PDA

View Full Version : Why wasn't Rumsfeld signing the condolence letters for our fallen soldiers himself?



PeedeeShaolin
12/20/2004 2:51pm,
...instead of having a machine do it for him?

And is this unprecedented in wartime history of this country? Does anyone know?

What kind of a scumbag does the Defence Secretary have to be to not personally sign those letters?

This came to light because several families who lost sons in Iraq told the military newspaper "Stars and Stripes" that they recvd letter not signed by hand and were angry and insulted.

"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.

Has anyone forgotten the miserable excuse this asshole gave when that soldier asked why they didn't have the equipment they needed? I know, I know....that question was PLANTED!

Has anyone heard yet if the applause from the troops after that question was also planted?

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

The row over the letters stoked the debate over whether President George W. Bush should have replaced the blunt secretary of defence who has been criticized over his handling of the Iraq war, including instances of Iraqi prisoner abuse by U.S. troops.

This guy has fucked up worse than I ever would have thought. From the prison abuse scandal to the failure to plan properly to rushing in when there was no need Rummy has consistently fucked up and then BLAMED the people on the ground who he just "listened to".

Well if this guys job is simply to "listen" to people on the ground why the **** ARE WE PAYING HIM?

Couldn't ANY FUCKING RETARD simply listen to what OTHER PEOPLE TELL HIM and then sign his name to it only to BLAME THEM afterward when **** falls apart?

Even Republicans are saying they have no confidence is Rumsfeld. First John McCain made that statement and now Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is speaking out with similar comments saying he also has "no confidence in Rumsfeld's leadership,".


"The secretary of defence not personally signing the letters is just astounding to me... Things are worse than they've ever been" in Iraq, Hagel said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

See where he said "Things are worse than they've ever been.."?

Pay particluar attention to that part and remember it when you watch FOX News and they spew the direct OPPOSITE comments in opposition to the CIA on the ground.

Iraq is getting worse and we have no plan to speak of and the blame for it falls DIRECTLY on the shoulders of Donald Rumsfeld.

How this fool has kept his job with the public spotlight on him is a testament to just how corrupt our govt has become when a person can **** up THIS BAD and still keep his paycheck.

Rev Bush said he feels Rumsfeld is doing a "fine job". The only way you can consider Rumsfeld to be doing a fine job is if you compare his job performance with Rev. Bush's.

If either of these two had a real job they would have been downsized a long time ago.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/12/20/rumsfeld-letters041220.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4112409.stm

Jsun102
12/20/2004 4:31pm,
Damn skippy!

afronaut
12/20/2004 4:35pm,
Preach

Xango
12/20/2004 4:41pm,
What would be really excellent would be if Rumsfeld would dress up in sackcloth and ashes, and whip himself with stinging nettles, every time a soldier died in Iraq.






No really! That'd be swank.

PeedeeShaolin
12/20/2004 5:28pm,
What would be really excellent would be if Rumsfeld would dress up in sackcloth and ashes, and whip himself with stinging nettles, every time a soldier died in Iraq.






No really! That'd be swank.

Considering this whole mess is his fault, until they can find someone else to blame it on, that suggestion is ok with me. Its alot better than the soldiers with missing feet got isn't it?

Can anyone tell me WHY we even pay this guy a salary if he's going to just blame everything on the miserable excuse "I was listening to the people on the ground" which boils down to "I'll sink low enough that I'll blame ANYONE for my **** ups"?

If this guys job is just to listen to someone and then say "ok" then is there anyone on this forum who thinks they couldn't do that job?

afronaut
12/20/2004 6:19pm,
Vets and active military dudes, please advise ...

What is the commander's responsibility for the actions of those in his charge or for the success of the duties that he is supposed to carry out?

I know that everything bad that happens in a military situation -- stateside, abroad, combat, peacetime, training, etc. -- cannot possibly be ultimately the responsibility of the commanding officer because, reductio ad absurdum, the President would be at fault everytime a buck-ass provate got drunk on leave and got into a fight.

So how exactly does the chain of command relate to responsibility for the mistakes of subordinates?

virtual_mantis
12/20/2004 6:37pm,
"The Buck Stops here!" Harry Truman-1952
"I was listening to the people on the ground" Donald Rumsfeld -2004
"I have heard the anguish in his voice and seen his eyes when we talk about the danger in Iraq and the fact that youngsters are over there in harm's way" George W. Bush speaking about Rummy-2004

What has happened to our country over the past 50 years?

The Wastrel
12/20/2004 8:12pm,
Vets and active military dudes, please advise ...

What is the commander's responsibility for the actions of those in his charge or for the success of the duties that he is supposed to carry out?

I know that everything bad that happens in a military situation -- stateside, abroad, combat, peacetime, training, etc. -- cannot possibly be ultimately the responsibility of the commanding officer because, reductio ad absurdum, the President would be at fault everytime a buck-ass provate got drunk on leave and got into a fight.

So how exactly does the chain of command relate to responsibility for the mistakes of subordinates?

If you're responsible for oversight and management, and whatever happens is seen as a failure of oversight or management, you're responsible.

If someone commits an offense that they can reasonably claim not to have known was against the rules, and you are shown never to have trained them otherwise, you could be held responsible.

But basically, it's a crap shoot.

punchingdummy
12/20/2004 10:25pm,
Vets and active military dudes, please advise ...

What is the commander's responsibility for the actions of those in his charge or for the success of the duties that he is supposed to carry out?

I know that everything bad that happens in a military situation -- stateside, abroad, combat, peacetime, training, etc. -- cannot possibly be ultimately the responsibility of the commanding officer because, reductio ad absurdum, the President would be at fault everytime a buck-ass provate got drunk on leave and got into a fight.

So how exactly does the chain of command relate to responsibility for the mistakes of subordinates?

There is no simple answer. However, in general, the greater the distance your position in the chain of command from the incident in question - the greater your plausable deniability.

punchingdummy
12/20/2004 10:27pm,
Considering this whole mess is his fault, until they can find someone else to blame it on, that suggestion is ok with me. Its alot better than the soldiers with missing feet got isn't it?




I thought it was all Bush's fault? or Rove's fault? or Rice's fault? or Wolfies fault? God damn it, make up your mind.

PeedeeShaolin
12/21/2004 3:46pm,
I thought it was all Bush's fault? or Rove's fault? or Rice's fault? or Wolfies fault? God damn it, make up your mind.

My mind is made up, this isn't too hard to understand here.

The DECISION to GO TO WAR landed in the lap of the Rev. George W. Bush and thus the MESS our forces are in rght now is HIS FAULT because, as time so gently showed us, we did NOT need to invade Iraq in order to keep our country safe. The only thing we've gotten out of Iraq is a boatload of contracts for the bankers and a big bill here at home.

Now the PLANNING for the war, thats another story and responsibility for THAT falls on Rummy considering his job title. When you have a year to plan for a war and you still send troops in ill-equiped and low on numbers you fucked up. Theres no other way to say it.