More on Rumsfeld--ahead of schedule

As the saying goes, "Life is what happens when you have something else planned." In my previous post, I gave a preview of upcoming analysis on the Rumsfeld armor furor, and then today I see a story that really addresses a topic I intended to cover toward the end of the series. I will still do that, but I think a brief (for me) statement now about this story is needed.

When I went online this afternoon, the first thing I noticed was a link to a story about Rumskull. The article is entitled After Outcry, Rumsfeld Says He Will Sign Condolences, and the line beneath the headline is "Report Reveals His Signature Was Stamped on Letters to Dead Soldiers' Families." It turns out that the condolence letters sent from Rumsfeld to the families of those killed in action contained Rummy's stamped signature, and some people are upset:

But several families of troops killed overseas said they were sure the notes they received hadn't been signed by hand, and said they were angry that Rumsfeld wasn't paying attention to their loss.

"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.

NOTE: By the time I finished writing this post, the article had been revised, and it no longer contains the excerpts quoted above.

I agree that Rumskull should take the time to personally sign each letter. I understand why families are angry. If I was in their position, I, too, would be angry.

However, where was this kind of outrage over George W. Bush doing exactly the same thing? Go check out the "Letters" section of my post on Defense 3 as to why Bush has not attended any funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. The article referenced above also has a statement from a White House spokesman "said that Bush does personally sign the letters sent from the White House." Maybe he does now, but he did not before. Sure, Rumskull is in charge of the Armed Services. However, he is not the Commander in Chief, nor is he the supposed leader of our nation, nor is he the person who gave the order for this war. Where was the outrage over Bush sending out two-line form letters with stamped signatures? At least Rumsfeld had the balls to admit he had not personally signed the letters.

So what does this have to do with Rumsfeld? Well, in the short time since he made his comments about the armor on December 8, the public criticism of Rumskull has just exploded. And there are at least two significant aspects to this criticism: 1) its intensity, and 2) it recent sources, namely people from the right wing. Folks such as William Kristol of the Weekly Standard and Trent Lott have been highly critical of Rumskull. [NOTE: For all you right wingers, Kristol is one of the conservatives I respect because he does not merely spout the party line. When he sees something he thinks is wrong, he will say so--even if in doing so he criticizes the Bush administration.] And there are other Republicans who have suddenly decided to throw Rummy under the bus. Here's my problem: why are such people just now jumping all over Rumsfeld? Yes, his comments about the armor were boneheaded and insensitive, but that was oh so far from the first time he has said something stupid and insensitive. Moreover, when you look at the surface of the totality of what he said about the armor, it doesn't seem that bad. It's only when you look beneath the surface that it all starts to smell bad. And the real point is that he has done SO many things before now that have been so damaging and--in my opinion--criminal, and only now is he coming under such heavy fire.

Where the hell has the media been all this time? And by the way, anyone who wants to claim that the media is the "liberal media" can just pucker up and kiss my ass. And even on this story (about the stamped signatures) the media has been slow to act. The article I reference was published today. However, that article notes that David Hackworth (you can read his regular column and much more at Soldiers for the Truth, which is included in my list of links) wrote a column on this issue on November 22. And almost one month later, this issue gets widespread coverage in the media. Let me put this another way...This issue about the letters was actually raised about two weeks before Rumskull's comments about the armor, yet we hear little or nothing about it until after Rumsfeld made his armor comments. What the hell? If those armor comments had never been made, would Rumsfeld be catching heat over the letters?

So where am I going with this? Although I am very upset over the armor comments, those comments are nowhere near the top of my list of Rumskull's mistakes and stupid decisions. Thus, in a sense the reaction to the armor comments seems to be a bit of an over-reaction. Part of the reason I feel that way is that I think Rumsfeld deserved this level and intensity of criticism long before now. I guess the armor comments could have been the proverbial last straw for lots of people, and the intensity of the criticism reflects not just this one incident but the cumulative effect of all the bullshit he has perpetrated. I just wish it had come sooner. And I just wish some of it would be directed at the other person who shares with Rumskull the title of National Command Authorities--George W. Bush.