more rumsfeld - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 12-19-2004, 09:16 PM

this from bbc tonight:
link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4110091.stm

Quote:

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.

This issue of the secretary of defence not personally signing the letters is just astounding to me... I have no confidence in Rumsfeld

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel

"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.

you would think that this kind of thing would really stick in the craw of folk who have been aligning support for the iraq war with support for the troops who are sent there. in this move--or slide--it seems that the bush administration gets aligned with the best interest of the troops themselves.

earlier in the week, rumsfeld in kuwait: tonight, this...

i would also think that rumsfeld has to be seen as a liability rather than an asset...and it seems like people from across party lines feel that way as well. but for some reason, not geroge w. bush. i do not understand that one: any interpretations?

there was a version of this debate in the previous rumsfeld thread, but it went only in a particular direction, into a discussion of armaments--this seems to me to raise different types of problems.

what do you make of this?

Dragonlich · 12-20-2004, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

you would think that this kind of thing would really stick in the craw of folk who have been aligning support for the iraq war with support for the troops who are sent there. in this move--or slide--it seems that the bush administration gets aligned with the best interest of the troops

Why? You expect the secretary of defense to personally sign every letter to a dead soldier's family?

I wonder, did previous defense secretaries sign all such letters during previous wars? Vietnam? Korea? WW2? WW1? If they did, I doubt they'd have time to do anything else...

Personally, I think this is a non-issue, made into something nasty by opponents of the war in general, and Rumsfeld in particular. Of course the families are outraged; they lost someone in a war and would want the President himself to visit them. Of course every politician is condemning it; this issue could make or break their political future. Of course the troops feel angry; they feel that the politicians don't care about them.

It's a great story, perfect material to damage Rumsfeld as being unpatriotic/un-American/uncaring... But I keep wondering about previous wars and previous defense secretaries; is this something only Rumsfeld did, or was it common practice? I suspect it's the latter.

Kadath · 12-20-2004, 06:01 AM

I actually didn't think it was reasonable that Rumsfeld sign every letter personally either, but it probably seem pretty impersonal that you get a letter signed by a machine as the only indication the government cares your loved one died. If Rumsfeld didn't come off as such an arrogant jerk, it wouldn't be an issue, but given his track record...

Further, he said he was responsible for writing and approving each message. If that was true, actually handling the signature would add perhaps five seconds to each letter. That would add less than two hours total to his workload, spread over a year and a half. Assuming he works ten hours a day(I imagine and hope it's more, but...) he's worked about 4400 hours since the war started. Two more hours is not really going to represent that much extra time. WWII might have taken a little longer, with 300 times the dead, but in this case I think Rumsfeld can make the effort.

roachboy · 12-20-2004, 07:01 AM

the interesting thing about this story is that it appears to come from the right--the way it is framed, the way the argument runs--it seems to represent a wedge of republicans disaffected with the legion of problems rumsfeld poses for them. so i do not see it as coming from opponents of the war--i see this as coming from internal opposition to the particular directions that rumsfeld represents, and to rumsfeld himself.

i do not understand bush's support for this clown--unless he functions to divert criticism from bush himself over the various debacles this administration has embroiled the state in over the past 3 years....in which case rumsfeld is useful for publicity purposes.

OFKU0 · 12-20-2004, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i do not understand bush's support for this clown--unless he functions to divert criticism from bush himself over the various debacles this administration has embroiled the state in over the past 3 years....in which case rumsfeld is useful for publicity purposes.

I think that also. Bush needs a whipping boy and Rumsfeld fits the ticket.

As for the letters; I would imagine a hand written signature would be most appropriate for someones ultimate sacrifice for their country. Personally I don't think Rumsfeld cares. His tone and general candor reminds me of a used car salesman. The sleaze shines through. I think he is much happier in front of his board game Risk, plotting which country he will take over next so as to conquer the world and win the game.

Seaver · 12-20-2004, 10:53 AM

Quote:

As for the letters; I would imagine a hand written signature would be most appropriate for someones ultimate sacrifice for their country.

As a fighting man, I can tell you I'd MUCH rather have the SECDEF do something productive rather than signing personally my letter.

Listen, if you want a SECDEF who does nothing but sign letters, nothing will get accomplished, and it would only cause more and more letters each day. Impersonal? Well hate to break it to you but we ARE at war. Lincoln wrote ONE letter in the entire Civil War and was heralded for that. That says something about the rareity of that.

Anyways the way this was written, if he DID take the time to personally sign it they'd say something about how he didnt personally write it, or that he's wasting too much time instead of protecting our troops.

filtherton · 12-20-2004, 11:08 AM

I don't think robotically signing letters is an issue, especially in light of all of the other things rumsfeld has fucked up. I think it is significant that members of the republican party are getting their panties in a bunch about it though.

OFKU0 · 12-20-2004, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Anyways the way this was written, if he DID take the time to personally sign it they'd say something about how he didnt personally write it, or that he's wasting too much time instead of protecting our troops.

I think you are right. But I think those who would use those attitudes wouldn't necessarily start at that point but rather digress to that point due to whatever dissatisfaction they had with the war in general.

In other words, if things went as planned in Iraq, assuming a successful plan, ( in/out, fewer casualties, some semblence that things were better after other than before) this wouldn't be an issue.

And I understand your point about wanting to be on track and preoccupied with something other than signing letters, but that relatively small gesture of condolence would go a long way for some that soldiers are not commodity in someones game of war and for others that feel this war has gone off the rails.

Daval · 12-20-2004, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

Further, he said he was responsible for writing and approving each message. If that was true, actually handling the signature would add perhaps five seconds to each letter. That would add less than two hours total to his workload, spread over a year and a half. Assuming he works ten hours a day(I imagine and hope it's more, but...) he's worked about 4400 hours since the war started. Two more hours is not really going to represent that much extra time. WWII might have taken a little longer, with 300 times the dead, but in this case I think Rumsfeld can make the effort.

I agree with the statement above. Signing the letters is not a big deal and shouldbe done.

A lot of the people here are reacting like we are asking the guy to write the letters, lick the envelopes and affix the stamp himself. Its just a friggin signature.

The men and women who died serving their country deserve as much.

Dragonlich · 12-20-2004, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daval

The men and women who died serving their country deserve as much.

Why? Would a "real" signature make any difference whatsoever? Does it somehow make their deaths worth it, or more acceptable?

It's a symbolic, emotional, but ultimately hollow gesture, nothing more.

mike059 · 12-20-2004, 04:36 PM

I believe that it goes much deeper. He does not appear to have any respect for the troops themselves. To tell a soldier that he must go to war with what he has is a complete crock when the war has been going on for 18 months. I retired from the Navy, and that statement just pissed me off. When you deploy to a known threat area with substandard equipment is just tragedy waiting to happen.

OFKU0 · 12-20-2004, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

Why? Would a "real" signature make any difference whatsoever? Does it somehow make their deaths worth it, or more acceptable?

It's a symbolic, emotional, but ultimately hollow gesture, nothing more.

I think if I were an American soldier and willing to die for my country and you were the Secretary of Defense and you said something like that, I would savour the moment in time when asking for a dishonorable discharge, would eclipse the pride I would have felt as a soldier.

And I'm not even American.

boatin · 12-20-2004, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Listen, if you want a SECDEF who does nothing but sign letters, nothing will get accomplished, and it would only cause more and more letters each day.

Well, this is a real nice way to attempt to derail the thread. Pretty confident that NO ONE said they wanted a SECDEF to "do nothing but sign letters". Pretty silly to put those words out there. That doesn't advance the debate, it just helps create the partisen bickering.

As someone else suggested, this wouldn't take 2 hours to do. Spread over the length of the war. As busy as the SECDEF is, anyone has 2 hours in a year in their job for something important. I think it would show respect for the dead to do this.

Call it shallow, call it politics, or call it a sincere way to thank the families for their ultimate sacrifice. I prefer to think of it as the latter. I see almost NO cost, and the potential for great meaning. And yet it doesn't happen.

I sure draw my own conclusions from that.

Dragonlich · 12-21-2004, 01:30 AM

Okay, I'll ask it again: does anyone know if previous "SECDEFs" signed those letters personally?

If none did, this is a non-issue; you can't say that Rumsfeld is evil/inconsiderate/uncaring unless you say the same about all those other guys. But of course, that would probably ruin the chances of taking yet another stab at Rumsfeld...

brianna · 12-21-2004, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

Okay, I'll ask it again: does anyone know if previous "SECDEFs" signed those letters personally?

If none did, this is a non-issue; you can't say that Rumsfeld is evil/inconsiderate/uncaring unless you say the same about all those other guys. But of course, that would probably ruin the chances of taking yet another stab at Rumsfeld...

i have no idea -- but we are talking about a very different situation from things like WWI and WWII. the death toll in those wars was so high that it would not have been possible for one person to sign all of the letters -- but in a war with just over 1000 causalities over the course of a year and a half it *IS* possible for Rumsfeld to sign all of the letters. I actually agree that it doesn't matter if he does but given the current circumstances (an unpopular war of choice that the SECDEF did not properly plan for as well as his cavalier attitude towards soldiers requesting proper equipment) i can hardly blame people for wishing for ANY sign that Rumsfeld felt at all responsible for the causalities in this war -- his signature on these letters would have been a small unimportant gesture but not doing it stands as further indication of his irresponsible nature.

Kadath · 12-21-2004, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

Okay, I'll ask it again: does anyone know if previous "SECDEFs" signed those letters personally?

If none did, this is a non-issue; you can't say that Rumsfeld is evil/inconsiderate/uncaring unless you say the same about all those other guys. But of course, that would probably ruin the chances of taking yet another stab at Rumsfeld...

I am honestly impressed with the way you have given the status of victim to Rumsfeld rather than the families of the dead. It was deftly done.

roachboy · 12-21-2004, 06:19 AM

i do not think that the important aspect of this story lay inside the story itself.
think about it:
isnt it interesting to note how opposition to rumsfeld from conservatives has to pitch itself?

it is like this whole business is infolding in code:
since it is inadmissiable to confront the debacle of the iraq war (either in principle or in fact) directly;
since it is impossible to not participate in the festishization of the troops--not in themselves, of course (witness the exchange discussed in the other recent rumsfeld thread about armor) but as signifier the primary function of which is to shut down spaces for opposition to the war....(for example)....

this is the kind of thing that the right opposition has to use as a wedge issue to express their opposition to rumsfeld.

what is clever about this tack is that it is a good allegory for the administration itself with reference in particular to the troops that it has sent into harms way on the basis of crackpot imperialist delusions.

but it is also no more than an allegory, and a kind of flimsy one if you look at it straight on...i think the debate above shows this problem clearly---it is not about anything substantive, the story, but it is a way of trying to impugn rumsfeld by calling the detail of his committment to "our boys" into question.

those of us who work outside the discursive frame particular to bushworld and its relay systems in the major media (you know, the liberal press, the one that has spent the past two years on its knees) find that discourse to be an obvious problem--however we at least have mobility---the problems of being boxed in by the groupthink of bushworld is far more developed for anyone who tries to oppose the administration from within its own general terrain.

so it appears that bushworld has the more conventional right boxed in.

Dragonlich · 12-21-2004, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

I am honestly impressed with the way you have given the status of victim to Rumsfeld rather than the families of the dead. It was deftly done.

I'm impressed by your ability to twist my words into a completely different meaning. Good job.

I was highlighting the hypocrisy of attacking Rumsfeld for something that may have been (and probably was) standard procedure for decades, or even centuries. Where were the protests about this during the first gulf war? Or Bosnia? Or during the bombings in Libanon?

I get the feeling some people see this absence of a personal signature as a sign Rumsfeld doesn't care about those that died. As if a signature proves empathy.

Isn't it enough that he promised to sign the letters from now on? No, of course it's not - Rumsfeld represents everything bad the Bush administration has done; he represents the unpopular war in Iraq; he represents everything that's gone wrong over the past years. This signature thing is just another excuse to attack him, and with him, everything he stands for.

roachboy · 12-21-2004, 07:45 AM

another thing that interests me in this context is that this story also appears a diversion from other, graver things:

apparently, fbi email traffic has been released to the aclu in response to a freedom of information act request that claims bush authorized the use of torture personally. here is a page showing the email traffic:

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/fbi.html

and here an article from liberation (paris) on these emails (in french--sorry)

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=263150

later that afternoon:
a new york times story on this same matter: the difference in spin is interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/21/po...rtner=homepage

caveat: the article is 2 pages long, so i didnt copy it here.

if the links connecting this to the highest levels of government are conclusive (this is not yet really clear to me, but it looks as though they are) then i would think cowboy george should face impeachment.

Kadath · 12-21-2004, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

I'm impressed by your ability to twist my words into a completely different meaning. Good job.

I was highlighting the hypocrisy of attacking Rumsfeld for something that may have been (and probably was) standard procedure for decades, or even centuries. Where were the protests about this during the first gulf war? Or Bosnia? Or during the bombings in Libanon?

I get the feeling some people see this absence of a personal signature as a sign Rumsfeld doesn't care about those that died. As if a signature proves empathy.

Isn't it enough that he promised to sign the letters from now on? No, of course it's not - Rumsfeld represents everything bad the Bush administration has done; he represents the unpopular war in Iraq; he represents everything that's gone wrong over the past years. This signature thing is just another excuse to attack him, and with him, everything he stands for.

So, "Rumsfeld and everything he stands for is being attacked", and I have twisted your words by saying you are portraying him as a victim? I honestly don't see how you are not doing that. You have taken the focus off the families and put it onto Rumsfeld. Please show me my error here.

Dragonlich · 12-21-2004, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

So, "Rumsfeld and everything he stands for is being attacked", and I have twisted your words by saying you are portraying him as a victim? I honestly don't see how you are not doing that. You have taken the focus off the families and put it onto Rumsfeld. Please show me my error here.

Your error in this particular case is that you seem to think I support Rumsfeld. I'm not saying Rumsfeld *shouldn't* be attacked for his role in the Iraq war, I'm just saying that he *is*. Stating a fact does not mean I support it.

And to go back to your initial post: it's entirely possible for *both* the dead soldiers and their family *and* Rumsfeld to be victims; these options are not mutually exclusive. The soldiers/families are victims of the war, while Rumsfeld may or may not be a victim of a smear campaign. Just sayin'.

Overall, I feel that it's hypocritical to attack Rumsfeld for this, because I feel it's not a big deal and didn't bother anyone before. Basically, I'd say that the emotions surrounding dead soldiers and their families are used (abused even!) to attack the war/Rumsfeld. If you see that as "portraying Rumsfeld as the victim" (as if there can be only one victim...), so be it.

stevo · 12-21-2004, 11:09 AM

Bush signed all of his letters to dead soldiers families personally. Does that improve your personal view of him? Didn't think so.

sob · 12-21-2004, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianna

i have no idea -- but we are talking about a very different situation from things like WWI and WWII. the death toll in those wars was so high that it would not have been possible for one person to sign all of the letters -- but in a war with just over 1000 causalities over the course of a year and a half it *IS* possible for Rumsfeld to sign all of the letters. I actually agree that it doesn't matter if he does but given the current circumstances (an unpopular war of choice that the SECDEF did not properly plan for as well as his cavalier attitude towards soldiers requesting proper equipment) i can hardly blame people for wishing for ANY sign that Rumsfeld felt at all responsible for the causalities in this war -- his signature on these letters would have been a small unimportant gesture but not doing it stands as further indication of his irresponsible nature.

Well, let's find out if Les Aspin signed all the letters for the people who got killed in Mogadishu. I'd ask about Haiti and Kosovo too, but I have no idea how many we've lost there, since the networks don't give us a daily update on them. Unlike what they do with a Republican president.

By the way, I heard on the news today that at the time Rumsfeld was asked the question, of 830 vehicles over there, 800 had been up-armored. Don't know what specific kind of vehicle. Also, 20 of the remaining 30 were in the process of being up-armored.

Can anybody provide details on this, or refute it?

boatin · 12-21-2004, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo22

Bush signed all of his letters to dead soldiers families personally. Does that improve your personal view of him? Didn't think so.

as another sign of the ridiculous partisenship of our times, I ask: are you unable to imagine that someone on the other "side" finds this admirable? What an amazing leap you make here. I find it pathetic and insulting.

I am VERY impressed that Bush is signing letters. I'll do some digging and see if I can confirm that. I'll be even more impressed if I find he has been doing that from the beginning.

That would show a level of concern and respect I didn't expect him to have. But if that is what he is doing (has done), kudos to him. As I said earlier, it's not a time consuming task, and would be a darn fine thing.

Good for him.

roachboy · 12-21-2004, 06:08 PM

once again, i am surprised that this article about rumsfeld is being taken literally as the point of departure---it seems more interesting to think about as an index of the tactical bind that republicans who oppose rumsfeld are forced into. personally, i think the accusation is close to meaningless. but it is getting a bit more press than the newest, more systematic revelations about bush administration sanctioning of tirture in iraq and guantanomo (see post no. 19 above...though i feel a bit like i am trying to jack a thread that i started by introducing this)

the problem that republican opponents of another round of rumsfeld follies are put into is that they cannot actively criticize the war, and so are reduced to this type of foolishness in an effort to discredit him. the responses above are for the most part in line with the boundaries right discourse has managed to draw around meaingful debate on this question.

Faygo · 12-21-2004, 06:26 PM

I hate that guy.

stevo · 12-21-2004, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

as another sign of the ridiculous partisenship of our times, I ask: are you unable to imagine that someone on the other "side" finds this admirable? What an amazing leap you make here. I find it pathetic and insulting.

I am VERY impressed that Bush is signing letters. I'll do some digging and see if I can confirm that. I'll be even more impressed if I find he has been doing that from the beginning.

That would show a level of concern and respect I didn't expect him to have. But if that is what he is doing (has done), kudos to him. As I said earlier, it's not a time consuming task, and would be a darn fine thing.

Good for him.

Then my comment wasn't directed at you. Its nice to see that not everyone on this board criticizing bush is open enough to see good in the man.

Good for you

Gatorade Frost · 12-21-2004, 06:53 PM

I've yet to read the entire thread, but a blog made the point that yes it's nice to have a hand signed letter from the secdef or the president, but there are more important things that could be done, like hand written letters or the like from the people who personally served with them, not from a man at the top who's never met the soldier who was killed.

And on the story of the Kuwait stuff, they were in the process of armoring all of the humvees and they all would have been armored within the next day I believe, there was only twenty left, and the vast majority of humvees had already been armored.

12-20-2004, 06:01 AM	#3 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	I actually didn't think it was reasonable that Rumsfeld sign every letter personally either, but it probably seem pretty impersonal that you get a letter signed by a machine as the only indication the government cares your loved one died. If Rumsfeld didn't come off as such an arrogant jerk, it wouldn't be an issue, but given his track record... Further, he said he was responsible for writing and approving each message. If that was true, actually handling the signature would add perhaps five seconds to each letter. That would add less than two hours total to his workload, spread over a year and a half. Assuming he works ten hours a day(I imagine and hope it's more, but...) he's worked about 4400 hours since the war started. Two more hours is not really going to represent that much extra time. WWII might have taken a little longer, with 300 times the dead, but in this case I think Rumsfeld can make the effort. __________________ it's quiet in here

12-20-2004, 07:01 AM	#4 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the interesting thing about this story is that it appears to come from the right--the way it is framed, the way the argument runs--it seems to represent a wedge of republicans disaffected with the legion of problems rumsfeld poses for them. so i do not see it as coming from opponents of the war--i see this as coming from internal opposition to the particular directions that rumsfeld represents, and to rumsfeld himself. i do not understand bush's support for this clown--unless he functions to divert criticism from bush himself over the various debacles this administration has embroiled the state in over the past 3 years....in which case rumsfeld is useful for publicity purposes. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-21-2004, 06:19 AM	#17 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i do not think that the important aspect of this story lay inside the story itself. think about it: isnt it interesting to note how opposition to rumsfeld from conservatives has to pitch itself? it is like this whole business is infolding in code: since it is inadmissiable to confront the debacle of the iraq war (either in principle or in fact) directly; since it is impossible to not participate in the festishization of the troops--not in themselves, of course (witness the exchange discussed in the other recent rumsfeld thread about armor) but as signifier the primary function of which is to shut down spaces for opposition to the war....(for example).... this is the kind of thing that the right opposition has to use as a wedge issue to express their opposition to rumsfeld. what is clever about this tack is that it is a good allegory for the administration itself with reference in particular to the troops that it has sent into harms way on the basis of crackpot imperialist delusions. but it is also no more than an allegory, and a kind of flimsy one if you look at it straight on...i think the debate above shows this problem clearly---it is not about anything substantive, the story, but it is a way of trying to impugn rumsfeld by calling the detail of his committment to "our boys" into question. those of us who work outside the discursive frame particular to bushworld and its relay systems in the major media (you know, the liberal press, the one that has spent the past two years on its knees) find that discourse to be an obvious problem--however we at least have mobility---the problems of being boxed in by the groupthink of bushworld is far more developed for anyone who tries to oppose the administration from within its own general terrain. so it appears that bushworld has the more conventional right boxed in. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-21-2004, 07:45 AM	#19 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	another thing that interests me in this context is that this story also appears a diversion from other, graver things: apparently, fbi email traffic has been released to the aclu in response to a freedom of information act request that claims bush authorized the use of torture personally. here is a page showing the email traffic: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/fbi.html and here an article from liberation (paris) on these emails (in french--sorry) http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=263150 later that afternoon: a new york times story on this same matter: the difference in spin is interesting. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/21/po...rtner=homepage caveat: the article is 2 pages long, so i didnt copy it here. if the links connecting this to the highest levels of government are conclusive (this is not yet really clear to me, but it looks as though they are) then i would think cowboy george should face impeachment. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-21-2004 at 11:50 AM..

12-21-2004, 06:08 PM	#25 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	once again, i am surprised that this article about rumsfeld is being taken literally as the point of departure---it seems more interesting to think about as an index of the tactical bind that republicans who oppose rumsfeld are forced into. personally, i think the accusation is close to meaningless. but it is getting a bit more press than the newest, more systematic revelations about bush administration sanctioning of tirture in iraq and guantanomo (see post no. 19 above...though i feel a bit like i am trying to jack a thread that i started by introducing this) the problem that republican opponents of another round of rumsfeld follies are put into is that they cannot actively criticize the war, and so are reduced to this type of foolishness in an effort to discredit him. the responses above are for the most part in line with the boundaries right discourse has managed to draw around meaingful debate on this question. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-20-2004, 11:08 AM	#7 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I don't think robotically signing letters is an issue, especially in light of all of the other things rumsfeld has fucked up. I think it is significant that members of the republican party are getting their panties in a bunch about it though.

12-20-2004, 04:36 PM	#11 (permalink)
mike059 Tilted Location: Pensacola, Florida	I believe that it goes much deeper. He does not appear to have any respect for the troops themselves. To tell a soldier that he must go to war with what he has is a complete crock when the war has been going on for 18 months. I retired from the Navy, and that statement just pissed me off. When you deploy to a known threat area with substandard equipment is just tragedy waiting to happen.

12-21-2004, 01:30 AM	#14 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Okay, I'll ask it again: does anyone know if previous "SECDEFs" signed those letters personally? If none did, this is a non-issue; you can't say that Rumsfeld is evil/inconsiderate/uncaring unless you say the same about all those other guys. But of course, that would probably ruin the chances of taking yet another stab at Rumsfeld...

12-21-2004, 11:09 AM	#22 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Bush signed all of his letters to dead soldiers families personally. Does that improve your personal view of him? Didn't think so.

12-21-2004, 06:26 PM	#26 (permalink)
Faygo Banned	I hate that guy.

12-21-2004, 06:53 PM	#28 (permalink)
Gatorade Frost Rookie	I've yet to read the entire thread, but a blog made the point that yes it's nice to have a hand signed letter from the secdef or the president, but there are more important things that could be done, like hand written letters or the like from the people who personally served with them, not from a man at the top who's never met the soldier who was killed. And on the story of the Kuwait stuff, they were in the process of armoring all of the humvees and they all would have been armored within the next day I believe, there was only twenty left, and the vast majority of humvees had already been armored.