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.”
Good evening.
"Monica Crowley should know because?"
You should question her because?
Michael Frazier
I hate to insult FReepers, but the fact is that too many folks feel comfortable posting their opinions, even when they lack basic knowledge of the subject. It is unfortunate, but to be expected, I guess. I respect the opinions of many people on this board, but sometimes people just want to feel included and spout off on any and every subject whether they have any real knowledge about it or not.
This is the most ridiculous thing to get incensed over I've seen yet. Heck no, I am not piling on the man, the statement said he would do this, and it is honorable that he does. Sometimes folks are quick to jump to conclusions. I think Rummy does an excellent job. It is silly, but, there are some that find that bit of respect important. Would they have known had this article never showed it's ugly head, I don't know but Rumsfeld always will do the right thing, and not from public pressure.
OK, so where the heck did I say he wasn't a great SECDEF, looking do not see anything more than I said the character of this man, and if you jump to conclusions that I will not go any further to explain, heaven forbid you would misunderstand my explanation.
Bunk...there was looting in post WWII Germany too. You cannot also compare a riot here in the US to a real live WAR in Iraq. I want my soldiers to destroy the enemy and not be worried about the dangerous enemy lurking about. Remember, the US did not have complete control of the country yet. They just started entering Baghdad to look for and destroy the enemy!!!!! Listen...I stand by what I said. I want my soldiers to go out and destroy the freaking enemy. Not worry also about stopping people from stealing lamps. The US started restoring order after a few days after it became clear the concentrated enemy resistance in Baghdad had collapsed.
Frankly as the recipient (mom received I was there) of such a letter I fully understand. What I do not understand is how one assumed that I was saying his character was in question. Where the hell did I say that?
He has done a fine job. If I felt other wise well then Dave would not be serving in our great military, if I lost confidence up the chain of command. Well, we would talk about but really, folks are so quick to post a response and frankly then someone else reads it, reposts it and then everyone seems to think it is true, when I only said what does this say about his character == sorry I did not put the word HONORABLE thought that was self explanatory.
The US was still conceerned about destroying the enemy in Baghadad. They cannot also be concerned about stopping people with tires in the middile of the battle. I applaud what was done.
Frankly, isn't this where we can discuss the issues of the day and if we disagree, that we agree to disagree but that is not what happened on this thread.
Somehow folks seem to think I questioned our SecDef. but I did not do that. Sure, when my beloved was over there, his driver was murdered and had he had a better flak jacket it might have made a difference. I was pissed and sent a note to Rummy, and anyone who would hear my concerns. I was responded to and for that I am appreciative. When you are dissatisfied that is what you do.
In the end, I felt Rumsfeld has done good by our troops. When my beloved says this of Rummy than frankly that is good enough for me.
I am sorry you feel there are so many dead-enders on FR.
Enjoyed your post.
It does not matter how he is dressed lately - perfumed prince only applies to active duty brass. What you do when you enter civilian life after a lifetime in combat infantry is no one's business. Beside's your comment makes no sense - would he be more authentic to you if he wore a wife beater and Lee's?
Little jack boot lickers like you can pronounce Americans as dead enders but the rules our military fights by are noble, our soldiers are noble, and little punks like you who want to get all Nazi on the enemy have no place in teh Conservative movement.
I never heard of her so I as why is her opinion on this matter of importance? Is she a historian? Refrencinga historian?
LOOTERS WILL BE SHOT
PLÜNDERER WERDEN ERSCHOSSEN
LES VOLEURS SERONT FUSILLES
This sign was found all over occupied Germany.
Crack open a history book.
And thus we won the war but failed to win the peace.
"The resistance came much later - because of incompetence by Rumsfeld." - Destro
Quite the opposite is the case:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1304067/posts?page=213#213
*
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1304067/posts?page=100#100
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1304067/posts?page=124#124
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1304067/posts?page=153#153
rushlimbaugh.com is your news source? Come back with adult links.
"The resistance came much later - because of incompetence by Rumsfeld." - Destro
Ding! Ding! Quite the opposite is the case:
"O'Reilly asked Richard Pearle how much responsibility Rumsfeld bears for the current situation in Iraq. .....Pearle replied: "..the irony is that it was Secretary Powell and some others who wanted the extended occupation. They are the ones who did not want to turn things over to the Iraqis, who feared and distrusted the Iraqis and blocked all efforts to do precisely that. ...
...even before the war Rumsfeld's Department of Defense had argued that we should train thousands of Iraqis "to go in with us so that we wouldn't be the aggressor, we wouldn't be the occupying power, and those proposals were blocked largely by the State Department and the CIA. [Powell and Tenet]
Rumsfeld was never able to get approval for the political strategy that might well have saved us from much of the subsequent trouble."
Now, live with it. Those are the facts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1304067/posts?page=213#213
Rumsfeld’s War, Powell’s Occupation
National Review Online ^ | April 30, 2004 | Barbara Lerner
Posted on 05/01/2004 3:36:35 PM EDT by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1127955/posts
"... First, it's not Rumsfeld's occupation; it's Colin Powell's and George Tenet's. .." [snip] Click above link to read article.
Thanks, but I'd prefer an American source. I don't trust European newspapers to tell me about American customs/traditions.
Actually with their credibility being as low as it is, I'm not quite sure I trust American newspapers to do so either...
But it did happened nonetheless!!!! And as we know, the looting did stop after a few days. I agree with what our troops did 100%. They should concentrate on destroying the enemy and not worry about looters in the middle of the freaking fight. What you are advocating is pure ridiculous.
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.