| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Rumsfeld failed to lick stamps on GI death letters |
| 2004-12-23 |
ScrappleFace(2004-12-20) -- Forensic DNA testing has revealed that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did not personally lick postage stamps on letters to families of troops killed in Iraq. |
| Posted by:Korora |
| #28 The gratitude that really matters is the implicit thanks expressed by the iraqi people when they elect their own leaders and taste real freedom as a result of our brave soldiers' sacrifice. By comparison everything else is, as ZF says, mere tokenism. Let's keep our eye on the ball here. Winning is what matters. The MSM and pro-fascist hyenas are trying desperately but they cannot and must not distract us from this overarching task. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-12-23 10:25:12 PM |
| #27 What would make more sense would be if 100 ordinary people, of all creeds and colors, signed these letters to thank the survivors for their sacrifice. After all, we, the people, sent them there. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-12-23 7:39:46 PM |
| #26 Rummy's the man, I don't care if he signed or licked those letters, he has bigger things to do: run a war, piss off the MSM, and ed as well, apparently |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-23 7:28:58 PM |
| #25 As a very strong supporter and admirer of SoD Rumsfeld, not personally signing the letters gives a rather cheap and unfortunate gift to the liberoids and mediaoids. Just watched a segment of Rumsfeld has been in Washington long enough to protect his back, and should have in this case. But the country needs SoD for four more years. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-12-23 7:28:25 PM |
| #24 It's beginning to smell a lot like Vietnam, everywhere I read. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-12-23 7:09:31 PM |
| #23 The sad thing, IMHO, is the effectiveness of these faux issues - look at the thread... The other side, the socialist / fascist / moonbat coalition, is playing upon our decency and sense of honor to divide us. And it works because we have them. Funny... it doesn't work on them... |
| Posted by: .com 2004-12-23 7:06:01 PM |
| #22 Ed, No it's not the place for the generals place to send letters of condolences (either). Rummy was showing respect by sending the letter, it isn't his place (or duty) to send one. The LLL are acting as if he sent the letter in some half hearted way. BTW it's the President (his duty) that sends personal letters of condolences (on behalf of the country) to the families and I will bet that those are auto-penned as well. Is that showing disrespect to the families? Where is the press on this matter? This is a totally made up story, plain and simple. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-12-23 6:55:41 PM |
| #21 level of casualties (200/day vs 1.5/day) Make that 300/day in WW2. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-12-23 5:40:43 PM |
| #20 Sarge, The secretary should not do it when it interferes with his other duties. I am saying to honor our dead and console their relatives the right way without being prodded to do it. I'm not angry at Rumsfeld or calling for his resignation. Just do what is right. It does not need to be the SecDef that signs the letters. It can be the service heads, an under secretary, or high official who volunteered for the job. We should be proud of the way we honor our dead. If not, then put into place procedures that we can be proud of when exposed to the light of day. Consoling the relatives of our deceased is a man's job, not a machine's. As for the WW2 method of informing relatives by telegram, it may have been practical given the level of casualties (200/day vs 1.5/day), but it did not make it right. The way we do it now, with an officer and chaplain personally visiting the family, is much more humane and respectful. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-12-23 5:28:40 PM |
| #19 Ed, I disagree that it's disrespectful. To send nothing at all would be disrespectful. The rest of this argument is so over the top it boggles the mind. Would you suggest this if we had massive casualties? And at what point does the SecDef stop 'personally' signing each letter and let the machine do it? Rummy is doing a great job and this is just a weak attemp to attack him. Shame on you for falling into the LLL trap. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-12-23 4:46:45 PM |
| #18 My point is this - if we want to respect the dead, having Rumsfeld sign condolence letters is a waste. Give the children full scholarships to college, and the widows (or widowers) lifetime stipends. Rumsfeld did not send their spouses and parents off to war. We did. Our response to the sacrifice of their loved ones needs to be substantive, not tokenistic. At the same time, we cannot let the survivors determine how the war is fought. We honor them because they fought the good fight. But we have our goals, and they have theirs. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-12-23 3:10:26 PM |
| #17 USN: Having lived throug the emotional rollercoaster that losing squadron-mates brings, I can tell you that our C.O. devoted many hours personnaly composing the letters to the families of those lost in a crash at sea. Did he lose three or four men daily? Should Rumsfeld personally compose these letters, agonizing over every word, taking two hours out of every day? Should the president do this instead? Maybe the entire high command should spend every day writing letters to the survivors of our war dead. Wouldn't bring them back to life, or win the war, but it would sure make the survivors feel better. Or would it? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-12-23 3:00:42 PM |
| #16 Having lived throug the emotional rollercoaster that losing squadron-mates brings, I can tell you that our C.O. devoted many hours personnaly composing the letters to the families of those lost in a crash at sea. To watch him agonize over each word, trying to convey his exact meanings did not distract him from his others tasks: continue with the required level of operations to support the carrier battle group and to find out the real cause of the accident to prevent a recurrence. Was he sentimental? yes, these men were part of the 'family; but he never lost sight of the end game. And these were not conflicting goals. |
| Posted by: USN, retired 2004-12-23 2:34:49 PM |
| #15 I'm with ZF on this. We're facing a ruthless enemy in a fight to the death. This is trivial. IMO the best tribute to the dead is staying the course and winning, period. Defeat the fascists, defeat fascism. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-12-23 2:30:47 PM |
| #14 ed: As for depression, shouldn't we be more concerned about the company and battalion commanders who write personal condolence letters to the families of their men and women? After all, they are ones doing the actual fighting and knew their fallen comrades. We are much tougher than that, and it's a cop out to expect less from our leaders than we would expect from ourselves. Toughness consists of ignoring unappeasable critics, not in signing condolence letters. Signing death notices is tough work - maybe you should read a few accounts of combat veterans who worked at notifying the next of kin, day in and day out, and quit relatively quickly. ed: A form letter with a machine signature says that the deceased is not worth even a few seconds of thought. I find that disrespectful. It has negative value. What I find disrespectful is the idea that the leadership's time is better spent signing letters and wallowing in sentimentality than prosecuting the war. If a few seconds of thought is all the time he's spending, then how does that differ materially from using the autopen? The whole point of the signature is to show that he thought about these men. If all he does is scrawl his name across the page, it's not materially different from using the autopen. You seem to be saying that Rumsfeld's signing of these letters while on autopilot is somehow more meaningful to the survivors than the autopen. I don't see it. If he's on autopilot, it doesn't mean anything. If he's not on autopilot, it's going to slow him down. Either way, it's a diversion from what we hired him for - to keep America safe from its enemies. (Heck - to show proper respect, maybe he should be one of the pall-bearers). |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-12-23 2:21:33 PM |
| #13 Sarge, I agree with what you say. I am saying either sign the letters personally or don't send a letter at all with your signature. A form letter with a machine signature says that the deceased is not worth even a few seconds of thought. I find that disrespectful. It has negative value. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-12-23 12:44:29 PM |
| #12 ZF, If signing condolence letters is enough to make a SedDef lose his balls then he shouldn't be there. We need harder men than that, and I believe Rumsfeld has the balls for the job. The letters already have his signature, although by machine. But condolence letters are not mass mailed Christmas cards. They symbolize the grief and appreciation of the country for the sacrifice of their husband, wife, or child. This is not WW2, where so many died that death notices were sent by telegram. If our leaders lose the respect of those who sacrifice to protect our country, if our citizens no longer think that our leaders care for those they lead, then we can all go home and wait for next city to be attacked. As for depression, shouldn't we be more concerned about the company and battalion commanders who write personal condolence letters to the families of their men and women? After all, they are ones doing the actual fighting and knew their fallen comrades. We are much tougher than that, and it's a cop out to expect less from our leaders than we would expect from ourselves. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-12-23 12:33:24 PM |
| #11 Ed, if you lost a loved one, the LAST thing on your mind is if the letter was signed by hand. Jakal is right that a more personal letter by the CO or comrade is applicable. This is on the same plain of thought that the President should attend the funerals of fallen soldiers. He has met with (or attempted to meet with) as many family members as possible, but let be reasonable here. I'll bet ANY letter sent by ANY member of congress (including those ranting now) was autosigned. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-12-23 12:10:30 PM |
| #10 ed: It's a measure of respect. It's been 3 years and we've lost about 1400 of our finest men and women. A signature takes less than 5 seconds. Take one minute once a week and do the right thing. It's a lousy idea because it might cause him to get depressed and lose heart. I don't care how the survivors feel about Rumsfeld's signature, as long as they're materially taken care of. I don't want the SecDef going into a blue funk because he's having to deal with signing his name to death notices all day. His job is to win, not emote. We have plenty of people for that. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-12-23 12:01:14 PM |
| #9 ZF, It's a measure of respect. It's been 3 years and we've lost about 1400 of our finest men and women. A signature takes less than 5 seconds. Take one minute once a week and do the right thing. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-12-23 11:19:30 AM |
| #8 If, God forbid, it ever happened, I'd rather have a personal letter from his Captain or Sargeant or someone in his unit that a form letter (even if hand-signed) by a General or SecDef. |
| Posted by: jackal 2004-12-23 11:09:42 AM |
| #7 That's a fair response, ZF, and I'll think about that for a bit. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2004-12-23 10:45:14 AM |
| #6 Seafarious: Well, I happen to agree that Rummy should personally sign those letters. These families gave the ultimate sacrifice for freedom and for their country, and the SecDef should sign those letters by hand. Sorry, but it's not too much to ask. I think having Rumsfeld personally sign these letters is a misallocation of resources. Let's say it takes 15 minutes a day from his schedule. Is this really the best use of the Defense Secretary's time? If we want to honor those who died, the best way to do this is to increase survivor benefits. Rumsfeld's job is to win the war, not engage in pointless PR exercises. They're not fighting the war for Rumsfeld - they're fighting for the rest of us. Rumsfeld is merely the person we have deputized to manage the war. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-12-23 10:36:37 AM |
| #5 Well, I happen to agree that Rummy should personally sign those letters. These families gave the ultimate sacrifice for freedom and for their country, and the SecDef should sign those letters by hand. Sorry, but it's not too much to ask. I'm not willing to put his head on a pike for it, however. And the anklebiters are really grasping at straws. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2004-12-23 10:19:30 AM |
| #4 Nothing would satisfy the lberaliods. They just lost an election and they need someone or something to vent their frustration. Look for them to go beyond the petty and look at who Rummy dated while he was in the Navy. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-12-23 10:06:49 AM |
| #3 At this point, he could lick their behinds and they still wouldn't be satisfied. They're out for an apology that includes a war crimes confession and falling on a sword. And they have about as much chance of getting it as Chirac has of getting a weekend of French cuisine and Laura in his bed at Crawford. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-12-23 8:31:10 AM |
| #2 I don't think the liberoids and the mediaiods were looking for Rummy to lick stamps, but their behinds. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-12-23 1:36:15 AM |
| #1 Are you sure this is scrappleface? When I heard that they were bitching because Rummy didn't personally sign each notification-of-death I just about had a accident in my truck as I exclaimed 'What the F--k!'. Its shit like that which convinces me that the MSM is firmly and knowingly on the side of the terrorists..... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-12-23 12:57:20 AM |