DOCUMENTATION: Donald Rumsfeld mixed the Bible with intelligence for Bush
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on May 18, 2009 - 2:24pm.
Rapid Response
Hello Everyone:
I was absolutely horrified and blown away when I saw NewsMax.com (an extreme right wing website so it definitely cannot be accused of being liberal) report this about Donald Rumsfeld from GQ today:
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/rumsfeld_bible_bush/2009/05/18/215444.html
Rumsfeld Mixed Bible With Intel for Bush: Report
Monday, May 18, 2009 12:04 PM
WASHINGTON – "Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld routinely used militaristic passages from the Bible on the cover pages of White House intelligence documents, according to startling new revelations by GQ...
"The report by Robert Draper, who wrote a well-received book about Bush called "Dead Certain," also detailed the frustration and occasional fury of former officials who said Rumsfeld constantly undermined the president's goals..."
GQ published a slide-show of the images at http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret
The pictures in this GQ link are very alarming in my opinion!
Right below is the article about this in GQ from Robert Draper who I believe is a very credible author.
This kind of fanaticism in the name of God and the Bible about war from Rumsfeld is about the equivalent of terrorism in the name of Islam in my opinion which is very dangerous. I really wish that this story would have come out before the 2004 election so people could have known about it before they voted!
It is almost unbelievable that this at least to some degree is probably why Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld started an unnecessary war of choice in Iraq and is probably a major reason why they hate the concept of diplomacy so much!
Donald Rumsfeld and people like him in my opinion need a good lesson to show that the Bible does NOT teach this kind of fanaticism about war. This is a debate that I have had with many people on the religious right who supported Bush and it is a debate which I would love to have with Rumsfeld and with other dangerous Neocon ideologues like him who are a threat to come to power sometime in the future!
Mitch Dworkin
http://www.securingamerica.com/
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16039
RESOURCES: Speeches, Articles, and Career Highlights to help define Gen. Clark!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 7, 2008 - 2:51pm.
http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!
--------------------
http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?&id=content_9217
AND HE SHALL BE JUDGED
Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld has always answered his detractors by claiming that history will one day judge him kindly. But as he waits for that day, a new group of critics—his administration peers—are suddenly speaking out for the first time. What they’re saying? It isn’t pretty
By Robert Draper
On the morning of Thursday, April 10, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon prepared a top-secret briefing for George W. Bush. This document, known as the Worldwide Intelligence Update, was a daily digest of critical military intelligence so classified that it circulated among only a handful of Pentagon leaders and the president; Rumsfeld himself often delivered it, by hand, to the White House. The briefing’s cover sheet generally featured triumphant, color images from the previous days’ war efforts: On this particular morning, it showed the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down in Firdos Square, a grateful Iraqi child kissing an American soldier, and jubilant crowds thronging the streets of newly liberated Baghdad. And above these images, and just below the headline secretary of defense, was a quote that may have raised some eyebrows. It came from the Bible, from the book of Psalms: “Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death.”
This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine. On March 31, a U.S. tank roared through the desert beneath a quote from Ephesians: “Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” On April 7, Saddam Hussein struck a dictatorial pose, under this passage from the First Epistle of Peter: “It is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.” (To see these and more Bush-administration intelligence cover sheets, visit GQ.com’s exclusive slideshow).
I haven't yet seen one of those quotes that came from one of the Gospels. Most were from the Old Testament, with a couple from Paul. The fundamentalists don't seem to spend much time in the Gospels.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."
I saw one from Peter and one from Ephesians on TV today. Suffice it to say that Paul isn't my favorite Bible book-writer.
After a 34-week Bible study my then-wife and I did in the Methodist church (called "Disciples"), my Bible boiled down to the Gospels and Acts, and I'm a little skeptical about the book of John.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."
from the New Testament:
Right below is a serious theological explanation from someone who I believe is a sincere Bible believing preacher on the religious right who admits that most of his peers want to sweep the war issue "under the rug" and who also admits "that many Christians do not share my views."
While many people may disagree with this person's views of believing the Bible, I think that he deserves some credit for his being willing to admit to what he does and for standing up to his peers on the war issue when he knows that it is not a popular thing to do and when he knows that most of his peers do not want to seriously talk about it. It is extremely rare for any Bible believing preacher on the religious right to come out and publicly challenge his peers on the war issue like this:
http://www.bible-infonet.org/Challenge/topics/Debates/mcdonald_sheridan_1998/01_first_exchange.htm
McDonald - Sheridan Debate:
Sheridan's First Affirmative
"The proposition that I am to affirm is that it is sinful for a child of God to kill someone in foreign combat. That is, no faithful Christian can enlist in the military, go abroad to another land over which his government has no jurisdiction, and shoot someone he's never seen before simply because his government mandates it...
It is immaterial to me that many preachers have proverbially swept this issue under the rug, calling it a matter of "opinion". It is immaterial to me that many Christians do not share my views. What is important is what the Bible says about the matter...
Israel's wars were 'wars of the Lord' (Numbers 21:14); the Lord of Hosts was 'the God of the armies of Israel' (1 Samuel 17:45 RV, RSV) and to Him belonged of right the population of a conquered city ¼ an idea which explains the ruthless demand for complete destruction of the Canaanites and the other peoples in Palestine before the Conquest ¼" (Hasting's Bible Dictionary, p. 1029)
The religious nature of Israel's wars is all the more understandable when one considers Deuteronomy 9:1-6 says and the fact that God was interested in the physical preservation of his earthly kingdom through which a Savior for men would come. All of this lies in stark contrast to the secular and materialistic reasons for which nations war today. After all, can any nation claim today that they received express approval from God for their military activities? Since the reasons for Israel's warfare have been abrogated by the New Testament, no one can rightly claim Israel actions serve as justification for carnal warfare today..."
The bottom line to this is that the kingdom and warfare of the Old Testament were physical in nature while the kingdom and warfare of the New Testament are spiritual in nature as John 18:36 and Ephesians 6:11-17 (especially verse 12) clearly teach:
http://christiananswers.net/bible/john18.html
John
Chapter 18
36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence..."
http://christiananswers.net/bible/eph6.html
Ephesians
Chapter 6
11 "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God..."
This is the main reason why you do not see much of the New Testament being quoted in context in Rumsfeld's warmongering nonsense!
I have debated the war issue with many people on the religious right over the years and nobody who holds to the pro-war position has been able to give me a consistent response to this reasoning yet. That is why the war issue is very uncomfortable and inconvenient for them to talk about because it would mean that they would have to do some serious thinking and possibly change their religious and political views about the Neocon Republican position on war and how they will vote going forward if they study it!
That is a main reason why the consistent person making the argument above admits that the war issue among people on the religious right who all claim to believe in the Bible is swept under the rug and it is also a main reason why he admits that his views on the war issue are in the minority:
"It is immaterial to me that many preachers have proverbially swept this issue under the rug, calling it a matter of "opinion". It is immaterial to me that many Christians do not share my views..."
My wish is that these people would wake up and realize that Bush (as well as the Republican Party) "used evangelicals just to get their votes" which I credibly documented a long time ago:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9143
VIDEO & DOCUMENTATION: Bush "used evangelicals just to get their votes"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 20, 2006 - 4:03am.
Was he concerned with his "precious bodily fluids" as well? D*** war criminal.
My question about this (very well publicized) story is... who wins and who loses as a net result of it's publication? Widely distributed (as Mitch points out) by both main stream media & right wing sources who normally, for the past 8 yrs, would have balked at even touching this kind of story. But are suddenly all guns a-blaring to distribute it...far and wide.
Could it be that making Rummy the central Bad Guy -Black Hat Antagonist of the story takes some of the onus off of the executive branch and their brain, Karl?
Just asking.
Not that I think in any way Rumsfeld has not committed his share of atrocities and crimes, goodness gracious no!
But it sure does get me head scratching when his former defenders in the so called press seem just a wee bit too eager to out him like this. Not to mention the author of the article is a known Bush biographer. And who ends up smelling like a daisy in the end?
Cui Bono?
And it's like some Hollywood B-movie.
Firstly, the people quoted for the article are all nameless "officials"! In 10 pages, I think I saw only ONE person quoted with any attribution - they're all "the former adviser", "a former official who was present" etc. Even bloggers get called out for doing this kind of weak "reporting". I mean it's not like Rummy is still the boss so everyone has to tiptoe.
It's psy-opsy stuff like these article snips below that make you question Draper's motives.
Though few of these individuals would speak for the record (knowing that their former boss, George W. Bush, would not approve of it), they believe that Rumsfeld’s actions epitomized the very traits—arrogance, stubbornness, obliviousness, ineptitude— that critics say drove the Bush presidency off the rails.
Or how about Bush's worst mistake? Any guesses what it might be? I mean there were so many... Well, according to the article:
--several of Bush’s former advisers have described their boss’s worst mistake as keeping Rumsfeld around as long as he did.
Per Draper, turns out Rummy messed up....well, everything!
But in speaking with the former Bush officials, it becomes evident that Rumsfeld impaired administration performance on a host of matters extending well beyond Iraq to impact America’s relations with other nations, the safety of our troops, and the response to Hurricane Katrina.
In fact- sadly.... were it not for Rummy, it appears Bush would have left a swell legacy as President!
--as historians slog through the smoke and mirrors of his tenure, they may find that Rumsfeld’s most enduring legacy will be the damage he did to Bush’s[legacy].
Then the article takes maybe it's biggest leap. After another 'unnamed official' told how Rumsfeld had quipped to him, "When I need your help, I'll ask..." - the article goes on to conclude....:
This seemingly instinctive stubbornness adds to the growing consensus that Rumsfeld’s obduracy— on increasing troop levels, on recognizing the insurgency— was a primary cause of mishap in Iraq.
Now we know what went wrong on the otherwise perfect Iraq war plan. It was clearly Rummy's danged "obduracy"! <---- $10 word.
Here comes George Bush = Katrina Hero!:
Having only recently come to grips with the roiling disaster, Bush convened a meeting in the Situation Room on Friday morning. According to several who were present, the president was agitated. Turning to the man seated at his immediate left, Bush barked, “Rumsfeld, what the hell is going on there? Are you watching what’s on television? Is that the United States of America or some Third World nation I’m watching? What the hell are you doing?”
Then it goes on -like some really bad romance novel:
Visibly impatient, Bush turned away from Rumsfeld and began to direct his inquiries at Lieutenant General Honoré on the video screen. “From then on, it was a Bush-Honoré dialogue,” remembers another participant. “The president cut Rumsfeld to pieces. I just wish it had happened earlier in the week.”
Oh where is Jon Favreaux when you need some good alliteration?
Later, Hero Chertoff joins Hero Bush to save the day! But unfortunately, by then it was already Day 5 ... and about 5 days too late for most victims and structures.
But still the troops hadn’t arrived. And by Saturday morning, says Honoré, “we had dispersed all of these people across Louisiana. So we needed more troops to go to distribution centers, feed people, and maintain traffic.” That morning Bush convened yet another meeting in the Situation Room. Chertoff was emphatic. “Mr. President,” he said, “if we’re not going to begin to get these troops, we’re not going to be able to get the job done.”
Insert proper John Williams music score in the above for your listening pleasure.
Right below is a very interesting article from Tricia Keith Spiegel titled "Bible Thumping Torture Lovers?" that is credibly documented and which I find absolutely amazing!
For so many people on the religious right who claim to believe in the Bible so much, they should know what the Bible really teaches about how people are supposed to treat each other (Matthew 5:9, Romans 13:9-10, and Hebrews 12:14 are excellent examples of what the Bible really teaches about that):
http://christiananswers.net/bible/mat5.html
Matthew
Chapter 5
9 "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God..."
http://christiananswers.net/bible/rom13.html
Romans
Chapter 13
9 "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law..."
http://christiananswers.net/bible/heb12.html
Hebrews
Chapter 12
14 "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord..."
I just do not understand how so many people on the religious right who claim to believe in the Bible so much can be in favor of torture when that is the exact opposite of what the Bible really teaches about how people should treat each other:
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/05/02/bible-thumping-torture-lovers/
Bible Thumping Torture Lovers?
By Pat Racimora on May 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM in Christianity, Current Affairs, Religion, Torture
“Church Goers Like Torture More!”
“The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists.”
“Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful.”
That’s what the headlines blare, based on a recent survey conducted by the research arm of the prestigious Pew Charitable Trust.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html
To briskly summarize, frequent churchgoers and White evangelicals, followed fairly closely by White non-Hispanic Catholics approve of the use of torture more than do mainstream Protestants, those unaffiliated with any religion, and non-churchgoers.
If we stop right here and try to figure out why these results are as they are (setting aside for the moment Eastan McNeal’s recent excellent post about the survey’s methodology), the mind runs happily amok with what feels like obvious reasons. My friends and I came up with a few:
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/05/01/tortured-polling-logic/
“Maybe the Bible-thumping “torture-lovers” see certainty and intolerance as two sides of the same coin. It’s easier to dehumanize people who exhibit the attributes that are the object of the intolerance.”
“God and Country are one in the same to religious fundamentalists, so ‘not country’ is heathen and the welfare of such people is not any concern.”
“If you’re a fundamentalist of any religion (or ism) there is pure unadulterated and unquestioned Truth. Once you’ve got that on your side you no longer need to question things as much.”
“Anything designated as evil does not need to be treated as a human.”
“The more conservative active church goers are more likely to have a good/evil, black/white, us/them, heaven/hell, saved/damned mindset. Compassion can then be eliminated towards those on the wrong side of the comparisons.”
But, I dared to look a little deeper at some other Pew survey work. It turns out that almost 50% of Americans believe that torture is acceptable “often” or “sometimes,” and that view has not changed significantly over the last couple of years. Republicans and Independents approve of torture more than do Democrats. Differences among men and women are small, as are differences regarding age and educational level. However a greater number of older people (33%) than younger people (23%) say torture should never be used. (Go seniors!)
http://people-press.org/report/510/public-remains-divided-over-use-of-torture
But here is the bottom line. In the Pew survey, plenty of Democrats, mainstream Protestants, infrequent churchgoers, and religiously unaffiliated people DO believe torture is acceptable, and plenty of Evangelical Christians, non-Hispanic Catholics and frequent churchgoers are NOT in favor of torture. See the data for yourselves:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1210/torture-opinion-religious-differences
So, there is statistical significance and there is practical significance. In very practical terms, that means that if you meet up with an Evangelical Christian who attends church frequently or a Unitarian who attends services once a year, you might go with the probabilities and guess their view on torture correctly. And you will also be wrong often enough.
Your take?
This CNN report credibly documents and backs up what Tricia said in her article:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html
Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful
Story Highlights
* 742 American adults surveyed on use of torture against suspected terrorists
* 54 percent of those who go to services at least weekly say it's often or sometimes OK
* In survey, people unaffiliated with any religious group were least likely to back torture
* President of National Association of Evangelicals yet to comment on survey
updated 5:47 p.m. EDT, Thu April 30, 2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html#cnnSTCOther1
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.
The Washington Region Religious Campaign Against Torture rallied on Capitol Hill in March 2008.
More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified -- more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.
The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small. 
See results of the survey »
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html#cnnSTCOther1
The president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Leith Anderson, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The survey asked: "Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?"
Roughly half of all respondents -- 49 percent -- said it is often or sometimes justified. A quarter said it never is.
The religious group most likely to say torture is never justified was Protestant denominations -- such as Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians -- categorized as "mainline" Protestants, in contrast to evangelicals. Just over three in 10 of them said torture is never justified. A quarter of the religiously unaffiliated said the same, compared with two in 10 white non-Hispanic Catholics and one in eight evangelicals. E-mail to a friend 
All About Torture • Religion • Pew Research Center
You should have also highlighted the part about Rummy withheld a fleet of helicopters for Katrina. .....how come that's not being discussed in the MSM yet????
I thought I saw a segment on it on one of the shows today, either on CNN or MSNBC. I didn't really hear he details, but it was there.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."
Right below is an article titled "Can We Understand: the Bible Alike?" that was written in 1971 during the Vietnam war by someone who I would consider to be a sincere and consistent person on the religious right who proposed an “Intensive Study” of the war issue. Unfortunately he seems to be in the vast minority of that group of people!
I think that the questions about war that he asks to people on the religious right who all claim to believe the Bible are valid and the real answer to his questions in my opinion is that most of these religious people who support political wars of choice have virtually no interest in seriously studying this issue. That is why many of these people I have seen since the Vietnam war try to throw the war issue “in the category of opinion” in order to try and make it go away:
http://truthmagazine.com/archives/volume36/GOT036010.html
Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 18-20
January 2, 1992
Just Like the War Question
Mike Willis
Danville, Indiana
“One may interpret ‘Thou shalt not kill’ to mean that man cannot participate in the military, especially in time of war. Those who participate in the military or war, from this point of view, are guilty of murder. We tolerate these differences regarding ‘murder,’ placing them in the category of opinion…”
That is being done in my opinion because the war issue is obviously not convenient to talk about because it would step on too many toes and people on the religious right studying this issue in a serious manner where many of them may need to change their political views to be consistent would violate an unspoken tradition on the part of many people in the religious right of unconditionally supporting Republican candidates because of abortion and homosexuality regardless of anything else that they do on other important issues and regardless of how Republicans like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld personally behave:
http://truthmagazine.com/archives/volume15/TM015726.html?PHPSESSID=4cf10b52c8d23c80c864d1284bc576ad
TRUTH MAGAZINE, XV: 44, pp. 38-39
September 16, 1971
Can We Understand: the Bible Alike?
Ralph Edmunson
Searcy, Arkansas
"There is a wide variation in the teaching and practice among churches of Christ on the “war question.” This goes from the position of unrestricted participation on the part of Christians in both the military and the police to the opposite extreme of complete aloofness from any participation in government. Some say that a Christian should not even vote, and that it would be wrong for a Christian to be an elected official; others urge that there ought to be more Christians in politics and in positions of authority. Some will teach that capital punishment ought to be abolished on the supposition that it is against God’s win; others argue that God requires capital punishment and the one administering it are carrying out God’s will; while still others concede that capital punishment is “ordained of God,” but that Christians are not scripturally authorized to administer it.
Some, who would “turn the other cheek” in personal disputes will argue that unless freedom is upheld-militarily, if necessary then our right to be Christian win be jeopardized; others demand that Christians not fight for freedom.
This question has been discussed as far back as the days of the Campbells. It was a controversy before, during, and after the civil war. “Great” men have been in defense of both sides.
The general attitude of the “brotherhood” is and has been that it is regrettable that there is a difference of “opinion” on this subject, but that no harm is done as, long as no one presses his “opinion” to the point of dividing the brotherhood. In effect, we have said that it does not make any difference what one believes as long as he is sincere and doe’s not try to convert any one else to his position; that, since it is a “controversial” subject, let each one believe and practice what he conceives the Bible to say to him, but, do not advocate his beliefs publicly, lest he “split the church.”
We have advocated that there must be unity in “matters of faith.” But it seems that we have discovered another realm — “opinion” — and several Bible passages are wrested and perverted in attempts to make it appear that the Lord bestows his blessings on division (couched in the statement that each one has the right to his own “opinion” on “indifferent” matters).
Can We Understand The Bible Alike?
We are fond of Preaching sermons based on the question: “Can we all understand the Bible alike?” We challenge denominational adherents to “search the’ scriptures.” We rightly point out that we could be united if we would “just take what the Bible says” On baptism, one church, music in worship, Lord’s Supper, et al.
Why have we never thought to apply this same principle to our own items of disunity? If we “just take what the Bible says” on the “war question,” wouldn’t we be united on this subject? If not, why not? Is the teaching of the Bible on the relationship of Christians’ to the civil government so vague and unclear that Christians “cannot all understand it alike”? Does the same Bible teach one Christian to kill and another not to?
Proposed Intensive Study
We are proposing a monthly publication devoted exclusively to investigating and discussing this particular question in all its phases. There have been occasional short periods of discussion, but nothing extensive and intensive enough to really examine all the arguments in depth. We propose this publication to continue this exhaustive investigation until we “all speak the same thing”; until “there be no divisions among us”; and until we “be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”
We want to hear from all who would like to see such a discussion. If we can obtain at least 1000 commitments to subscribe, we will proceed with our plans. Send your name and address, and when we obtain enough commitments, we will produce the first number.
In the meantime, we want writers to send in articles on both sides and on all phases of the controversy. It is our purpose to produce a balanced publication-not favoring one side or the other-in order to examine all the evidence so as to arrive at the truth. Send your articles and commitment to subscribe to Ralph Edmunson, 900 W. McRae, Searcy, Ark. 72143.
Let us hear from you."
Very few people on the religious right I know who I ask these sincere questions to will seriously try to answer them. Most of these people who all claim to believe in the Bible will not apply the same purity standards to themselves that they apply to other religious people who they disagree with because it is not a convenient thing to do and because it would require some serious thinking and some possible change on their part!