|
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
It's a shame those whores - I mean Senators, don't have confidence in him. It's a great way to avoid who is responsible for funding equipment - Congress.
What a load of crap. The transparency of this is obvious to those with I.Q.'s below 70 - these are people who, for personal motive (Hagel) or otherwise, dislike Rumsfeld, and are jumping at this non-issue to damage him. At some point, after enough of these non-issues are raised, you will hear the lamentation - "well, it's not this incident - but rather the cumulative weight of all of the previous non-issues" than demands his resignation. Ugh.
The President needs to make a statement and get behind Rumsfeld and shut this stuff down. Now.
On the Gravitas Scale, this story is about a negative 5.
The only insult is that these idiots think the SecDev has nothing else to do except sign letters. Every CEO I ever worked for used a signer rather than sign his own letters.
This is simply more of the ACT group in action - pressing the families of KIA soldiers to ruffle feathers within this admin. Dispicable.
I guess they are running low on things to throw at Rummy. It'll be interesting to find out if every other death notice in previous conflicts were hand signed.
Ditto.
The roar is getting too loud for taking any chances. Could be time for us to contact our representatives and let OUR voices be heard! Wouldn't hurt if "W" put int his two cents!
Being a conservative does not mean that we have to march lockstep and defend every incompetent that calls himself a conservative. Rumsfeld has shown himself to be incompetent, insensitive, blame thrower (casting aspersions at our Army for his failures) who's more interested in playing cutesy-pooh at his press conferences than he is in doing the expected tasks of the SecDef (signing the letters to the families takes but little of his "precious" time and shouldn't be an afterthought; this shows him for what he is, an arrogant Ivy Leaguer who dare not condescend to fuffill his job duties). Rumsfeld needs to show some previously unseen class, and resign.
Good post!
I wonder how many condolence letters were signed personally during Clintons disgraceful term. Just a cheap, underhanded way to try and drag down Rumsfeld and especially his boss President Bush. Hagel, McCain, Lott and the rest of the RINO eunuchs are as pathetic as their liberal sob sisters.
Chuck Hagel is disgusting.
Hagel is good at nit-picking, but just what answer would he have given to the soldier who asked Rummy a question fed to him by an embedded reporter?
This is indefensible. It is time for Rumsfeld to go.
While autosigning correspondence is not disrespectful in and of itself, this admission is indicative of a more disturbing institutional casual attitude on Rumsfeld's part toward American troops who have bled and died for their country. And before anybody flames me into oblivion, how much outrage would there be emanating from Freepers if Les Aspin, William Perry, or William Cohen had pulled this during a Clinton administration?
"Rumsfeld has shown himself to be incompetent, insensitive, blame thrower (casting aspersions at our Army for his failures)"
EVIDENCE - PLEASE!!
Actually, you don't have any .. and this pitiful attack on Rumsfeld is just over the top and way out of line. Since you're calling such an accomplished Patriot "incompetent" .. it's a good indication that you're the one who's incompetent. So .. to help you out - have somebody with a brain read the following to you - it's information you might be able to understand - but I won't be holding my breath:
The word from a soldier just back from Iraq (Awesome Letter to the Editor - San Diego Union Tribune) San Diego Union Tribune | 12/18/04 | DALE MELVILLE
Posted on 12/18/2004 7:25:08 AM PST by bkwells
The word from a soldier just back from Iraq
I have been in the Army for the last seven years. I have gone through the good and bad times in the military. It is a lifestyle that if you do not live every day, you cannot even come close to understanding.
I have been to Bosnia, Kosovo, and have just returned from Iraq. I can tell you that no one feels the loss of soldiers more than we do.
Even the families do not deal with the emotional pain and stress that we do when we have to pick up the remains of our friends – the same friends that we joked with, lived with, even shared our deepest fears and worries of life with, and in many cases the same friend who saved your life the week before.
I am always concerned with how the Army can be more effective at saving the lives of my fellow soldiers. Armor is not always the answer. In fact, armor can prevent us from being able to do our job. Every pound of armor makes us less effective fighters.
I patrolled the streets of Baghdad in a Humvee that had no doors, let alone armor. This was a decision that I made so that I was a more effective soldier. With better fields of vision, I could respond more effectively to the hazards of a combat zone.
I am an explosive ordnance disposal technician tasked with the removal of the roadside bombs, or IEDs, and unexploded ordnance in Iraq. The IEDs in Iraq often have enough explosives in them that the armor on most trucks proves to be ineffective at close range. Armor is a great asset and improves morale in some cases, but it is not the answer to our problems in Iraq.
There has never been an IED campaign in the history of the world like the one we are living through in Iraq. There is no way the leadership that sent us to war could possibly have known to expect these extreme attacks on its fighting force and the effects on the morale that the Army has suffered during these attacks. What the Army needs is to hunt out and destroy these insurgents, and that, of course, is not an easy task.
Then comes the true kick in the gut. The news media do not report the great things that we have accomplished in this country – the lives we have saved, and freedom that we are providing to a people who do, in fact, want this freedom. Freedom is not won overnight; there are pitfalls that must be overcome, and that takes time.
Instead, the media have decided to attack our morale by attacking our top leadership. There are a lot of things a soldier must deal with in combat; how are we supposed to perform when we have to deal with irrelevant controversy in Washington, D.C., as well?
The truth is that we have excellent leadership that supports us in every mission and provides us top-of-the-line equipment to accomplish our missions. We are at war, and war is not perfect.
I joined the Army because I love my country, a deeper and different love than I think most Americans can understand. I find this same patriotism in the soldiers I work with, even though there are prevalent risks to their lives. They do this because they and I believe in our country. We are soldiers: We adapt and over come all situations. We have been doing it since the birth of our country.
Leave our leadership alone, and we can and will win this war; and frankly, we do not need your selective reporting of how we are doing. We know our mission and objectives; our leadership has and continues to inform us wisely.
DALE MELVILLE Pine Bluff Arsenal, Ark.
Yet it is the job of others, including the President, to remind the Secretary, of what is expected of him, by them, by us.
In general, Mr. Rumsfeld has performed the job well, in response to friends and critics and foes.
Given that there are almost no competitors on even a short list, for the job, he stays.
Well, the first question I would ask (and it's not mentioned in the article - what a surprise), is whether the Secretary of Defense traditionally signs sympathy letters. Were they signed by hand in the 1960s? 1970s? 1980s? 1990s? Is Rumsfeld doing what has always been done, or has he changed policy here? Until we know the answer to that question, it's hard to pass any kind of judgement.
The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese used many, many IED's.
Yes, many a CEO will write a personal letter, personally signed, to the family of an employee who was killed on the job. While the letter will be written so as not to create legal liability, the expression of sympathy is indeed personal--and frequently, the letter itself is handwritten. A person dies but once, and there is but one opportunity to express sympathy. But why should Rumsfeld fake caring when he does not?
My evidence comes from the news about Iraq, plain and simple. In just this latest matter, Rumsfeld admitted he didn't sign letters of condolence; how do you explain or justify this total lack of comprehension or caring on his part for the families of those who died valiantly carrying out his bizarre ideas for Iraq (the President can sign the letters, is it that Mr. Rumsfeld was just too busy cozying up to the press?) Its like what Jay Leno said, "Rumsfeld at his conference for the troops in Kuwait downplayed their need for armored vehicles. Then at the end of the conference, he climbed into his armored car and was driven to the airport|".
I'd say any comparisons between McNamara and Rumsfield are inane.
Having said that Rummy should not be sending out sutosigned letters of condolence.
I know why the RATs don't like Rummy, but RINOs? Those people are idiots!
They even admit that President Bush signed the same type of letters... the Commander in Chief, that in and of itself should be enough, but why not make everyone in the chain of command sign a freaking letter.
This is total bs.
I can tell you for sure they were not signed by hand by the Secy of Defense during WW II or Korea and certainly not in the Viet Nam War. They were mostly signed by the CO of the unit in which the casualty served.
Gosh, your addition to the handful who tote your mindset doesn't compare to the millions who tote the same mindset about the work required of you.
Are you trying to divert and mask your own shortfalls by any chance Mr. Hagel?
You really think signing the letters himself is an issue?
If this were WWII and we had a half million KIA, would you insist he sign them all?
Maybe it would mean more if Thor signed them, but I believe having Rummy doing his job rather than handing out autographs is more important to the soldiers.
Just my opinion....
Obviously, you are a proponent of degrading our efforts in Iraq.
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.
......Mogadishu
Was that disrespectful enough of our troops?
Nobody is "making" anybody sign anything, least of all the President. But if Rumsfeld is going to send letters, they at the very least should have been signed by him personally. Doing anything else looks cheap and gives the impression that the sacrifice of wounded American soldiers rates nothing more than a form letter. I would have been baying for somebody's blood if this had happened during a Clinton administration.
I tried a little experiment a few minutes ago. I went to go find a white piece of paper and a pen, then wrote my signature on the paper, timing myself while doing so. Including the time it took me to find the piece of paper and the pen and a place to sit down, it took me 13 seconds to sign the piece of paper. If Donald Rumsfeld is so busy that he cannot devote 13 seconds to each wounded American troop who bled while following his orders, that is indicative of poor time management and failure to delegate his responsibilities, and he should be canned for that alone.
This is total bs.
I disagree. It is time for Rumsfeld to go.
|
What could be more "degrading" to our efforts in Iraq than a Secretary of Defense who won't spend a few seconds for each letter to personally sign his condolences to the families of the valiant soldiers killed for his policy? I KNOW you'd all be screaming if Clinton's people showed this total lack of caring and did this, I certainly WOULD -- lets show some consistencey, its only a few seconds of his precious time for the families of those who gave up their entire lives, often at the age of 18 or 19.
Yes, it is unfortunate that their similarities are "inane," as you say.
...and it took a lot of money to fill his big mouth, but he did it...
I can argue with the shill for the asgard, because we're "family" now, but if you do, you should know him as a terrific American I am honored to think of as a friend.
I still think that he should stay.
Why couldn't he sign the letters personally?
This is indefensible. It is time for Rumsfeld to go.Bird dookie!
The last few days I have thought about sending Rumsfeld a letter of support. I am sick of people like McCain and the DemoKrauts second-guessing Rumsfeld and Bush.
Today is a good day to send that email.
If anyone has his email addy, please send it. In the meantime, I'll be Google Searching for it myself.
Click HERE or on the pic
to hear the Rolling Thunder !
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?
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.
Purge time in the Pentagon. A few flag officers who are too tight with the media need to be thrown under the bus. The good news is, Rumsfeld will not hesitate to do this. Civilian control of the military is an important principle. We can't have the Admirals and Generals conducting sub-surface warfare against the SecDef. 
