« Group Evolution | Main | Farewell to a Warrior for Freedom »
It's Not the Sex, It's the Lies
I know, I know. Lies from the government are like jelly beans at Easter--they're pretty much everywhere and in every color and flavor imaginable. Still, when the government takes the time and effort to lie about the details, it's a lot like getting one of those buttered popcorn flavored jelly beans. It's unexpected, unpleasant, and leaves a bad flavor in your mouth for a while.
Which brings me to this morning's phone call with Defense Secratary Donald Rumsfeld's office. But to get the whole story, we have to go back to December 6, 2004.
I read over at David Hackworth's site, SFTT.org that Secretary Rumsfeld was not personally signing the letters to the families of soldiers killed in action (KIA). Despite being a remarkably insensitive policy, it also seemed incredibly stupid from a public relations perspective. But, Rumsfeld is well known for having the press corps in continual state of ring-kissing obeisance. So I decided to call his office and ask them right up front, "Is Secretary Rumsfeld signing all of the letters to the families of the KIA himself, personally, by hand, no auto-pen?" It's a simple yes or no question, right? Or not...
Now begins the dance with the Pentagon Information Officers. The first step is to call Rumsfeld and speak to Petty Officer Davidson, who doesn't know the answer, but with a quick two-step, moves me along to Larry DaRita, Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and Rumsfelds' communications pointman. I speak with Mr. DiRita's chief assistant, Col. Rhyndance, who twirls me into the arms of Janet Sims at the Office of Public Inquiries for the Public (as opposed to The Office of Public Inquiries for the Media, yet another story). Ms. Sims does not know the answer to my question, but will find out and get back to me. Which she does, the next afternoon, to report that she still doesn't know, but will get back to me. Which she does, the next morning.
The answer is yes. Secretary Rumsfeld does sign each of the letters himself. I reiterated my question to make certain. "He signs them himself, by his own hand, no auto pen? He signs them by hand?" I asked. "Yes," she assured me, "They called me from his office and said that he signs each of the letters by hand, and that they place the highest priority on this matter." And she goes on to name the person she spoke with in Rumsfeld's office.
Okay, well that seems simple enough. Or not...
I got a call yesterday morning from a friend with whom I had shared this story. She advised me that in Dana Milbank's column in Sunday's WaPo, Rumsfeld's office admitted that he did not sign every letter by hand . They had been using auto-pen for his signature. Please hold all gasps of shock and sarcasm until the end.
Time to call and find out why they lied to me. Again, I am doing the two-step Rumsfeld Shuffle with my new friends from two weeks ago. Col Rhyndance? Not in this week. Janet Sims? Not in today. I leave a short message with Mr. DiRita's office that I had called on this issue and was lied to and I expect a phone call back with an explanation. And I expect it by two o'clock this afternoon.
Less than an hour passed, and I get a phone call from Captain David Romley, who is the assistant to Mr. DiRita. I give him the background story and ask him why I was lied to. He can't say and begins to refer me out to Janet Sims office. I told him she isn't in, but since his office was the one that gave Ms. Sims the information, I think they are responsible for giving me an answer. Here's how the rest of the phone call proceeded:
Captain Romley: "Well, I can't answer that. But can I just say this--off the topic [of lying], here's the really important thing to know. Secretary Rumsfeld writes all of these letters himself, and there's an enormous amount of time and effort put into each little decision that gets made along the way, like what date to put on the letter, because if we are waiting for the Secretary to sign it, then we can't put a date on it until it's signed. So each decision along the way is given enormous attention."
Me: "Well, continuing off topic, although I think the topic of why the Pentagon is lying to the public on matters that do not involve national security is a pretty interesting topic, here's the problem-- If you had just told the truth, there wouldn't have even been a story about this. The truth was, and what you should have said was that 'Secretary Rumsfeld personally writes all of these letters himself, as he should do, but that if we wait until he can sign all of them, then they won't get to the families in a timely manner, and we don't think it's right to keep them waiting any longer than we have to. And that is why we use the auto-pen'. Period. Right, Captain?"
Captain: "Right."
Me: "And here's a piece of advice for you going forward, from the mother of a small child. When you guys answer questions, why don't you pretend that your mother is standing right next to you? It may curb the temptation to lie. Or in this case, give an answer that 'is not operational', or even use a phrase like 'not operational'."
Captain Romley: (Laughing) "I like that. That's a good idea. That's a good saying."
Me: Thanks. "Feel free to share it with the rest of the Pentagon. Put is on a plaque for your boss for Christmas. Because, as we all know now, it's not the sex, it's the lying, isn't it Captain?"
Captain: "Ummmm...
Me: "That's alright, you don't have to answer that. But what I'm saying is the same thing your mother would say, which is, when you lie about the little things, why should we believe you when the big things come along? Or about anything for that matter? And who exactly do you think you are lying to in the public?"
Captain: "I see your point, Ma'am."
A few niceties, 'cause he seemed like a nice guy, and I may have to talk to him next week, after all, and the call ended.
Now, I will still be talking to the person that lied to my face directly, Ms. Sims. I will write about that later. Despite my conversation with Cpt. Romley, I still think the subject of why the Pentagon is lying about matters that don't involve national security is pretty interesting.
But I thought these phone calls were fun and interesting to write about, too. I think it's important to call people and hold them accountable for what they are doing with my money. It's easy, and fun (mostly), and it reminds them of something critical to good democracy. It reminds them that that we are watching everything they say and do.
It reminds them that We the People are paying attention.
The number of Rumsfeld's office is 703-692-7100. Feel free to call him and let him know that you are a part of We the People, and that you'd like some answers.
After Stars and Stripes broke this story, Rumsfeld said, “I have directed that, in the future, I sign each letter.”
Most of us, in that position, would have said, “From now on I will sign each letter personally.” So what’s up with the strange, impersonal construction of Rumsfeld’s response? Does the notion that he didn’t have such a directive (from himself) relieve him of responsibility for the callous auto-penning of the letters?
Did anyone else find his response strange?
Rumsfeld Does Diplomacy:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/world_news/2004/12/20/rumsfeld_does_diplomacy.html
Bush Defends Rumsfeld as a "Caring Fellow"
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/world_news/2004/12/20/rumsfeld_does_diplomacy.html
Bush / Putin to Meet in Slovakia in Feb.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4684265,00.html
.. However ..
Groups Says Russia Now At "Not Free" Status
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4684278,00.html
Freedom House noted increased Kremlin control over national television and other media, limitations on local government, and parliamentary and presidential elections it said were neither free nor fair.
``Russia's step backward into the 'Not Free' category is the culmination of a growing trend under President Vladimir Putin to concentrate political authority, harass and intimidate the media, and politicize the country's law-enforcement system,'' Executive Director Jennifer Windsor said in a statement.
``These moves mark a dangerous and disturbing drift toward authoritarianism in Russia, made more worrisome by President Putin's recent heavy-handed meddling in political developments in neighboring countries, such as Ukraine.''
.......With friends like these, who needs enemies (& enemies will indeed multiply)
Bushism related to our President's plans for Social Securiy:
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program"
St. Charles, Missouri; November 2, 2000
Here is some information about Bush’s SS program changes
http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/20/retirement/bush_pressconf/index.htm
As usual, Bush is light on details.
[snip]
He reiterated at his year-end press conference that he was not in favor of raising the payroll tax and that any changes made would not affect those in or near retirement.
But still unclear is what age he would define someone as a "near retiree" and whether he would support raising the level of income subject to the payroll tax.
[snip]
The president noted again he is not in favor of increasing the payroll tax. "Payroll tax ... will not go up," he said.
[snip]
President Bush also said that whatever solutions are adopted, "nothing will change for those near or on Social Security." But he did not specify which age will define a "near retiree."
Casey:
Thank you for posting this story. I have to admit I didn't understand the recent articles in light of the conversation (on the 6th) you intially relayed to me.
I'm proud of you for calling and setting the record straight. Did you forward your article to other blogs and papers? NYT?
I'm definiately going to follow your example and call the pentagon and congress and remind them that we are not sleeping beauties out here.
Bush / Putin to Meet in Slovakia in Feb.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4684265,00.html
Posted by: DiAnne | December 20, 2004 03:55 PM
The poor abused Slovaks don't deserve this double insult to their homeland.
Interesting phone calls, Casey! Thanks for posting that story! It IS incredible how they lie/dance around a question. Then again, what do you expect from a guy who said...
"The dumbest thing anyone could do would be to stand up here and start previewing things that somebody's thinking about or not thinking about or starting to disabuse you of each thing somebody tells you that we're thinking about, because then the first time we don't disabuse you, you'll say 'aha - that's what they're going to do!'"
...right, Rummy...
wow here are some more rumsfeld quotes. i think he might actually make shrub look good!
http://www.timble.me.uk/fun/item.php?name=rumsfeld
(Planned Parenthood actions)
Supreme Court Watch site.
www.SaveROE.com/supremecourt
For weeks, speculation has been mounting that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist may soon step down from the U.S. Supreme Court because of thyroid cancer. And GOP leaders are preparing their "nuclear strategy," concerned that the Democrats will block Bush's judicial nominees, including Rehnquist's replacement should he retire. Their line of attack entails changing the rules of the Senate, and if they are successful the Democrats would not likely have enough votes to block a nominee.
We cannot afford to be caught sleeping when our voices are needed most. So in the coming weeks here are few things you can do:
>> Visit the Court Watch section for the latest news and opportunities to speak out.
>> Let friends know what's at stake and urge them to get ready to stand up and protect our courts.
>> Download our Supreme Court poster and post it on your office door, in your window, in the lobby of your apartment building, or wherever you can.
http://www.saveROE.com/supremecourt
Apathy Marks First Saudi Voter Registration
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4684893,00.html
-------
Was frightened by the Bush (oil?) portrait on Time - came across it unexpectedly. Was pleasantly surprised to see a photo of Barak Obama gracing the cover of Newsweek right next to it.
Apathy Marks First Saudi Voter Registration
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4684893,00.html
-------
Was frightened by the Bush (oil?) portrait on Time - came across it unexpectedly. Was pleasantly surprised to see a photo of Barak Obama gracing the cover of Newsweek right next to it.
Casey, you rock! Great phone call! Wish I had half the nerve you have but alas, I get tongue-tied under pressure. Thank goodness there are people like you out there fighting in all our good names. I thank you!
Lindsay in NJ
DiAnne,
I just thought of something. I know you are having trouble with your posts showing up twice. Have you tried omitting your name and email address the first time you post? It will then direct you to a "correction page" and maybe from there it will only post once. Just a thought : )
Keep up the good work. Love your posts!
Lindsay in NJ
test
!!! Lindsay you rock !!!
Congrats, DiAnne! I know that's been driving you crazy. Have a good night all, I am off to study for my final tomorrow night.
ABC/WA PO Poll
Wow!! and not even 2 months after the election.
Most Americans now believe the war with Iraq was not worth fighting and more than half want to fire embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the chief architect of that conflict, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The survey found that 56 percent of the country now believes that the cost of the conflict in Iraq outweighs the benefits, while 42 percent disagreed. It marked the first time since the war began that a clear majority of Americans have judged the war to have been a mistake.
Just came from karaoke & found this from my brother. Sorry if it's not PC.
President Bush and Rumsfeld are sitting in a bar.
A guy walks in and asks the barman, "Isn't that Bush and Rumsfeld sitting over there?"
The barman says, "Yep, that's them."
So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor! What are you guys doing in here?"
Bush says, "We're planning WW III."
And the guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"
Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Muslims this time and one blonde with big tits."
The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big tits? Why kill a blonde with big tits?"
Bush turns to Rumsfeld and says, "See, I told you no one would worry about the 140 million Muslims".
Interesting analysis by Simon Rosenberg:
A critical first step in deciding who we want as our next chair is to first figure out what the job is, and what it requires. An article in this week's Economist, excerpted below, does an excellent job at describing how the Republicans now view the job and why they have chosen a 38-year-old strategist as their next chair.
As NDN has been discussing for the past several years, the modern Republican political machine has redefined politics as we know it. Years of investing billions of dollars in their infrastructure have created a vast and complex web of multimillion dollar operations which include think tanks, for-profit media outlets like Fox News, traditional political advocacy groups and, in recent years, a very healthy and strategic set of national, state and local party organizations.
The Republicans understand the division of labor required to run such a political empire, and have a diversified set of leaders to build and manage their affairs - spokesmen like Bush, Colin Powell, Bill Frist, Rudy Giuliani, and Arnold Schwarzenegger; strategists like Karl Rove, Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist; managers like Roger Ailes, Ed Gillespie and Ken Mehlman; intellectuals like those at Heritage, Cato and the dozens of other local and state think tanks; propagandists like Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge; and investors like the Coors and Scaife families.
They run their politics like a business. They have strategic plans, targeted outcomes, measures to gauge progress and accountability. As Democrats, we must come to terms with what they have built and how they run their affairs, for today they have a much better system that yields much better results than ours.
Finding someone who can take on Bush on TV is not the biggest or most important part of the job of chairing the DNC. Terry McAulifffe has repeatedly said as much, and the Republicans have clearly recognized this in their recent choices for chair of the RNC. We already have dozens of national leaders well-equipped to take on the GOP each day. They are named Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Richardson, Gore, Dean, Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Hoyer, Bayh, Lieberman, Vilsack, Landrieu, Menendez, Graham, Salazar, Ford Jr., Nelson, Lincoln, Durbin, Stabenow, Granholm, Rendell, Warner, Biden, Holbrooke, Harman, Spitzer and Emanuel. We could all add more.
What we need at the head of the DNC is someone who can take on Rove, Reed, Norquist and Mehlman. Someone who understands how to defeat the modern Republican machine at its own high-level strategic game; someone who understands the demographic, attitudinal and socio-economic complexities of the coming America; someone who is deeply rooted in the emerging new media world of databases, digital media, satellite and cable television; someone who understands the internet and modern community-building techniques; someone who can speak for the mainstream of the party and connect with its increasingly youthful activist base; someone who has successfully raised money and worked in all regions of this diverse country; and someone who has a proven track record at running a business or political organization.
Vote against Bush as Time's person of the year: Link
Edited on Mon Dec-20-04 09:52 PM by madison2000
http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2004 /
Ideas: As you pass the newsstand, turn the front
magazine around- maybe it will cut down their sales.
Be sure to commend Newsweek for having Barak Obama on the cover.
& remember - Time also had Ayatollah Khomeini & GI Joe as "Man of the year" before" - remind people of this
Latina, do you have a link to Rosenberg?
Thanks
DiAnne,
And let's not forget Hitler and his stint as man of the year.
Latina, do you have a link to Rosenberg?
Thanks
Posted by: Marjorie G | December 21, 2004 12:18 AM
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/20/135947/88
Marjorie --
More info on Rosenberg:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/6/112326/490
http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/12/10/121515/08
Thanks for the Time link DiAnne.... :-) I voted... against the choice, that is... :-)
Thanks, Latina
Poll: Americans' Support for Iraq War Slipping
Dec 20, 2004 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A majority of Americans now say the war in Iraq was not worth fighting, a view that has driven down the ratings of both President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Monday.
Fifty-six percent of those questioned, a new high, agreed that the cost of the war outweighs the benefits and is not worth it. That a gain of seven percentage points from a poll conducted in July.
Fifty-seven percent said they disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq and 53 percent disapprove of the way Rumsfeld is handling his job, according to the survey.
However, 60 percent said the Iraqi elections scheduled for late January should go forward regardless of the security situation.
The poll also found that despite growing dissatisfaction with Iraq, most Americans, 58 percent, still say U.S. forces should remain there until order is restored.
Several Republican lawmakers have expressed doubts about Rumsfeld's performance and some Democrats want him fired over his handling of the war. More than half of the poll respondents, 52 percent, also said Rumsfeld should be replaced.
Bush defended Rumsfeld at a news conference on Monday, saying the Pentagon chief is "doing a really fine job."
According to the poll, Bush's approval rating on Iraq dropped to 42 percent, down from 60 percent a year ago. Fewer than half said they believe there has been significant progress toward restoring order in Iraq, down from 51 percent last summer.
The ABC News/Washington Post telephone poll of 1,004 adults was conducted Dec. 16-19 and has a three-point margin of error.
Kerry Slams Bank of England for Bank of Credit Disaster
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/964026.cms
Media blackout on this in US?
Meanwhile, Swift Boat liars granted press conferences