"Jon Krakauer's Credibility Problem" (Ver. 2.4.6) April 24, 2011; Last Updated 3-20-14
-
Upload
guy-montag -
Category
Documents
-
view
8.228 -
download
0
description
Transcript of "Jon Krakauer's Credibility Problem" (Ver. 2.4.6) April 24, 2011; Last Updated 3-20-14
“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
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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./)
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.”
-- Jon Krakauer, “Gen. McChrystal’s Credibility Problem” (Oct. 14, 2009)
On April 17, 2011 CBS’s “60 Minutes” aired their expose of Greg Mortenson (best-selling
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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)
On April 17, 2011 CBS’s “60 Minutes” aired their expose of Greg Mortenson (best-selling
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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."
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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).
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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)
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
28
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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
. . .
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.”
-- Jon Krakauer, “Gen. McChrystal’s Credibility Problem” (Oct. 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. 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.”
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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).
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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?
. . .
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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)
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
61
“MOUNTAIN MADNESS”
Add MM quotes
AB: “sorry scott”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
“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 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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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 …”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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…”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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
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, 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
McChrystal’s inquisitors probed deeply into either of these issues [Tillman & torture at Camp
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
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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)
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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."
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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)
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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?”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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.”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
14
APPENDIX B:
Krakauer Given “Untold Tillman Story” at Sept. 17,
2009 Booksigning Event in Boulder, CO
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.
“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 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.
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.”
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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)
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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)
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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)
Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem
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
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
21
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.”
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!
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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?
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.
[4-22-11 Note: Correction made: PB 268]
. . .
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.
[4-22-11 Note: Correction made: PB 334]
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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”:
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.”
. . .
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.”
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
29
APPENDIX C:
Krakauer Interviews AFTER September 17, 2009
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.”
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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."
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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."
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.”
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.”
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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!\
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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."
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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]
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
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
51
* * *
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.”
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.
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
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.”
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
53
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
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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]/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.
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.)
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.
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.”
* * *
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.
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.”
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
55
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.”
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
coverage would have been no less voluminous, but its effect on the nation’s mood would have
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.”
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.
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?”
.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
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.”
. . .
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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:
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 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.
There was no Doubt About Friendly Fire and Ranger RGT Officers Began
Cover Up:
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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:
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 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.
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
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.
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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:
[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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
61
Gen. McChrystal Constructed a False Narrative to Avoid Another Public
Relations Disaster:
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. 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.”
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.
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.
Tillman was accidentally gunned down by members of his Ranger platoon on the evening of
April 22, 2004.
. . .
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.
. . .
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 secret facility in Iraq
known as Camp Nama, and his role in the coverup of Pat Tillman’s fratricide in Afghanistan in
2004.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
63
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.
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.
. . .
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 [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.”
. . .
“So,” McChrystal testified, “I was comfortable recommending, once I believed that the people in
the fight were convinced it warranted a Silver Star.”
. . .
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. . . .”
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
JK17 – Jon Krakauer Letter 9-17-09
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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)
. . .
Sometime after November 2009, Jon Krakauer used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to
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, …
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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)
. . .
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.”
JK17 – Jon Krakauer Letter 9-17-09
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.”:
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.
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]
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.”:
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.
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
71
JON KRAKAUER’S REVISIONS TO “WHERE MEN WIN
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
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
warranted [the Silver Star], even though there was a potential that the actual circumstances of
death had been friendly fire.”
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.”
. . .
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
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.
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
asked the general to explain why, five years earlier, he had submitted the perjured Silver Star
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
74
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.
. . .
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
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
75
were doing all of that…. We were in the first battle of Fallujah in Iraq at the same time, so we
were making mistakes.”
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.”
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
76
JON KRAKAUER’S REVISIONS TO “WHERE MEN WIN
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.
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.
“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 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 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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.
. . .
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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!:
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
warranted [the Silver Star], even though there was a potential that the actual circumstances of
death had been friendly fire.”
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 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,
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
80
exposed himself to a ferocious squall of bullets—hundreds of rounds from three machine guns
shooting at him from close range.
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 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,
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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).
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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: 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.
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
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.
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
83
general’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. 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 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.
. . .
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.
PB 347: If McChrystal had a change of heart after submitting the falsified medal
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
85
DB: 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. 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
coverage would have been no less voluminous, but its effect on the nation’s mood would have
been very different. The Army’s announcement on April 30 that Tillman had been awarded the
Silver Star prompted another torrent of favorable press.
. . .
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]
. . .
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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]
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
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.
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,…”
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.”
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
89
JON KRAKAUER’S REVISIONS TO “WHERE MEN WIN
GLORY” IN PAPERBACK EDITION:
From FOIA Interviews with MAJ Charles Kirchmaier, LTC
Norman Allen, BG Gina Farrisee
Sometime after November 2009, Jon Krakauer used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to
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?”:
“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 p. 79, “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 …”
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
92
JON KRAKAUER’S REVISIONS TO “WHERE MEN WIN
GLORY” IN PAPERBACK EDITION:
From FOIA Interviews with McChrystal, Nixon, Bailey
Sometime after November 2009, Jon Krakauer used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to
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?”:
“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 p. 79, “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 …”
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
94
under way. 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.
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
extraordinary lengths to prevent the Tillman family from learning the truth about how Pat died.
. . .
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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]
. . .
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
warranted [the Silver Star], even though there was a potential that the actual circumstances of
death had been friendly fire.”
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.”
. . .
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
96
JON KRAKAUER’S REVISIONS TO “WHERE MEN WIN
GLORY” IN PAPERBACK EDITION:
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.
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.
. . .
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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.”
. . .
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
coverage would have been no less voluminous, but its effect on the nation’s mood would have
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
coverage would have been no less voluminous, but its effect on the nation’s mood would have
been very different. The Army’s announcement on April 30 that Tillman had been awarded the
Silver Star prompted another torrent of favorable press.
. . .
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.”
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
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.
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
104
APPENDIX F: CORRECTIONS & OMISSONS FOR FUTURE EDITIONS
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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?
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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]
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. [revised by LTC Kauzlarich]
“Jon Krakauer’s Credibility Problem”
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