Rumsfeld used a machine to sign letters to war widows

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-12-20 09:02am

Not surprised...though disgusted anyways.

These are men and women you have sent to die and you can't give a second of your time to personally sign the paper...instead relagate the person's letter to a stamper.

Would've been the same if he said an intern of his signs every letter.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-12-20 09:09am

Notice how the fucker did not even apologize for the fake signatures. Just a terse statement saying something along the lines of "oh ALL RIGHT, I'll start signing the fucking things now."

He can't apologize. He can't admit fault. No one in the Administration can. Because if they're wrong on one issue, no matter how trivial, they might be wrong on others. And in George Bush's America, the President is always right. Everything they do is OK.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-12-20 09:53am

Ghost Rider wrote:Not surprised...though disgusted anyways.

These are men and women you have sent to die and you can't give a second of your time to personally sign the paper...instead relagate the person's letter to a stamper.

Would've been the same if he said an intern of his signs every letter.

If it's mechanized, an intern can do it without him every having to see any of them. How many certifications do you think I've done with a stamp of SirBoss's name? Hell, the security paper we now use for birth/death certificates have the name stamped on it at the printing press!

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-12-20 10:00am

LadyTevar wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:Not surprised...though disgusted anyways.

These are men and women you have sent to die and you can't give a second of your time to personally sign the paper...instead relagate the person's letter to a stamper.

Would've been the same if he said an intern of his signs every letter.
If it's mechanized, an intern can do it without him every having to see any of them. How many certifications do you think I've done with a stamp of SirBoss's name? Hell, the security paper we now use for birth/death certificates have the name stamped on it at the printing press!

Oh I know...I used to work at a lovable MCI offices, just shuffling papers and the boss basically had a stamper.

I'm just simply sickened more by the fact that this isn't a huge load by any means, and he can't be arsed to do it himself.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-12-20 11:39am

exactly, and the tech to do it isn't new either. And if FDR's secretary of war could do this without assigning it to one of his secretataries, or using the holiwood signature forging stamps*, then Rumsfield ougta be able to do it.

*signature stamps were very common before WWII, often used by celebs for their fanbase, or for pinups.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-20 01:19pm

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Scumfeld is a fine example of why you should not put a businessman in charge of the military.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-12-20 01:43pm

Didn't "we don't need to crome the barrels, and buy the cheapest powder available for our troops" McNamara who got rid of the proving grounds and let the corps run the vietnam war already teach us that lesson?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-12-20 04:00pm

Ah, I love the sound of wanking in early evening.

Seriously, though, this is quite silly. Anybody who is treating this as a revelation of some sort is just naive. Busy or not, the government is an impersonal machine, and it doesn't strike me as odd in the least that nobody hand-signed the letters to the families of dead soldiers in the War in Iraq. Sad, but not particularly mind-boggling.

Isn't there something more substantiative you could bush Rumsfeld for? It seems like you're unnecessarily scraping the bottom of the bucket.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-20 04:02pm

Axis Kast wrote:Ah, I love the sound of wanking in early evening.

Seriously, though, this is quite silly. Anybody who is treating this as a revelation of some sort is just naive. Busy or not, the government is an impersonal machine, and it doesn't strike me as odd in the least that nobody hand-signed the letters to the families of dead soldiers in the War in Iraq. Sad, but not particularly mind-boggling.

Isn't there something more substantiative you could bush Rumsfeld for? It seems like you're unnecessarily scraping the bottom of the bucket.

For you to imply that we couldn't come up with anything other than this is just more typical dishonest bullfuckery on your part. It's another item on the pile, not the only item we could find.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-12-20 04:08pm

For you to imply that we couldn't come up with anything other than this is just more typical dishonest bullfuckery on your part. It's another item on the pile, not the only item we could find.

A worthless item, at that. The amount of outrage being generated by this one, not unexpected news story is completely out of proportion. Rumsfeld is guilty of many things - but I don't think one of the most effective pieces of criticism is really that he never personally signed all the death notices of American soldiers. Distasteful, yes. Disgraceful, yes. But really, your energies are best devoted elsewhere.

And I don't need to imply anything about your ability to find other issues on which to criticize Rumsfeld to make my point, Wong. I only need to point out that so much time has been spent on this issue that it's beginning to seem very silly.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-12-20 05:02pm

A whole two pages. Why don't you check Stravo's previous Rumbag threads and compare, since you know so well, Kast?

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-12-20 05:18pm

Axis Kast wrote:
For you to imply that we couldn't come up with anything other than this is just more typical dishonest bullfuckery on your part. It's another item on the pile, not the only item we could find.
A worthless item, at that. The amount of outrage being generated by this one, not unexpected news story is completely out of proportion. Rumsfeld is guilty of many things - but I don't think one of the most effective pieces of criticism is really that he never personally signed all the death notices of American soldiers. Distasteful, yes. Disgraceful, yes. But really, your energies are best devoted elsewhere.

And I don't need to imply anything about your ability to find other issues on which to criticize Rumsfeld to make my point, Wong. I only need to point out that so much time has been spent on this issue that it's beginning to seem very silly.

When someone sends people into the meat grinder with a happy wave of his hand and sits down in his comfy chair in an office where he doe not have to face life-threatening situations any time soon and does not have the decency to show some respect to those people (who would have most likely been safe and secure at home if not for Bush and his cronies), he disqualifies himself as the "boss" of them and as a human being.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-12-20 05:23pm

A whole two pages. Why don't you check Stravo's previous Rumbag threads and compare, since you know so well, Kast?

Previous threads are irrelevant. This didn't need to generate new controversy in the first place. A simple, "Ah, well, go figure!" should have more than sufficed.

When someone sends people into the meat grinder with a happy wave of his hand and sits down in his comfy chair in an office where he doe not have to face life-threatening situations any time soon and does not have the decency to show some respect to those people (who would have most likely been safe and secure at home if not for Bush and his cronies), he disqualifies himself as the "boss" of them and as a human being.

In your ideal little world, perhaps.

I don't disagree with people who call Rumsfeld a piss-poor strategist with all the wrong ideas and all the wrong advisers (at least when it comes to doctrine). I don't disagree with people who suggest he's largely divorced himself from emotion, and also from political realities. On the other hand, I don't think calling him "Mr. Meanie" is really grounds for a worthwhile conversation, either.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-12-20 05:27pm

Axis Kast wrote:
When someone sends people into the meat grinder with a happy wave of his hand and sits down in his comfy chair in an office where he doe not have to face life-threatening situations any time soon and does not have the decency to show some respect to those people (who would have most likely been safe and secure at home if not for Bush and his cronies), he disqualifies himself as the "boss" of them and as a human being.
In your ideal little world, perhaps.

I feel hurt...
At least I know I still have something resembling human decency and ethic in myself.
A pity you don't.

I don't disagree with people who call Rumsfeld a piss-poor strategist with all the wrong ideas and all the wrong advisers (at least when it comes to doctrine). I don't disagree with people who suggest he's largely divorced himself from emotion, and also from political realities. On the other hand, I don't think calling him "Mr. Meanie" is really grounds for a worthwhile conversation, either.

It is a worthwile conversation to debate the moral capacity to lead. Someone like Rumsfeld who has the pretense of doing so has to at least live up to some standards of morality.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-12-20 06:03pm

I feel hurt...
At least I know I still have something resembling human decency and ethic in myself.
A pity you don't.

First of all, Rumsfeld was in the military. That's a fact too often swept under the rug by people here, and while I won't defend his decisions, the guy isn't exactly as much of a hypocrite as people like to imagine.

Secondly, in the Army, your boss doesn't stop being your boss just because he's a mean-spirited idiot. Sad fact of life. You can wax moralistic about how you wish we'd go and change the system - but it won't help you one whit.

It is a worthwile conversation to debate the moral capacity to lead. Someone like Rumsfeld who has the pretense of doing so has to at least live up to some standards of morality.

Define "moral capacity to lead." Me, I'd be satisfied with a guy who actually tried to remedy the problems at hand - at least demonstrably.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-12-20 06:36pm

Ah well, go figure. You go to war with the SecDef you've got, not the SecDef you'd like to have.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-12-20 07:04pm

Write a thousand times "I should not send people to their deaths".

Rumsfield: "Oooh. How did MacNamara do this every week?"
Bush: "Just use that deal with the five chalks!"

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-20 08:04pm

This would almost be funny if we weren't talking about the Secretary of Defense not bothering to personally sign the letters sent to dead soldiers' families. Because Axis Kast has deemed this issue unworthy of "new controversy," anyone expressing greater sentiments of disgust than "Go figure" is simply calling him "Mister Meanie" and not actually voicing a worthwhile complaint.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-12-20 08:47pm

This would almost be funny if we weren't talking about the Secretary of Defense not bothering to personally sign the letters sent to dead soldiers' families. Because Axis Kast has deemed this issue unworthy of "new controversy," anyone expressing greater sentiments of disgust than "Go figure" is simply calling him "Mister Meanie" and not actually voicing a worthwhile complaint.

What else is there left to say?

That he should have signed them? Yes, we know.

That it speaks of bad moral character? Obviously.

That it's one bad element amidst a slew of larger problems? Absolutely.

But this issue really isn't the most salient when it comes to Rumsfeld's long history of failures.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-12-20 09:13pm

Axis Kast wrote:What else is there left to say?

That he should have signed them? Yes, we know.

That it speaks of bad moral character? Obviously.

That it's one bad element amidst a slew of larger problems? Absolutely.

But this issue really isn't the most salient when it comes to Rumsfeld's long history of failures.

This particular failing, being smaller, is easier for people tog rasp than his other, nimaginably huge mistakes. It's a matter of perception and psychology.

It doesn't help that this can't be ascribed to incompetence and is a clear demonstration of Rummy's true uncaring nature.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-20 09:26pm

Axis Kast wrote:
This would almost be funny if we weren't talking about the Secretary of Defense not bothering to personally sign the letters sent to dead soldiers' families. Because Axis Kast has deemed this issue unworthy of "new controversy," anyone expressing greater sentiments of disgust than "Go figure" is simply calling him "Mister Meanie" and not actually voicing a worthwhile complaint.
What else is there left to say?

That he should have signed them? Yes, we know.

That it speaks of bad moral character? Obviously.

That it's one bad element amidst a slew of larger problems? Absolutely.

But this issue really isn't the most salient when it comes to Rumsfeld's long history of failures.

Your point? That this "wasn't a big deal"? Then why are you even posting here? This thread is relatively tame. Einhander hasn't come in posting his typical deluge of "fuck you" emoticons, nor has it blown up into a 10-page flamefest. People are simply expressing their contempt and disdain for Rumbag. This happens all the time in lots of threads. Why are you so focused on this one?

I swear, you're like the agent for a one-hit actor who's only known for one part, coming into a room and going, "Please people, he's known for his other fuck-ups too." What difference does it make?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-12-20 10:01pm

Your point? That this "wasn't a big deal"? Then why are you even posting here? This thread is relatively tame. Einhander hasn't come in posting his typical deluge of "fuck you" emoticons, nor has it blown up into a 10-page flamefest. People are simply expressing their contempt and disdain for Rumbag. This happens all the time in lots of threads. Why are you so focused on this one?

I swear, you're like the agent for a one-hit actor who's only known for one part, coming into a room and going, "Please people, he's known for his other fuck-ups too." What difference does it make?

The point is that this isn't surprising, and that it barely merits mention in the first place. That so much time and attention is lavished upon this is really very silly given the magnitude of his other failures.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-20 10:40pm

Axis Kast wrote:The point is that this isn't surprising, and that it barely merits mention in the first place. That so much time and attention is lavished upon this is really very silly given the magnitude of his other failures.

You've posted 6 posts in this thread. That's the most out of any individual poster who's replied. You've given quite a bit of your time and attention to something you've publicly proclaimed to be a waste of time by running around telling others not to waste their time on it.

Well what the fuck do you care? Did someone make you the Official SD.Net Keeper of Precious Thread Time? If people want to take time out of their busy schedules of bashing Rumbag for his more disastrous failures and express their disgust at his callous absence of anything resembling compassion, why is it skin off your back?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-12-20 11:17pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:I don't know about Bryan, but Dern made a point of actually signing them, even though he had an army of secretaries writing them. and in the case of a few situations he actually wrote the letters (Like the Solomon bros.)

Umm..
Dern died in 1936.

SecWar during WW2 was Henry L. Stimson.

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2004-12-20 11:33pm

In related news......Rumsfeld is losing public support.

CNN

Poll: Rumsfeld losing public's support
Results indicate Americans are wary about future of Iraq

Monday, December 20, 2004 Posted: 6:58 PM EST (2358 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Fifty-two percent of respondents to a new poll think Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should resign amid recent criticism in Congress over his handling of the war in Iraq.

Thirty-six percent of respondents to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said Rumsfeld should not step down, and the remainder had no opinion. The margin of error for the question was 4.5 percentage points among the 1,002 Americans surveyed by telephone between Friday and Sunday.

The defense secretary was recently chided for telling U.S. soldiers headed for Iraq that "you go to war with the Army you have ... not the Army you might want or wish you had."(Full story)

In addition, Rumsfeld's wartime performance has been criticized by many Democratic and some Republican lawmakers, including Sens. Trent Lott of Mississippi and John McCain of Arizona. (Full story)

Despite the criticism, President Bush strongly came out in support of his Pentagon chief during a news conference Monday. (Full story)

The secretary's approval rating has fallen from 71 percent in April 2003 at the height of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to 41 percent in the new survey.

As for Bush, 49 percent of respondents said they approved of the job the president is doing. That number is down from his November approval rating of 55 percent. Bush is the first incumbent president to have an approval rating below 50 percent one month after winning re-election. The question had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Although some groups have questioned the validity of voting in Ohio and other states, a large majority -- 77 percent -- of poll respondents indicated they thought the overall presidential election was fair. Nineteen percent said they thought incidents of fraud aided Bush's re-election.

Iraq is scheduled to hold elections for a transitional national assembly January 30, though with violence continuing in the country, some Iraqi officials and political figures have suggested delaying the voting until security is improved.

The poll suggested that most Americans think the United States will have to maintain a troop presence in Iraq after the voting. Forty-one percent polled said the elections would not lead to a stable government, and 40 percent said even if a stable government were voted in, U.S. troops would have to stay. Only 15 percent believed U.S. troops could be withdrawn within a year of the election. This question had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

When asked how the United States has handled Iraq during the past year, 47 percent said things have gotten worse. Twenty percent said the situation has improved and 32 percent said it is about the same. The differences fell outside the question's margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Americans polled were much more optimistic about the future of the economy in the United States.

Asked how well the economy will be doing in December 2005, 60 percent of respondents said well, and 39 percent said poorly. About 53 percent of those surveyed said the economy was good now. The question had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

One of the top items on the president's second-term agenda is making tax cuts passed during his first term permanent. Just over half -- 52 percent -- of respondents said Congress should side with the president, while 40 percent said the cuts should be rolled back. The question had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

A large majority of respondents said the U.S. tax code needs to be fixed, though they varied when asked by how much. Although 11 percent said the system is fine, the 89 percent of those who did not broke down into those who said a complete overhaul is needed (24 percent), major changes are needed (35 percent) and only minor changes are needed (29 percent). The question had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points, and answer percentages were rounded.

On another of Bush's hot-button issues, Social Security, the respondents were divided (48-48 ) on whether workers should be allowed to set aside some of their earnings in private stock or bond accounts. The question had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

When broken down by age group, younger respondents indicated greater support for the concept. About 62 percent of those between 18 and 29 said they agreed with the idea, while only 35 percent of those surveyed in the 65 and older category concurred. The question had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.