Kevin Trotter Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 Enough is enough! Everyone on this board knows where I am politically (Left center ha,ha!) and I am opposed to the White House view of how America should be, but I'm with Don on this one. While I can only guess how losing a loved one would feel, I cant for the life of me see why someone would be upset that the SecDef uses a machine to sign condolence letters to families of slain troops. I would be more upset if he took time out of what has to be a busy day to handsign these letters. There are more important tasks to be performed by the person in charge of the defense of this country. As a vet I understand that performance of one's duty could mean death, every service man and woman knows this already, but this sounds too much like piling on to me and in this case is just isnt right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamotto Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 Perhaps, these people are upset, b/c their son or daughter was killed, and the condolence letters that should come from the people responsible for sending them to Iraq and elsewhere are instead signed by a cold and heartless and Impersonal machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korono Lakeela Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Sending me to Iraq with no armor on my humvee, and he won't even sign my death letter. Support the troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 quote:While I can only guess how losing a loved one would feel, I cant for the life of me see why someone would be upset that the SecDef uses a machine to sign condolence letters to families of slain troops.It's payback for his comment about "going to war with the army you have." The "army we have" is a result of a 25% reduction in forces during the 1990's (hint: a prior administration), and Rumsfeld's remark was taken as a slap at the Democrats, ergo, payback. It's the DC way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzle Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Well when everyone was busy praising the success and expediency of the initial invasion, the issue of a "gutted military" never came out of the Reppy's mouths. So which is it, a strong army able to swiftly defeat the Iraqi's (thanks Dems!) or a gutted military that is to be blamed on the Dems when things go bad? Military budget when Clinton assumed office was 312.1 billion. When he left it was 305.4 billion. More like a 2% to 3% cut. You can't blame the reduction of enlisted on Clinton, maybe people saw better possibilities than enlisting in the services or maybe the recruitment didn't receive as much attention as it should have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Trotter Posted December 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Gee Jamaotto even if Rumsfeld did sign the letters it would still be getting done by a cold heartless machine, what the diff? I dont for a minute buy his statement as a slap against the Clinton Admin. Rumsfeld and his ilk look at our troops as cannon fodder for thier own political gain and his statement reflected that sentiment. However I still feel this signing thing is muchado about nothing and that this is piling on by some folks who could have made their dissent/disagreement felt in a more effective manner. Its called an election. We had one. Now live with the consequences and stop *****ing over stuff that is inconsequential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamotto Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 quote:Gee Jamaotto even if Rumsfeld did sign the letters it would still be getting done by a cold heartless machine, what the diff?Night and day, to put one's sig on the letter is harder than just stuffing a bunch of paper's into the "Sign a bunch of papers real fast" machine. In all honesty, I think the President should have to sign them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Remo Williams Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 Whether a machine or a man it changes nothing the loved one won't come back. The situation won't change. The issue is pointless IMO do they think that an actual person's sig is going to make it better or less painful. I feel for their loss, but please itÔÇÖs going to take time to heal if they ever do its not going to come with a signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 quote:Originally posted by jamotto: In all honesty, I think the President should have to sign them. Please, just stop.... I have a nimber of military awards, and NOT one of them is ACTUALLY signed by the person that gave it to me. All awards, letters, posthumously or whatever is signed by machine. These things are done by subordinates and OK'd by staff. The person in charge is NEVER expected, and should NEVER be expected to sign such documents themselves. They have many other things to do with their time, LIKE WINNING A FRICKING WAR!!! SO this whole thing is a crock of crap as far as I am concerned. People are pissed at Rummy and want him out, and will hit him with whatever they can to get him out. If this is the best they got, they have a HUGE problem.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 quote:Military budget when Clinton assumed office was 312.1 billion. When he left it was 305.4 billion. More like a 2% to 3% cut. You can't blame the reduction of enlisted on ClintonFrom The Facts About Military Readiness: quote:http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/images/1151506.gif> quote:Steve: Something happened during the 90's that induced the former administration to believe that military budgets could be reduced. Why do you refer to the administration handling of military affairs during this period without replacing this in its historical context ? Glasnost & Perestroika never took place ? Had the collapse of the Soviet Union and the WAPA pact nothing to do with it ?What happened is that they were chasing after the "peace dividend," thinking that the world was finally safe after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I guess they were a bit premature in their thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Trotter Posted January 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Maybe so Steve but I think gfiven the circumstances that was a logical conclusion. Just not one that turned out to be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now