[exhaustguy]

Not true. Several wars have had deaths lower or close to Iraq II.
Battle deaths
Iraq I - 147
Spanish American - 385
Indian - 1,000 approx
Mexican - 1,733
1812 - 2,260
Revolution - 4,435

Now we get into big numbers:
Korea - 33,741
Vietnam - 47,410
WWI - 53,402
Civil (Union) - 140,414
Civil (Confed) - 74,524
WWII - 291,557

How many deaths are we going to have in Iraq? Will it be like the Mexican American War or Korea/Vietnam?

I really think he should have signed every letter personally. Not a reason to remove him or criticize him too much, but I know that I would have if I were in his position. I sign over 100 letters for Christmas every year - what is 1,200 over the course of two plus years (2 per day for example).

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

My own reaction was to think of the Spanish-American war, with less than 1000 deaths. Historically it's the 20^th century wars - and the Civil War - that dwarf the American casualty figures of Iraq. But then, the population base of America was so much lower in the founding era . . . Her comment was hyperbole; it was followed by an even-further-over-the-top comment.

[gridlock]

I would assume that the letters were going out on a schedule and the Secretary was unavailable to sign them, since he has a job that involves a fair amount of travel and unavoidable scheduled obligations. So, in this situation, the normal procedure would be to have outgoing correspondence signed by his Deputy. The use of the autopen allowed the letters to go out over the Secretary's signature, which would be better than having them signed by the Deputy, IMHO.

I think the Libs are in a lather because they think the only reason the SecDef supports the war is that he has not fully understood that we have lost 1350 soldiers in the conflict. They simply cannot understand that anybody can look at a military situation with losses and accomplishments and say that the victory is worth the price paid in blood. They are of the "If it saves one soldier, it's worth it..." mind-set. We are lucky the SecDef is not operating on this level.

[rightinthemiddle]

"...this is the first war America has been in where the number of casualties is small enough that it would even be theoretically possible for a Defense secretary to sign each condolence letter personally. "

____________________

Technically, she is correct. The Secretary of Defense position wasn't created until after WWII (not sure of exact date at this very moment and I don't have time to google).