The first time I heard Mitt Romney complain, 'Our navy is smaller than it's been since 1917," it was in January. Even at the time, the argument didn't make much sense, and for months, the talking point largely disappeared.
That changed very recently, when Romney brought it back, apparently hoping to get a boost in Virginia. When the Republican repeated it last night, President Obama was well prepared.
For those who missed it and can't watch clips online, it quickly became one of the most memorable comments from the night:
"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's 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."
Romney walked into that one, and was left looking very foolish.
Romney spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom told reporters last night that Obama "dismissed ships because he compared them to the horses and bayonets of an earlier time. That's a remarkable statement."
Actually, no, that's a remarkably dumb response. The underlying truth may confuse the Republican candidate and his team, but it really isn't that complicated.
The Navy's downsized fleet is the result of a reorganization that began decades before Obama even took office. We have fewer dreadnoughts, Tim Murphy explained at the time, but as part of modernization, we also have more aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.
Several months ago, someone gave Romney a talking point that he thought sounded good, but he never faced any scrutiny for it. Last night, Obama effectively debunked the nonsense, exposing the degree to which Romney's understanding of military policy is shallow and incomplete, while also reinforcing the larger point about the inexperienced Republican looking backwards when it comes to national security.
Leave a Comment:
Boost the economy:
1) Building more nuclear ships, knowing that Toshiba Industries of Japan supplies those nuclear reactors.
2) Require the military to acquire dressage horses for military parades.
3) Require all citizens to keep and bear bayonets.
Select the low bidder who can charge overrur profits to the taxpayer.
Our military still uses both Horses and bayonets...
Both were crucial to victory in Afghan land.
Yes, that's what Sean Hannity said last night, and it was as dumb then as it is now. Since the introduction of rifled muskets and repeating arms, bayonets have accounted for fewer than 1% of battlefield casualties. Unless you count the people gunned down trying to execute bayonet charges against fixed positions as bayonet casualties, of course.
I was waiting for Obama to respond to Mittens with "Isn't that what I just said?" Mittens attacks Obama for not handling the Iran situation correctly. Then when he explained what he would do, it was almost exactly what Obama is doing right now.
I didn't like the Etch-a-Sketch when I was a kid and I don't like them now. He/they are to simple and never worked right, and if he/it did manage to work properly it would break.
I loved this part "We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines." Sounds like you are talking to a 5 year old.
Romney has no foreign policy...
He changes position constantly...
And yet the race is close...
The only reason the race is close is because Obama is Black....
If he were white the only votes Romney would get are the ones from his wife and kids...
When will the media call it what it is...IT'S RACISM ALIVE AND VERY WELL...
Narada, How I wish I could say you were wrong. It does defy reason that nearly half, or half the country is still so racist. There must be other factors at work.
I do believe the economy accounts for some of it. I am one of the few people you'll ever encounter who thinks Rev. Wright had a point. This country will pay in some way for its terrible legacy. I believe that.
I hope Mitt getting elected isn't the first chicken to come home to roost. So many will pay dearly for that mistake.
She'll be riding (or driving) 6 white horses when she comes. Where's the teacher?
I am a Navy veteran, and today's ships and boats (submarines and small vessels) have more firepower than you could get out of twice as many 30 or 40 years ago. Reagan actually started cutting the defense budget in the '80s and Daddy Bush also made cuts.
Obama's vision for the military is very similar to the one described by Donald Rumsfeld early during Dubya's presidency. He wanted a light, agile, nimble military.
The political website "The Hill" did a report on those similarities in January of this year. It was written by John T. Bennett. Here are a few excerpts:
"An unexpected name started popping up after President Barack Obama laid out his new defense strategy: Donald Rumsfeld.
Obama and Pentagon leaders used words like “leaner” and “agile” Thursday in describing the kind of military they intend to build.
Senior Pentagon officials said the leaner, more agile force Obama’s new strategy envisions is necessary so the force can both fight a major conflict while also quickly responding to a number of other situations and conflicts.Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the envisioned force’s “greatest strength” is that it would be “more agile, flexible, ready to deploy, innovative and technologically advanced.”
The commander in chief acknowledged in the strategy that, “yes, our military will be leaner.”
“But the world must know — the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats,” Obama said.
If those descriptions sound familiar, they should.
When George W. Bush appointed Rumsfeld to be defense secretary after the 2000 election, the two-time Pentagon chief set about his so-called “transformation agenda.”
Rumsfeld, too, wanted a leaner, meaner military able to adapt quickly to various situations and deploy quickly.
“We need rapidly deployable, fully integrated joint forces capable of reaching distant theaters quickly and working with our air and sea forces to strike adversaries swiftly, successfully, and with devastating effect,” then-secretary Rumsfeld said in January 2002.
“We need improved intelligence, long-range precision strikes, sea-based platforms to help counter the access denial capabilities of adversaries,” Rumsfeld said. The latter is a major thrust of the new Obama defense plan."
There is more in that article, if you are interested. It should be easy enough to find.