From: Jeff Shultz 

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:40:36 -0600, Dave wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:56:39 -0600, John Cuccia 
> wrote in message :
>
> | Exactly.  My point wasn't the well-documented lack of armor (or
> | planning, or personnel), but the fact that our Secretary of Defense is a
> | punk with the manners of a schoolyard bully who doesn't give a shit
> | about the troops he sends into combat.  The larger issue is that the
> | president saw fit to keep him on for a second term, which speaks very
> | poorly indeed for Mr. Bush.
>
> I was offended by his comment about how we "go to war with the army we
> have, not the army we wish we had".  I'm glad he wasn't the Secretary of
> Defense during WWII.  At least then we had the good sense to tool up
> before going to war, instead of just rushing into it with what we had.
>
Um, we went into WW II with the carriers we had... we wish we'd had the
Essex class in service, but it was still on the builders ways. And lets not
even talk about the armor that we had...

What is annoying about the comment is that we've been in this war since
Sept 11, 2004 - we don't still have "the army we have" at that
time. At least we shouldn't.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5