That's how I saw it. Obama got his snark line off about horses and bayonets (which are both still in use in Afghanistan, but I digress), but it probably wasn't enough to change things much either way.
Actually, isn't every M16 capable of holding a bayonet, if I remember correctly? I'm thinking that apart from WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, we're buying and using as many bayonets as ever. It's great thing to have when your ammo is in your backpack and your enemy is less than ten feet away.
Plus, in 1916, most of the horses were back pulling supply wagons and artillery. Even there, they were being quickly replaced by trucks. Obama demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge of military history, I think.
Problem is, CB, that there are more bayonets than before -- they've not gone away in the least. And if Obama and his operatives had bothered to ask someone in the Pentagon about it, he could have found that out.
The other problem with his snark is that in dissing the Navy's request for ships, he pretty much kissed off Virginia, too -- the shipbuilding industry there is massive. That's a very big mistake on Obama's part.
True point about Virginia, Mr. D! Re: the bayonets, I see what you are saying, but to translate that comment into something about Obama not knowing about our military seems like a little bit of a stretch.
I see what you are saying, but to translate that comment into something about Obama not knowing about our military seems like a little bit of a stretch.
Well, if that was what I was saying, it would be a stretch. The point isn't that Obama doesn't know what he's talking about as much as it's that he's not wise to be too condescending about the knowledge he does have. And it represents very poor advance work by his campaign.
Obama's problem is pretty simple -- it's a lot easier to run against Straw Man Romney than it is to run against Mitt Romney.
8 comments:
Someone mentioned on Twitter that, due to his snarky remark about bayonets, Obama lost the votes of all the Civil War re-enactors.
Actually, isn't every M16 capable of holding a bayonet, if I remember correctly? I'm thinking that apart from WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, we're buying and using as many bayonets as ever. It's great thing to have when your ammo is in your backpack and your enemy is less than ten feet away.
Plus, in 1916, most of the horses were back pulling supply wagons and artillery. Even there, they were being quickly replaced by trucks. Obama demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge of military history, I think.
What Obama actually said is that there are "fewer" ships, horses bayonets now than in the past. Not that there was not any bayonets, horses or ships.
Just thought I would point that out!
Problem is, CB, that there are more bayonets than before -- they've not gone away in the least. And if Obama and his operatives had bothered to ask someone in the Pentagon about it, he could have found that out.
The other problem with his snark is that in dissing the Navy's request for ships, he pretty much kissed off Virginia, too -- the shipbuilding industry there is massive. That's a very big mistake on Obama's part.
Mr. D., they build some pretty nice ships in Wisconsin for the military, both the Navy and the Coast Guard.
Good point, Gerry -- I don't suppose Obama's comments were met with a lot of favor in Manitowoc or Marinette, to use just two examples.
True point about Virginia, Mr. D! Re: the bayonets, I see what you are saying, but to translate that comment into something about Obama not knowing about our military seems like a little bit of a stretch.
I see what you are saying, but to translate that comment into something about Obama not knowing about our military seems like a little bit of a stretch.
Well, if that was what I was saying, it would be a stretch. The point isn't that Obama doesn't know what he's talking about as much as it's that he's not wise to be too condescending about the knowledge he does have. And it represents very poor advance work by his campaign.
Obama's problem is pretty simple -- it's a lot easier to run against Straw Man Romney than it is to run against Mitt Romney.
Post a Comment