One of the zingers of tonight’s debate was President Obama’s comeback at Mitt Romney’s complaint that our Navy is smaller "than any time since 1917.” Obama first replied, “I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works.” He followed that up with, “You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships that we had 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.” But never fear, Republicans, because Fox came quickly to Romney’s rescue with the ridiculous suggestion that President Obama was wrong.
Bur first, Brit Hume called Romney “smooth and fluid” and that he didn’t flub anything. President Obama, on the other hand had “a very intent look on his face. I wouldn’t describe it as a mean look. I would describe it as a man looking for opportunities to strike.” On the other hand, Romney had “this kind of benign default expression” with a “slight smile on his face but not a smug one.” That led Hume to “wonder” if he had “the more attractive default expression.”
So you’ll notice that Hume never said Romney won.
Then came Chris Wallace for a fact check. But first, Wallace, too, slobbered over Romney – also without saying he won the debate. Wallace said that if he didn’t know better, he would have thought Mitt Romney was the president and that Obama was the “challenger trying somewhat desperately to catch up.”
The first fact check was over Iraq and Obama’s accusation that Romney wanted to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq. Somehow, Wallace changed that to a question over whether Obama wanted a status of forces agreement and pretended that Obama had denied trying to get one. In reality, Obama was suggesting Mitt Romney had argued the U.S. should have kept more troops than Obama wanted. Wallace was correct that President Obama tried and failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement but he wanted to leave 3,000-4,000 forces. So Wallace was calling Obama out for something he had never said and gave Romney a pass for what he did say.
But that paled in comparison to Wallace's ridiculous attempt to paint Obama as wrong on bayonets in the mlitary. With a malicious grin, Wallace said, “Well, as it turns out, in the middle of the debate, after he heard (Obama's statement), a Marine tweeted Fox News and said the Marines still use bayonets. So it may be not be clear (sic) who doesn’t understand what the military currently uses.”
Um, not even close. First of all, Obama never said the military doesn’t use bayonets at all. He said the military uses "fewer horses and bayonets.” The Washington Post wrote that the military “almost certainly” uses fewer bayonets than it did in 1916, noting, “U.S. Marines still train on bayonets in boot camp… but the Army discontinued bayonet training at its basic training facilities in 2010.”
Don’t tell me Wallace didn’t get the gist of what Obama meant. If Wallace had to grasp at these straws to prove Obama wrong, it indicates he had a very good night indeed. But it wasn't just I who thought so. Three polls found Obama won. And guess who else agrees? FoxNews.com readers. Here's a grab from their voting results as of a few minutes ago.
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said, â(t)he ships we have today are far more capable than any ships weâve ever had, and comparing them to the old fleet in terms of numbers is sort of like comparing iPhones to the telegraph.â
http://www.politicususa.com/republicans-scramble-horses-bayonets-work.html
“Comparing iPhones to the telegraph” — LMAO. Mittens has already made one ad where he doubled down on the bayonets comment; I expect in his next ad he’ll tout the virtues of the telegraph for nationwide communication.
As for Tiny Timmy TeBlows, he should work on copyrighting more gestures of prayer . . .
.
Marine= Muscles Are Required, Intelligence Not Expected
First off, don’t open an argument by calling a woman a C-Word. Second off, explain to me how “fewer” equates to “none.” When you see the officers at Obama’s events, they have OKC-3S bayonets on their rifles. But in combat?
They’re not nearly as common use anymore- the KA-BAR knife has largely replaced the function of a bayonet. It’s more versatile as a combat blade, and easier use as a utility blade. The M7 and the OKC both see far less practical use than they used to.
The same goes with horses- Obama said fewer, not none. Horses are being used in both Afghanistan and Iraq, for recon in regions they’re the best means of stealth conveyance for. Does that mean they’re still common outside of that? not really.
Funny how I know more about this than you do… especially since you claim to be on the line. I’ll just chalk it up to that you’re letting your bias blinded you, but don’t worry- When Romney loses, you’ll realize the error of your ways trying to ration out why. Or you’ll call Obama the N-Word under your breath, I don’t really care.
Translation: Obama won the debate, but on no terms will we ever admit to it. Never mind bayonets what tiny minded Timmy below needs is a pacifier.
MagicUnderwear Mitt was no match for our President on foreign policy. All Mitty could do was meekly agree with our President, and then regurgitate his same old tired talking points on the economy. If that limp performance qualifies as a Win in the Fux Nation, then I guess Frank Luntz’s head rug and his fake focus groups must be real.
OK, so the guy we never wanted (How did we end up Mormonized anyway? I mean, who left the front door open? – Rupert) agreed with Obama(!), BUT!!! Obama said things we take issue with (Alodda ‘em are things Mitt agreed with Obama on/about unfortunatly), so we’ll build a smokescreen of Fluff!!! Bwahawhaw!!
A week or so ago, they interviewed a General Michael Hayden (former director of the CIA under Bush and responsible for rehabilitating the agencY) who was too reasonable for them. Instead of re-airing that interview, the foxies give usendless clips of Mike Baker, a former CIA covert operative who now runs some sort of defence contracting company. A constant state of war is precisely what they need to keep in business.
To our collective shame and probable destruction, the next war will be fought by remote control and it’s not the perpetrators who will suffer and die. That’s even more true, today, than it has ever been.
Isn’t it funny how that only seems to happen when the poll says they agree with the people Fox News wants them to think are horrible?
Either that or he was on some sort of upper-downer sort of medication that leaves one “hanging in the wind”.
Alluvasudden the foxies want Romney to look “benign” Golly! Their unpublished polls must have said something really scary, like people realising that beating others over the head has never worked. That’s what Romney was saying until last night and I, for one, am glad he’s changed his tune. However, who’s to guarantee he won’t change his mind yet again, like after being elected.
President Obama prefers to focus on building coalitions and on doing everything possible to keep dialogue open. That’s precisely why America did so much to promote the United Nations after WW2, the aim being to exercise peer pressure not violence. It would be ironic, indeed, if America were, itself, to become even less willing to talk than the most rabid of governments.
Chest-beating and roaring doesn’t make a country appear any stronger, Governor! It only makes that country look like a bully on the playground.
Yeah, Brit — that “benign default expression” is simply called a DUMB LOOK.
But it wasn’t just I who thought so. Three polls found Obama won. And guess who else agrees? FoxNews.com readers.
Now, Ellen . . . you know “polls don’t matter; the only poll that counts is on Election Day.”
‘Course, that’s what the wingnuts say until they find a poll that favors their guy . . .
.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/22/one-month-after-appearing-on-abc-ann-coulter-ca/190856
Seriously… they’re defending that tweet over there.
