TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Rumsfeld "Pressured" Into Personally Signing Condolence Letters for War Dead In Iraq
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Rumsfeld "Pressured" Into Personally Signing Condolence Letters for War Dead In Iraq

This really pissed me off. Traditionally, the secretary of defense personally signed the condolence letters to families of the deceased. For some reason, Rumsfeld felt the need to assign that duty to a computer. Reminds me of how we were putting armor on humvees "as fast as possible", only to discover that the company making the armor had additional capacity for more units if the defense department had requested it.

quote:

Rumsfeld to sign condolence letters By The Associated Press and Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON � Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has decided to personally sign condolence letters to the family members of U.S. troops killed in action, rather than letting a machine affix his signature. Republican and Democratic members of Congress criticized the embattled Pentagon chief yesterday for not signing the letters himself all along. "My goodness, that's the least that we could expect of the secretary of defense, is having some personal attention paid by him," Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. said, noting that President Bush signs such letters himself. "If the president of the United States can find time to do that, why can't the secretary of defense?" asked Hagel, a Vietnam veteran. In a statement Friday, Rumsfeld announced the change in policy, and said more than 1,000 condolence letters had gone out to relatives of Americans service members killed since he joined the Cabinet. "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 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." Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., a West Point graduate, said Rumsfeld's failure to sign letters himself until now displayed "his lack of leadership styles that are appropriate for the military." Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the third-ranking Republican in the House, said that "signing the letter is a mechanical but an important thing." "It's better for him to do it and he's acknowledged that. It was a mistake and it was a mistake that he's now said he will rectify," Blunt said. The signature flap was the latest in a stinging string of criticism of Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq, especially after the crusty defense secretary appeared dismissive when answering a U.S. soldier who had asked why military vehicles in Iraq lacked sufficient armor. However, odds that Rumsfeld might be forced from office soon appeared to diminish yesterday as leading senators of both parties in charge of national-security and foreign-affairs committees said he should stay at his post. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, both said emphatically that this is not the time to change leadership at the Pentagon, even as they acknowledged that serious mistakes in U.S. policy have been made in Iraq. "We should not at this point in time entertain any idea of changing those responsibilities in the Pentagon," Warner said. "We really can't go through that ordeal now," Lugar said, contending that it would be disruptive to change leaders. Rumsfeld "should be held accountable and he should stay in office." They were echoed � with notably less enthusiasm � by the ranking Democrats on their respective panels: Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware. Levin said that while he is a Rumsfeld critic, replacing him would make no significant difference so long as any defense secretary executes President Bush's policies. That's what needs changing, Levin said, emphasizing a need to get other nations to help with Iraq. Biden faulted Rumsfeld for arrogance in refusing to acknowledge mistakes in Iraq, but he did not call for him to resign. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card yesterday reiterated Bush's confidence in Rumsfeld. "Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a spectacular job," Card said. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...54_rummy20.html

I'm just sick of hearing about him. He should resign.

When you've got powerful Conservative folks like Trent Lott and neocon Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard calling for his head, you know his days are numbered.

Let's see, the major underestimation of the cost of war, the location of WMD ("somewhere around Tikrit"?), troop body armour, Abu Ghraib and Gitmo tortures (which more will be revealed in the future), scoffing at your generals for asking for more troops, failure to secure high risk sites after invasion (Al Qua qua anyone?), going along with the liar Chalabi and believing the Iraqi people would welcome us with "open arms", telling your troops to essentially suck it up on the truck armour (and as you aptly point out, having egg on his face from the armour manufacturers), and now this.

I'm thinkin' Bush, the ever-so loyal figure will NOT fire him, but will likely quietly ask him to resign on his own within 6 months.

Ye that guy really has a big heart....nice post occ....pretty unbelievable really..imagine the hurt and insult to the families involved..unbelievable

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 When you've got powerful Conservative folks like Trent Lott and neocon Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard calling for his head, you know his days are numbered. Let's see, the major underestimation of the cost of war, the location of WMD ("somewhere around Tikrit"?), troop body armour, Abu Ghraib and Gitmo tortures (which more will be revealed in the future), scoffing at your generals for asking for more troops, failure to secure high risk sites after invasion (Al Qua qua anyone?), going along with the liar Chalabi and believing the Iraqi people would welcome us with "open arms", telling your troops to essentially suck it up on the truck armour (and as you aptly point out, having egg on his face from the armour manufacturers), and now this. I'm thinkin' Bush, the ever-so loyal figure will NOT fire him, but will likely quietly ask him to resign on his own within 6 months.

Imagine if he were a Democrat. He would have been gone yesterday.

its seems like the bush administration has gone out of their way to go to war. above and beyond. next is a draft, then iran and north korea, and then china ultimately.

Wonderful ... Rumsfeld gets to put his wrist to work

quote:

MOSUL, Iraq (CNN) -- A lunchtime attack on a U.S. military mess hall in northern Iraq on Tuesday killed 24 people, including Americans and Iraqis, said Lt. Col. Paul Hastings at Camp Marez. Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, commander of Task Force Olympia in Mosul, said the attack -- a large, single explosion -- wounded more than 60 people. The dead include U.S. military personnel, U.S. contractors, foreign contractors and members of the Iraqi army, Ham said. A breakdown of the casualties was not immediately available, and Ham said the incident was being investigated. Jeremy Redmon, a Richmond, Virginia, Times-Dispatch reporter embedded with troops at the base, said the attack "knocked soldiers off their feet and out of their seats," The Associated Press reported. (Full story) Members of the Richmond-based 276th Engineer Battalion were among hundreds of people inside the tent, according to the AP. Islamist Web sites posted a claim of responsibility from a group calling itself Jaish Ansar Al-Sunnah for an attack on "a joint US-Iraqi Ghazlani camp near Mosul at 12 noon Tuesday 21/12/2004." The Associated Press said local Iraqis refer to the camp similarly. The message said that after the attack, "two helicopters were on the scene to airlift the killed and wounded." The message said the group shot video of the operation to be released later. CNN could not confirm the authenticity of the claim. During a White House briefing following Tuesday's attack, spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush "mourns the loss of life and prays for the families of those who were killed. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families." CNN personnel who have visited the base said the dining area is a tent-like facility with no hardened protection -- and that soldiers had specifically raised concerns that they could be targeted by insurgents at meal time. One had told CNN it was only a matter of time before there was an attack on the mess hall. Lt. Col. Hastings said: "There is a level of vulnerability when you go in there, and you don't feel like there's a hard roof over your head. And when there's mortar attacks and explosions that happen, there is a level of vulnerability." Overall the base has good protection, Hastings said, and a new dining facility is under construction. Pentagon officials said about 8,500 U.S. troops are in the Mosul area, 3,500 of them from a Stryker Brigade based in Fort Lewis, Washington. Mosul has been a site of repeated attacks in recent weeks. When the U.S. military launched a major offensive in Falluja in November, there was concern some insurgents had fled to Mosul and would launch attacks from there. The U.S. military recently conducted an offensive to try to flush out insurgents in Mosul, but the violence has continued. Tuesday's attack came shortly after British Prime Minister Tony Blair arrived in Baghdad on a surprise visit to Iraq. During a news conference with Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, Blair called the insurgency "a battle between democracy and terror," in advance of Iraqi elections set for January 30. "On the one side you have people who desperately want to make the democratic process work ... and on the other side, people who are killing and intimidating and trying to destroy a better future for Iraq." (Full story) Iraqi voters are expected to choose a 275-member transitional national assembly. That body will put together a permanent constitution that will go before voters in a referendum. If the law is approved, there will be elections for a permanent government by the end of next year. On Sunday, nearly 70 people died in car bomb attacks in the Shiite Muslim holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. (Full story) During a Monday news conference in Washington, President Bush said "terrorists will attempt to delay the elections, to intimidate people in their country, to disrupt the democratic process in any way they can." Still, he added, "I'm confident that terrorists will fail, the elections will go forward and Iraq will be a democracy that reflects the values and traditions of its people." (Full story) http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/m...main/index.html

Rumsfeld and all the other REMFs of this administration can go F*ck themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: its seems like the bush administration has gone out of their way to go to war. above and beyond. next is a draft, then iran and north korea, and then china ultimately.

The draft is definatly never going to happen but iran and north korea and china def. have it coming :P

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra The draft is definatly never going to happen but iran and north korea and china def. have it coming :P

I dunno. Maybe one of these days but definately not back to back. The Bush administration was an unusual fluke and they're trying to do what they can to make their agenda stay past their reign but other Presidents will be elected and I think it'll eventually return to the way things were before 9/11. The world would never let us have another Iraq anytime soon.

I heard on the radio yesterday that this is actually not a "new" thing. Neither McNamara during Vietnam or the various defense secretaries during WWII signed their letters of condolence. Maybe someone can find a source to prove me wrong, but if this is the case, I'm not sure why we're holding this defense secretary to a different standard than the ones before him.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I heard on the radio yesterday that this is actually not a "new" thing. Neither McNamara during Vietnam or the various defense secretaries during WWII signed their letters of condolence. Maybe someone can find a source to prove me wrong, but if this is the case, I'm not sure why we're holding this defense secretary to a different standard than the ones before him.

It seems to be standard operating procedure from within the Pentagon:

quote:

And now, apparently, Rumsfeld�s obsession with machines and their efficiency has translated into his using one to replace his own John Hancock on KIA (killed in action) letters to parents and spouses. Two Pentagon-based colonels, who�ve both insisted on anonymity to protect their careers, have indignantly reported that the SecDef has relinquished this sacred duty to a signature device rather than signing the sad documents himself. http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/...562757471877733

Furthermore, if Bush supposedly signs each letter personally, Rumsfeld can't?

quote:

Republican and Democratic members of Congress criticized the embattled Pentagon chief on Sunday for not signing the letters himself all along. �My goodness, that�s the least that we could expect of the secretary of defense, is having some personal attention paid by him,� said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., nothing that President Bush signs such letters himself. �If the president of the United States can find time to do that, why can�t the Secretary of Defense?� Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, asked on CBS� �Face the Nation.� http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?...2925-563245.php

My understanding was that condolence letters in WW2 and Vietnam were deferred to the unit commanders who then personally signed the letters. If the sec-defense is going to take up the duty of sending condolence letters as they have been since Vietnam, than I would expect them to send a signed letter or not send one at all.

I'm not trying to defend him here (although maybe I am ), but the term "sacred duty" is a little ambiguous to me as to wether this is really something he is obligated to do or something these men feel he should do. I have been scouring the web looking for any kind of precident for this, but I cannot. It appears that soldier's families still recieve letters from unit/company commanders as well as the letters from the President and the Secretary of Defense. From what I have found, the letter from the Secretary of Denfese is something new that goes beyond what has traditionally been done, signed or unsigned.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I'm not trying to defend him here (although maybe I am ), but the term "sacred duty" is a little ambiguous to me as to wether this is really something he is obligated to do or something these men feel he should do. I have been scouring the web looking for any kind of precident for this, but I cannot. It appears that soldier's families still recieve letters from unit/company commanders as well as the letters from the President and the Secretary of Defense. From what I have found, the letter from the Secretary of Denfese is something new that goes beyond what has traditionally been done, signed or unsigned.

The whole point of a letter of condolence to the KIA's family is to (personally) acknowledge the ultimate sacrifice of a life serving for your country, otherwise what's the point? What kind of ass-backwards mentality is it to "recognize" a great sacrifice and "console" the family of the deceased by sending a form letter with an automated signiature? It defeats the whole purpose of a a letter of condolence. Why doesn't Rumsfeld simply send them hallmark greeting cards? If he's not going to take the time to sign the condolence letters (as the president does) than don't send any letter at all. It's an insult to the families of those soldiers and I'd be pretty damned pissed off too. It's legitimately inexcusable.

I don't see it as an insult.

How many awards, diplomas, etc. are not signed, but instead have a signature fascimile. My college diploma does not have a real signuture on it, does that make it less valid?

In my view, a signature does not make or break the letters that are being sent, the idea and thought behind it do. I don't know how Rumsfield going through letters signing his signature one after the other does anything more. We'd be kidding ourselves to think that either he or President Bush stop to read, ponder then sign any of these letters. Previous Secretaries of Defense have not sent letters at all, Rusmfeld taking the initiative to send out a letter shows more to me then if he did nothing. I think most families would rather have something than nothing at all.

I realize Bush signs his letters, but to me having a computer sign a signature and having a signature that was written in two seconds as someone shoved a letter in front of the President are not that much different.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I don't see it as an insult. How many awards, diplomas, etc. are not signed, but instead have a signature fascimile. My college diploma does not have a real signuture on it, does that make it less valid? In my view, a signature does not make or break the letters that are being sent, the idea and thought behind it do. I don't know how Rumsfield going through letters signing his signature one after the other does anything more. We'd be kidding ourselves to think that either he or President Bush stop to read, ponder then sign any of these letters. Previous Secretaries of Defense have not sent letters at all, Rusmfeld taking the initiative to send out a letter shows more to me then if he did nothing. I think most families would rather have something than nothing at all. I realize Bush signs his letters, but to me having a computer sign a signature and having a signature that was written in two seconds as someone shoved a letter in front of the President are not that much different.

Are you kidding me?? You're equating a college diploma with a letter that's supposed to console the family of a loved one who sacrificed their life for the country??? They sacrificed their life and the secretary of defense can't take the two seconds it takes to personally sign his signature to show some regard for the loss of life? And if you think that most families would be happier with "something" than nothing at all, than why don't you tell that to the families of the deceased who complained to the stars and stripes newspaper?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I don't see it as an insult. How many awards, diplomas, etc. are not signed, but instead have a signature fascimile. My college diploma does not have a real signuture on it, does that make it less valid? In my view, a signature does not make or break the letters that are being sent, the idea and thought behind it do. I don't know how Rumsfield going through letters signing his signature one after the other does anything more. We'd be kidding ourselves to think that either he or President Bush stop to read, ponder then sign any of these letters. Previous Secretaries of Defense have not sent letters at all, Rusmfeld taking the initiative to send out a letter shows more to me then if he did nothing. I think most families would rather have something than nothing at all. I realize Bush signs his letters, but to me having a computer sign a signature and having a signature that was written in two seconds as someone shoved a letter in front of the President are not that much different.

this ain't a diploma, it's the final acknowledgement of service to country that the family has for the memory of their deceased.

it also serves the purpose of reminding the secretary of exactly how many citizens have died. regardless of how long they ponder over the death, if he has to sign over a hundred in a day, it's a little more eye-opening than reading reports on his desk.

i can almost visualize him agreeing to send letters at the beginning of this war.
-"yeah, i'll even write letters to the families of the deceased, after all iraq will welcome us with open arms once we rid them of saddam. hell, i betcha i won't have to send more than three"

This is gayer than Abu Ghraib. If this is the best thing the left has right now to push their agenda of getting Rummy out, it's pretty pathetic. But alas, they're getting their way, and while there is no real precedent here(as Neo pointed out), Rummy will begin spending more time signing a "real" signature on a piece of paper, and less time dealing with the much less important task of running the actual military campaign. Quit lapping up the shit the media is feeding you. Does this issue really mean that much to you? Seriously. Occrider, shouldn't you be more concerned with Freddie's ridiculous hedging and derivatives portfolio that whether or not a machine put the finishing touch on a letter vs. a hand held Bic? Do you think it changes how anyone feels about soldiers dying on the battlefield? If it makes you feel that upset, fine. But I think there are many much more important issues to get your tailfeathers ruffled over. Do you really want to call for Rummy's head because he's not being sensitive enough?

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag this ain't a diploma, it's the final acknowledgement of service to country that the family has for the memory of their deceased. it also serves the purpose of reminding the secretary of exactly how many citizens have died. regardless of how long they ponder over the death, if he has to sign over a hundred in a day, it's a little more eye-opening than reading reports on his desk. i can almost visualize him agreeing to send letters at the beginning of this war. -"yeah, i'll even write letters to the families of the deceased, after all iraq will welcome us with open arms once we rid them of saddam. hell, i betcha i won't have to send more than three"

If Rummy really had his way he would probably just send a mass email.

Innocent civilians as well as soldiers are dying for the bullshit neo-con agenda, and it seems like Rummy and his cronies could care less.

There was no moral imperative to go to war in Iraq, but it had been the neo-con plan to make it seem as though there was one. Lies and deceit are all we get with this administration.

We wanted to avenge the deaths of 9/11 - but Iraq was a much higher priority because he had all of those WMD's! Yeah, right!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka This is gayer than Abu Ghraib.

Yes because material weaknesses in a command and control structure that allowed violations of geneva conventions is really immaterial and "gay" to criticize.

quote:

If this is the best thing the left has right now to push their agenda of getting Rummy out, it's pretty pathetic. But alas, they're getting their way,

No the best reason to push Rumsfeld out of office would be his woeful lack of preparation for the war that coudln't be construed as anything but neglect:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...war+planning%22

The second best reason would probably be Rumsfeld either lying or incompetantly asserting to the troops that the army was producing armor for humvees as "fast as humanely possible" only to be refuted by the armor manufacturers who told the defense department they could produce double the armor that they currently produced:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLI...sfeld.senators/

This incident, is hardly reason enough to "out" rumsfeld but it most certainly is enough of a reason to call him out on his bullshit and either sign the fucking letters of the people dying in Iraq that have his name on them, or don't send the goddamn letter at all and defer it to someone who gives a shit.

quote:

and while there is no real precedent here(as Neo pointed out)

The precedent was a personalized letter from the unit commander. The precedent now is a generic form letter from the Sec-Defense with his name stamped on it.

quote:

, Rummy will begin spending more time signing a "real" signature on a piece of paper, and less time dealing with the much less important task of running the actual military campaign.

Oh ok, and so Bush is clearly demonstrating what a retard he is for taking the time to sign each KIA letter when he should be dealing with the more important task of running the actual country?? So which is it, Bush or Rumsfeld?

quote:

Quit lapping up the shit the media is feeding you. Does this issue really mean that much to you? Seriously. Do you think it changes how anyone feels about soldiers dying on the battlefield? If it makes you feel that upset, fine. But I think there are many much more important issues to get your tailfeathers ruffled over. Do you really want to call for Rummy's head because he's not being sensitive enough?

This is really priceless. After you tell Zild to shut up for calling your tribute poem to the troops "gay" and disrespecing our troops you're now saying that getting incensed over this issue is "gay" and that criticizing Rumsfeld for this is "pathetic"??? Ok fine:
Stars and Stripes Go to Page 5

It's nice that we all know that you think Army Spc. Ivan Medina, Bette Sullivan, and all the other families that are pissed off about this are "gay" and "pathetic". Way to respect the troops and the families of the the troops that were killed.

quote:

Occrider, shouldn't you be more concerned with Freddie's ridiculous hedging and derivatives portfolio that whether or not a machine put the finishing touch on a letter vs. a hand held Bic?

I'm still struggling to find the relevance of this particular segway, but ok guy who knows nothing of the specific FM controls of the derivatives portfolio. Please explain to me why I should be concerned with the Portfolio particularly since it's mark to market on a daily basis? But before you do so, you may want to read Moody's December Risk Management Assessment report and check out the section on Freddie Mac's Portfolio Market Value Sensistivity monitoring. Investors who put their money where their mouth is probably have ... which may explain why the stock is at an all time high.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yes because material weaknesses in a command and control structure that allowed violations of geneva conventions is really immaterial and "gay" to criticize.....

Christ, it's Christma....errr the "holiday season"(I wouldn't want to offend any non-Christians). Why is everyone so riled up? It's easy to sit back at home, watch your plasma TVs and lob complaints and criticisms around about what's wrong with things and how poorly planned something is, but God forbid anyone talk about the great successes that have happened during this war. You expect perfection every single step of the way. I got news for ya: a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. Now shut yer yapper and go play with your yule log!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Investors who put their money where their mouth is probably have ... which may explain why the stock is at an all time high.

Either that, or they're so obsessed with making money and playing momentum that they simply ignore accounting shinanigans that they simply cannot understand. It's the go-go 90's all over again! Of course your logic also implies that just because a stock price goes up, the underlying company fundamentals must also be great. Enron anyone? But alas, I digress. This is fodder for another boring thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Christ, it's Christma....errr the "holiday season"(I wouldn't want to offend any non-Christians). Why is everyone so riled up? It's easy to sit back at home, watch your plasma TVs and lob complaints and criticisms around about what's wrong with things and how poorly planned something is, but God forbid anyone talk about the great successes that have happened during this war. You expect perfection every single step of the way. I got news for ya: a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. Now shut yer yapper and go play with your yule log!

I dunno ... I guess I just have high expectations of public office, given how much I pay twice a month to support their services to me. But you're right, I do need to have a few cold ones with my yule log by my pagan tree. Have a good winter solstice and merry Saturnalia

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Either that, or they're so obsessed with making money and playing momentum that they simply ignore accounting shinanigans that they simply cannot understand. It's the go-go 90's all over again! Of course your logic also implies that just because a stock price goes up, the underlying company fundamentals must also be great. Enron anyone? But alas, I digress. This is fodder for another boring thread.

No my logic implies that people read the ratings reports of auditors who actually have a clue about what they're talking about and some basis of opinion. It's no accident that stock price increased by a large margin on the same day the Moody's report came out.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I dunno ... I guess I just have high expectations of public office, given how much I pay twice a month to support their services to me. But you're right, I do need to have a few cold ones with my yule log by my pagan tree. Have a good winter solstice and merry Saturnalia

Not that I don't agree with you 100% about public office having standards. I absoultely do, and believe that they should all be held accountable for their actions while in office.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider No my logic implies that people read the ratings reports of auditors who actually have a clue about what they're talking about and some basis of opinion. It's no accident that stock price increased by a large margin on the same day the Moody's report came out.

And it's not accident that Fannie's stock price was up today on the news of the CEO and CFO departures...despite the fact that their whole accounting situation still stands in limbo and there could be more shoes to drop.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.