OK... now *I'm* pissed at Rumsfeld...

[Franklinnoble]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7133081

Lawmakers Chide Rumsfeld for Auto-Signed Sympathy Letters
Sun Dec 19, 2004 02:46 PM ET

By Jackie Frank

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did not personally sign his name on letters of condolence to families of troops killed in Iraq but instead had it done by a machine, an action lawmakers said on Sunday showed insensitivity and was inappropriate for leadership during war.

Rumsfeld acknowledged that he had not signed the letters to family members of more than 1,000 U.S. troops killed in action and in a statement said he would now sign them in his own hand. "This issue of the secretary of Defense not personally signing the letters is just astounding to me and it does reflect how out of touch they are and how dismissive they are," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"I have no confidence in Rumsfeld," Hagel added.

Rumsfeld has been under strong fire from Democrats and some Republicans recently for appearing to brush off concerns of soldiers about the lack of protective equipment in Iraq.

But President Bush's Chief of Staff Andrew Card emphasized White House support for Rumsfeld on Sunday.

He "is doing a spectacular job, and the president has great confidence in him," Card told ABC's "This Week" program.

Hagel noted that the families of the troops killed in Iraq have received letters signed by Bush.

"My goodness, that is the least we can expect the secretary of Defense ... If the president can find the time to do that why can't the secretary of Defense?" said Hagel, who has been a sharp critic of the way Bush has handled the Iraq war.

Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island said family members of those killed, "would like to think that at least for a moment the secretary thought about individually this young man or this young woman."

"Again it shows a lack of leadership style appropriate for the military ... This goes to his capability to continue to serve."

However, Republican Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, said that while "this is another area in which the secretary is being insensitive," the action did not "go to his leadership."

AUTOPEN RETIRED

"I wrote and approved the now more than 1,000 letters sent to family members and next of kin of each of the servicemen and women killed in military action," Rumsfeld said in a statement on Sunday."

"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."

Rumsfeld got himself into trouble earlier this month by appearing to brush off a soldier headed to Iraq who complained that military vehicles did not have sufficient armor and troops were having to piece together scraps of metal for extra protections.

Some prominent Republicans including Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott have questioned his performance, leading the White House to come to his defense on Friday with a statement that he was "doing a great job."

Among the critics, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar expressed concern on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that removing him from office could threaten national security.

"He should be held accountable and he should stay in office," the Indiana Republican senator said. "The fact is a change of leadership in the Pentagon at this point might be as disruptive as trying to get someone in Homeland Defense," he added.

Military families told the Stars and Stripes newspaper, which first carried the story, that the machine-signed letters reflected a lack of respect for the losses the families had suffered.

"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 whose brother Irving was killed in Iraq this summer, told the newspaper.

You know, there's just no excuse for this. It's not THAT many letters for him to sign. No more than a handful a day, on average. Bush manages to do it.

I'm disgusted by this.

[Crapshoot]

Seriously - is there any reason this old fart still has a job ? The political gain from dumping him would be huge for Bush.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7133081


You know, there's just no excuse for this. It's not THAT many letters for him to sign. No more than a handful a day, on average. Bush manages to do it.

I'm disgusted by this.

Well, when you're getting off to your own self-worth all day, you don't want to cripple your good hand with needless signing of letters.

[Franklinnoble]

I just wonder why this hasn't come out before now... you'd think someone would have noticed and raised a stink about it sooner.

[Cringer]

Not too big of a suprise to me. It's like when you send a letter to a congress-person clearly stating what side of an issue you are on, and get a letter back has nothing to do with what you were talking about or promoting the stance they feel would be most popular. After the first sentence you can tell they or their staff even paid attention to your letter/email much less read it.

[duckman]

This is absolutely inexcusable of Rumsfield not signing letters to the family of dead soldiers. If you are the Secretary of Defense, you should be writing those types of letters yourself and not by some intern. Absolutely disgusting!

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Because if it wasn't for Rumsfeld, he wouldn't need to be signing these letters in the first place.

Um, I like to hear how you came to that conclusion?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Not too big of a suprise to me. It's like when you send a letter to a congress-person clearly stating what side of an issue you are on, and get a letter back has nothing to do with what you were talking about or promoting the stance they feel would be most popular. After the first sentence you can tell they or their staff even paid attention to your letter/email much less read it.

I'm going to try to keep my personal feelings about Rumsfeld out of this, but letters of condolence for someone who is killed in service is totally different than the form letters you're talking about. To suggest that they are similar is ridiculous.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Seriously - is there any reason this old fart still has a job ? The political gain from dumping him would be huge for Bush.

Because if it wasn't for Rumsfeld, he wouldn't need to be signing these letters in the first place.

[QuikSand]

It would be a remarkable reflection on ... well, a lot of things ... if this specific issue snowballed to the point where Rumsfeld lost his job. Sommetimes, it's tough to know what the big issues are, or are going to be.

[KWhit]

Good point. I am amazed at what the public grabs hold of with political figures (or with any celebrities, I suppose).

But I could see it happening (especially after the other hits he has taken recently).

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

It would be a remarkable reflection on ... well, a lot of things ... if this specific issue snowballed to the point where Rumsfeld lost his job. Sommetimes, it's tough to know what the big issues are, or are going to be.

This is true. Who'd have figured that some little detail thing might be the last straw. I'm not his biggest fan, and have waivered on whether or not he should resign a number of times. I think he has done much worse than this, but then I don't give this the merit it appears most here do.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by duckman

Um, I like to hear how you came to that conclusion?

Its his war, he asked for it and he got it. Now he needs to do his job.

[panerd]

Call me a conspriracy theorist all you want, but I am fairly convinced that this is a campaign by moderate Republicans to finally get rid of Rumsfield. And I am not a Bush or Rumsfield supporter in the least, so I am not saying this like I am appalled by it. But I am more saying it because it is pretty obvious that the Republican senator on Meet the Press is the one who turned this into a big issue.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

It would be a remarkable reflection on ... well, a lot of things ... if this specific issue snowballed to the point where Rumsfeld lost his job. Sommetimes, it's tough to know what the big issues are, or are going to be.

Support out troops. Its an idea that blends with both sides of the war debate. I think both sides have reasons to be concerned about Rumsfeld's leadership before now.... Him not taking a simple effort to help support the troops' familiies will hit home with lots of people on both sides of the war debate and could just be the straw to break his own back.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

This is true. Who'd have figured that some little detail thing might be the last straw. I'm not his biggest fan, and have waivered on whether or not he should resign a number of times. I think he has done much worse than this, but then I don't give this the merit it appears most here do.

To use a sports analogy, its like Rick Neuhisel. An NCAA pool wasn't a horrible offense, but he was fired for all the other things he did... it was just the last straw.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Its his war, he asked for it and he got it. Now he needs to do his job.

You and I differ on that because I think there was a slew of people asking to go to war including the President. So I wouldn't personally say that it was just Rumsfield war.

However, he has a duty to those families and I personally think that he let them down. After several screw ups by him, I would not shed a tear to see him go. He is an embarrassment.

[robbgmaier]

This is all very nice, but please don't anyone tell me that a family receiving one of these letters gives a flying fuck whether or not ol' rummy signed it personally or not. I think he's a damn goof, but this really shouldn't be on your list of the top reasons why he should be fired/hung/featured on jacked up.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by robbgmaier

This is all very nice, but please don't anyone tell me that a family receiving one of these letters gives a flying fuck whether or not ol' rummy signed it personally or not. I think he's a damn goof, but this really shouldn't be on your list of the top reasons why he should be fired/hung/featured on jacked up.

I beg to differ. If someone in your family had been killed in the Iraq operations, you'd want at least some recognition from the government that their sacrifice was given proper respect and that the family's loss was personally acknowledged.

A form letter which was never even seen by the Secretary does not qualify in either respect.

What this actions symbolizes is a perception that Rumsfeld doesn't care that much about the human sacrifice involved in the decisions he makes as Secretary of Defense, a perception further enhanced by his comments a few weeks back to the troops in Iraq about having sufficient supplies.

[Godzilla Blitz]

How could he not realize that a machine-signed letter is much worse than no letter at all?

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Godzilla Blitz

How could he not realize that a machine-signed letter is much worse than no letter at all?

Personally, both are equally bad. Dawgfan did a very good job explaining the reasoning for it. If the governments makes a half-hearted, or worst no effort, then the sacrifice has very little meaning. It would be almost like someone walking up to a loved one's grave and spitting on it. A very disrespectful act.

[Vegas Vic]

Leave the poor guy alone. He's had a rough time for the past twenty years or so on Middle East policy.

[Flasch186]

welp, im not surprised.

[BucDawg40]

{div class="republican"}
Donald Rumsfeld is a great man and a God-fearing American patriot, so you all better just support him or get out of this country with your extreme leftist liberal views, you Clinton/Kerry Kool-Aid drinkers!!!
{/div}

[Dutch]

Wouldn't it be nice if our media would give us some facts to work with like the late-night comedian guy suggested on cross-fire? Here is a perfect opportunity for the media to show us the pro's and con's of Donald Rumsfeld. Not from an opinionated point of view, but give us some facts on where he's failed, and some facts on where he's succeeded.

How can we be sure we are doing a good deed by burning this guy at the stake if we can't also point out the good things he's accomplished along with the bad? We love the nobility of suggesting the average joe accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. But when it comes to the most important roles in our nation, it's very much reversed. I know that it's "the way we have always done it" and it's very lucrative by the media, but it's also very unhealthy for our nation.

In any event, here's the latest article on Rummy. It's got plenty of shallow he said, she said quotes but no substance. No fact to help the average reader determine his good and bad qualities.

Republicans Hesitant to Push Rumsfeld Out
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...st_pe/rumsfeld
2 hours, 56 minutes ago White House - AP Cabinet & State


By GENARO C. ARMAS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Acknowledging mistakes in Iraq (news - web sites) by the Bush administration, leading Republicans expressed reluctance Sunday that the White House replace Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has lost the confidence of some GOP lawmakers over the conduct of the war.


AP Photo
Slideshow: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld





Latest headlines:
· 60 Killed, 120 Wounded in Iraq Car Blasts
AP - 1 minute ago
· Blasts Kill At Least 64 In Iraq's Holy Cities
washingtonpost.com - Sun Dec 19, 9:02 PM ET
· A Look at U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq
AP - Sun Dec 19, 8:18 PM ET
Special Coverage





The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) said a change at the top of the Pentagon (news - web sites) would be too disruptive, given the elections scheduled in Iraq for Jan. 30. Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., also said the administration was dealing with the missteps that have occurred in the aftermath of the U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).


"We should not at this point in time entertain any idea of changing those responsibilities in the Pentagon," Warner told NBC's "Meet the Press."


Sen. Richard Lugar (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, added, "We really can't go through that ordeal" now of finding a successor. Rumsfeld "should be held accountable, and he should stay in office," said Lugar, R-Ind.


But Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), a Vietnam veteran, said he had no confidence in Rumsfeld. Hagel, R-Neb., did not say Rumsfeld should step down.


"I find it astounding. ... Things are worse than they've ever been" in Iraq, Hagel told CBS' "Face the Nation." Hagel said it was up to Bush whether to replace Rumsfeld.


More than 1,300 American troops have died since the war began in March 2003. On Sunday, car bombs rocked Iraq's two holiest Shiite cities, killing 62 people and wounding more than 120. In Baghdad, the capital, dozens of gunmen killed three Iraqi election officials during an ambush on a car in the middle of morning traffic.


U.S. troops in Kuwait have complained to Rumsfeld about long deployments and a lack of armored vehicles and other equipment.


Rumsfeld, who agreed to Bush's request this month to stay in the Cabinet during the president's second term, won a vote of confidence from the White House on Sunday.


"Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a spectacular job," the president's chief of staff, Andrew Card, told ABC's "This Week."


"The president has provided good direction for our military, and Secretary Rumsfeld is transforming our military to meet the threats of the 21st century," Card said.


While security remains a problem in Iraq, Card said the growing economy and the establishment of the educational and electrical systems in the country were positive developments, Card said.


"There are no guarantees, but we'll work hard to provide security," for the elections, Card said. "It'll be a wonderful success story."


Critics have raised questions again about whether enough U.S. troops are in Iraq to bring security. Iraq's interim president, Ghazi al-Yawar, said last week the U.S.-led coalition made a mistake by dismantling Iraqi security forces after last year's invasion.


Iraqi leaders have also said that former army officers and police officers with clean records should be reinstated to help organize the Iraqi military. On Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., said he supported that idea, and the United States also must reach out to Arab countries to help convince Iraq's Muslims of the Sunni sect to participate in the election despite the increased violence.


The Bush administration's biggest mistake in Iraq was the rapid disbanding of military forces "and not trying to maintain some of it in place to have continuity and to rapidly put together a security force," Warner said.


Rumsfeld's performance has also come under criticism even from congressional Republicans, including GOP Sens. Trent Lott of Mississippi and John McCain of Arizona.





Lott said last week that Rumsfeld did not listen to uniformed officers and that Bush should make a change at the Pentagon in the next year or so.

Warner said Sunday that Bush should stay the course, especially with the Iraqi vote next month.

"We are going to have a tough period after that election, and we should press our confidence in the commander in chief and his principal subordinates," Warner said.

Card said Rumsfeld has a good relationship with Congress and "knows the budgets that are needed to fight the war."

At the same time, Rumsfeld also must oversee the transformation of the military "to meet the threats of the 21st century, and that transformation is controversial," Card said.

"I'm sure that some of the people that are stuck in the past don't want to see the military transformed."

[clintl]

Dutch, that article is about what it's about - how Republican senators are criticizing Rumsfeld, but not going so far as calling for him to be replaced, and the White House defense. It's not about anything else. I don't see anything seriously wrong with the article. It's simply a report on the public debate going on in Washington.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by BucDawg40

{div class="republican"}
Donald Rumsfeld is a great man and a God-fearing American patriot, so you all better just support him or get out of this country with your extreme leftist liberal views, you Clinton/Kerry Kool-Aid drinkers!!!
{/div}

Sand+Vagina

[judicial clerk]

I agree with Dutch and Quiksand that this seems a bit sensational. it seems to be too much concern over semantics.

I also agree that sending a letter of condolence regarding the death of a U.S. soldier is one that should be signed personally by the writer. Stupid faux pax[sp?] by Rummy.

I am more persuaded and concerend by the opinion given by John mcCain, a senator whose opinion I respect and who is more informed on the issues regarding Rumsfelds job performance than I.

Maybe it is time for Rummy to go.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Look,

Nobody said the War on Terror would take a week. In fact, Bush and Rumsfeld both said that it would take a long time, but if we stayed focused, as a nation, we could defeat the threat.

Bush also said that we would never defeat terrorism. thank god he recanted the lie the next day. Mission Accomplished.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by clintl

Dutch, that article is about what it's about - how Republican senators are criticizing Rumsfeld, but not going so far as calling for him to be replaced, and the White House defense. It's not about anything else. I don't see anything seriously wrong with the article. It's simply a report on the public debate going on in Washington.

But why do you trust Republican senators now? Because there opinion agrees with yours. That's nothing to do with the truth.

Look, Rumsfeld has been accused of sanctioning S&M torture in Iraq, using a digital signature to sign condolense letters, and for forcing troops to go into battle without defensive protection. But never has the media accused him of kicking the crap out of the enemy on the battle field (which is his job). During the invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi Air Force did not put a single plane to the sky. As a matter of fact, they buried them in the sand at the sight of Donald Rumsfeld's Air Force. Iraqi General's fled the battle field in many instances before a single shot was fired because of Donald Rumsfeld's Army was approaching. Terrorist merchant shipping on rogue ships from Russia and Korea has almost completely gone dry due to Donald Rumsfeld's Navy.

What's good for the goose, right? If Donald Rumsfeld is responsable for the bad, why is he not also responable for the good?

Rumsfeld was given a task, to defend our nation and to destroy enemies if asked to do so. He's done a great job. This witchhunt for Rumsfeld is very similar to the George Patton "slap" he gave a soldier in WWII. Did we really want to sideline our (arguably) best general in WWII because of the media buzz over the slapped soldier? At what cost to lives? Remember, the only people in America that make money because American soldiers die are journalists. I would certainly hope they don't sensationalize Rumsfeld to get him out of there so our efforts fall into dissarray and our enemies are enboldened.

Look,

Nobody said the War on Terror would take a week. In fact, Bush and Rumsfeld both said that it would take a long time, but if we stayed focused, as a nation, we could defeat the threat.

By starting witch hunts against those who are fighting the threat is taking our eye off the ball. The War on Terror will never be won as long as the only people on this planet that are ever held accountable is George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But why do you trust Republican senators now? Because there opinion agrees with yours. That's nothing to do with the truth.

Look, Rumsfeld has been accused of sanctioning S&M torture in Iraq, using a digital signature to sign condolense letters, and for forcing troops to go into battle without defensive protection. But never has the media accused him of kicking the crap out of the enemy on the battle field (which is his job). During the invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi Air Force did not put a single plane to the sky. As a matter of fact, they buried them in the sand at the sight of Donald Rumsfeld's Air Force. Iraqi General's fled the battle field in many instances before a single shot was fired because of Donald Rumsfeld's Army was approaching. Terrorist merchant shipping on rogue ships from Russia and Korea has almost completely gone dry due to Donald Rumsfeld's Navy.

What's good for the goose, right? If Donald Rumsfeld is responsable for the bad, why is he not also responable for the good?

Rumsfeld was given a task, to defend our nation and to destroy enemies if asked to do so. He's done a great job. This witchhunt for Rumsfeld is very similar to the George Patton "slap" he gave a soldier in WWII. Did we really want to sideline our (arguably) best general in WWII because of the media buzz over the slapped soldier? At what cost to lives? Remember, the only people in America that make money because American soldiers die are journalists. I would certainly hope they don't sensationalize Rumsfeld to get him out of there so our efforts fall into dissarray and our enemies are enboldened.

Look,

Nobody said the War on Terror would take a week. In fact, Bush and Rumsfeld both said that it would take a long time, but if we stayed focused, as a nation, we could defeat the threat.

By starting witch hunts against those who are fighting the threat is taking our eye off the ball. The War on Terror will never be won as long as the only people on this planet that are ever held accountable is George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.

Huh. I guess I didn't know that the job was a zero-sum game, that in order to have a Secretary of Defense that crafts successful war plans (and that's not necessarily an opinion I agree with) you have to accept a great deal of insensitivity in that person to how his troops are treated and to sacrifice normal standards of decency in how enemy prisoners are treated.

Don't you suppose Dutch that we could find someone else that could also effectively wage a "war on terror" (I hate that phrase - how do you fight a war on a concept?) without all the negatives that Rumsfeld brings to the table?

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Look,

Nobody said the War on Terror would take a week. In fact, Bush and Rumsfeld both said that it would take a long time, but if we stayed focused, as a nation, we could defeat the threat.

By starting witch hunts against those who are fighting the threat is taking our eye off the ball. The War on Terror will never be won as long as the only people on this planet that are ever held accountable is George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.

The idea that terrorism will be defeated is quite foolish. As long as there are governments that will cave into terrorist acts, terrorism will never be defeated. However, I think that it can be curtailed into something that is more manageable in the future.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by duckman

The idea that terrorism will be defeated is quite foolish.

I agree.

Originally Posted by duckman

As long as there are governments that will cave into terrorist acts, terrorism will never be defeated. However, I think that it can be curtailed into something that is more manageable in the future.

Actually, as long as there are groups of people that feel oppressed, a great poverty of dignity or some other form of fanatical hatred, there will be terrorism. The only real way to 'win' the war on terrorism is to reduce the situations that create it in the first place. And as it is in medicine, I suspect it would be much less expensive to fund prevention than the 'cure' (military engagement).

[Flasch186]

i hate to be the harbinger but eh, screw it, there is a common thread in the hatred of America and it involves fanatical Islam. It is obvious and while some scream racism, its true. There are other forms, ie. Ireland but this is plainly different and not comparable to anything weve seen in our history. Jihad, being intertwined with a hijacked religion gives carte blanche to recruiters of those downtrodden and of that faith. Its a recipe for disaster and again, the only cure, is to have the Islamic take back their religion.

[DaddyTorgo]

hey Dutch...about what you said down below...it's not Donald Rumsfeld's Air Force, or his Army. It's the AMERICAN Air Force, and the AMERICAN Army, paid for by us the taxpayers!! And even Gen. Schwartzkopf (sp) has gone ON THE RECORD as saying that we went into Iraq with too few troops this time around to do the job that we set out to do.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Dutch

During the invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi Air Force did not put a single plane to the sky. As a matter of fact, they buried them in the sand at the sight of Donald Rumsfeld's Air Force. Iraqi General's fled the battle field in many instances before a single shot was fired because of Donald Rumsfeld's Army was approaching.

Yeah, and if the New York Yankees beat the crap out of my neighborhood little league team, George Steinbrenner would be an f-ing genious...

[Dutch]

I agree 100% that it's not Rumsfeld's Military.

It's also not Rumsfeld's Abu Graib Prison and Humvee Armor Doctrine.

That's the point.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I agree 100% that it's not Rumsfeld's Military.

It's also not Rumsfeld's Abu Graib Prison and Humvee Armor Doctrine.

That's the point.

OMG!!!! J00 G()t PWN3D!!!

[DaddyTorgo]

well just like you can't ascribe the bad things solely to him, you can't give him credit for the good things either. All that he is really responsible for is overall doctrine (to some degree) and writing the letters to families. And apparently he can't do either of those even halfway decently, as we're mired in this war that we have little to no chance of winning within the next 5 years, and he's using a machine to write letters to the families of soldiers who have died to perpetrate the war against a regime that clearly did not pose an imminent threat to the United States.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

OMG!!!! J00 G()t PWN3D!!!

well, we voted for Bush and he appointed Rummy so YES it is his job to take care of these things, good and bad...so far, much more bad than good. He is the caretaker of OUR military and if he's doing a shitty job than get someone who can do it better...this is simple shit ya'll.

Great we Stomped the Iraqi military. WOOHOO, If the planning for post war Iraq wouldve got a little bit of attention maybe we would have Rummys Abu Gharaib becuase untrained military wouldnt have to serve as MP's, and if he wouldve been able to order armor from more than just HIS suppliers than we wouldnt have so many IED blowing our asses up, and then you wouldnt have soldiers asking questions at inappropriate times.

[Tekneek]

His claim that he wrote each one is laughable. He may have typed up the original, or even dictated it, but I doubt very seriously that he was pressing the button for each one of them as they were needed. If he had been, signing it would have been very easy to do.

The CEO where I work does much of the same thing. He has other people write up memos and send them out with his name at the bottom, although they don't even bother to change the address they send it from (and reading the headers reveals the truth anyway). Memos were going out with the canned "Feel free to ask me questions about this anytime", although he knew nothing about the memos if you called with one.

[DaddyTorgo]

FYI...I've seen newstories from the company that is the primary producer of the armor for the humvees and they said that they could bump production by 22% WITHOUT AN INCREASE IN COSTS but no one in the administration ever asked them too.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

FYI...I've seen newstories from the company that is the primary producer of the armor for the humvees and they said that they could bump production by 22% WITHOUT AN INCREASE IN COSTS but no one in the administration ever asked them too.

I saw similar reports right after Rumsfeld answered 'that question.'

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But why do you trust Republican senators now? Because there opinion agrees with yours. That's nothing to do with the truth.

I made no comments on the quality of the arguments the senators were making, nor did I make any comments about the quality of the Bush administration's defense of the criticisms. (FWIW, I want Rumsfeld gone, and I could have said so, but I didn't.) I merely pointed out the article was not about what you wanted it to be about, and that there's was nothing wrong with it being about what it was about. You are not the one who gets to pick what others write about.