Lawmakers Chide Rumsfeld for Auto-Signed Sympathy Letters

Reuters ^ | December 19, 2004 | Jackie Frank

[ozzymandus]

Chuck Hagel is stupid even by Nebraska standards. If this is all they can think of to bitch at Rumsfeld about, they must have no real complaints.

[Rik0Shay]

Agreed. McNamara was a terrible Sec. Def. I still remember the Infamous "McNamara's 100,000"

[EGPWS]

I wonder who personally signed the 500 letters per day during WWII.

You wonder because during WWII it wasn't an issue.

Issues were better placed by the media and for good reason back then.

Reason is becoming a confusing word in the English language with the media anymore.

[SoKatt]

I disagree with you about it being time for Rumsfeld to go, but I agree with you 100% on the hand signing- vs-machine signing issue.

I know he's a busy guy, but I think that for a letter of condolence, the proper thing to do is to sign it personally. It wouldn't take up THAT much of his time, and it would be classier and more respectful than a stamped signature. IMHO, a form letter- especially in a situation where a family member has been wounded or killed- really is kind of tacky. :)

[asgardshill]

Bird dookie!

I cower in obesiance from your persuasive and unanswerable argument. I concede the debate and admit I am an idiot.

[cksharks]

Your trying to s--t against the wind pal the left wing nuts are out in force. I would like to here about some of their time in the service.

[patriciaruth]

I thought we were going to have several thousand killed in 2003 when we went to war with Iraq.

Rumsfeld may have thought that was possible, too. As I said, he may have set this policy at the beginning for this reason.

They tried to keep the hostage negotiations information from President Reagan, because they felt his emotional concern would interfere with his ability to make Presidential decisions about policy.

Is it a good idea for the Secretary of Defense to sign a half dozen letters of condolence a day, and become so emotional that he can't continue with some tough minded decisions that are necessary?

There are pluses and minuses here.

I believe Rummy cares. I'm sure he does. I don't think this is an "issue". I think this is a "talking point" for the MSM.

[EGPWS]

Wonderful post MOG!

[diabolicNYC]

While I think Hagel is a garbage senator and this could have been handled privately(especially by a republican senator), why wasn't he signing the letters personally? If I was the parent of a fallen soldier, I'd rather recieve no letter at all than a form letter from the Secretary of Defense.

[Non-Sequitur]

I agree that in the grand, cosmic scheme of things this is a complete non-issue. But in a situation like this where the letter is going to the family of a service member who has made the ultimate sacrifice and laid down their lives, if you aren't going to personally sign the letter then why bother sending it in the first place?

[cksharks]

Opnions are like those things we all are supposed to have, you have yours and I have mine.

[EGPWS]

Your trying to s--t against the wind pal the left wing nuts are out in force.

I think not my friend for the winds of late are against the mindset of the "nuts".

[sinkspur]

You know, I've reached the point where I wish Hagel would simply get defeated by somebody, anybody.

He's the most annoying Senator in Congress, Republican or Democrat.

[Jackknife]

yawn

[italianquaker]

the people have no faith in hagel so wheres the news

[patriciaruth]

There is another fact that may have gone into the decision to set this as policy at the beginning of the war.

On 9/11, Rumsfeld was outside the Pentagon, helping with the wounded, carrying IV fluid bags, etc.

He was so wrapped up in helping the wounded that he was distracted from coordinating our defense.

He may have decided not to make that error again.

[asgardshill]

I have no doubt that Donald Rumsfeld is a fine human being. But my assessment stands and I'll depart this thread by acknowledging that we must agree to disagree on this issue.

[Mad Mammoth]

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

EXACTLY. Officialdom and their media whore-operatives are in an uproar (and they were in an uproar from the day Rumsfeld moved BACK into his SecDef office in 2001, as this is the SECOND time he has been called to serve our Nation) because they know Rumsfeld does not suffer fools gladly.

The fact is, as SecDef, Rumsfeld has worked hand-in-glove with the President to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq, and I'm sure those successful operations had something to do with Libya choosing to fold their WMD cards as well.

That spells SUCCESS my friends.

Now when Rumsfeld was ambushed by that trick question in Iraq, he spoke the truth: you don't go to war with the army you wish you had, you go to war with the army you have in place at the time.

Some go wah-wah-wah, and say "we should have WAITED!" and unfortunately for those Monday morning quarterbacks, time was the one thing that was NOT cooperating with us when it came to launching Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The bottom line here is that instead of going apesh*t about whether or not Rumsfeld used an autopen or signed a letter himself, or whether or not he appears to 'care' enough for the troops (and as a Navy veteran, (aviator & flight instructor) himself, you can bet the rent that oh yes, he definitely CARES.), these are all the babblings of people who are falling into the Clintonian trap of embracing style over substance.

I don't give a good damn about anything but Rumsfeld's PERFORMANCE as SecDef, and that has been an absolute tour de force.

As for all these baying hounds howling for Rumsfeld to resign, does that mean they endorse the default position of John Kerry, who demanded over and over during the campaign that Rumsfeld should resign?

You Rumsfeld-bashers should have voted for Kerry and maybe you might have gotten your wish.

As for me, I'm behind Rummy 100 percent and so should the rest of you.

[EGPWS]

Obviously, you are an idiot.

Obviously my FRiend you have chosen your words unwisely.

Lest you refrain from emotional outbursts and focus on intelligent discussion.

Regards,