

Nixon & McChrystal’s JAG lawyers (Kirchmaier and Allen), and BG Farrisee (who Krakauer

credulously believes was not part of this deception). In addition, the FOIA interviews provided

more detail of Gen. McChrystal & the Ranger RGT officers’ cover-up.

Here’s a list of the interviews Krakauer obtained through the FOIA requests:

PB 419 “Sworn testimony of LTC Jeffrey Bailey, 10-16-06” DoD IG

“Interview of COL James Craig Nixon, 10-28-06” DoD IG

“Classified Interview of LTG Stan McChrystal, 11-26-06” DoD IG

(Note: only interview classified. And tape recording of GEN Jones 15-6 interview

with McChrystal is missing)

“Sworn testimony of Major Charles Kirchmaier, 06-09-06” DoD IG

“Sworn testimony of LTC Norman Allen, 07-26-06” DoD IG

“Sworn testimony of Commander Craig Mallak, 08-29-05” DoD IG

(Note: typo? Should be 2006, not 2005? But DoD IG did start 8-05)

PB 420: “Testimony of BG Gina Farrisee, 05-22-07” DA IG

(Note: from Gen. Wallace review spring 2007)

. . .


68

JON KRAKAUER’S REVISIONS TO “WHERE MEN WIN

GLORY” IN PAPERBACK EDITION:

Revisions that Match Corrections from Guy Montag’s

September 17, 2009 Letter to Jon Krakauer

Note: HC – page # of Double-Day, Sept. 2009 hard-cover first edition.

PB – page # of Anchor Books, July 2010 paperback (with foreword & revisions).

DB – refers to Krakauer’s 10-14-09 article “Gen. McChrystal’s Credibility Problem.”


The following corrections were pointed out to Krakauer in my 9-17-09 letter handed to him at a

book signing on 9-17-09. These corrections were minor and I find it hard to believe that

someone else happened to point them out to Krakauer in the two day period between the release

of his book and when he received my letter.

That Krakauer made these corrections certainly indicates that he actually read through my letters

and materials.

. . .

Correction #1: Corrected Pat Tillman’s Chain of Command by placing BG McChrystal

directly above COL Nixon (and moving Kensinger under Gen. Brown):

HC 231: Pat Tillman’s Chain of Command, April 22, 2004 …

Gen. Bryan Brown USSOC

MG Stanley McChrystal JSOC [actually BG]

LTG Philip Kensinger USASOC

COL James Nixon, commander 75th

Ranger Regiment …

JK17: p.231: Tillman’s Chain of Command, April 22, 2004:

This graphic doesn’t show McChrystal as directly above Nixon. However, McChrystal

was directly above Nixon in the operational chain of command. The Chain splits above

Nixon into an operational and administrative chain.


69

See Mary Tillman’s book graphic (just past p. 280) or the IG Report p. 12-13 discussion.

PB 268: Pat Tillman’s Chain of Command, April 22, 2004 …

Gen. Bryan Brown USSOC

LTG Philip Kensinger USASOC

BG Stanley McChrystal JSOC

COL James Nixon, commander 75th

Ranger Regiment …

Correction #2: LTC Bailey called COL Nixon, his boss, not MAJ Hodne.

HC 289: [LTC Bailey] “’… We need to do an investigation.’ So I called Major Hodne [at

Salerno] and told him my gut feeling was that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire …”

JK 17: p.289: ‘So I [Bailey] called Major Hodne (Nixon?) and told him my gut feeling was

that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire… there was no doubt about it.’ … “Hodne

(Nixon?) recommended that Bailey select an officer … Scott was appointed to head the

so-called 15-6 investigation.”:


may well be mistaken. However, you may want to double-check (See IG Report p.13)

and other reports.

DB: Lt. Col. Jeffrey Bailey, commander of the 2nd Ranger Battalion, visited the site of the

calamity the following morning. A few hours later, he called his boss, Col. James Nixon,

commander of the 75th Ranger Regiment, and said (according to Bailey’s sworn testimony

[Jones 15-6]), “My gut feeling was that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire … There was no

doubt about it. It was a case where there were six or seven Rangers that saw the vehicle shooting

at them.”

PB 334: [LTC Bailey] “’… We need to do an investigation.’ So I called Colonel Nixon

[commander of the 75th

Ranger Regiment] and told him my gut feeling was that Tillman had

been killed by friendly fire …”

Bailey reiterated under oath in subsequent testimony that he told Nixon, “I’m sure it’s a

fratricide, sir, but I think I owe you the details. Let me do this investigation and I’ll give it to you

as quickly as I can. [FOIA DoD IG]


70

. . .

HC 289: Hodne recommended that Bailey select an officer named CPT Richard Scott to

conduct an investigation according to Article 15-6 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Bailey agreed, and Scott was appointed to head the so-called 15-6 investigation.

JK 17: p.289: ‘So I [Bailey] called Major Hodne (Nixon?) and told him my gut feeling was

that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire… there was no doubt about it.’ … “Hodne

(Nixon?) recommended that Bailey select an officer … Scott was appointed to head the

so-called 15-6 investigation.”:


may well be mistaken. However, you may want to double-check (See IG Report p.13)

and other reports.

PB 334: When Bailey determined that an investigation was required in accordance with Article

15-6 of the Uniform Code of Military, Hodne recommended that an officer at FOB Salerno

named CPT Richard Scott conduct it. Bailey and Nixon agreed, and Scott was appointed to

head the so-called 15-6 investigation.

. . .

Corrrection #3: Rangers arrived back on 24th

; not 25th

HC 291: The Rangers of Second Platoon arrived back at Salerno on the morning of April 25,

still reeling from what had happened on the twenty-second.

JK17: p. 291: “The Rangers … arrived back at Salerno on the morning of April 25 …”:

April 25th

? The IG Report (Appendix B: Chronology) has “April 24, 2004: 2nd

platoon

(CPL Tillman’s Platoon) returns to the battalion Forward Operation Base [at Salerno].

Also, I believe that the 24th

also matches testimony from the Jones 15-6 report and the

findings of the IG and Waxman Reports.

PB 337: The Rangers of Second Platoon arrived back at Salerno on the morning of April 24,

still reeling from what had happened on the twenty-second.


71


GLORY” IN PAPERBACK EDITION

From McChrystal’s June 2, 2009 Senate Testimony Found in

“Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet?”:

Note: HC – page # of Double-Day, Sept. 2009 hard-cover first edition;

PB – page # of Anchor Books, July 2010 paperback

DB – refers to Krakauer’s 10-14-09 Daily Beast article

TL – From “Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet?” binder

In May 2009, over the objections of the Tillman family, President Obama nominated Gen.

McChrystal to be his new Afghan commander. On June 2, 2009, McChrystal testified before the

Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation hearing. This hearing was strictly

pro-forma (the real hearing had been heard the previous year behind closed doors in executive

session where McChrystal testified “in detail”).

Notice that Jon Krakauer never explained why he “discovered” McChrystal’s Senate testimony

only after his book release on September 15, 2009. Apparently Jon Krakauer hadn’t paid much

attention to this hearing at the time (perhaps he only saw the news clips or read the newspaper.

You would have thought he would have watched it on CSPAN or gotten the transcript).

In his interviews prior to September 17th

, Krakauer never mentioned McChrystal’s Senate

testimony. Once again, it’s apparent that he “discovered” the existence of this testimony from

my binders (unless he miraculously discovered it within two days of publication).

The first time Krakauer mentions McChrystal’s Senate testimony was on Jon Stewart’s Daily

Show on September 30, 2009 (just two weeks after getting my material). On October 14, 2009,

Krakauer published the Daily Beast article “McChrystal’s Credibility Problem.”

This article had new information not present in the hardcover edition. Most of the new

information can be found in, “Senate Armed Services Commttee’s Confirmation of General

McChrystal,” and other parts of the binder “Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet?” (See

Appendix D & E). Once again, Krakauer was deceitful in claiming to have discovered “other

pieces of the puzzle” in McChrystal’s testimony when this information was spoon-fed to him.

Note: Despite writing in his Daily Beast piece that, “During the committee hearing … none of


Nama],“ Krakauer failed to discuss the Senate Confirmation hearing in his book.


72

TL 26: General Wallace cleared McChrystal of wrongdoing because McChrystal only “signed

off’ on the Silver Star and “had no reasonable basis to question the recommendation that came

up endorsed by the commanders in the field who were there and had firsthand knowledge of the

circumstances of his death and his heroic actions.”:

But during Tuesday's hearing, McChrystal said he sat down with the officers (ie Nixon,

Kauzerlich, Hodne, Bailey) and went over Tillman's actions on a whiteboard to satisfy himself

that Tillman's actions merited a Silver Star!:

“I sat down with the people [Ranger Regiment officers] who recommended it [Silver Star]. …

and we went over a whiteboard, and we looked at the geometry of the battlefield, and I queried

the people to satisfy myself that, in fact, that his actions warranted that, even though there was a

potential that the actual circumstances of death had been friendly fire.” (p. 18 transcript)

DB: According to McChrystal’s Senate testimony [6-02-09], he “sat down with the people who

recommended [the Silver Star]… and we went over a whiteboard, and we looked at the geometry

of the battlefield, and I queried the people to satisfy myself that, in fact, that his actions



PB 342: According to McChrystal’s [Senate] testimony, he flew from Bagram to Salerno and

“sat down with the people who recommended [the Silver Star]… and we went over a whiteboard,

and we looked at the geometry of the battlefield, and I queried the people to satisfy myself that,

in fact, that his actions warranted [the Silver Star], even though there was a potential that the

actual circumstances of death had been friendly fire.”

. . .

TL: Appendix F: 6-02-09 Senate Transcript p. 18

DB: McChrystal ascertained, correctly[?], that the extraordinary valor of Tillman’s act was in no

way diminished by the incontrovertible fact that the lethal fusillade had come from his American

comrades. “So,” McChrystal testified, “I was comfortable recommending, once I believed that

the people in the fight were convinced it warranted a Silver Star.”

PB 343: McChrystal ascertained, correctly[?], that the valor of Tillman’s act was in no way

diminished by the incontrovertible fact that the lethal fusillade had come from his American

comrades. “So,” McChrystal explained, “I was comfortable recommending, once I believed that

the people in the fight were convinced it warranted a Silver Star.”

. . .


73

TL 27: McChrystal said that the Silver Star citation wasn't well written and that he didn't read it

close enough to catch that it could "imply" Tillman wasn't killed by friendly fire:

“… my own mistakes in not reviewing the Silver Star citation well enough and making sure that

I compared it to the message [P4 memo] that I sent were mistakes.” (p. 48 transcript). “… in

retrospect, they [Silver Star and P4 memo] look contradictory, because we sent out a Silver Star

that was not well written – and, although I went through the process, I will tell you now I didn’t

review the citation well enough to capture – or, I didn’t catch that if you read it, you can imply

that it was not friendly fire.” (p.18 transcript)

Absolute bull. The IG report discussion section (Appendix E) on the Silver Star

concluded that anyone reading the citation would assume Tillman was killed by enemy

fire: “… we concluded that an uninformed reader could reasonably infer that CPL

Tillman had been killed by enemy fire although a careful review of the narrative and

citation show no direct assertion that he was killed by enemy fire. As a result, the

narrative justification and citation were misleading.” (p.55 IG report)

In fact, Maj. Hodne even said that he edited the narrative to ensure it didn't mention

friendly fire!: “Maj.[Hodne] testified that he carefully prepared the narrative to avoid

stating that the enemy had killed CPL Tillman and distinctly remembered removing a

phrase asserting that CPL Tillman ‘died by enemy fire.” (p.51 IG report).

And the witness statements were altered by "someone in the approval chain" (i.e. Nixon,

McChrystal, and/or Kauzerlich). “PFC [O’Neal] stated that he did not sign the valorous

award witness statement .. also pointed out parts he knows he did not write and parts that

were not accurate.” … Sgt [Weeks?] also pointed out parts that were inaccurate, in that

he was unable to see CPL Tillman’s actions from his location.” IG Gimble preferred not

to “speculate” as to who was responsible while testifying before the House Oversight

Committee in April 2007.! “… we were not able to identify the specific drafter.” (p.53

IG report).

DB: In June of this year, during McChrystal’s confirmation hearing, Sen. John McCain asked

the general to explain why, five years earlier, he had submitted the perjured Silver Star

recommendation “in the form that it was in. McChrystal replied, “We sent a Silver Star that was

not well written—and, although I went through the process, I will tell you now that I didn’t


that it was not friendly fire.” McChrystal insisted that the package of four short documents

bearing his signature wasn’t meant to deceive. Although he closely supervised the drafting of

these documents, he simply failed to notice that all of them had been painstakingly written to

omit any reference to friendly fire.

PB 344: On June 2, 2009, after President Obama nominated McChrystal to command US forces

in Afghanistan, the matter of the misleading medal recommendation was raised during the

general’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. John McCain



74

recommendation “in the form that it was in.” McChrystal replied, “We sent a Silver Star that was







. . .

TL 23: Sen. Jim Webb pressed McChrystal, prompting the general to agree that the Army had

failed the Tillman family, "You failed to properly notify the family of the investigation and the

inaccuracies," … "You have not been on the record, and I don't know how you feel about it."

DB: Were he to be held accountable for the fraudulent Silver Star recommendation, his Army

career would likely end in disgrace. Why, then, did he take such a risk? Last June, near the

conclusion of McChrystal’s Senate confirmation hearing, it seemed as though an answer to this

question might be at hand when Sen. Jim Webb told the general, “You have not, to my

knowledge, been on record in terms of how you personally feel about this incident, and I would

like to give you the opportunity to do that.”

PB347: During McChrystal’s testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2009,

Senator Jim Webb asked him to explain his role in the Tillman scandal.

. . .

TL 23: General McChrystal denied the phony narrative of a raging firefight was anything more

sinister than "mistakes" made to honor the famous GI. "They were well-intentioned" but created

"doubt and the sense of mistrust.”. "I didn't see any activity by anyone to deceive," he said.

McChrystal said the Army's handling of the case "produced confusion at a tragic time, and I'm

very sorry for that." "I was a part of that, and I apologize for it.”. "I would do this differently if I

had the chance again," "There is nothing we can do to automatically restore the trust which was

the second casualty.” "We failed the family. And I was a part of that." He earlier expressed his

"deepest condolences" to Tillman's family and fellow rangers.

DB: Appearing genuinely contrite, McChrystal confessed, “We failed the family. And I was a

part of that, and I apologize for it.” But then the tenor of his remarks abruptly shifted and he


subterfuge: “It was not intentional…. I didn’t see any activities by anyone to deceive.” A

moment later, nevertheless, McChrystal may have inadvertently revealed what motivated the



75



PB 347: [Appearing genuinely contrite,] McChrystal confessed, “We failed the family. And I

was a part of that, and I apologize for it.” But then he abruptly changed his tone and reiterated

the same disingenuous claims made by virtually every officer who participated in the subterfuge:

“It was not intentional…. I didn’t see any activities by anyone to deceive.” A moment later,

however, McChrystal hinted at what might have motivated him to orchestrate what can only be

described as a broad conspiracy to conceal Tillman’s fratricide from the secretary of the Army,

the Armed Forces medical examiner, the Army Criminal Investigative Division, the Tillman

family, the news media, and the citizens of the United States. “To provide context,” McChrystal

testified to Webb, “as you remember, Senator, we were still in combat when we were doing all of

that…. We were in the first battle of Fallujah in Iraq at the same time, so we were making

mistakes.”

. . .

TL: Appendix F: 6-02-09 Senate Transcript

DB: During a presentation on October 3 of this year in Mesa [Tempe], Arizona, to promote

Where Men Win Glory, my book about Tillman, I described the testimony cited above and

expressed skepticism about McChrystal’s honesty. Afterward, while I was signing books, an

Army veteran approached me and said that he had served under McChrystal, admired him

immensely, and took issue with my accusation that his former commander had dissembled to the

Senate, or knowingly participated in any sort of coverup. He said that in his experience

McChrystal was a man of unimpeachable integrity.

I countered that McChrystal’s words were taken verbatim from a transcript of the Senate hearing,

and then added, “Gen. McChrystal is known to be meticulous, a perfectionist. He doesn’t tolerate

sloppiness or excuses. Do you really believe that he would sign his name to such an important,

high-profile document without first reading it carefully enough to realize it was bogus?” The ex-

soldier frowned thoughtfully before answering. “No,” he admitted. “For him to do something

like that, he’d have to be under incredible pressure.”


76


GLORY” IN PAPERBACK EDITION

Revisions Found in “Did They Teach You to Lie Yet?” Or

“Lies Borne Out by Facts, If Not the Truth” Binders

“Following publication of the first [hardcover] edition in September [15,] 2009, I

discovered additional evidence of deceit by high-ranking Army officers [Ranger RGT

officers, Gen. McChrystal, etc.]”

“I discovered…” Only if your definition of “discovered” includes having 250 pages of research

material literally placed into your hands! Krakauer’s shows further deceit with his claim here.



my package of Tillman material to Krakauer (and got an autograph). My material consisted of a

cover letter (Sept. 12, 2009), a “postscript” letter (with corrections) reviewing his book (Sept. 17,

2009), and two large binders:










(See Appendix B for these letters and the Table of Contents of these binders. The full contents

of the binders are posted at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com)

Perhaps Krakauer somehow “discovered” his “new evidence” in the two days “following

publication of the first edition in September 2009.” However, it’s much more likely my material

was the source (direct or indirectly through references) of the new material in his paperback

edition. Well, my analysis below shows many of his revisions appear to echo words & phrases

from my binders. At a minimum, this information could be found by reading my binders.



77

. . .

LT 82: On May 12th

2009, President Obama nominated General Stanley McChrystal for

promotion to four-star general and commander of the Afghanistan War.

PB 335: … In 2009 McChrystal would be thrust into the limelight as the four-star [still 3-star]

general chosen by President Barack Obama [May 11, 2009] to command all US forces in

Afghanistan.

. . .

TL 32: 2.) When asked why McChrystal couldn’t have just called Tillman’s family about

potential fratricide, General Cody replied that “in the casualty reporting business … we do not

encumber the JSOC commander with all of that … that’s done by the regiment and done by the

Army through SOCOM.” Secretary Geren added, “So it was General Kensinger’s

responsibility.”

Response:

However, if you look at Appendix D: “Casualty Reporting & Next of Kin Notification

Process” (p.80, DoD IG report), you’ll see that McChrystal’s Chief of Staff was

responsible for sending a supplemental casualty report to USAOC after learning of

friendly fire.

It’s also noted on the flowchart that both McChrystal and his Chief of Staff knew about

the fratricide by the 25th

and yet did not send the required report as required by

regulations (this finding is not included in the IG Report conclusions).

Furthermore, McChrystal himself told General Jones that “there was a conscious decision on

who we told about that potential [fratricide] because we did not know all the facts. … I believe

that we did not tell the family of the possibility because we did not want to give them some half-

baked finding.” Shortly afterwards, he contradicted himself, saying “I did not know there was a

decision not to tell the family. They had another [son] in the firefight

TL Appendix A, from p. 3 of DoD IG Report Summary: … despite Army regulations that

require next of kin be advised of additional information concerning a Service member’s death as

that information becomes available.

DB: According to Army regulations, this information should have been immediately shared with

the Tillman family, even if friendly fire was only a possibility. Instead, Army officers embarked

on an elaborate campaign to suppress the truth and persuade both the family and the public that

Tillman was killed by enemy fire.


78

PB336: Over in Afghanistan, McChrystal directed Nixon to keep the facts of Tillman’s death

under tight wraps within the Ranger Regiment, as well.

“The guidance I put out,” Nixon testified, “was that until the investigation was complete, until

we knew what happened, I did not want communication of the ongoing investigation outside the

unit.”

According to a federal statute and several Army regulations, Marie Tillman, as next of kin, was

supposed to be notified that an investigation was under way, even if friendly fire was only

suspected, and “be kept informed as additional information about the cause of death becomes

known.” Instead, McChrystal, Nixon, and the soldiers under their command went to

extraordinary lengths to prevent the Tillman family from learning the truth about how Pat died.

. . .

HC297: The 2nd

Ranger Battalion initiated work on the medals within hours of Tillman’s death,

when LTC Bailey directed Major Hodne to recommend Tillman for a Silver Star, the third

highest military decoration for valor that can be awarded to a member of the US Armed Forces.

“I am the person who actually wrote the recommendation for the Silver Star Award for Specialist

Tillman after his death, “ Hodne testified. “We began preparing that award either the night of

the incident in which he was killed, or the following day.”

TL 27: General McChrystal was in Afghanistan with the Ranger officers discussing what

happened! McChrystal lead the Silver Star approval process! McChrystal wasn’t removed from

the process. He didn’t just sign off on a piece of paper that just dropped onto his desk! He was

intimately involved with the process.

DB: Within two days of Tillman’s death, officers in the 2nd Ranger Battalion initiated

paperwork to give Tillman the Silver Star, the military’s third highest decoration for valor.

McChrystal was put in charge of writing and expediting the medal recommendation so that the

award could be announced in advance of a nationally televised memorial service scheduled for

May 3.

PB 342: : Within hours of Tillman’s death, Rangers at FOB Salerno started filling out the

paperwork to give Tillman the Silver Star, the military’s third highest decoration for valor. BG

McChrystal administered the medal recommendation process, which was expedited so the award

could be announced in advance of a nationally televised memorial service scheduled for May 3.

. . .


79

TL 26: General Wallace cleared McChrystal of wrongdoing because McChrystal only “signed

off’ on the Silver Star and “had no reasonable basis to question the recommendation that came

up endorsed by the commanders in the field who were there and had firsthand knowledge of the

circumstances of his death and his heroic actions.”:

But during Tuesday's hearing, McChrystal said he sat down with the officers (ie Nixon,

Kauzerlich, Hodne, Bailey) and went over Tillman's actions on a whiteboard to satisfy himself

that Tillman's actions merited a Silver Star!:











. . .

TL 25: There was never anything speculative or “potential” or "suspected" about Tillman’s

friendly fire death. The Rangers on the ground being shot at knew immediately what had

happened. On the 23rd

word was passed up “70% sure” by the CSM to LTC Bailey and on to

COL Nixon. And on the 24th

, the initial investigating officer CPT Scott passed on verbal

confirmation (“I’m certain, I’m sure”) to LTC Bailey, who then called COL Nixon (McChrystal

was next in the chain of command).

McChrystal knew of confirmed FF just two days after Tillman’s death! (If this isn’t “some level

of proof”, what is?) Or, are we to believe Nixon never told McChrystal of confirmation during

the following days they were working together on the Silver Star package?

DB: The latter clause [potential friendly fire] is a lawyerly flourish on McChrystal’s part,


near-absolute certainty that Tillman was the victim of fratricide. During the medal-

recommendation process, McChrystal was shown the preliminary findings of a so-called Article

15-6 investigation that had been launched the day after Tillman died, which included detailed

eyewitness testimony from more than a dozen soldiers in his platoon. Transcripts of these

interviews described how Tillman, in order to protect a young private under his command, had


80

exposed himself to a ferocious squall of bullets—hundreds of rounds from three machine guns

shooting at him from close range.


intended to suggest that there was still doubt about the cause of death, when actually he knew

with near[-absolute] certainty that it was fratricide. During the medal-recommendation process,

McChrystal was shown the preliminary findings of [CPT Scott’s] Article 15-6 investigation,

which included sworn testimony from more than a dozen soldiers in Tillman’s platoon. Included

in this testimony were eye-witness accounts describing how Tillman had exposed himself to

hundreds of machine-gun rounds in order to protect Private Bryan O’Neal.

. . .

HC297: On April 27, Hodne e-mailed a draft of his Silver Star citation, along with a narrative of

Tillman’s actions and two witness statements justifying the award, up the chain of command so

that it could be announced at the memorial ceremony in San Jose on May 3.

TL 27: Absolute bull. The IG report discussion section (Appendix E) on the Silver Star

concluded that anyone reading the citation would assume Tillman was killed by enemy fire: “…

we concluded that an uninformed reader could reasonably infer that CPL Tillman had been killed

by enemy fire although a careful review of the narrative and citation show no direct assertion that

he was killed by enemy fire. As a result, the narrative justification and citation were

misleading.” (p.55 IG report)

In fact, Maj. Hodne even said that he edited the narrative to ensure it didn't mention friendly

fire!: “Maj.[Hodne] testified that he carefully prepared the narrative to avoid stating that the

enemy had killed CPL Tillman and distinctly remembered removing a phrase asserting that CPL

Tillman ‘died by enemy fire.” (p.51 IG report).

DB: The recommendation package received by Brownlee consisted of four documents: a one-

paragraph “award citation” that summarized Tillman’s courageous deed; a five-paragraph

“award narrative” that offered a more nuanced account of his actions; and two brief statements

from soldiers who witnessed those actions. Astoundingly, none of these documents mentioned,

or even hinted, that Tillman was killed by friendly fire. The award citation alleged, “Corporal

Tillman put himself in the line of devastating enemy fire,” even though there was never any

enemy fire directed at Tillman’s position during the incident.

PB 343: The material received by Brownlee consisted of five [four?]documents: a one-

paragraph “award citation” that summarized Tillman’s courageous deed; a five-paragraph

“award narrative” that offered a more nuanced account of his actions; and two brief statements

from soldiers who witnessed those actions. Astoundingly, none of these documents mentioned,


81

or even hinted, that Tillman was killed by friendly fire. The award citation alleged, “Corporal

Tillman put himself in the line of devastating enemy fire,” even though there was never any

enemy fire directed at Tillman’s position during the incident.

. . .

HC 297: The two witness statements were attributed to Private O’Neal and Sergeant Mel Ward.

O’Neal testified … after he wrote it, his words were embellished so egregiously he never signed

it. In Ward’s case, he didn’t even remember writing such a statement. … Despite these falsified,

unsigned statements, the recommendation was expedited by MG McChrystal, COL Nixon, and

LTC Bailey. [ Kauzlarich was part of process]

TL 15: Both of the Silver Star witness statements were altered to remove any mention of

friendly fire and contained inaccurate statements. Inspector General Gimble said this was done

“somewhere in the approval chain” but refused to “speculate” who was responsible. It appears

that COL Nixon, Nixon’s XO, and/or General McChrystal were involved.

TL 16: The Silver Star narrative justification and citation bore little resemblance to reality and

were carefully and misleading edited to imply Tillman died by enemy fire without actually

coming out and saying it.

TL 27: Absolute bull. The IG report discussion section (Appendix E) on the Silver Star

concluded that anyone reading the citation would assume Tillman was killed by enemy fire: “…

we concluded that an uninformed reader could reasonably infer that CPL Tillman had been killed

by enemy fire although a careful review of the narrative and citation show no direct assertion that

he was killed by enemy fire. As a result, the narrative justification and citation were

misleading.” (p.55 IG report).

In fact, Maj. Hodne even said that he edited the narrative to ensure it didn't mention friendly

fire!: “Maj.[Hodne] testified that he carefully prepared the narrative to avoid stating that the

enemy had killed CPL Tillman and distinctly remembered removing a phrase asserting that CPL

Tillman ‘died by enemy fire.” (p.51 IG report).

And the witness statements were altered by "someone in the approval chain" (i.e. Nixon,

McChrystal, and/or Kauzerlich). “PFC [O’Neal] stated that he did not sign the valorous award

witness statement .. also pointed out parts he knows he did not write and parts that were not

accurate.” … Sgt [Weeks?] also pointed out parts that were inaccurate, in that he was unable to

see CPL Tillman’s actions from his location.” IG Gimble preferred not to “speculate” as to who

was responsible while testifying before the House Oversight Committee in April 2007.! “… we

were not able to identify the specific drafter.” (p.53 IG report).


82

DB: The witness statements (which also suggested he was killed by the enemy) were not signed,

and the two soldiers whose names were attached to them later testified that both statements had

been fabricated, apparently by one or more members of the Silver Star recommendation team

[McChrystal, Nixon, Kauzlarich; Bailey was out of the picture by then].

PB 344: The two witness statements were attributed to Private O’Neal and Sergeant Mel Ward.

O’Neal testified … after he wrote it, his words were embellished so egregiously he never signed

it. In Ward’s case, he didn’t even remember writing such a statement. … All the

recommendation material that McChrystal approved and submitted to Secretary Brownless was

painstakingly written to create the impression that Tillman was killed by enemy fire. By any

objective measure, the recommendation was fraudulent.

. . .

TL 15: But wouldn’t General McChrystal have a “reasonable basis” to question a Silver Star

package which contains no mention of friendly fire since he had been informed of confirmed

fratricide?





TL 27: In fact, Maj. Hodne even said that he edited the narrative to ensure it didn't mention

friendly fire!: “Maj.[Hodne] testified that he carefully prepared the narrative to avoid stating that

the enemy had killed CPL Tillman and distinctly remembered removing a phrase asserting that

CPL Tillman ‘died by enemy fire.” (p.51 IG report).

DB: In June of this year, during McChrystal’s confirmation hearing, Sen. John McCain asked

the general to explain why, five years earlier, he had submitted the perjured Silver Star

recommendation “in the form that it was in. McChrystal replied, “We sent a Silver Star that was







PB 344: On June 2, 2009, after President Obama nominated McChrystal to command US forces

in Afghanistan, the matter of the misleading medal recommendation was raised during the


83

general’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. John McCain


recommendation “in the form that it was in.” McChrystal replied, “We sent a Silver Star that was







. . .

HC299: As it turns out, Kensinger had learned on April 23 that fratricide was definitely the

cause of death, and it’s likely that Abizaid and Brown already knew as well. The real intent of

McChrystal’s P4 was to alert his superiors that someone needed to warn President Bush and

Secretary Brownlee that the 15-6 would confirm Tillman’s death by friendly fire, which

increased the likelihood that the truth might eventually be exposed one day. The president and

the secretary therefore needed to be especially mindful of what they said about Tillman when

making public statements.

TL 26: Further, McChrystal wasn’t concerned with correcting the Silver Citation he had just

forwarded to the Secretary of the Army the previous day and that had already been approved.

TL 39: "That memo is damming as hell. And yet, nothing happens to [McChrystal]. He is

writing fraudulent language in that memo. He is giving examples of how they can script the

Silver Star award, even though Pat was killed by fratricide. And he is saying we need to keep our

leadership abreast of things so they don't embarrass themselves, IF the circumstances of Pat's

death should become public … He should be saying 'We're going to have to put a hold to the

silver star and we're going to have to notify the family [of suspected friendly fire].' That is what

he would say if he was innocent, but he is not. He is trying to find a way that they can continue

this false, elaborate story of theirs. And the fact that he is off the hook is atrocious."

TL 40: Note the “if”. Not when! And McChrystal’s concern is for embarrassment of his

bosses, not to ensure his family knows or that the Secretary of the Army knows before approving

the Silver Star!

DB: Many months later, after the coverup unraveled and the Tillman family demanded the

Army reveal who was responsible for the many lies they’d been told, McChrystal would spin the

P4 memo as proof that he never meant to conceal the fratricide. But McChrystal took no action

to halt the coverup and divulge the truth; his memo merely sounded the alarm that someone


84

needed to warn speechwriters to be ambiguous about the cause of death when crafting statements

about Tillman, in order to provide President Bush with deniability.

PB346: Many months later, after the cover-up unraveled and the Tillman family pressured

government officials and the Army to reveal who was responsible for the [many] lies they’d been

told, McChrystal would spin the P4 memo as proof that he never meant to conceal the fratricide.

But his secret back-channel memo didn’t urge anyone to divulge the truth and end the cover-up;

it merely sounded the alarm that someone needed to warn speechwriters to be ambiguous about

the cause of death when crafting statements about Tillman, in order to provide President Bush

with deniability.

. . .

TL 31: A P4 is not the most “timely” or “secure” fashion to send a message. How about simply

picking up the telephone?

DB: If McChrystal had a change of heart after submitting the falsified medal recommendation

and wanted the truth to be revealed, all he needed to do was pick up the phone, inform the

secretary of the Army that Tillman was killed by friendly fire, and ask him to put the Silver Star

on hold until the paperwork could be corrected. That didn’t happen.


recommendation and really wanted the truth to be known, all he needed to do was pick up the

phone, inform the secretary of the Army that Tillman was killed by friendly fire, and ask him to

put the Silver Star on hold until the paperwork could be corrected. That didn’t happen.

. . .

HC297: As with the frenzy that followed the Jessica Lynch rescue, neither the White House nor

military perception managers had to do much to sustain the media’s focus on Tillman’s death;

indeed, they did little more than monitor the coverage and make copies of all the published

articles for their files – although that didn’t deter the Army from deciding to ratchet up the

media hysteria to an even higher level by awarding Tillman a couple of posthumous medals.

TL 5: However, Pat Tillman’s parents believe McChrystal played a central role in the cover-up

of their son’s fratricide.

TL 17: I’ve argued that Congress and the senior leadership of the Army acted to shield General

McChrystal from close scrutiny and protect him from punishment for his central role in

orchestrating the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s fratricide.


85

DB: Had it been disclosed at the outset that Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire, the press


been very different. This is the context in which the Tillman coverup, and Gen. McChrystal’s

central role in the deception, must be considered.

PB351: Had it been disclosed at the outset that Tillman was killed by friendly fire, the press


been very different. The Army’s announcement on April 30 that Tillman had been awarded the


. . .

TL Appendix E: from DoD IG Report Appendix G p. 50 -59 Silver Star Discussion

PB372: In striking contrast to all three of the Army’s 15-6 investigations, Gimble’s

investigating officers (who were civilians not beholden to anyone in the Army chain of

command) looked closely [!?] at McChrystal’s role in the mishandling of the Tillman fratricide,

in particular his responsibility for the fraudulent Silver Star recommendation.

Note: “not beholden” yeah, how about Sec Def Rumsfeld? Looked closely; no (except SS),

covered as well.

… He nevertheless failed to offer a plausible explanation for the glaring contradiction, as the

findings of Gimble’s official report to Secretary of the Army Pete Geren made clear:

“LTC Bailey, COL Nixon, and MG McChrystal are accountable for the inaccurate and

misleading assertions contained in the award recommendation package … We also find MG

McChrystal accountable for not notifying the award processing channels that friendly fire was

suspected to ensure that the recommendation was considered based on accurate information.”

[IG Report]

. . .


86

HC 321: On July 31, 2007, Secretary of the Army Pete Geren held a press conference at the

Pentagon to answer this and other questions about the alleged cover-up. Brushing aside

overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Geren simply asserted there was no cover-up. …

*Geren nevertheless announced the punishment of one officer: LG Kensinger, who had retired

from the Army eighteen months previously, was censured for lying under oath to investigators.

This prompted a reporter to ask Geren, “You’ve described a litany of errors and mistakes going

more than three years involving a lot of people, yet all the blame falls on Gen. Kensinger. … he

happens to be retired. Is there a coincidence there?” To which Geren replied, “I believe the

buck stops with Gen. Kensinger.”

TL 30: General McChrystal received no reprimand for his role in the handling of the Tillman

fratricide. However, General Wallace disregarded the findings of the Department of Defense

Inspector General (DoD IG) review which found General McChrystal “accountable for

inaccurate and misleading assertions contained in the award recommendation package” and

“accountable for not notifying the award processing channels [Secretary of the Army] that

friendly fire was suspected to ensure that the recommendation was considered based on accurate

information.”

TL 17: I’ve argued that Congress and the senior leadership of the Army acted to shield General

McChrystal from close scrutiny and protect him from punishment for his central role in

orchestrating the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s fratricide.

PB 379: On July 31, 2007, Secretary of the Army Pete Geren held a press conference at the

Pentagon to answer this and other questions about the alleged cover-up, and to announce that the

Army had taken action against six of the officers found accountable by IG Thomas Gimble’s

investigation four months earlier. Such action could have included demotions, courts-martial,

dishonorable discharges, incarceration, and/or letters of reprimand. But LTC Bailey and COL

Nixon received nothing more than a mild “memoranda of concern,” and Nixon’s memorandum

of concern wasn’t even placed in his military record. The Army, moreover, took no action

against McChrystal, despite his central role in the scandal.

The only officer who received anything resembling punishment was LG Philip Kensinger Jr.,

who had retired from the Army eighteen months previously, and was censured for lying under

oath to investigators. The Army’s leniency was stunning. It prompted a reporter to ask Geren,

“You’ve described a litany of errors and mistakes going more than three years involving a lot of

people, yet all the blame falls on Gen. Kensinger. … he happens to be retired. Is there a

coincidence there?” Secretary Geren asserted “I believe the buck stops with Gen. Kensinger.”

Brushing aside overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Geren was adamant that nobody,

including Kensinger, had engaged in a cover-up. [from 8-01-07 Geren Press Briefing]


87

. . .

LT 82: On May 12th

2009, President Obama nominated General Stanley McChrystal for

promotion to four-star general and commander of the Afghanistan War.

LT 87: As David Corn commented on PBS’s News Hour: “… a lot of what happened today

made it clear to me that Democrats and Republicans had both decided, "He's our guy in

Afghanistan”

LT 84: On May 14th

, The New York Times published their editorial, “New Commander for

Afghanistan”: “Less impressively, some of his commando units were implicated in abusive

interrogations of Iraqi prisoners. And it was General McChrystal who approved the falsified

report that covered up the 2004 friendly-fire death of Cpl. Pat Tillman in Afghanistan….”

TL 22: The senators didn't press McChrystal aggressively during the nearly three-hour hearing,

LT 5: On June 2nd

, The Senate Armed Services held a “pro forma confirmation” and the

Senators did not “rigorously question“ McChrystal during the hearing.

DB: Shortly after President Obama nominated Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal to command U.S.

and NATO forces in Afghanistan, the general was summoned to the U.S. Senate to be grilled by

the Armed Services Committee. Although McChrystal had enthusiastic admirers on both sides of

the congressional aisle and was regarded as an innovative, uncommonly effective leader, he was





During the committee hearing, though, none of McChrystal’s inquisitors probed deeply into

either of these issues, and on June 10 the Senate unanimously confirmed his nomination.

. . .

TL 39: "That memo is damming as hell. And yet, nothing happens to [McChrystal]. He is

writing fraudulent language in that memo. He is giving examples of how they can script the

Silver Star award,…”






88

DB: McChrystal has lately been the subject of numerous media profiles, most of them

adulatory. Dexter Filkins has a long story in the upcoming New York Times Magazine. In an

October 5 Newsweek article, Evan Thomas referred to the general as a “Zen warrior… with a

disarming, low-key style, free of the bombast and sense of entitlement that can come with four

stars…. He has great political skills; he couldn’t have risen to his current position without them.

But he definitely does not see himself as the sort of military man who would compromise his

principles to do the politically convenient thing.”







89



From FOIA Interviews with MAJ Charles Kirchmaier, LTC

Norman Allen, BG Gina Farrisee


obtain Inspector General (IG) interviews with Major Charles Kirchmaier, LTC Norman Allen,

Commander Craig Mallak, and BG Gina Farrisee.

These FOIA interviews provided more detail on the stonewalling of the Medical Examiner

Mallak by Nixon & McChrystal’s JAG lawyers (Kirchmaier and Allen), and BG Farrisee (who

Krakauer appears to credulously believe was not part of this deception). In addition, the FOIA

interviews provided some more details of how Gen. McChrystal directed the Ranger RGT’s

cover-up.

None of these “previously undisclosed facts” appeared in his “McChrystal’s Credibility

Problem” nor were they mentioned in his November 2009 interviews.

. . .

Krakauer is disingenuous to claim he “discovered” … “these “previously undisclosed facts” from

the FOIA interviews. True, none of these facts appeared in the Tillman material I sent to him.

However, his claim is deceitful since he apparently “discovered” the existence of these IG

interviews from reading my binders (otherwise, why didn’t Krakauer use FOIA in 2008?):

From p. 25, “Did They Teach You to Lie Yet?”:





From p. 79, “Lies Borne Out by Facts, If Not the Truth”:





90

. . .

HC 293: He [Mallak] was sufficiently disturbed by this discrepancy [medical evidence did not

match up with the scenario as described] that he asked the Army Criminal Investigation Division

to look into it, but the CID refused. Perturbed, Mallak and Caruso declined to sign their names

to the autopsy examination when it was completed.

PB 340: Mallak was sufficiently disturbed by this discrepancy that he and Caruso declined to

sign their names to the autopsy examination report when it was completed, and Mallak asked the

Army Criminal Investigation Division to look into the matter.

Note: Did Mallak call CID after no love from Farrisee?

The CID is responsible for investigating serious crimes … Army regulations obligated

McChrystal, Nixon, and Bailey to notify the CID if fratricide was even suspected … But

McChrystal and Nixon were obsessed with keeping knowledge of the fratricide “as

compartmented as possible” … So when CID sent a special agent to inquire about the suspicious

nature of Tillman’s wounds, Nixon’s legal advisor, Major Charles Kirchmaier, was

dispatched to throw the CID off the scent.

Kirchmaier … was intimately involved in CPT Scott’s 15-6 investigation and knew that Tillman

was killed by friendly fire. … Kirchmaier nevertheless instructed CPT Scott not to disclose

anything to the CID or Dr. Mallak, and when questioned by the CID agent himself, Kirchmaier

prevaricated. … As a direct result, the CID concluded there was no reason to delve further …

Shortly thereafter, Kirchmaier received an e-mail from McChrystal’s legal advisor, LTC

Norman Allen, in which Allen congratulated Kirchmaier for “keeping the CID at bay.”

*When asked in 2006, under oath, … McChrystal and Kirchmaier repeatedly invoked such

phrases as, “not that I recall,” …

. . .

PB345: …on April 29, 2004, Secretary Brownlee formally certified the Silver Star award

without knowing that Tillman was a victim of fratricide, or that his death was even under

investigation. Meanwhile, Dr. Mallak, the military pathologist who had performed Tillman’s

autopsy, was still trying to find out why the official cause of death provided by the Ranger

Regiment didn’t match the medical evidence.

In the hope of obtaining Tillman’s helmet, uniform, and body armor for forensic analysis, he

contacted BG Gina Farrisee, director of Military Personnel Management for the Army’s deputy

chief of staff, who happened to be processing Tillman’s Silver Star recommendation when


91

Mallak called [April 27/28/29?]. Unaware [really? See Mary Tillman’s book] that the

recommendation documents were fraudulent, Farrisee passed them along to Mallak in the hope

that they might shed some light on the cause of death and clear up some of the confusion.

When Mallak read the medal recommendation, however, his consternation only grew. He told

Farrisee, “This story stinks.” Crucial details of the firefight as described in the Silver Star

documents appeared to be contradicted by Mallak’s autopsy findings. “You have a problem,” he

warned. “This isn’t right. You need to stop the Silver Star.”

“If we thought that anything in that award narrative at the time was untrue,” Farrisee conceded,

“we probably would have held up the award.” But by the time Mallak had sounded the alarm it

was too late. The medal was already a done deal. [really? See MT and IG PB 377 one of six]

. . .

Note: I doubt BG Farrisee was unaware of the friendly-fire death when Mallak called. Mary

Tillman wrote about this in her book. She was even chastised by Gen Wallace. There was

mention of her role in the Oversight Committee’s 2008 report as well as a brief mention in the

DoD IG report.


92



From FOIA Interviews with McChrystal, Nixon, Bailey


obtain Inspector General (IG) interviews with LTC Jeffrey Bailey, COL James Craig Nixon, and

LTG Stan McChrystal.

These FOIA interviews provided more details of the actions of Gen. McChrystal & the Ranger

RGT officers during their cover-up. None of these “previously undisclosed facts” appeared in

his “McChrystal’s Credibility Problem” nor were they mentioned in his November 2009

interviews.

. . .

As mentioned previously, Krakauer is disingenuous to claim he “discovered” … “these

“previously undisclosed facts” from the FOIA interviews. True, none of these facts appeared in

the Tillman material I sent to him. However, his claim is deceitful since he apparently

“discovered” the existence of these IG interviews from reading my binders (otherwise, why

didn’t Krakauer use FOIA in 2008?):

From p. 25, “Did They Teach You to Lie Yet?”:





From p. 79, “Lies Borne Out by Facts, If Not the Truth”:





93

. . .

HC 290: Bailey alerted his boss – COL James Nixon … that Tillman was the victim of

fratricide. Nixon then told his boss, LTG Philip Kensinger … (USASOC), as well as a two-star

general named Stanley McChrystal who ran the most covert branch of the US Armed Forces, …

(JSOC).

DB: Before the day was out, Nixon notified three [two?Yellen?] of his superiors [HC: Nixon

called Kensinger & McChrystal; PB: McChrystal called Kensinger & Brown], including

McChrystal, that Tillman’s death was a fratricide.

PB 335: It was early in the afternoon of April 23 when Bailey phoned COL Nixon in the Joint

Operations Center at Bagram to alert him that friendly fire was the cause of Tillman’s death.

Almost immediately, Nixon delivered this shocking news in person to his boss, BG Stanley

McChrystal

PB 336: Shortly after McChrystal was appraised by Nixon that Tillman had been killed by

friendly fire, he [McChrystal] shared this information with LTG Philip Kensinger, commander

… (USASOC), and Gen. Bryan Brown, commander … (USSOC).

. . .

HC 290: An hour or two after Kensinger and McChrystal were informed [by Nixon] that

Tillman was killed by friendly fire, word of the fratricide was sent via back channels to the

highest levels of the Pentagon and the White House. The facts of Tillman’s fratricide were

restricted to a tight cadre. That afternoon – April 23 – Pat’s coffin was loaded onto a helicopter

and Kevin accompanied the body from Salerno to Bagram.

PB 336: Shortly after McChrystal was appraised by Nixon that Tillman had been killed by

friendly fire, he [McChrystal] shared this information with LTG Philip Kensinger, commander

…(USASOC), and Gen. Bryan Brown, commander … (USSOC). Word of the fratricide was

also sent via secret back channels to the highest levels of the Pentagon and the White House,

information that restricted to an elect cadre in Washington.

Over in Afghanistan, McChrystal directed Nixon to keep the facts of Tillman’s death under tight

wraps within the Ranger Regiment, as well. “The guidance I put out, Nixon testified, “was that

until the investigation was complete, until we knew what had happened, I did not want

communications ouside of the unit.” According to a federal statute and several Army

regulations, Marie Tillman, as next of kin, was supposed to be notified that an investigation was


94

under way. Instead, McChrystal, Nixon, and the soldiers under their command went to


That same afternoon that McChrystal was informed of the fratricide – April 23 – Pat’s coffin was

loaded onto a helicopter, and Kevin accompanied the body from Salerno to Bagram.

. . .

DB: According to Army regulations, this information should have been immediately shared with

the Tillman family, even if friendly fire was only a possibility. Instead, Army officers embarked

on an elaborate campaign to suppress the truth and persuade both the family and the public that

Tillman was killed by enemy fire.

PB336: Over in Afghanistan, McChrystal directed Nixon to keep the facts of Tillman’s death

under tight wraps within the Ranger Regiment, as well.

“The guidance I put out,” Nixon testified, “was that until the investigation was complete, until

we knew what happened, I did not want communication of the ongoing investigation outside the

unit.”

According to a federal statute and several Army regulations, Marie Tillman, as next of kin, was

supposed to be notified that an investigation was under way, even if friendly fire was only

suspected, and “be kept informed as additional information about the cause of death becomes

known.” Instead, McChrystal, Nixon, and the soldiers under their command went to


. . .

HC 293: The Army withheld from Mallak [coroner] its knowledge that Pat had been killed by

friendly fire, another serious breach of protocol.

PB 339: Taking their cues from McChrystal and Nixon, officers in the Ranger Regiment

deliberately withheld from Mallak that Pat had been killed by friendly fire, another egregious

breach of protocol.

. . .

PB372: In striking contrast to all three of the Army’s 15-6 investigations, Gimble’s

investigating officers (who were civilians not beholden to anyone in the Army chain of

command) looked closely [!?] at McChrystal’s role in the mishandling of the Tillman fratricide,

in particular his responsibility for the fraudulent Silver Star recommendation.


95

Note: “not beholden” yeah, how about Sec Def Rumsfeld? Looked closely; no (except SS),

covered as well.

While interviewing McChrystal on November 26, 2006, a special agent from the Office of the

Inspector General demanded of him, “Why did you recommend the Silver Star one day and the

next day send a secret back-channel message [the P4 memo] warning the country’s leaders about

using information from the Silver Star in public speeches because they might be embarrassed if

they do?”

Note: “back-channel” also used to describe going to WH on 4/23.

McChrystal became angry, complained the agent’s questions were demeaning, and insisted there

was nothing duplicitious about his P4 memo. He nevertheless failed to offer a plausible

explanation for the glaring contradiction, as the findings of Gimble’s official report to Secretary

of the Army Pete Geren made clear:

“LTC Bailey, COL Nixon, and MG McChrystal are accountable for the inaccurate and

misleading assertions contained in the award recommendation package … We also find MG

McChrystal accountable for not notifying the award processing channels that friendly fire was

suspected to ensure that the recommendation was considered based on accurate information.”

[IG Report]

. . .











. . .


96



Minor Revisions & Edits

HC 289: The next morning at dawn, …. First SGT Tommy Fuller walked up to the rocks where

Pat had been shot. He had arrived shortly after the firefight the previous evening with the Alpha

Company Commander CPT William Saunders, and Third Platoon, who had rushed to the canyon

from Salerno to support the stunned soldiers of Second Platoon.

PB 333: The next morning at dawn, …. First SGT Tommy Fuller walked up to the rocks where

Pat had been shot. He had arrived the previous evening with the Rangers of Alpha Company’s

Third Platoon, who had rushed to the canyon to support the stunned soldiers of Second Platoon

shortly after the firefight.

. . .

HC 290: … He [McChrystal] was politically shrewd. He worked under the radar. Vice

President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld kept in close touch with him and trusted

him absolutely.

DB: At the time of Tillman’s fratricide, McChrystal was only a one-star [corrected from HC]

general, but as commander of JSOC he ran the most covert branch of the U.S. armed forces.

Shrewd, driven, and willing to bend rules to get results, 13 months earlier he’d commanded the

Navy SEALs, Delta Force operators, and Army Rangers who’d rescued Jessica Lynch from her

captors in Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held

McChrystal in the highest esteem, and regularly bypassed the chain of command to communicate

with him directly. He was trustworthy. He worked under the radar and got stuff done. He didn’t

suffer from “the slows,” as Rumsfeld characterized the risk-averse nature of some of

McChrystal’s superiors.

PB 335: … In 2009 McChrystal would be thrust into the limelight as the four-star [still 3-star]

general chosen by President Barack Obama [May 11, 2009] to command all US forces in

Afghanistan.

PB 335: … McChrystal inspired extraordinary devotion from his subordinates, who referred to

him as The Pope. A great many of the men who worked for him would do anything he asked


97

without reservation, and would rather die than let him down. Shrewd, exceedingly ambitious,

and willing to bend rules to get results, McChrystal was widely regarded as the most effective

commander in the entire Army. Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld held

him in the highest esteem, considered him absolutely trustworthy, and regularly bypassed the

chain of command to communicate with him directly. He worked under the radar and got stuff

done. He didn’t suffer from “the slows,” as Rumsfeld characterized the risk-averse nature of

some of McChrystal’s superiors.

. . .

HC298: … the recommendation was expedited by MG McChrystal, COL Nixon, and LTC

Bailey, and on April 29, Tillman’s Silver Star commendation was signed by Les Brownlee,

acting secretary of the Army.

DB: On April 28, 2004, six days after Tillman’s death, McChrystal reviewed a final draft of the

medal recommendation, signed his name to it, and emailed it to the acting secretary of the Army,

R.L. Brownlee.

PB343: On April 28, 2004, six days after Tillman’s death, McChrystal reviewed the medal

recommendation documents assembled by Major Hodne and LTC Bailey, endorsed the entire

package, and emailed it up the chain of command to the acting secretary of the Army, R.L.

Brownlee.

. . .

HC305: Each of the aforementioned officers testified under oath that there was never any doubt

whatsoever that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire.

PB358: By the morning of April 23, there was never any genuine doubt that Tillman had been

killed by friendly fire.

. . .

HC 318: But Gimble was much too credulous in accepting testimony from high-ranking Army

officers that the chain of command had acted in good faith.

PB 373: Despite the occasionally, censorious tone of Gimble’s report, however, in many

regards his investigation was as flawed as those that preceded it. He was much too credulous,

for example, in accepting testimony from McChrystal, Nixon, Bailey, and other [Army] officers

that they had acted in good faith.


98

. . .

HC298: … the recommendation was expedited by MG McChrystal, COL Nixon, and LTC

Bailey, and on April 29, Tillman’s Silver Star commendation was signed by Les Brownlee,

acting secretary of the Army.

DB: On April 28, 2004, six days after Tillman’s death, McChrystal reviewed a final draft of the

medal recommendation, signed his name to it, and emailed it to the acting secretary of the Army,

R.L. Brownlee.




Brownlee.

. . .

HC298: Because only a handful of people in Washington were informed that Tillman had

actually been killed by friendly fire, in the first days following the tragedy Gen. McChrystal had

begun to worry that speechwriters at the WH and the Pentagon might inadvertently script

something …

DB/PB 345: On April 28, 2004, the same day McChrystal sent the Silver Star recommendation

to the secretary of the Army, he received word from Rumsfeld’s office that the White House was

working on a speech in which President Bush would eulogize Tillman at the annual White House

Correspondents’ Association dinner. Because the true cause of Tillman’s death had been

restricted to a tight cadre that did not include the president’s speechwriters, McChrystal fretted

they might inadvertently script something that would make the president look like a liar should

the truth about Tillman eventually be leaked.

. . .

HC298: To forestall any potential gaffes, on April 29 McChrystal emailed a high-priority

personal memo (known as a “Personal For” memo, or simply a “P4”) to Gen. John Abizaid, the

commander of all troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; Gen. Bryan Brown, commander of US Special

Operations Command; and LTG Kensinger, commander of the US Army Special Operations

Command.

DB: To forestall such a gaffe, one day after submitting the falsified medal recommendation,

McChrystal emailed a high-priority personal memo (known as a “Personal For” memo, or simply


99

a “P4”) to Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of all troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and two

other general officers [Brown, Kensinger]:

PB 346: To forestall such a gaffe, on April 29 McChrystal emailed a high-priority personal

memo (known as a “Personal For” memo, or simply a “P4”) to Gen. John Abizaid, the

commander of all troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; Gen. Bryan Brown, commander of US Special

Operations Command; and LTG Kensinger, commander of the US Army Special Operations

Command.

. . .

HC299: In the speech Bush gave at the correspondents’ dinner two days after the P4 was sent,

the president lauded Tillman for his courage and sacrifice, but pointedly made no mention of

how he died, indicating that McChrystal’s memo had been read and heeded by the president

and/or his advisors. Later, Abizaid, Kensinger, and the White House would all deny receiving

McChrystal’s memo or knowing at the time that Tillman’s death was a fratricide.

DB/PB347: (In the speech Bush gave at the correspondents’ dinner two days after the P4 was

sent, the president praised Tillman for his courage and sacrifice, but pointedly made no mention

of how he died.)

. . .

HC298: Despite these falsified, unsigned statements, the recommendation was expedited by MG

McChrystal, COL Nixon, and LTC Bailey. [Kauzlarich was also part of process] and on April 29,

Tillman’s Silver Star commendation was signed by Les Brownlee, acting secretary of the Army.

[O]n April 30 the Army issued a press release announcing that the Silver Star would be awarded

to Tillman “for his selfless actions after his Ranger element was ambushed by anti-coalition

insurgents.” Yet again, nothing was said about fratricide being the cause of Tillman’s death. As

Brigadier General Howard Yellen later testified, “For the civilian on the street, the interpretation

would be that he was killed by enemy fire.”

DB/PB347: Instead, Secretary Brownlee approved the medal based on the spurious documents

submitted by McChrystal, and on April 30 the Army issued a press release announcing that

Tillman had been posthumously awarded the Silver Star. Because it made no mention of friendly

fire, none of the hundreds of news stories based on the press release reported anything about

friendly fire, and the nation was kept in the dark about the fratricide. As Brigadier General

Howard Yellen later testified, “For the civilian on the street, the interpretation would be that he

was killed by enemy fire.”

. . .


100

DB: McChrystal, who was promoted from Brigadier General to Major General nine days after

Tillman’s death [May 1, 2004], was, and remains, intensely ambitious.

PB 351: One day later, on May 1, McChrystal, was promoted from Brigadier General to Major

General.

. . .

HC 295: The violence in Fallujah had been precipitated on Mary 31, when Iraqi insurgents

ambushed a convoy being guarded by four paramilitary contractors working for Blackwater

USA. After they had been killed in a grenade attack, the bodies of the four Americans were set

on fire, burned their bodies, dragged them through the streets, and then hung from a bridge over

the Euphrates River. In response, 2,000 American troops launched a massive assault on the city

on April 4, initiating furious urban combat that continued for the next twenty-seven days. By the

time US forces pulled out of Fallujah on May 1, 27 American troops were dead, and more than

90 had been wounded.

DB/PB348: Three weeks before Tillman was killed, horrific violence engulfed Fallujah. The

bloodshed commenced when Iraqi insurgents killed four American contractors working for

Blackwater USA, burned their bodies, dragged them through the streets, and then hung their

charred remains from a bridge over the Euphrates River. In response, 2,000 U.S. Marines

launched an [massive] assault on the city [on April 4], initiating furious urban combat that

continued until the Marines were pulled out of Fallujah on May 1, 2004, by which time 27

American troops were dead, and more than 90 had been wounded.

. . .

HC295: The president was facing an increasingly tough campaign to win a second term in the

White House, the election was barely six months away, and his approval ratings were

plummeting. When Tillman was killed, White House perception managers saw an opportunity

not unlike the one provided by the Jessica Lynch debacle thirteen months earlier.

DB: Public support for both the Bush administration and the war in Iraq was plummeting. The

president was engaged in a bare-knuckled campaign to win a second term. The election was

barely six months away. When Tillman was killed, White House perception managers saw an

opportunity to divert the nation’s attention from the glut of bad news.

PB349: The president was engaged in a bare-knuckle campaign to win a second term in the

White House, the election was barely six months away, and his approval ratings were


101

plummeting. When Tillman was killed, White House perception managers saw an opportunity

not unlike the one provided by the Jessica Lynch debacle thirteen months earlier.

. . .

HC297: As with the frenzy that followed the Jessica Lynch rescue, neither the White House nor

military perception managers had to do much to sustain the media’s focus on Tillman’s death;

indeed, they did little more than monitor the coverage and make copies of all the published

articles for their files – although that didn’t deter the Army from deciding to ratchet up the

media hysteria to an even higher level by awarding Tillman a couple of posthumous medals.

DB: Had it been disclosed at the outset that Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire, the press


been very different. This is the context in which the Tillman coverup, and Gen. McChrystal’s

central role in the deception, must be considered.

PB351: Had it been disclosed at the outset that Tillman was killed by friendly fire, the press


been very different. The Army’s announcement on April 30 that Tillman had been awarded the


. . .

PB 373: In the concluding paragraph of his [IG Report] report, Gimble urged Secretary Geren

“to consider appropriate corrective action.” The charges specified by the inspector general were

serious. According to Punitive Article 107 of the UCMJ, “Any person … who, with intent to

deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it

to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished

as a court-martial may direct.” If found guilty of making a false official statement, Bailey,

Nixon, and McChrystal could be dishonorably discharged and imprisioned for up to five years.

Note: JK used this quote in some of his November 2009 interviews.

. . .

HC319/PB375: When it was Kevin Tillman’s turn to testify, he spoke about his older brother at

length, and with electrifying conviction: “Revealing that Pat’s death was fratricide would have

been yet another political disaster during a month already swollen with political disasters…. So

the facts needed to be suppressed. An alternative narrative needed to be constructed.”


102

DB: As Kevin Tillman testified, “Revealing that Pat’s death was fratricide would have been yet

another political disaster during a month already swollen with political disasters…. So the facts

needed to be suppressed. An alternative narrative needed to be constructed.” McChrystal’s

chicanery, Kevin [Mary 4-24-07?] explained, was “an insult to the Tillman family, but more

importantly, its primary purpose was to deceive a nation…. We have been used as props in a

public-relations exercise.”

. . .

HC321/DB/PB 377: “What we have here is a very clear, deliberate abuse intentionally done,”

lamented Rep. Henry Waxman at the conclusion of a 2007 hearing into the Tillman coverup by

the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “Why is it so hard to find out who

did it?

. . .

DB: Given the overwhelming challenges the United States faces in Afghanistan, and President






http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080714111050.pdf


103

REVISIONS TO “WHERE MEN WIN GLORY”:

Miscellaneous Corrections

HC 59: When Pat’s attorney had plea-bargained his original felony-charge down to a

misdemeanor, …

PB 68: When the judge had reduced Pat’s original felony charge to a misdemeanor, …

. . .

HC 336: As these words are being written in early 2009, Spera is classified as “denied territory”

by the US Army ….

PB 396: As these words are being written in early 2010, Spera is classified as “denied territory”

by the US Army ….

. . .

PB 400: The embassy bombing in Kabul [July 7, 2008] was just one of many recent assaults

occasioned by the pact between the Haqqanis and the ISI. … TO … The Pakistani ISI continues

to assist Haqqani and other Islamist insurgents …

. . .

HC 343: If the United States’ involvement in future was is inevitable, so, too is it inevitable that

American soldiers will fall victim to friendly fire in those conflicts, for the simple reason that

fratricide is part and parcel of every war. According to the most comprehensive survey … thus

far in the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, casualty rates are 41 percent and 13 percent

… The possibility of falling victim to friendly fire seems to deter few men and woman from

enlisting in the Armed Forces, in any case.

SB 405: If the United States’ involvement in future was is inevitable, so, too is it inevitable that

American soldiers will fall victim to friendly fire in those conflicts, for the simple reason that

fratricide is part and parcel of every war. While acknowledging that the “statistical dimensions

of the friendly fire problem have yet to be define; reliable data are simply not available in most

cases ….” … between 2 percent and 25 percent of the casualties in America’s wars are

attributable to friendly fire. Whatever the statistical likelihood of being killed or wounded by

friendly fire, it seems to deter few men and woman from enlisting in the Armed Forces, in any

case.

PB 422: The Oxford Companion to American Military History, edited by John Whiteclay

Chambers II


104

APPENDIX F: CORRECTIONS & OMISSONS FOR FUTURE EDITIONS


105

POSSIBLE CORRECTIONS FOR FUTURE EDITIONS

OF WHERE MEN WIN GLORY

Note: Very rough draft

1.) Timeline of Uthlaut & Lane wounded doesn’t match text:

PB 288 & HC 250: Firefight in Tillman Pass (diagram) …

6:45 p.m. Uthlaut wounded besides building

6:45 p.m. Johnson shoots 40-mm grenade that wounds Uthlaut

6:47 p.m. Lane wounded beside building

6:47 p.m. Elliot shoots Lane in knee from moving GMV

PB 288 & HC 258: Firefight in Tillman Pass, West End of Canyon (diagram) …

6:45 p.m. Uthlaut wounded besides building

6:45 p.m. Johnson shoots 40-mm grenade that wounds Uthlaut

6:47 p.m. Lane wounded beside building

6:47 p.m. Elliot shoots Lane in knee from moving GMV

PB 311 & HC 269: “… Suddenly there was an explosion that blew me to the ground. It fucked

up the PL’s face really bad.” [Lane]… Ten or fifteen seconds later a bullet demolished Lane’s

left knee. … the bullets that hit Lane had been fired by a machine gunner on Greg Baker’s

Humvee …

PB 312 & HC 270: “Once they came around the corner…I couldn’t, like, recognize Elliot’s

face, but I knew that whoever was on the 240 was shooting at our position.”

PB 314 & HC 272: As Baker’s Humvee drove past the two-story building where Uthlaut and

Lane were positioned, Elliot continued to target it with his 240 Bravo machine gun …

2.) Goff said RPG, not mortars

3.) Was it SGT Weeks or SGT Ward with altered SS witness statement? (MT says Weeks)

What does 4-24-07 transcript say?


106

4.) Credulous to believe BG Gina Farrisee innocent (see Mary Tillman book). Didn’t Wallace

admonish her?

5.) Deserved SS?!! I think that’s a stretch. He didn’t die because he threw the smoke, he died

when they thought it was all clear and stood up.

6.) See 9-17-09 letter for more corrections and ref. to them.

7.) McChrystal not in charge of JSOC during Lynch rescue (he was spokesman saying that Iraq

War over! (what on tape about Jessica Lynch as spokesman?)

8.) PB 335 MC still 3-star when nominated by Obama; got fourth star with promotion

9.) Despite these falsified, unsigned statements, the recommendation was expedited by MG

McChrystal, COL Nixon, and LTC Bailey. [?Bailey was out by then; Kauzlarich was also part of

process]




Brownlee. [revised by LTC Kauzlarich]


107

POSSIBLE OMISSIONS FROM

WHERE MEN WIN GLORY

Note: Very rough draft

1.) PB 302 Donald Lee and predator drone

Andrew Exum and Predator drone

Mary Tillman

2.) HC 261

3.) See 9-17-09 ommisions

4.) Minimal coverage of all hearings; emphasis on 7-31-07; McChrystal overlooked.

5.) No 6-02-09 hearing coverage or Obama nomination & cover-up of Nama photos

i.e. didn’t cover material in “The [Untold] Tillman Story” Whitewash of Obama & Democrats

6.) FOIA interviews for Abizaid, Kauzlarich?

7.) No 8-01-07 hearing transcript or coverage!

. . .

What I liked:

Odyssey theme

Nice selection of quotes & epigrams to begin chapters

Put together FF incident itself from interviews and transcripts pretty well

"jon krakauer's credibility problem" (ver. 2.4.6) april 24, 2011; last updated...

Documents