Obama's bid to school Romney on the military backfires big-time

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wehrwolfen, Oct 24, 2012.

  1. Wehrwolfen
    Offline

    Wehrwolfen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,752
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +339
    Obama's bid to school Romney on the military backfires big-time ​



    By ANDREW MALCOLM


    Barack Obama's reelection campaign is in trouble. It's silently slowing down in North Carolina and now, even Florida. Even raising hundreds of millions in a record number of fundraisers, his campaign has had to borrow from a bank. Obama can't admit it all though.

    And he desperately needs to motivate his vaunted ground troops in these last 13 days.

    So, in Monday's debate the Democrat wasn't trying to stem the hemorrhaging of independents and women from his side. He was trying to serve some red meat to rally party loyalists after his disappointing debate performances. Hence, his sarcastic praise for Gov. Mitt Romney agreeing that al Qaeda is a threat.

    And hence this less-than-presidential response to Romney's concern over the Democrat's planned massive cuts in the nation's defense spending:

    "But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works.

    "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military has changed.

    "We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship where we’re counting ships; it’s what are our capabilities."


    This from the half-black man who suckered so many millions of countrymen into believing he was sincerely interested in uniting Americans of all kinds and colors for a new day. That seems so much farther away than merely 1,373 days ago.

    But re-reading Obama's attempted debate mocking, there is some sweet justice watching a man show off how much he knows but actually reveal instead, not only a pettiness, but how little he actually knows. Like his speech last year when he hailed a heroic Navy corpsman as a "corpseman."

    Obama claimed to a group of youths back in the 2007-08 cycle that he once considered a career in the military. Pols say such things to connect with voter groups. But, of course, what Obama was also saying to them standing there in civvies is that he clearly rejected the idea of doing the kind of patriotic volunteer work troops choose.

    And let's be honest, even in the early post-draft years of the 1970's-80's, the U.S. military would have been less than eager to recruit a woozy Choom Gang member like Obama.

    Where to start? First, Gov. Romney didn't say 1916; he said 1917, the year the U.S. entered World War I. Second, Obama was trying to portray the governor as ignorant about the military. There are, in fact, fewer Army horses now. But such animals do still play a critical tactical role for our Special Forces in Afghanistan.

    Bayonets, Mr. President, are the knife-like weapons attached to the business end of rifles for close-in fighting. They were invented as baionettes in the original Bayonne, not the one in New Jersey.

    Contrary to the president's implied description of them as outmoded, bayonets remain an integral weapon for soldiers, especially Marines, for whom the deadly blades are standard issue. A president who didn't skip so many security briefings might know that.

    The Army said Tuesday it currently stocks more than 415,000 bayonets and the Marines possess 195,000 more with plans to buy an additional 175,000. You'd think a commander-in-chief who once considered a military career might be aware of such things.

    There's a reason why Obama ducked addressing Romney's disturbing assertion that the U.S. Navy today has fewer ships than 95 years ago: Romney is dead right.

    In 1917, the U.S. Navy had 345 ships. At the end of last year, the third of Obama's administration, the U.S. Navy had 285 ships.

    Romney's point was that the estimated trillion dollars in pending defense cuts, including those mandated under so-called sequestration, would devastate the fleet even more. Not an unreasonable concern when, apparently, we had insufficient resources to even protect our ambassador in Libya.

    Obama stated flatly for the national television audience that sequestration would not happen as scheduled on Jan. 2. Within minutes, however, Obama political aide David Plouffe was scurrying around the Florida debate site telling reporters that what the Chicagoan really meant was sequestration "should not" happen.

    Obama also told the debate audience that the idea of debilitating mandated defense budget cuts was Congress' idea. However, Bob Woodward documented in his recent book, "The Price of Politics," that the toxic sequestration idea was actually delivered to Congress by Obama chief of staff Jack Lew in a meeting with Democrat Majority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid.


    Read More At IBD:Obama's bid to school Romney on the military backfires big-time by Andrew Malcolm - Investors.com
     
  2. Dutch
    Offline

    Dutch Silver Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,745
    Thanks Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +462
    One aircraft carrier today is worth about a hundred ships from 1917 dumbass. You know about military technological advancement right? You know like when the machine gun was introduced and two guys could cover the same ground that took thirty guys before?
     
  3. OKTexas
    Offline

    OKTexas New Life Member of the NRA 12/15 Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    24,152
    Thanks Received:
    3,763
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Near Magnolia, TX
    Ratings:
    +11,290
    Deflection, good job. Your dear leader would be proud.

    I would like to know which of Maobamas advisors came up with that line, I know Maobama isn't capable of thinking of it on his own.
     
  4. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    Tech can only shrink the sea so much numb nuts. The Navy We are losing is the Support, the ability to Project power, and move Troops. We are going to be left with a few Carriers, a bunch of Missile ships and Subs. We will only be capable of small Special Forces Ground Operations, or Bombing or Missile strikes. In effect we will still have bark, but no real bite when it comes to Projecting Force over long distances.

    Obama's own Sec of the Navy says we need 345 Ships.

    I found it particular ignorant of Obama when he joked about how we have Nuclear summaries as if that negates the need for Destroyers, and Amphibious Assault Craft, and Cruisers, and Attack Subs, and so on and so on.

    A Nuclear Missile Submarine has but one purpose. It's not designed to fight other ships, It's there to launch a Nuclear strike.

    I don't think People understand how important our Naval and Air power is. It has been the workhorse of our Conventional Forces when it comes to keeping peace, and Projecting power. It is one of the foundations of what makes us the worlds great power.

    Guess that is why Obama does not mind decimating it.
     
  5. francoHFW
    Online

    francoHFW Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    33,538
    Thanks Received:
    2,178
    Trophy Points:
    1,115
    Location:
    NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
    Ratings:
    +5,628
    Pure Pubcrappe, for dupes only...LOL
     
  6. francoHFW
    Online

    francoHFW Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    33,538
    Thanks Received:
    2,178
    Trophy Points:
    1,115
    Location:
    NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
    Ratings:
    +5,628
    BTW, we have 8 more ships now than in 2008, dupes.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page