Posted on 12/17/2004 5:12:06 PM PST by Former Military Chick
WASHINGTON — Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will begin personally signing condolence letters sent to families of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, after receiving criticism over his use of mechanical signatures.
In a statement provided to Stars and Stripes on Thursday, Rumsfeld tacitly admitted that in the past he has not personally signed the letters, but said he was responsible for writing and approving each of the 1,000-plus messages sent to the fallen soldiers’ families.
“I have directed that in the future I sign each letter,” he said in the statement.
“I am deeply grateful for the many letters I have received from the families of those who have been killed in the service of our country, and I recognize and honor their personal loss.”
In a separate statement, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said, “In the interest of ensuring timely contact with grieving family members, he has not individually signed each letter.”
Department of Defense officials for the past few weeks had said only that the content of the letters was private.
But several families of troops killed overseas said they were sure the notes they received had not been signed by hand, and said they were angry that Rumsfeld was not paying attention to their loss.
“To me it’s an insult, not only as someone who lost a loved one but also as someone who served in Iraq,” Army Spc. Ivan Medina told Stripes.
“This doesn’t show our families the respect they deserve,” said Medina, a New York resident whose twin brother, Irving, was killed in a roadside bombing in Iraq this summer.
Illinois resident Bette Sullivan, whose son John was killed in November 2003 while working as an Army mechanic in Iraq, was incensed when she, her son’s wife and her grandchildren received the exact same condolence letter with the apparently stamped signature.
“If each family receives two copies, how many signatures does that amount to?” she asked in an e-mail response to Stripes. “I can understand the use of stamped signatures for his brothers’ mementos, but for those of his wife and children and mother? No, no, no.”
Retired Army Col. David Hackworth, an author and frequent critic of the Department of Defense, publicly criticized Rumsfeld in a syndicated column earlier this month for not reviewing each KIA letter personally.
He called the fake signatures “like having it signed by a monkey.”
“Using those machines is pretty common, but it shouldn’t be in cases of those who have died in action,” he said. “How can [DOD officials] feel the emotional impact of that loss if they’re not even looking at the letters?”
Hackworth said he objected to using the stamped signatures for promotion and commendation letters as well, but said not personally handling the condolence letters is a much more serious offense.
Family members had expressed similar concerns to Stripes about President Bush’s signature on his condolence letters, but Allen Abney, spokesman for the president, said that Bush does personally sign the letters sent from the White House.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Rumsfeld's statement
Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on condolences to servicemembers and their loved ones, as provided to Stars and Stripes:
“It is a solemn privilege of the many of us in the Department to meet with U.S. forces and families who have experienced injury or death in the defense of our country.
“During visits with wounded forces and their families at Walter Reed Army Hospital or at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center, I have drawn inspiration from the dignity and resolve of these wonderful young Americans and their loved ones.
“Over the past years, my wife, Joyce, and I have met with several hundred wounded troops and their families during visits to intensive care units, therapy facilities, and their rooms in military hospitals in the United States and abroad.
“During visits to military installations, I have met with still others during their visits to the Pentagon.
“Joyce and I also have met together and individually with spouses and children of those killed in action.
“At the earliest moment in the global war on terror, I determined that it is important that military families who have lost loved ones in hostile actions receive a letter from me directly.
“I wrote and approved the now more than 1000 letters sent to family members and next of kin of each of the servicemen and women killed in military action. While I have not individually signed each one, in the interest of ensuring expeditious contact with grieving family members, I have directed that in the future I sign each letter.
“I am deeply grateful for the many letters I have received from the families of those who have been killed in the service of our country, and I recognize and honor their personal loss.”
Ine more thing--we are talking about when US tropps were just entering Baghdad and were still in the middile of the fight to destroy the enemy. And you say that they should have stopped, turned around, and also concentrate at the same time to stop looter. That is plain nonsense. I am glad US troops continued doing what they do best--DESTROY THE FREAKING ENEMY WHEN IN THE MIDDLE OF BATTLE!!!!!!!!
Ignore the misspelling. I'm tired as hell. Have to go to bed. Good night, ;-)
Ah, correction. Military members, coalition members are fighting dead-enders in Iraq.
O'Reilly? Please.
We both want victory - I was for the overthrow of Saddam using war to do it. But I break with you in thinking that occupation went well and was managed well (just so you know I believe you can manage well and still fail). Like I said I soured on Rumsfeld when he dismissed the looting as nothing for reasons stated above.
United States Department of Defense. News Transcript
Q: Mr. Secretary, you spoke of the television pictures that went around the world earlier of Iraqis welcoming U.S. forces with open arms. But now television pictures are showing looting and other signs of lawlessness. Are you, sir, concerned that what's being reported from the region as anarchy in Baghdad and other cities might wash away the goodwill the United States has built? And, are U.S. troops capable of or inclined to be police forces in Iraq?
Rumsfeld: Well, I think the way to think about that is that if you go from a repressive regime that has -- it's a police state, where people are murdered and imprisoned by the tens of thousands -- and then you go to something other than that -- a liberated Iraq -- that you go through a transition period. And in every country, in my adult lifetime, that's had the wonderful opportunity to do that, to move from a repressed dictatorial regime to something that's freer, we've seen in that transition period there is untidiness, and there's no question but that that's not anyone's choice.
On the other hand, if you think of those pictures, very often the pictures are pictures of people going into the symbols of the regime -- into the palaces, into the boats, and into the Ba'ath Party headquarters, and into the places that have been part of that repression. And, while no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime.
With respect to the second part of your question, we do feel an obligation to assist in providing security, and the coalition forces are doing that. They're patrolling in various cities. Where they see looting, they're stopping it, and they will be doing so. The second step, of course, is to not do that on a permanent basis but, rather, to find Iraqis who can assist in providing police support in those cities and various types of stabilizing and security assistance, and we're in the process of doing that.
Q: How quickly do you hope to do that? Isn't that a pressing problem?
Rumsfeld: Wait. Wait. But in answer to your -- direct answer to your question –are we concerned that this would offset it, the feeling of liberation -- suggests that, "Gee, maybe they were better off repressed." And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures, or any human being who's not free, who wouldn't prefer to be free, and recognize that you pass through a transition period like this and accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom.
Myers: Charlie, another point, I think, to make is that it's uneven throughout the country. In the south, where we've been for some time, where the clerics have been speaking out against looting and for civil order, where some of the Iraqis citizens themselves are saying let's don't loot, and that sort of thing, that actually the situation is pretty good. In Umm Qasr it's in good shape. In Basra, looting has been going down over time as we track it. So as we go up from the south, it's getting better and better for obvious reasons. So --
Rumsfeld: Let me say one other thing. The images you are seeing on television you are seeing over, and over, and over, and it's the same picture of some person walking out of some building with a vase, and you see it 20 times, and you think, "My goodness, were there that many vases?" (Laughter.) "Is it possible that there were that many vases in the whole country?"
George Tenet got a medal of freedom, I wonder what Powell is going to get.
BTW what the hell they were in demo rat administrations and we weren't at war.
To all you jumping on Rummy, I say if I could I would be with him tomorrow, but I can't to old, but after running around in the military defending this nation for 20 years, I can tell a leader from a person who pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel.
Rumisfeld is a leader, and the people are people whose toes he stepped on trying to fight this war, whether there name is ddurbin (who has never met a solider he like unless dead) collins who thinks there should be more contracts for maine, but doesn't want the military there or biden who never can remember the lies he wrote.
I say to the critics, and this includes the families (I equate them with the jersey girls) quit your bitching and drive on.
correct on that
He makes a living as a public commentator on military affairs. It's not like he's minding his own business on a secluded beachfront condo, playing golf and reminiscing about the good old days. He's a public figure with an agenda. Being military myself, I know that his commentary influences people, and that affects me directly.
Beside's your comment makes no sense - would he be more authentic to you if he wore a wife beater and Lee's?
No, because his words and his appearance match. He dresses like a pompous, know-it-all elitist, and he talks like one too. So in that regard, a suit and tie, or jeans and a t-shirt, would be less authentic packaging.
It pains me to say it, too, because I've been a big fan of Hack for years. He really has lead a remarkable life. But in recent times he's run his reputation into the ground, and I'm only willing to overlook so much.
Given the harshly critical tone of the article, your comment
"What does this say about the character of this man?"
strongly implies that his character was lacking by using the autopen to sign the letters of condolence. If that wasn't your intent, then my apologies. But, given the number of people who interpreted your remarks the same way, you might want to be a little more specific next time.
There's really no way to read that quote after that article, and see it as supportive of Rumsfeld.
Sounds good, but factually inaccurate. Iraq is under American control, and has been for some time. We have already destroyed their government (making any formal surrender irrelevant) and reconstituted a new one. There is no other political power in Iraq to be dealt with.
We are not, and let me be clear here, contending for control of Iraq. We own Iraq. From a military standpoint, the insurgents are a nuisance with no chance whatsoever of defeating us by force of arms. They can flaunt the law, and use our extremely strict rules of engagement to hide from us, but they are not a military threat.
I think you are greatly overestimating the power and influence of the various insurgent groups. Their tactics are designed to maximize media exposure, which in turn makes them appear more significant than they are. In reality, they're little more than heavily armed criminal organizations. They are no more a challenge to our control of Iraq as the Crips and the Bloods are a challenge to our control of California.
You completely missed the point. There are a lot of military dead-enders here on this forum. Guys whose miitary skills and occupations were made redundant by the predator aircraft, precision strike combined with special forces sending back real-time targeting data, etc. The big critics of Rumsfeld who demand lots of heavy armor and infantry and whose battle plan told Rumsfeld he had to wait 18 more months (from today) before he could start this war. Well he didn't wait, and a lot of them are out of uniform and on the public television talking about how Rumsfeld lost this war.
Yeah Rumsfeld knows all about dead-enders over there, because he is up to his neck in them at the Pentagon. Draining that swamp, which has been a morass since we completed the invasion of D-Day is his greatest contribution.
You really are a useless twit. I am waiting for you to tell me in your own words what you thing is wrong with the strategy that Rumsfeld has approved and the force structure that he is planning for the pentagon.
I am sorry - your off - dressing well is not a sign of elitisim. You panned Hack based on hs dress - God forbid he has a manicure too, eh?
I posted it because it is a written source saying that the SoD has always signed such letters by hand. You only cited someone on the radio.
I do not know the Times-UK's Iraq war position. Is there a list of approved news media you check against?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.