Honouring the rememberance...

[dutchie]

Don Rumsfeld has his letters of condoleance signed by a machine.

Talk about respect for the ultimate sacrifice...

[dutchie]

Article here :

November 23, 2004

Donald Rumsfeld - who's known as a people-eating systems man - has a long history that shows he prefers technology to humans. Certainly as SecDef he's always gone for high-tech military gear rather than giving the boots on the ground max priority when it comes to the basics: armored vehicles and vests, sufficient ammo and all the other vital stuff that helps soldiers make it through the Valley of Death.

His beloved shock-and-awe whiz-bang wonder weapons worked well enough initially in Afghanistan and Iraq, but as we saw on the tube last week, we're once again back to the age-old struggle of man against man - with grunts, not machines, taking and holding ground.

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.

When I went to Jim Turner, a good man saddled with a tough job as one of Rumsfeld's flacks at the Pentagon, for a confirmation or a denial, he said, "Rumsfeld signs the letters himself."

I then went to about a dozen next-of-kin of American soldiers KIA in Iraq. Most agreed with the colonels' accusations and said they'd noticed and been insulted by the machine-driven signature. One father bitterly commented that he thought it was a shame that the SecDef could keep his squash schedule but not find the time to sign his dead son's letter. Several also felt compelled to tell me that the letter they received from George Bush also looked as though it was not signed personally by the president.

Dr. Ted Smith, whose son Eric was among the first 100 killed in Iraq, notes that the letter he received "from the commander in chief was signed with a thick, green marking pen. I thought it was stamped then and do even now. He had time for golf and the ranch but not enough to sign a decent signature with a pen for his beloved hero soldiers. I was going to send the letter back but did not. I am sorry I didn't."

Sue Niederer, whose son Seth was also killed in Iraq, sums it up: "My son wasn't a person to these people, he was just an entity to play their war game. But where are their children? Not one of them knows how any of us feel, and they obviously aren't interested in finding out. None of them cares. And Rumsfeld depersonalizing his signature - it's a slap in the face, don't you think?"

Probably. I have devoted so much of my later life crusading to save soldiers from uncaring generals and politicians and bureaucrats, who tend so easily to view these kids - who are rarely their own flesh and blood - as abstract pawns in a virtual game of chess, because I was there. I stood and was counted, and I will never forget the pain when I signed KIA letters in Korea and Vietnam. I would choke up as I signed them - I could see the boys' faces, their cocky smiles, their muddy soldier suits. Each signing reinforced the awesome responsibility I carried as a leader to be as protective as possible about the young lives entrusted to me.


After I talked with the nearest and dearest of the KIA, I called Turner back and told him there was evidence that Rumsfeld's signature was in fact machine-produced. I asked him to double-check, and he promised to get me the straight skinny by my deadline. But late Friday I received a typical Pentagon duck-and-dodge e-mail: "Regret to say I have not been able to get a response as of COB (close of business) today..."

Throughout World War II, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall made sure that President Franklin Roosevelt was briefed in detail on the number of soldiers who had fallen. FDR, incidentally, probably wanted to know. He had sons who were serving.

I suspect that Sue Niederer and the other kin are on target about how not signing the KIA letters helps keep the commander in chief and the SecDef detached from the consequences of a nasty war and its messy human fall-out.

[dutchie]

....and here:

Rumsfeld faces Iraq letters row

Rumsfeld has been criticised for his handling of the Iraq war
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has pledged to personally sign letters of condolence to the families of American soldiers killed in action.
He spoke shortly after his admission that he had used a machine to sign letters to relatives of more than 1,000 troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr Rumsfeld is facing growing criticism from both Democrats and Republicans who are questioning his record in Iraq.

He was given a public grilling from his own troops earlier this month.

During his visit to a US base in Kuwait, American soldiers alleged they had used scrap metal to armour vehicles.

'An insult'

In a statement to the US military newspaper Stars and Stripes, Mr Rumsfeld tacitly admitted that in the past he had not personally signed the letters of condolence.

"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," Mr Rumsfeld's statement said.

"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 recognise and honour their personal loss."

Several families of US soldiers killed overseas said that the machine-signed letters reflected a lack of respect for their losses.

"To me it's an insult, not only as someone who lost a loved one but also as someone who served in Iraq," soldier Ivan Medina - whose twin brother Irving was killed in Iraq last summer - told Stars and Stripes.

The row has led to fresh debates among lawmakers over whether Mr Rumsfeld - whose handling of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath have come under close scrutiny - should step down.

'Great confidence'

The BBC's Michael Buchanan in Washington says senior Republicans have spent the past few days openly questioning President George W Bush's decision to keep Mr Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.

They claim the defence secretary has to answer for a number of major mistakes made in Iraq, our correspondent adds.

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam war veteran, told CBS's Face the Nation he had "no confidence" in Mr Rumsfeld.

"This issue of the secretary of defence not personally signing the letters is just astounding to me," he said, noting that President Bush did sign such letters himself.

But President Bush's Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, said Mr Rumsfeld had the full support of the White House.

Mr Card told ABC's This Week that Mr Rumsfeld "is doing a spectacular job, and the president has great confidence in him".

Most leading Republicans have said he should stay.

[substand]

Do we know if its pretty common precendent that Secys of Defense do this all the time?

[DontBeAfraid]

Its not common subs.

[substand]

ok, i was just wondering. if it was, the problem would only be deeper than rumsfeld.

[dutchie]

I find it amazing that just 2 members care to react to this AT ALL...

[substand]

Well, I was thinking that some ink and a name doesn't really mean much in the grand scope of the matter... its not like it brings back your son or daughter or father or husband or wife or mother, or even consoles you... It doesn't make one damn bit of difference and the press is playing like it does, or like they care (which makes me mad). But the lack of it matters (not saying that sarcastically). Funny how that works...

Its becoming more and more clear when they highlight these little things that they do not care about the soldiers without armor or the dead ones or the family and friends of dead soldiers. Some of them have been newsworthy, but all of them, newsworthy or not, have been attacks on Rumsfeld. Just reading story after story, thats the impression I get. I don't care that they criticize him or the government, but its like they step out of their way to do things, ask questions, or find stories that make Rumsfeld look bad (and by extension Bush, whom I would assume is who they ultimately want).

I mean, when you think of all the investigation it took to get this story. When it boils down to it, I dunno. I'm mad at Rumsfeld for being callous, cold, and retarded... and I'm mad at the press for what I perceive as using people's plights and emotions for their personal crusade against Rumsfeld.

It would have been nice though, if he had taken the time.

I think Rumsfeld should resign. He's just becoming cannon fodder for the press and too much of a political liability for Bush in general. Let the press win thier witchhunt on him and move on.

Even if he's the best secretary of defense we ever had, its not worth the political capital to keep him.

[dutchie]

Heh, I'm not even saying he has to go, and yeah, he's an easy target for press bashing, but - MAN - is this guy stupid?!? He's plain asking for it!! He DID rubber stamp the letters, while it would have been NO TROUBLE AT ALL signing the buggers!!

And yes, that IS cold. And the way he answered that question about military material (the armour being dragged off scrapheaps) was below all levels of decency..

What irritated me most is the disrespect. While he might be the best secretary of defense your country ever had (what defines "best"?) he is absolutely lacking in the social graces. He shows off a lack of respect and interest in the very people that do his dirty work for him. To him they're obviously no more than gun meat. I can imagine (as a father) what it would feel like when (maybe) your (only) son, in whom you had invested so much love, energy and pride, was killed in action and you would get thanked with a rubber stamped letter.

How could this disrespect ever be ignored in the media, I ask you?

[substand]

What irritated me most is the disrespect. While he might be the best secretary of defense your country ever had (what defines "best"?) he is absolutely lacking in the social graces.

I'm not saying he is the best, but rather, even if he is the best he should leave.. meant purely as a hypothetical, no reality attached. I don't know if he is the best, the worst, or anywhere in between. I think some of his ideas are good, but I can hardly say he is the only one who has the ideas that I think are good, simply because all of the ones I've thought are good (that I am aware of) I have heard being promoted elsewhere.

How could this disrespect ever be ignored in the media, I ask you?

I guess I'm just so mad at both sides that there is no one to blame for me. I'm mad at him and I'm mad at the media. I shouldn't say that it should be ignored, I guess I just mean to say that the media would have a whole lot more credibility with me if it wasn't so obvious they are just doing things like this as a witchhunt... I am pissed with them because they don't do it out of respect or care for the soldiers or their parents, but only to put Rumsfeld down. Thus, they are using the pain and suffering of people for their own agenda... and that agenda is not particularly helpful to any position but their own, I guess.

My feelings are illogical, since the end result is the same. But every now and then motive counts, I suppose.

[VegasRonin]

Heh, I'm not even saying he has to go, and yeah, he's an easy target for press bashing, but - MAN - is this guy stupid?!? He's plain asking for it!! He DID rubber stamp the letters, while it would have been NO TROUBLE AT ALL signing the buggers!!

These letters should absolutely have been personally signed by Rumsfeld. I can, however, see why he utilized a machine. I have 2 awards that are signed, by then, Secretary of Defense (Embarrassed to say, I don't know who that was; as I'm at the office right now and not at home). I imagine Rumsfeld is signing his siggy hundreds of times per month, maybe even thousands. Still, my opening statement holds. The word is priority!

[Skippy]

When the Tigers Broke Free!

There's a line in Pink Floyd's The Wall that mentions this exact same thing, but it was King George signing with his own rubber stamp.

It's a very tacky thing to do, and there is no excuse for it. But, for Rumsfeld to sign these letters all the time would surely make his arm go numb with carpal tunnel syndrome.

[dutchie]

But, for Rumsfeld to sign these letters all the time would surely make his arm go numb with carpal tunnel syndrome.

Heh, I once signed 1,700 letters in ONE SINGLE DAY... Don certainly had a lot more time to sign them than I did, and I survived without a scratch too...

[Brandon101]

I'm surprised anyone is surprised that the government doesn't give a shit about an individual. I mean come on, the only thing they did was throw their life away for what they believe. Big deal right?

[dutchie]

Well, I can appreciate the cynicism in there, but that's my point really. The whole thing breathes disrespect towards the military, indeed as if the only purpose for a soldier is to serve as cannon meat...

And no, I wasn't very surprised knowing a little more about Rumsfeld...

[cwohardy]

As a currently active duty member of the Armed Forces I can not make a direct comment about Donald Rumsfield.

I can say that if my family received one of those letters, the least of their worries would be whether the signature is real or not.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>I am pissed with them because they don't do it out of respect or care for the soldiers or their parents, but only to put Rumsfeld down.

...maybe they're doing it, because its their only way of picking on the wall that protects the administration? if they can't say what they really mean, due to national security concerns, they can just try to make him look bad? just a thought.

same with that soldier commenting on using scrap metal, he didn't want to be treasonous or insubordinate, just wanted to be properly equipped to do his job. I don't know the full story, so if someone can fill in the blank...thanks.

[substand]

I don't know the full story, so if someone can fill in the blank...thanks.

Basically, there was a reported who handed questions to some soldiers to ask, and rigged it so that his guys were called on. Thats it in a nutshell, I beleive.

[DontBeAfraid]

So a reporter wrote the question..... Does that make it any less valid? If it wasnt a real concern of the soldiers do you think he would risk asking it? Would you want to up armor with scraps? Would you want your loved ones to?

[substand]

So a reporter wrote the question..... Does that make it any less valid? If it wasnt a real concern of the soldiers do you think he would risk asking it? Would you want to up armor with scraps? Would you want your loved ones to?

If it was a concern of the soldier's, one could likely assume that he would have asked it himself. And rigging the questions so he would get asked is another thing. There is also the fact that the news was old news and was being taken care of. There's also the question "if the humvees were meant to be armored, why weren't they built with armor?" (my idea is that some of them were meant to be and some weren't, and only since we realized the enemy tactic of using roadside bombs has it become imperitave to arm them).

If it was a concern of the soldier's he could and should have asked. But the question being planted, plus the rigging of calling on that soldier, makes me think poorly on the press and its motives. And I was never questioning the motive of the soldier, but that of the press.

[DontBeAfraid]

The press wants us to know that our soldiers are using garbage for protectoin.... shame on the press.... The vehicles that were built witthout armor werent meant for war.... yet they were sent, probably to meet some number quota.

If a war was truely worthy of fighting then one administartion could spend its resources setting up for the war without the worry of the next administration discarding its legacy. That didnt happen here, we went unprepared because, and this may just be my opinion, the war wasnt needed.

[DontBeAfraid]

oh, and having been in conferences, like that one, as a soldier I can tell you that asking questions of a "non-hooah" nature to people too far up in your chain of command is HIGHLY discouraged and usually gets you some punishment that doesnt involve any paperwork after the cameras have left the building.

[substand]

The press wants us to know that our soldiers are using garbage for protectoin

Again, it disturbs me because it is readily apparent that that is not the motive of press, as it was old news which was in the process of being rectified. It is clear the reporter was only trying to get a soldier to ask Rumsfeld the question, not to improve safety, or gain any addition information, but purely to make Rumsfeld look bad. The reporter had no reasonably inferred good intention as the one you mentioned, unless he was completely ignorant of the happenings surrounding and involving the question.

[DontBeAfraid]

The more attention we pay to this situation the faster it gets rectified..... Maybe Rumsfeld didnt know, Maybe if it was really being fixed then that might have been his answer.... His answer was "use what you've got". It wasnt one of his concerns until the press made him look bad.

GJ press for helping to protect our soldiers by asking questions that make leaders look bad and thereby forcing those leaders to respond with action(hopefully).

And again, the soldier must really be concerned about this himself or he wouldnt have dared to ask the question.

[substand]

GJ press for helping to protect our soldiers by asking questions that make leaders look bad and thereby forcing those leaders to respond with action(hopefully).

Its not the questions I'm mad about. I dont know how else to explain it. The press were asking the same questions weeks, even months, before hand, and the government has been doing things about it.

Good for both of them. I'm glad our soldiers are getting better equipment. This case though, is a good example of the press asking such questions, not for the benefit of soldiers, but for a larger anti-bush agenda.

I applaud them for the good work they do, but to ask questions and plant stuff like this, it is NOT NEWS. It was NOT NEWS. It was purely a reporter doing SOMETHING BESIDES REPORTING.

Again, its partly illogical on my part, because the end result will be the same... but as I said, sometimes motive counts for something. And I can't stand it that this guy is trying to pose as if he cares about the troops when clearly he does not- unless he is ignorant of the facts, which one could reasonably assume he is not, considering the business he is in. And maybe he is truly concerned and ignorant of the facts. But if that is the case, then he is inept at his job and should probably be doing something else.

I don't know if you are trying to convince me that the reporter was doing good or supporting the troops or what... but I just don't see it.

You don't have to convince me that the end result is the same, as I've now admitted to it twice. It would take some convincing however, to tell me that the reporter has the best interests of the troops at heart, or that his "reporting" was not influenced by a different agenda.