Skip to comments.How many horses and bayonets did the military have?
Posted on 10/24/2012 7:48:39 AM PDT by ConservativeStatement
President Obamas quip about horses and bayonets may have been the most memorable sound bite from the third presidential debate, but was it true?
The comment came after Mitt Romney asserted that our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917, because it has fewer ships. Fact-checkers have determined that statement was false, but Obama took the bait anyway.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
I am sure Mitt said what he said for a reason. I don't buy Kim Geiger's bullcrap.
And by the way, the most memorable quip for me was when Romney said “We Don’t Dictate To Nations, We Free Nations From Dictators.”
NPR confirms Romney’s statement
John Lehman is advising Romney- he was a good Secretary of The Navy
They could have used a few horses and bayonets in Benghazi
In a rational world, that would be the take-away statement at the debate. Actually, it was just one of several quite powerful comments Romney made the other night.
Obama lied over and over. And yet, the DNCp still talks of an Obama win.
Sorry, but when someone lies (in effect cheats), they’re no winner. Just ask Lance Armstrong.
Obama is the political Lance Armstrong!
Mit made a claim.
Zero failed to answer the question;
instead responded like a school-yard BULLY.
More from Lehman about Romney’s defense strategy
BTW, the last president who tried to cut forces and manpower in favor of “technoloy” was Jimmy Carter and his advisor Stansfield Turner.
That didn’t turn out well.
Having a bunch of missiles you can launch long range (or for you little folks in Loma Linda, a “bunch of airplanes that land on ships”) does not substitute for assuring FON with a worldwide capable naval
^ but not by (my error)
No he is an %*&#@$%^ clown that doesn't know his corpmen deom his corpse men.
as well as some sabers and cav lances.
Obama, riding out on Bigbird and falling on his bayonet..
I would have chosen churlish..
Which "fact checkers", and how is the statement false? Number of ships, total tonnage, number of crew, firepower?
Today's ships may have more firepower than WW-1, but they are also in an environment where the enemy has cruise missiles and smart weapons too. The important point is whether we have enough naval power to totally dominate a conflict or combination, destroying the enemy with minimal casualties on our side?
If any potential opponent knows he will be easily defeated, he won't challenge us. The dangerous part comes when an opponent thinks we're weak enough to take on. Yes, we may destroy him, but we will take casualties in the process.
Actually Obozo, bayonettes ceased to be a mjor form of infantry weapon by the U.S Civil War. Horses were reduced to third class importance by WW1.
So it was a stupid comment by an very ignorant man.
Obama acted Niggardly.
I read Mitt said 1916 but I could of sworn I heard him say 1960.
RIPPED By Bayonet Co.
We’re Still Relevant!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.