think about this whenever you hear georgie boy or rummy speaking of how much they value the sacrifice of our troops in this clusterf**k war.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=101&rnd=5.562757471877733

think about this whenever you hear georgie boy or rummy speaking of how much they value the sacrifice of our troops in this clusterf**k war.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=101&rnd=5.562757471877733
They shouldn't have signed it at all or should have just sent it from 'The Office of..." and left it at that. Or sent nothing at all. While I agree in that I don't think these guys lose a second of sleep due to the number of casualties (unless, of course, they have to wake up early for a briefing) I think it's unreasonable to expect them to sign each and every letter -- I seriously doubt that FDR signed all 400,000+ letters sent to the next of kin of the Americans killed in WW2.

Then again, maybe they did actually sign them. Was that question asked?

from the article:
Throughout World War II, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall made sure that President Franklin Roosevelt was briefed in detail on the number of soldiers who had fallen. FDR, incidentally, probably wanted to know. He had sons who were serving.

it would probably be a good bet that if FDR wrote the parents, that he did sign it himself.

Well let's see - WWII lasted about 45 months for the U.S. (Dec. '41 to Aug. '45). That's about 1350 days divided into about 400,000 dead = approximately 300 signatures a day on average. If it took FDR what - an hour, give or take - to sign that many letters himself, don't you think he would have tried to take that amount of time out for the people who gave up their loved ones for the war he was leading them in? I do.

Now we have Iraq with what, 1200-1300 deaths so far that has gone on for about 21 months. That's 2 signatures a day on average for Rumsphuck. Tough work is war, eh?

No, I would say this prick doesn't want to be faced with the reality of the dead bodies he's creating on a daily basis. Same for his boss The Lyin' King.

Well let's see - WWII lasted about 45 months for the U.S. (Dec. '41 to Aug. '45). That's about 1350 days divided into about 400,000 dead = approximately 300 signatures a day on average. If it took FDR what - an hour, give or take - to sign that many letters himself, don't you think he would have tried to take that amount of time out for the people who gave up their loved ones for the war he was leading them in? I do.

Now we have Iraq with what, 1200-1300 deaths so far that has gone on for about 21 months. That's 2 signatures a day on average for Rumsphuck. Tough work is war, eh?

No, I would say this prick doesn't want to be faced with the reality of the dead bodies he's creating on a daily basis. Same for his boss The Lyin' King. I wouldn't make FDR out to be as magnanimous as you do. He wanted 'in' WWII just as badly as GWB wanted GWII, but the nation clearly wanted to stay out. There is ample evidence to support the case that he turned a blind eye to all of the warning signs that Pearl Harbor was imminent so that he had justification and popular support. The rising threat of Germany and Japan were not much different in scope back then as Iraq, Iran and N. Korea are today the difference being that we opted for premption instead of waiting for them to become a serious threat (at least that's the party line. I'm sure FDR had his alterior motives too). I disagree with that policy as much as you do but you can't deny the truth of the comparison adjusted for the technology of the times.

That said, has anyone asked Rummy directly if he signed the letters? I doubt he did too, but yellow journalism is a large conributor to the national divide we face.

Yellow journalism or not, according to Hackworth's article, he asked his Pentagon buddy Turner to get him an answer on that question, and Turner said he had "not been able to get a response ". So it seems to me the Defense boys have ample opportunities to let someone know.

I know of the evidence that FDR wanted 'in' to the war. But pre-invasion Iraq wouldn't have made a pimple on Nazi Germany's and Imperial Japan's asses militarily and threat-wise. It was a totally different situation in 1941, and not even a close comparison.

SH was in a box with the Northern & Southern No-Fly Zones, his military was weak if not vitually decimated, he couldn't get his hands on significant rearmaments, and we had the ongoing inspections. He was less of a threat to the U.S. or Iraq's neighbors than a place like Sudan is now. In no way was pre-emption justified - and Bush knew it.

FDR might have seen the neccessity to get involved in the war to help our European allies and to face Japan, and probably thought he didn't have a choice no matter what the public sentiment was against getting involved in yet another of "Europe's wars". Remember, England was on the brink of being devoured by the Nazi war machine, and had that happened FDR would have gone to Congress for a Declaration of War, even if Pearl Harbor hadn't occured.

But I don't see that that has anything to do with whether he felt genuine sympathy and remorse for the fallen Allied troops, and especially with Americans, I've seen many accounts of him going out of his way to show courtesy, respect, and gratitude for those casualties.

We don't see anything remotely resembling that from the Bush Admin. It took him what, 3 years to even thank the Canadians for their help on 9/11, and only now because he's going around with hat in hand looking for help in Iraq. Not to mention taking services and bennies away from vets.

I was comparing more on the lines of 1935/36. But I definitely won't argue with you on the whole premption business. That's so freaking transparently bogus it sickens me. I find the whole Minority Report mindset and concept completely unAmerican.

The PR nightmare they've created for themselves would be funny if not for the topic at hand: If Rummy doesn't sign the letters he's a callous ass. If Rummy does sign the letters, he's not only still a callous ass, but he's even more monstrous becuase he's also pandering to the public and using the press to appear sympathetic. He's a victim of his own credibility gap.

I don't know if he would be seen to be pandering so much, because it is part of his job as SoD. But then as you say, the Neo's have been making their own beds and will have to lay in them.

The same for GWB since he's not yet been to a single funeral for a U.S. casualty AFAIK.

In WW2, notification was sent by telegram. I don't believe that there was any letter sent from anybody higher than the unit CO. I'll ask my dad next time we have dinner.

I wouldn't make FDR out to be as magnanimous as you do. He wanted 'in' WWII just as badly as GWB wanted GWII, but the nation clearly wanted to stay out. There is ample evidence to support the case that he turned a blind eye to all of the warning signs that Pearl Harbor was imminent so that he had justification and popular support. The rising threat of Germany and Japan were not much different in scope back then as Iraq, Iran and N. Korea are today the difference being that we opted for premption instead of waiting for them to become a serious threat (at least that's the party line. I'm sure FDR had his alterior motives too). I disagree with that policy as much as you do but you can't deny the truth of the comparison adjusted for the technology of the times.

That said, has anyone asked Rummy directly if he signed the letters? I doubt he did too, but yellow journalism is a large conributor to the national divide we face.

No FDR was not nearly so magnanimous but please furnish me with this "proof" of the imminent threat of Pearl Harbor, I know of many a would be historian that would pay top dollar and write you a very nice letter upon completion and publication of their dissertation on the new history of Pearl Harbor if you could just furnish us with the crumbs of a trail to the "truth."

No FDR was not nearly so magnanimous but please furnish me with this "proof" of the imminent threat of Pearl Harbor, I know of many a would be historian that would pay top dollar and write you a very nice letter upon completion and publication of their dissertation on the new history of Pearl Harbor if you could just furnish us with the crumbs of a trail to the "truth." I didn't say there was proof, only evidence of. We're no more likely to 'prove' FDR ignored the warning signs that Japan was going to attack us that we are to 'prove' malfesance in GWB's invasion of Iraq.

Here are a couple links that lay out some evidence:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm
http://sandysq.gcinet.net/uss_salt_lake_city_ca25/fdr1941.htm

There are also numerous books on the topic as well. The FoIA has opened many doors on this topic as of late. Regardless, the truth of it all is no more valid than the truth of GWBs malfesance and lies regarding WMDs and our reasons for the invasion of Iraq. In fact, most of the links I posted read like many of the pro-Kerry editorials posted here by Kerry supporters a few months ago.

If you don't buy it, no sweat off my back. I and, many others, however, do.

think about this whenever you hear georgie boy or rummy speaking of how much they value the sacrifice of our troops in this clusterf**k war.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=101&rnd=5.562757471877733

Using machine-generated signatures and human-forged signatures is a long-standing Washington tradition. When I was a college intern on Capitol Hill in the late 1970s, several of my buddies worked for members of Congress who had "autopens" to sign letters. The member of congress for whom I worked was too cheap to buy an autopen so we forged her signature on letters that were duplicates of letters that she had approved (i.e., if 300 people wrote essentially the same letter in favor of HR xxx, they all would get the same response that the member had written/approved -- we would then forge the signatures on them). My father was given a photograph allegedly inscribed by JFK as partial compensation for legal representation of a Kennedy administration official (my father now is dead and I don't know all of the details, but it involved someone's being caught in Baltimore's red light district). I have spoken with autograph experts about it. They have told me that the Kennedy administration used both automatic pens and human forgers to sign photographs and documents. Apparently the forgers were so good, that it is hard for experts to tell whether a signature like the one I have is real or forged.

Face it, the casualties in any war are just faceless numbers to the President or Secretary of Defense -- any President or Secretary of Defense. I am not shocked or dismayed by letters to the bereaved that are machine-signed. I hate to be callous, but W and Rummy have more important things to do. I would hope that they have some feelings of remorse about the casualties. But, I also would rather that they spend an hour or two each week thinking about the mistake they have made getting us into this mess and how they are going to get us out of it than their signing notes to the families of dead soldiers.

I didn't say there was proof, only evidence of. We're no more likely to 'prove' FDR ignored the warning signs that Japan was going to attack us that we are to 'prove' malfesance in GWB's invasion of Iraq.

Here are a couple links that lay out some evidence:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm
http://sandysq.gcinet.net/uss_salt_lake_city_ca25/fdr1941.htm

There are also numerous books on the topic as well. The FoIA has opened many doors on this topic as of late. Regardless, the truth of it all is no more valid than the truth of GWBs malfesance and lies regarding WMDs and our reasons for the invasion of Iraq. In fact, most of the links I posted read like many of the pro-Kerry editorials posted here by Kerry supporters a few months ago.

If you don't buy it, no sweat off my back. I and, many others, however, do.

I suppose it is fitting that we should have this debate on the anniversary of the very surprise attack.

The first link is no longer valid that you gave and I am familliar with the Stinnet book, which has been completely debunked by historians and academicians like Philip Zelikow (whose name you may recognize from the 9/11 commission etc.) He is also a professor of History at UVA. He wrote a book review for foreign affairs that details the main problem with Stinnett's premise.


"Stinnett revives another old argument: that Roosevelt knew about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and let it happen. (Even Buchanan did not stoop to this old saw.) A persistent digger, Stinnett has uncovered some nuggets of new evidence, but his most sensational items are premised on the false belief that American intelligence had broken the Japanese naval code before the attack. In fact, it was not decrypted until after Pearl Harbor. Aside from questioning the competence and honesty of two officers in U.S. naval intelligence (in a case concerning the Japanese fleet's radio silence and U.S. radio direction-finding), the book offers little new. Stinnett never fashions his nuggets of research into a coherent argument, much less a convincing portrait. It is odd that an otherwise respectable publisher did not insist on such coherence before peddling this book with its sensational press release. If Roosevelt was indeed maneuvering to have a war forced on the United States, his maneuvers were aimed at Germany rather than Japan, which he and Churchill simply hoped to deter. Pearl Harbor demonstrated their misjudgments, not their shrewdness."

As for the other two, they read like any blogger that Banjoboy might dig-up.

Using machine-generated signatures and human-forged signatures is a long-standing Washington tradition.

Face it, the casualties in any war are just faceless numbers to the President or Secretary of Defense -- any President or Secretary of Defense. I am not shocked or dismayed by letters to the bereaved that are machine-signed. I hate to be callous, but W and Rummy have more important things to do. I would hope that they have some feelings of remorse about the casualties. But, I also would rather that they spend an hour or two each week thinking about the mistake they have made getting us into this mess and how they are going to get us out of it than their signing notes to the families of dead soldiers.

no sh^t. but rummy still has time to squeeze in his squash game, and boy george still has time to do what he does best, vacation. surely they can find a few minutes here and there to whip off a signature or two. after all, they make no secret of how highly they value the sacrifices of our fighting men, and especially those who have been killed.

signing these letters just might provide that opportunity for reflection that you think they should take. instead, they'd rather just noit be bothered. the dead and wounded are just pawns for them to use in their fantasy games.

Face it, the casualties in any war are just faceless numbers to the President or Secretary of Defense

Probably. Until it's someone they know.

Someone please - buy the Monkey Man another bag of pretzels, hmm?

Hey, it was a 30 second google. The first link works intermittently it seems. I submit to your knowledge, but still think there is something to the whole notion. Incompetence, perhaps but I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

Probably. Until it's someone they know.



The people who have made this war and the people who are fighting this war come from wholly separate groups that do not intersect. When the war started, I read somewhere that only one or two members of congress had children who were in the military. I don't know, but I would be surprised if any member of the cabinet or the White House staff has any relatives fighting in Iraq. That is not to say that I am in any different situation. I do not know anyone who is fighting in Iraq. Just before Thanksgiving, a soldier from Baltimore who was killed in Iraq had the same last name as my mother's maiden name (not a very common name). I didn't know the kid and my mother thinks he was, at the closest, a third cousin (i.e., his grandfather or great grandfather and my grandfather may have been first cousins). But, seeing someone who was related to me on a casualty list, even that distantly, left me with a very different feeling than I have had when I read the names of the other 1,000+ young men and women who have been killed in Iraq.

is a bunch of wealthy chickenhawk draft dodgers have real big Nutz when it comes to sending someone else's kid to die. they shriveled smaller than a steroid laden bodybuilders when it was their turn. It's the whole reason they had to attack Kerry's record.
A man who's actually been 'in it' would be far more judicious when it comes to sending someone else to that sort of fate. This would have undermined the only thing W had going for him, hence the Swiftboat for BS. We actually had a religion in politics debate last night and I said "I'd rather have an atheist or an agnostic President" when asked why I said, "people who don't believe in an afterlife are less prone to sending people off to die"
ya ever notice, no such thing as an atheistic suicide bomber.

We actually had a religion in politics debate last night and I said "I'd rather have an atheist or an agnostic President" when asked why I said, "people who don't believe in an afterlife are less prone to sending people off to die"
ya ever notice, no such thing as an atheistic suicide bomber.

I'm willing to bet that the others in the room that heard you say it were fairly stunned, because they'd probably never thought of it in that way.

is a bunch of wealthy chickenhawk draft dodgers have real big Nutz when it comes to sending someone else's kid to die. they shriveled smaller than a steroid laden bodybuilders when it was their turn. It's the whole reason they had to attack Kerry's record.
A man who's actually been 'in it' would be far more judicious when it comes to sending someone else to that sort of fate. This would have undermined the only thing W had going for him, hence the Swiftboat for BS. We actually had a religion in politics debate last night and I said "I'd rather have an atheist or an agnostic President" when asked why I said, "people who don't believe in an afterlife are less prone to sending people off to die"
ya ever notice, no such thing as an atheistic suicide bomber.
Yup. Case in point. Rummy telling soldiers with a straight face to quit whining. You don't need no stinkin armor. Butch up and fight!

Four More Years!!!

is more likely and I hope you got an 'out'. I hope ya got plenty of Lube.

Four More Years!!!
I just hope 11/2/04 doesn't do more damage than 9/11 did.