Hasn't everyone realized Rumsfeld's remarks were an attack on Clinton?

"You go to war with the army you have" has gotten many people scratching their heads around here, but it's pretty obvious to me that he's putting the blame on Clinton. I think what he's trying to say is "Clinton left us a bad army, so don't blame us blame him". The first thing that popped into my head when he said that was "Oh, another jab at Clinton".

Of course that's just my take on things, but I haven't seen anyone else bring it up. Thoughts?

On edit: Are people thinking that I'm trying to defend Rumsfeld? I'm not. I'm trying to point out how he tries to avoid responsibility. Of course it doesn't make sense to blame Clinton, because Rumsfeld the one who took us to war. That's what I was trying to point out. Yet more mind-boggling reasoning from the administration, that's all.

They were an ad hoc reply to an awkward question.

That would be my first response to the idiot who brings that up.

it was an unnecessary war in the first place. So even *if* Clinton had left a sub-par military (which of course is not the case), Rumsfeld should have advised that they should not have deployed to Iraq.

This is shifting blame after the fact. If everything went well, they'd be taking credit for it.

It's like that saying "Victory has 1000 fathers, but an insurgency that's bogging you down and making you look bad is an orphan".

especially. If they get in trouble they always go back to "blame Clinton". Their base loves it and will buy it every time.

We might have less dead soldiers.

As for your theory. Im not sure that is what he meant. It's very possible though, but this wasnt a planned remark, it looked to me like good old fashioned bullshit.

If that is what he meant he is a jerk. Unless he can show that Clinton sent troops into combat without armor hes got no point. Clinton wasnt building an army to occupy Iraq. We didnt need body army for an almost fully mobilized military including the national guard.

I would wager to guess body armor is something they could have ordered before the war.

which is totally unacceptable. But again, what the hell can we do about it?

Bush I in this case.

Clinton continued (some of) Cheney's and Bush I's policy regarding the military.

When Cheney attempted to blame Clinton the first 4 years, this was brought up to him and he more or less said that if he had been wrong then Clinton should have changed it, so it was still Clinton's fault.

regardless of any of that.....you don't go to war without equipping your army....it's just plain stupid. And that stupidity belongs to Shrub, Cheney, and Rummy alone.

We went into WWII with the "army we had, not the army we'd want to have later on." I think Rummy was trying to make the usual connection: "We were attacked, so we were forced to go to war with the army we had!!

Their invasion of Iraq was long planned, so this "we went with the army we had" crap is crap. There was no emergency.

President Clinton and a study written as a futurisitic narrative on the efficacy of military coups-from the USAF/INSS, October 1996.
Hello?

http://www.guerrillacampaign.com/coup.htm

bases and some spending - all kinds os military people were on tv approving of the plan - they were actually engaged in the planning for it. All rhetoric was based involved the ending of the cold war. The talk was even going on at the end of the Bush 4 years. This also involved Congress and Cohen, Clinton's Republican Defense Sec. I wonder which Republicans were yelling against it then? It should all be a matter of record whether I remember it right or not.

I saw it right away as a slam against Clinton but it looks like the media spin is going beyond that. Good.

...which would be the bigger crime, leaving a sub-par military, or taking that sub-par military to war when you know there's little or no chance of a convincing victory? What people don't seem to realize is that the world now thinks they've seen the chink in our armor (no pun intended), and I'd expect anyone who may be in our sights to be following closely to what happens in Iraq.

of yearly increase of the defense budget would it take to create the army you want?

It's not like they didn't have the time and money to make it what they want it to be.
Especially since PNAC has for long been intent on reshaping the military for its new role in US global domination.

or so they said..

Clinton is all-powerful.. he managed to leave a superb army, so they could "win" in Afghanistan and yet he was able to reach in from beyond retirement, and "ruin" the same army so they would be "not so good" in Iraq :eyes: