More Rumsfeld

[kosar]

After Outcry, Rumsfeld Says He Will Sign Condolences
Report Reveals His Signature Was Stamped on Letters to Dead Soldiers' Families




WASHINGTON (Dec. 19) - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will begin personally signing condolence letters sent to families of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, after receiving criticism over his use of mechanical signatures, Stars and Stripes reported on its Web site.

In a statement provided to Stars and Stripes on Thursday, Rumsfeld tacitly admitted that in the past he hasn't personally signed the letters, but said he was responsible for writing and approving each of the 1,000-plus messages sent to the fallen soldiers' families.

"I have directed that in the future I sign each letter," he 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."

In a separate statement, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said, "In the interest of ensuring timely contact with grieving family members, he has not individually signed each letter."

Department of Defense officials for the past few weeks had said only that the content of the letters was private, the Web site reported.

But several families of troops killed overseas said they were sure the notes they received hadn't been signed by hand, and said they were angry that Rumsfeld wasn't paying attention to their loss.

"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 told Stripes.

"This doesn't show our families the respect they deserve," said Medina, a New York resident whose twin brother, Irving, was killed in a roadside bombing in Iraq this summer.





Illinois resident Bette Sullivan, whose son John was killed in November 2003 while working as an Army mechanic in Iraq, was incensed when she, her son's wife and her grandchildren received the exact same condolence letter with the apparently stamped signature.

"If each family receives two copies, how many signatures does that amount to?" she asked in an e-mail response to Stripes. "I can understand the use of stamped signatures for his brothers' mementos, but for those of his wife and children and mother? No, no, no."

Retired Army Col. David Hackworth, an author and frequent critic of the Department of Defense, publicly criticized Rumsfeld in a syndicated column earlier this month for not reviewing each KIA letter personally.

He called the fake signatures "like having it signed by a monkey."

"Using those machines is pretty common, but it shouldn't be in cases of those who have died in action," he said. "How can (DOD officials) feel the emotional impact of that loss if they're not even looking at the letters?"

Hackworth said he objected to using the stamped signatures for promotion and commendation letters as well, but said not personally handling the condolence letters is a much more serious offense, the Web site reported.

Family members had expressed similar concerns to Stripes about President Bush's signature on his condolence letters, but Allen Abney, spokesman for the president, said that Bush does personally sign the letters sent from the White House.


12-19-04 06:19 EST

Copyright (C) 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Saw that Matt along with this one
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=8&u=/nm/20041218/pl_nm/politics_democrats_dc

Now the $64,000 question for you---How does anyone credit Rummy for any short comings in Iraq but don't acknowledge by same measure his responsibilty in Afgan's unprecidented accomplishments. ?????????

 

[kosar]

The inmates are running the asylum in Afghanistan, Wayne. The election there may have been 'unprecedented', just like this one in Iraq coming up, but when I see any lasting, crowning achievements in either place, i'll let ya know.

How anybody could frame Rummy as anything but an abject failure is beyond me.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

for the record Matt I am not that keen on Rummy myself however like him better than I did Ashcroft who was on top of my list for replacement--hated to see Powell go.

 

[kosar]

Agree with that, although i'd put Ashcroft and Rummy in a dead heat.

It was funny reading Ashcrofts resignation letter, where he reeled off all these things that in his mind, he 'accomplished.'

It's mind-boggling that Dubya got rid of most of his cabinet, including Powell, but is sticking with Rumsfeld.

 

[djv]

Don't matter to much their lame ducks in about 18 months. It almost seems it's to that point already. Many Reb's don't agree with W. So if there starting already maybe we get lucky with some grid lock. As for Rummy cant see why he keeps him. And let some good ones go. I thing I know why. If they don't agree with W there gone. He wants yes men. W nows says he has a vision for the world. I don't recall the World voeting for him. In fact all countries polled. Even our beloved England and Australia come up with over 60% saying Bush is wrong on most issues.

 

[kosar]

Many Reb's don't agree with W.

Bush may face more aggressive Congress
Republican lawmakers want a voice in domestic policyBy Jim VandeHei and Charles Babington

Updated: 12:14 a.m. ET Dec. 20, 2004President Bush's second-term plans to reshape Social Security, immigration laws and other domestic programs are facing a stiff challenge from a group that was reliably accommodating in the president's first four years: congressional Republicans.


House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has privately criticized White House handling of the recent intelligence bill and Bush's plan to postpone tax reform until 2006 or later. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) and others have publicly complained about the political and fiscal hazards of overhauling Social Security. Several senators, including a few 2008 presidential contenders, are rushing to promote their own Social Security plans to compete with Bush's.


And a number of conservative Republicans such as Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), who are concerned about states' rights, are threatening to derail the White House plan to impose federal limits on medical lawsuits. "It's one of the worst bills going," Graham said.

But the president's most nettlesome intra-party issue in early 2005 may be immigration, lawmakers said. Bush's goal of granting guest-worker status to large numbers of undocumented immigrants is about to collide head-on with House Republicans' push to crack down on illegal immigrants, in part by denying them driver's licenses.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.) salvaged the intelligence legislation this month only by telling GOP colleagues that the White House has vowed to allow tough immigration restrictions, including the driver's license proposal, that were removed from the measure to accompany the first "must-pass" legislation of 2005.

Immigration reform
"If the president wants to maintain credibility with House Republicans, he has to be engaged and willing to pass immigration reform that conservatives want," said Rep. Ray LaHood (Ill.), one of 57 House Republicans who voted against the intelligence bill Bush just signed into law. "If he does that, he will build a bridge" that could open the way to far-reaching changes to Social Security, the tax code and other policies, LaHood said. "If he's missing in action on that issue, he's going to have big problems."

Bush's ability to navigate these concerns will go a long way toward determining whether he can do what few previous presidents have done: enact broad domestic policy changes in a second term.



Bush will face a new, and in some ways less predictable, congressional environment in his second term. There will be 55 Republican senators, four more than during most of the first term, which should strengthen Bush's hand. But the new crop includes a few such as former representative Tom Coburn (Okla.) who are more conservative than Bush and have reputations for independence.

There will be 232 House Republicans, three more than this term. But House Republicans such as DeLay are telling colleagues that they, too, have accumulated considerable political capital by holding the House majority for a decade and picking up seats in back-to-back elections. The bigger a party's majority, often the harder it is to impose party discipline, several GOP observers said.

At a recent GOP leadership retreat, two participants said DeLay appeared to irritate White House political chief Karl Rove by signaling a more aggressive role in the new Congress.

Some Republicans no longer feel tethered to the president politically, as they did in the 2002 midterm elections and this year. Other senators, including Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), John McCain (Ariz.) and George Allen (Va.), will be animated by White House ambitions of their own.

Some GOP lawmakers contend that they allowed the White House to usurp too much of Congress's institutional power and that they need to reestablish the House's and Senate's role in writing laws. The White House is aware of frustration among Hill Republicans and is moving to address it, senior White House officials said. They are including top lawmakers in early talks about key issues, such as Social Security, and making staff changes to improve relations. Graham says White House officials are acting unusually "gracious" of late.

Powerful allies
Bush certainly has powerful allies on the Hill. Frist in many ways owes his leadership job to the president and Rove, who helped orchestrate the Tennessee physician's rise to power. Some Republicans say Frist would like Rove to run his 2008 White House bid, which would provide the party leader even more incentive to please the White House in the 109th Congress.

The president also has forged a close relationship with Hastert, who like Bush is conservative and comfortable working outside the public eye.

Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) continues to serve as a respected middle man between Bush and House Republicans.

But several lawmakers said the president needs to rub elbows with more rank-and-file Republicans to build support for politically tough issues such as adding private accounts to Social Security. "There's got to be lots more opportunities for schmoozing, one-on-one talks in small groups at the White House," LaHood said. "That goes a long, long way to building the kind of relationships he needs to pass Social Security reform." Addressing that issue, the president recently sent Rove and White House congressional liaison David Hobbs to a private retreat with GOP leaders, as part of a broader effort to develop a plan to create private retirement accounts using a portion of payroll taxes. Participants discussed, among other things, whether Bush or Congress should take the lead in writing the legislation. Several sources said the president is leaning toward offering a detailed plan around the State of the Union speech next month and spending the next few months promoting it, election-style, at public meetings.

Congressional Republicans are willing to help, but they expect solid White House support for other measures they favor, said Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), a member of the House GOP leadership who voted against the Bush-backed intelligence bill. "We know the financial woes of Social Security, and we've got to explain that over and over again," he said. In return, he said, Bush must rein in moderate Senate Republicans such as Arlen Specter (Pa.) who are accustomed to more political leeway than most House members enjoy.

"If Specter starts getting horsy on medical malpractice reform" and on proposed limits to same-sex marriage and stem cell research, Kingston said, "House members are going to be upset" if the White House stands idly by.

House GOP leaders also have warned the White House not to repeat what they considered to be the big mistake of the 2003 Medicare prescription drug debate: not spending enough time explaining the bill's virtues to voters, before and after Congress enacted it. Davis and as many as two dozen House Republicans have let it be known they consider major Social Security changes a potential political loser because many senior citizens fear the consequences. At the same time, conservatives such as Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) are calling for larger private accounts than Bush is likely to endorse.

The Senate may be even more problematic. Graham is pushing a different Social Security plan and challenging Bush's refusal to tinker with the payroll tax to finance the changes. Bush has ruled out raising taxes to fund the plan, while Graham says the amount of income subject to the payroll tax, which is capped at $87,900, should be lifted to $200,000.

Hagel plans to unveil his own plan early next year. It takes 60 votes to pass controversial measures in the 100-member Senate, so Bush can ill afford Republican defectors.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"Even our beloved England and Australia come up with over 60% saying Bush is wrong on most issues."

If you polled terrorist harboring countries + North Korea you could probably hit 90% saying he's wrong

In addition you had over 50% in U.S. that didn't want to go against Germany in ww2 unless we were attacked.

I doubt those polling figures anyway--so far the real undisputable polls show U.S --Aussie---same administration reaffirmed with UK pending.

 

[kosar]

Wayne,

Comparing what Germany was doing to what Iraq was *not* doing is silly and you know it.

BTW- I agree with you in that other thread that Pearl Harbor has no similarities to our occupation of Iraq, other than they were both incredibly stupid.

 

[kosar]

Also, on the other note, the populations of every country that has been polled(at least 20 different countries that i've seen) has been very consistent in condemning this action by a large margin.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

My comparisonwas not on war but the % of people opposed matt. In looking back manywould say how in the hell could 50% want us to stand pacifily by and wait till it was our turn---time will tell if same occurs here-granted could be labeled as major blunder.

I haven't seen any country by huge margin other than Arab--and whose doing the polling---It is factual the leading media here that is transfered to other countries via the newswires is NYT next probably BBC---for those receiving this "left lean" they would think the majority of U.S. citizens were opposed to war in general but elections prove thats not the fact--.

on different note on your threads of Republicans be in diff opinion than GW on several economic issues-- I agree heavily on some of their points--immigration--and entitlement programs long term spending.

Immigration deal is ploy for votes plain and simple.

I am curious how he plans to pay for restructure of SS with adding more debt. While I think it would be good for people your age in long run to have personal accounts I am sitting on the age bracket that will have potentially greatest adverse effect--however I don't mind taking cut "IF" it shores up plan for future generations.While I am definately not for higher taxes I really think raising medicares cap on at $87,900 is most reasonable and fiscal way to get job done--if it will do the job.School is still out on subject in my mind till I see some nuts and bolts.
I do know the current plan sucks. I would love to just have every penny I paid in with no interest and collect no SS. Not only would I be way ahead but when I die money would be passed to heirs and not kept by gov.

My idea on shoring up funding--
A:since all our politicians from both sides got us in this mess with BS spending I suggest all their future raises and cost of living increase be put into SS pool until they get it solvent.
B: cut all foreign aid to countries that continually diss our country
C:Reduce contibutions to U.N. to amount next current highest contributors pays.

This should have SS shored up and country out of red in about 18 months by my estimation.

in addition--and this may come as surprise---I think the Dem party has to return to center and become stronger. I do not think an administration is near as effective with large imbalances from either party in congress and they have to seperate themselves from the moveon.org mentality to get back on their feet--in my opinion.

 

[kosar]

I haven't seen any country by huge margin other than Arab--and whose doing the polling---It is factual the leading media here that is transfered to other countries via the newswires is NYT next probably BBC---for those receiving this "left lean" they would think the majority of U.S. citizens were opposed to war in general but elections prove thats not the fact--.

Every country that i've seen poll results on are heavily against our occupation. This includes not only Arab countries, but pro- Western countries as well. Britain, Spain, Poland, Korea, etc....Every last one. There isn't one country in the world whose populus agrees with this. Hell, our own country is 50/50 at best.

Agree with most of your thoughts on SS, but I think we need to act sooner, not later, to re-structure it. This is one of GW's few good ideas.

 

[djv]

Back to Rummy. Latest polls out today. Cant find over 42% of the people that think he should stay. And now only 40% think he doing a good job. Heck even Fox has to put out the same numbers. They have so many Reb's that want him out Fox has no choice.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

yep DJV if the media can get theirtalking points in it will prob get lower--as I am sure all know about reports enclosed in these threads I wonder how many know the "Whole Truth"

Question Off Base

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

By Brit Hume



The latest from the Political Grapevine:

Premise Problem?

It now appears that the premise of the question that caused an uproar around Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was off base. In Kuwait two weeks ago, Army Specialist Thomas Wilson (search) told Rumsfeld, "our vehicles are not armored ... We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north [into Iraq]."

But, according to senior Army officers, about 800 of the 830 vehicles in Wilson's army regiment ? the 278th Cavalry ? had already been up-armored when he asked the question. What's more, 20 vehicles remaining to be modified were in the process of being up-armored ? and that was completed within 24 hours of Wilson's question.

Report Regarding Rumsfeld

ABC did a report this week on military families upset that Rumsfeld used a machine to sign condolence letters. It quoted two people who lost family members in Iraq, Ivan Medina (search) and Sue Niederer. But what ABC did not mention is that both Medina and Niederer are long-time critics of the Bush administration.

Seven months ago Medina participated in an anti-Rumsfeld protest outside West Point, calling him a "liar and a war criminal." And just three months ago, Niederer interrupted a Bush campaign event in New Jersey, yelling and sporting a shirt that read: "President Bush You Killed My Son." She was arrested.

 

[kosar]

That must be one lucky unit to have 800 of 830 vehicles armored up, considering the Pentagon themselves admit that about half of the vehicles over there are without.

As far as the family members who outed Rumsfeld rubber stamp go, does it really matter where they are politically? The one lady Hume mentions was mad at Bush because her son died in the war. Really unusual.

The other guy lost his twin brother. What a bunch of whiners to expect the Secretary of Defense to personally sign the letters.

Is your point that this would never have come out if not for political reasons? Who cares? It did, so as a vet, does it bother you that he rubber stamped the letters?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

To be honest Matt I never looked nor did I care if any letters were rubber stamped or signed.When I get to office tomorrow I'll look through them and see and report back.

 

[djv]

People are more then mad about his dumb answer last week. When you start to see more reb's that want him out then dem's you know there's trouble in the circle some place.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Rummys prob in my view is he is arrogant and believes he can make no mistake.

Interesting on rubber stamping--while signatures look authentic almost all are carbon copies--only found one that was original and it was from George Putnam. Nixon was copy also.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

This should make your day DJV--

Another guard unit decries training, equipment
By SCOTT GOLD, Los Angeles Times

HOUSTON -- Members of a second National Guard unit that prepared for duty in Iraq at the Army's Fort Bliss compound have come forward with allegations that they were not adequately trained. The soldiers said in interviews, e-mails and official documents that they were sent to war earlier this year with chronic illness, broken guns and trucks with blown transmissions.
The unit's M-60 machine guns reportedly were in such bad condition when the soldiers deployed in February that one sergeant -- in a section of a post-training summary sent to his commanders that was titled "gun maintenance" -- wrote: "Perhaps we should throw stones?"
The allegations come a month after another National Guard unit alleged that its training at Fort Bliss was so poor that soldiers feared incurring needlessly high casualties when they arrive in Iraq early next year.
Although the military has defended its troop preparedness, the willingness of units to go public with allegations suggests growing concern among National Guard and reserve members.
In the summary document obtained by the Los Angeles Times, the sergeant reported that some soldiers had arrived in Iraq without ever having fired some of the weapons they would use in war. Military commanders at the Fort Bliss complex, which straddles the Texas-New Mexico line, had misread mobilization orders, costing the soldiers a month of training, the sergeant wrote.
"We have been called away from our homes and families for hostile operations. We are owed a chance to be trained properly and given the tools to obtain that objective," the sergeant wrote.
Fort Bliss spokeswoman Jean Offutt said Wednesday that the base has trained and deployed -- and in many cases redeployed-- 40,000 soldiers in the past three years.
"We have had very few issues," she said. "This is quite a surprise. But I understand there will always be some units who have things that they need to talk about or work on."
Lt. Jack Gaines, a spokesman for the Army's 91st Division, which trains soldiers at Fort Bliss, said: "The military takes care of its people."
He said the soldiers' concerns appear to be related to the changing role of the National Guard and reserve. "Citizen-soldiers" now make up about 40 percent of the troops in Iraq -- and shoulder a large share of the front-line combat roles.
"The preparation for combat is very strict," Gaines said. "It's very frustrating for a civilian soldier to go through that. But the truth is, it makes you a stronger, more disciplined person in the end, and that will keep you alive when things go bad."
Defense officials in Washington did not return phone calls seeking comment.
The allegations last month came from members of the 1st Battalion, 184th Infantry Regiment, a California Army National Guard unit activated in August. The new charges are from members of Company F, 425th Infantry Battalion, a unit of the Michigan Army National Guard that is scheduled to return to the United States within two months. Company F has about 140 soldiers on its rolls.
Both units trained at desert compounds in New Mexico that are part of Texas' Fort Bliss Training Complex.
The document in which the sergeant summarized his unit's training is known as an After-Action Review -- or AAR -- and is fairly common in the military. This one was widely disseminated among Company F soldiers, five of whom said it accurately outlined concerns shared by the entire unit. The soldiers said the document was sent to commanders at Fort Bliss and the Pentagon.
The document was shown to The Times on condition that the name of the sergeant, who has extensive experience in both the National Guard and the active-duty armed forces, not be used.
Military analysts said care must be taken to distinguish between typical soldiers' complaints and legitimate concerns that speak to the military's preparation for Iraq and its execution of the war.
"When soldiers don't complain, I worry. That's when you know something is wrong," said David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland.
Segal said it was not surprising that the soldiers' weapons were in need of repair after their rigorous training. But he said it was distressing to hear allegations that the weapons were still in bad shape by the time the unit had deployed.
According to the AAR, the unit's pistols and grenade launchers still had "deficiencies" after they were supposed to have been fixed up for battle. And of the unit's 21 M-60 machine guns, "upon deployment to the theater we have a total of 3 guns that are deficient-free," the document said.
"That is something that should not be happening," Segal said. "Americans have the right to assume that their sons and daughters, when deployed, are being deployed with what they need to do the job."

This story appeared on Page A2 of The Standard-Times on December 23, 2004.

 

[djv]

DTB it goes way back. To start with we sent our troops there with bad equipment. But for some reason we had to rush. Then after two years to correct things there still behind. We of course didn't listen to the generals that said we need 200000 troops there to do it right. Now they say we should have had more. Again almost two years later we never got to the point of enough to provide good security. I seemed to be a rush to get to Baghdad and the hell with security. It was like get there and declare all is in good hands. then say mission accomplished. Some body forgot to tell the other side.