hahahaaa! :^DMerry Christmas.
Posted on 12/19/2004 1:14:03 PM PST by ejdrapes
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did not personally sign his name on letters of condolence to families of troops killed in Iraq but instead had it done by a machine, an action lawmakers said on Sunday showed insensitivity and was inappropriate for leadership during war. Rumsfeld acknowledged that he had not signed the letters to family members of more than 1,000 U.S. troops killed in action and in a statement said he would now sign them in his own hand. "This issue of the secretary of Defense not personally signing the letters is just astounding to me and it does reflect how out of touch they are and how dismissive they are," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "I have no confidence in Rumsfeld," Hagel added. Rumsfeld has been under strong fire from Democrats and some Republicans recently for appearing to brush off concerns of soldiers about the lack of protective equipment in Iraq. But President Bush's Chief of Staff Andrew Card emphasized White House support for Rumsfeld on Sunday. He "is doing a spectacular job, and the president has great confidence in him," Card told ABC's "This Week" program. Hagel noted that the families of the troops killed in Iraq have received letters signed by Bush. "My goodness, that is the least we can expect the secretary of Defense ... If the president can find the time to do that why can't the secretary of Defense?" said Hagel, who has been a sharp critic of the way Bush has handled the Iraq war. Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island said family members of those killed, "would like to think that at least for a moment the secretary thought about individually this young man or this young woman." "Again it shows a lack of leadership style appropriate for the military ... This goes to his capability to continue to serve." However, Republican Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, said that while "this is another area in which the secretary is being insensitive," the action did not "go to his leadership." AUTOPEN RETIRED "I wrote and approved the now more than 1,000 letters sent to family members and next of kin of each of the servicemen and women killed in military action," Rumsfeld said in a statement on Sunday." "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." Rumsfeld got himself into trouble earlier this month by appearing to brush off a soldier headed to Iraq who complained that military vehicles did not have sufficient armor and troops were having to piece together scraps of metal for extra protections. Some prominent Republicans including Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott have questioned his performance, leading the White House to come to his defense on Friday with a statement that he was "doing a great job." Among the critics, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar expressed concern on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that removing him from office could threaten national security. "He should be held accountable and he should stay in office," the Indiana Republican senator said. "The fact is a change of leadership in the Pentagon at this point might be as disruptive as trying to get someone in Homeland Defense," he added. Military families told the Stars and Stripes newspaper, which first carried the story, that the machine-signed letters reflected a lack of respect for the losses the families had suffered. "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 whose brother Irving was killed in Iraq this summer, told the newspaper.Lawmakers Chide Rumsfeld for Auto-Signed Sympathy Letters
LOL How about reindeer poop!
I certainly do. I myself would have not cared one way or another if I had been wounded, but autosigning the letters as Rumsfeld admitted to doing is indicative of a cavalier attitude toward the troops. I consider a form letter to be routine at best, and blood sacrifice is never routine.
If this were WWII and we had a half million KIA, would you insist he sign them all?
Your argument outlines an even better reason that Rumsfeld should have signed the letters personally. I thank God every day that we have NOT suffered half a million casualties in this war, and no Secretary of Defense would have willingly taken on the task of signing half a million casualty letters because he simply wouldn't have had time to do anything else. But a thousand? ONLY a thousand?
I believe having Rummy doing his job rather than handing out autographs is more important to the soldiers.
Part of the job of the Secretary of Defense is at least appearing to give a (expletive deleted) about whether the troops under his command live or die. Rumsfeld's "real" signature is not the issue here. Even just the appearance of a casual attitude and acceptance of casualties as evinced by using an autopen and/or a form letter is. If Donald Rumsfeld is genuinely too busy to devote 5 seconds to signing a letter that he volunteered to send, then the President needs to get him some help. Or better yet, send him packing.
Just my opinion.
Mine too.
When a war starts and you believe your enemy has weapons of mass destruction, maybe you decide not to start a precedent of hand signing letters of condolence because you don't know how many casualties will be coming in and at what point you may be forced by time contraints to stop doing it.
And the point at which you stop doing it will be a landmark of triumph for the enemy.
Same thing with the President. What if you went to every funeral? Wouldn't that be the decent thing to do?
At what point does it become impossible to do that, and which family is told their fallen soldier will be the first not honored by the presence of the President?
The deaths haven't been that much that he can't hand sign letters. I could understand if it was of World War Two proportions.
Thanks for the ping.
Obviously, you are an idiot. I served honorably for over 10 years and I reject your blithering comment. Where did YOU serve?
No replacement could fit Rumsfelds shoes in what he has accomplished in these dire times however, the shouts from the media for his removal is apparently effective in guaranteeing a degraded performance in Iraq for the likes of YOU are falling for it.
Nobody would be calling for Rumsfeld's head if he wasn't actually DOING stupid stuff like this (or, not doing it as the case may be). And I would like to see you deny that you would not be doing the same thing if a Secretary of Defense during the Clinton administration had done (or not done) the same thing.
My point is that when this war started we didn't know whether or not we would be getting mass casualties, here and abroad.
And frankly, I don't think we're out of the woods yet, and believe it's possible things may get worse before they get better.
hahahaaa! :^DMerry Christmas.
Yes. What is your point?
Agreed.
An autosigner isn't some cheap mimeography you know... It uses a real pen and a facsimile of the signer's signature. You can't really tell unless someone tells you. So, who was the media whore that set these families up?
He could I'm sure, however is it necassary?
If it is so important to perform such an action then perhaps a signature from the POTUS is at hand.
Rumsfeldt recently visited the troops in Iraq and his doing so was greatly appreciated by the troops as a whole, however when he returned to the states, his visit wasn't commended, he was chastised via the media for a lack of armor on the Humvee's.
Go figure.
He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
I served during the whole term of McNamara and thers no comparison.
You're observation is correct.
It is just another non-issue. Perhaps you and others in support of Rummy could voice all of his accomplishments and why you staunchily support this man?
I really dont know enough about him and what he has done one way or the other but I am curious about staunch supporters and why you feel so strongly.
Good point.
I wonder who personally signed the 500 letters per day during WWII.
GREAT call on comparing him to McNamara
Yea, before we ever go to war we should know the casualties to be taken and the knowledge that we will win on our own terms. /sarcasm
If Donald Rumsfeld is personally drafting the letter, typing it into his computer, pressing the print button, making sure there is enough toner in the printer, etc., then he is taking too much on himself and needs help. This is indicative of ridiculously poor time management on his part (which I think we both can admit is not really happening). But, how much time could it possibly take for him to sign a damn letter? I tried it myself and it took all of 13 seconds.
Lets say we really get in the 'stuff', say with China or all enemies attack at once, then we have thousands die in a few days. So you would want him to be signing thousands of letters instead of directing the Defense Department?
As I indicated to another poster, I pray to God that we do not suffer multiple tens of thousands of losses. But if Rumsfeld is going to take it upon himself to draft and send these letters, he should actually sign each and every one. Doing anything else looks cheap.
I have just defended his actions. So it is not indefensible.
And I have condemned them and reject your arguments.
Dismantling the military as Clinton did with the collusion of congress is indefensible, but not this.
I'll ask you the same question that I have posed numerous times in this and other threads - "If a Secretary of Defense during the Clinton Administration had been caught doing this, would you still be defending him?"
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.
