Rumsfield: BIGGER FISH TO FRY

WASHINGTON: 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.

In a statement provided to Stars and Stripes on Thursday, Donald Rumsfeld tacitly admitted that in the past he has not 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.

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."

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?"

"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."

For complete atricle, go to: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=26085

Paul it may be more tactful to get your own blog rather than use someone else's blog to copy and post anything critical of the administration. I'm sure most of the readers of this blog could find that on any leftist blog, and believe me we do read your guys rantings.

This is the Olberman Watch blog not the Administration Watch blog? You could start your own and use that title maybe?

Chuck,

First off, I posted in response to Bob's "invitation"... "Since Keith did his first straight news broadcast in six weeks I leave the floor today to the loony left....have at it..."
Since I fit that description, I took him up on his offer. Didn't mean to offend.

Secondly, DID YOU EVEN BOTHER TO FOLLOW THE LINK I PROVIDED? It's not to some "leftist blog" but to "Stars and Stripes," the source of my excerpt. "Stars and Stripes" is a well-known periodical sanctioned by the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. Perhaps I felt the fact that this august body (DOD) would have something "critical (to say) of the administration," was noteworthy.

Sorry... I didn't mean to waste your time on non-partisan input.

Unlike the loony left, we of the clear thinking majority in this country believe in things like free speech so anyone, and yes Chuck that includes Paul and his fellow libs, are free to express their thoughts on OlbermannWatch.

That said, Paul has not expressed his own thoughts. Instead he has appropriated the writing of someone else, Leo Shane III, the author of the article, and appropriated the property of Stars and Stripes in the process. There is something called "fair use" which permits the use of copyrighted material in certain circumstances; Paul's post probably goes beyond "fair use."

It would be more fair to Mr. Shane and Stars and Stripes, if Paul were to ask for permission to reprint the article above or, even better, to post his own thoughts about the article, make limited use of direct quotes and provide the link.

NOTE: HTML is enabled for comments so it is possible to go beyond simply entering the text of URL and provide a hyperlink.

If Paul were willing to edit his own post to comport with the doctrine of "fair use", I would be willing to replace his current post with the amended version but I am not going to remove his comment or edit it for him.

Bob,

I'll do my best to edit later this PM later, but I gotta' run. Thanks.

Bob,

I've sent Mr. Shane my post asking his permission. If he declines, I'll let you know, so you can remove my post. I'm not a journalist and clearly have much to learn about copyright as it applies to blogs and for that matter, blogs in general but will get input on the former from my niece, who's a copyright attorney here in Ohio.

I appreciate the heads-up, however I don't condone your chronic insolence. You may loathe my presence but I continue to be polite. Why do you insist on being so caustic and insipid?

Att: Paul,

Caustic? Insipid? Is your skin that thin? If you're actually serious, may I suggest that you try the following experiment. Try going to one of your favorite lefty blogs.
Post the following: I think it's terrible that 1.3 million baby's are killed in America every year because of unlimited abortions.

Or: The policy's of George W Bush have helped liberate millions of Afghani and Iraqi citizens.

Remember, sloth is not a resting place, please try it and report back.

If that doesn't open your mind, perhaps you should put on a TIN FOIL HAT when you come ablogen here.

Best

Rubin,

Help me here...

Assume for a moment I conduct your experiment by visiting "bushizzababoon.com" or the lefty site du jour to post a couple dope GOP talking points. When I draw the predictable venom, just what is it that you expect it will prove to me? Will it "open my mind" to the fact that lefties can be as narrow-minded, confrontational and insulting to their opponents as the right-wingers who routinely berate me here? News Flash...I know that already.

You miss my point. It's not an issue of mettle. My point--one I've shared and will continue to share with people on my side of the idealogical spectrum--is that no one should suffer personal attacks because he or she holds opposing views. We should attack the argument rather than its bearer.

FYI, I didn't mention abortions, which, BTW are UP under W. Nor did I mention the "liberation" of Iraq, because I don't want to "jump the gun". What I see on TV every night still doesn't look like liberation to me. Once I've seen evidence of "liberation" I'll acknowledge it.

Please don't accuse me of being narrow-minded. Please don't insult me. Attack my words and what they convey; argue against my logic, refute my facts--prove me wrong. When you do, I'll admit it...Mr. Cox has done this and I've acknowledged him. If that's not possible--if you feel we must insult one another to carry on these discussions, you win, because I won't indulge you.

It's not easy. I want to lash out when I'm insulted, but try to resist--and USUALLY, I succeed. I just don't think we'll get anywhere if we continue ot abuse one another.

God bless you and thanks for your opinions.

Rubin,

Help me here...

Assume for a moment I conduct your experiment by visiting "bushizzababoon.com" or the lefty site du jour to post a couple dope GOP talking points. When I draw the predictable venom, just what is it that you expect it will prove to me? Will it "open my mind" to the fact that lefties can be as narrow-minded, confrontational and insulting to their opponents as the right-wingers who routinely berate me here? News Flash...I know that already.

You miss my point. It's not an issue of mettle. My point--one I've shared and will continue to share with people on my side of the idealogical spectrum--is that no one should suffer personal attacks because he or she holds opposing views. We should attack the argument rather than its bearer.

FYI, I didn't mention abortions, which, BTW are UP under W. Nor did I mention the "liberation" of Iraq, because I don't want to "jump the gun". What I see on TV every night still doesn't look like liberation to me. Once I've seen evidence of "liberation" I'll acknowledge it.

Please don't accuse me of being narrow-minded. Please don't insult me. Attack my words and what they convey; argue against my logic, refute my facts--prove me wrong. When you do, I'll admit it...Mr. Cox has done this and I've acknowledged him. If that's not possible--if you feel we must insult one another to carry on these discussions, you win, because I won't indulge you.

It's not easy. I want to lash out when I'm insulted, but try to resist--and USUALLY, I succeed. I just don't think we'll get anywhere if we continue ot abuse one another.

God bless you and thanks for your opinions.

Your points are taken..........sort of......If you're truly offended, I resend my remarks.
"Sloth etc." was gratuitous, I admit... As for the TIN FOIL HAT , hell I made one myself which I wear when I watch the Countdown.

I might add that if you drop a piece of bait (article/Rumsfeld) the very least you should expect is a little re-bait. Incidentally I think he's done a fantastic job.

What's the standard for a blog?.... If you were sitting at my dinner table, would I talk to you in such a blunt fashion? If you were a stranger No, but If you were a friend of mine (believe me I have many liberal friends) Yes I would.

Remember Paul, Cecelia sent you a group hug. Merry Christmas.........

Paul...."FYI, I didn't mention abortions, which, BTW are UP under W."

A big No Way.
In fact reported abortions were highest under Jimmy Carter (1.6+ million) and they've more or less declined since. Planed parenthood,NIH,etc. No one has the same numbers/stats.
If you consider population stats. then the per-capita decline is even greater.
Cultural forces are the most likely reason for the decline.

It is critical to the correct functioning of the site that unreasonable, dangerous posts be dealt with firmly. It would be wrong to gratuitously insult someone but offering fair warning to clear thinking readers that we have amongst a muddled-thinking, lefty loon is merely a safety issue to protect the minds of the clear thinking majority.

Not so, Rubin.

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), abortion peaked not under the Carter administration, but in 1990.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html

While abortion statistics are arguable due to differences in the way reporting agencies collect data, (CDC v. Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) / National Right to Life Committee (NLRC), the NRLC reports that the number of abortions in the U.S. climbed steadily through the `80s (under Ronald Reagan) and peaked in 1990 under George Bush.

The number of reported abortions decreased steadily through the nineties.

http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatistics.htm - United%20States

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/aboramt.html

Statistics after 1998, while not conclusive, indicate that abortion in the U.S. has increased under George W. Bush.

"Under Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.

An article written by Professor Lewis B. Smedes, a pro-life Christian ethicist at Fuller Theological Seminary, connects the increase in abortion with Bush administration policies..."

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/10-13-2004/0002275999

"Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, insurance, jobs, childcare and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs, health insurance and support for mothers."

http://www.therightchristians.org/?q=node/view/544

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0406&article=040610

Nice try.

Mr. Cox made valid points re my original post here, in which I simply cut and pasted info about Rumsfeld's "Condolence letter "Rubber Stampgate" revelation. At the time, I hadn't seen anything about it on Olbywatch or elswhere, and thought it significant. However, I didn't editorialize, other than selecting excerpts that reinforced my opinion on the whole affair, which I didn't state.

Bob's comments made me analyze my post and realize that not only had I been less than objective, I'd failed to consider copyright issues as they may apply to blog posts. I'm an amateur, but that's no excuse.

At any rate, although it's now old news and I have yet to hear anything from the author permitting me to use his work in this manner, Mr. Cox suggested I post an ammended version, which I had prepared, in lieu of a sanctioned one.

He also told me to state my opinion on it, which, while it may have been evident to some of you, was less than obvious, so here goes.

Rumsfeld: BIGGER FISH TO FRY --TAKE 2

December 17, 2004

In today's European Edition of Stars and Stripes, Donald Rumsfeld responded to criticism for mechanically signing condolence letters sent to families of troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Leo Shane III reported that "Donald Rumsfeld tacitly admitted that in the past he has not 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."
Rumsfeld's statement was prompted by complaints from families who, upon comparing condolence letters, noticed similarites among Rumsfeld's signatures.

In rhis statement, Rumsfeld said ?I wrote and approved the now more than 1000 letters sent to family members and next of kin of each of the servicemen and women killed in military action. 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."

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=26085

I've never served in the military. Many of my family has. I don't know the accepted military protocol regarding the signing of condolence letters sent to the families of fallen troops. Even so, the practice of mechanically signing such letters seems to me to be cold and impersonal and could be interpretted by recipients of these letters as uncaring or insincere.

Granted, the Defense Secretary is clearly a busy guy, but if my son is killed following Mr. Rumsfeld's directives, I'd like to think that Rumsfeld will, at the very least, take the time to read and personally sign the letter he sends me to explain the details of my son's death.

Rubin,

You wished me a "Merry Christmas" and I failed to thank you, so back at ya'. Also the all best next year.

God bless,
-pbs