One of the "zingers" from last night's debate was apparently Romney complaining that under Obama "our Navy is smaller now than any time since 1917." Leading to Obama's retort that "we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed."
Since that point is self-evident, all the Right Wing punditry can do is distort Obama's statement to make it sound like he claimed we have no horses or bayonets in the US military, and that, so, neener-neener, Obama was wrong! He was lying! Romney wins!
Except, of course, that's not what Obama actually said. Nor does it actually address the point he was making, nor advance the debate about the nature and use and needs of the US Navy in 2012, nor even further discussion of the "sequestration" mess that Congress came up with.
But, hey, it's not like "quotations" or "facts" make a lot of difference in some quarters.
(More on Romney's previous naval strength claims here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romneys-claim-that-the-navy-is-as-small-as-in-1916/2012/10/08/6f47e6d6-1191-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_blog.html)
Embedded Link
Conservative Cavalry Bayonets A Straw Man
Right-wing media figures are trying to change the focus from Mitt Romney's deceptive debate comments on the size of the U.S. Navy by distorting President Obama's statements on the changing nature of t…
Google+: Reshared 1 times
Google+: View post on Google+
It seems to me that smaller navies and such would be a sign of progress and a source of pride. I do not understand why we would measure a country by its military might.