From David P. in S.C.
"[Barack Obama is] certainly not a very good debater. He showed it again [last]
Monday night. Obama lost. His tone was petty and small. ... That spirit led
Obama into a major unforced error. When Romney made a perfectly reasonable case
to rebuild a shrinking Navy, Obama condescended: 'You mentioned ... 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.' Such that naval vessels
are as obsolete as horse cavalry? Liberal pundits got a great guffaw out of
this, but the underlying argument is quite stupid. As if the ships being retired
are dinghies, skipjacks and three-masted schooners. As if an entire branch of
the armed forces -- the principal projector of American power abroad -- is
itself some kind of anachronism. 'We have these things called aircraft
carriers,' continued the schoolmaster, 'where planes land on them.' This is
Obama's case for fewer vessels? Does he think carriers patrol alone? He doesn't
know that for every one carrier, 10 times as many ships sail in a phalanx of
escorts? Obama may blithely dismiss the need for more ships, but the Navy wants
at least 310 and the latest Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel report
says that defending America's vital interests requires 346 ships (versus 287
today). Does anyone doubt that if we continue, as we are headed, down to fewer
than 230, the casualty will be entire carrier battle groups, precisely the kind
of high-tech force multipliers that Obama pretends our national security
Charles Krauthammer is obviously much smarter than obama. And Krauthammer isn't even the CinC. I thought the CinC was 'sposed to know everything?
How weird is that?