Skip Nav
Gift Guide
POPSUGAR Editors' Gift Guide: 150+ Presents For Everyone on Your List
Bella Hadid
50 Seriously Sexy Victoria's Secret Fashion Show Photos You Need to See
Prince Harry
These Pictures of Prince Harry Standing on the Edge of a Giant Waterfall Will Stress You Out

Obama wrong about bayonets

Obama wrong about bayonets

By Donald Sensing

Do we have more or fewer bayonets now than in 1916?
In last night's debate, President Obama mocked Mitt Romney after Romney pointed out that the US Navy is smaller today than anytime since World War One.

Leave aside the kindergarten-level snarkiness of Obama's reply overall ("we also have these things called aircraft carriers"), let's just focus on bayonets.

Here are the facts.

As 1916 opened, the US Army's total size was about 110,000 troops. The Marine Corps was minuscule since the Marines were still seen then as a raiding or expeditionary force rather than a major land combatant force.

In 1916, the Congress passed the National Defense Act that doubled the Army to 220,000 (rounded slightly). The USMC was marginally affected.

So a compromise was passed in May 1916, as the war raged on and Berlin was debating whether America was so weak it could be ignored. The army was to double in size to 11,300 officers and 208,000 men, with no reserves, and a National Guard that would be enlarged in five years to 440,000 men.

The US Army today has more than 560,000 troops and the USMC more than 200,000. Obama is wrong. we have hundreds of thousands more bayonets now than in 1916.

Sarcasm and condescension only work if the speaker's presumption of lofty superior knowledge is borne out by his command of actual facts. You can't successfully accuse your opponent of being an ignoramus when you don't know what you're talking about yourself.

And so once again:

The good prof. Jacobson points out of Obama's snitty reply,

It is was the triumph of zingers over reason, a fitting tribute to the age of Obama, and a reflection of how out-of-touch the left has become.

Here is something else we have less of which I think will be much more determinative of the outcome of the election, the percentage of People Participating in the Workforce.

Keep laughing at the zingers, it’s working so well.

So here ya go:

Around The Web
Join The Conversation
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 4 years
LOL! I'm sorry I have to laugh at this. Grandpa I gotta say I've never seen you soundly grasp at straws until now. Let's look at Gov. Romneys whole premise for bringing up this argument in the first place. His choice of words suggest that our Navy today is not as capable of defending the U.S. or carrying out its offensive assignments as Navys in the first half of the 20th century due to comparatively fewer ships. That's his reason it's not technical, structural or safety issues you know something that would make sense if indeed there was such an issue. The suggestion on it's face is for one intellectually disingenuous. You know that just as well as I do. It only serves to dupe the American voter who doesn't know any better. By implementing an element of fear that our Navy is inadequate to defend the U.S. or carry out its offensive missions. The President gave an exasperated answer to what is a very ignorant suggestion and he was annoyed because he knows Gov. Romney knows better. Was he flippant? Sure but given the number of times Gov. Romney has tried to pull that fast one he had it coming. One can only look manipulation in the face and smile so many times before one bites. Now as for the Presidents point which was as clear as the sky is blue. Technology, threat and modern naval offensive tactics dictate the size and necessity of Naval equipment. Building a gratuitous number of ships for the simple sake of flexing to the world and massaging political brownie points when we can already soundly beat back any active Navy today with our own. Perfectly illustrates the GOP's obsession with driving a military industrial complex that basically frightens the World into feeding it. Not that the number of active ships we have is inadequate in the least but I find it predictable how Romney leads the public to believe that it actually shrunk under President Obama when in fact it has grown under the President and is projected to be over 300 ships in seven years because of pending projects. Romney's assertion Grandpa is all political B.S. you know it. I know it. Any one who isn't a sheep with blinders on knows it. This nonsense on bayonets as a rebuttal is seriously flawed. Just like my point about the Navy, troops don't fight like they did in WWI. We all have been witness to more than a decade of daily video from War zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not recall seeing one bayonet on one gun. Now that's not to say there isn't a bayonet out there but because of the nature of combat the point is the President is right we utilize fewer bayonets per capita of troops than we did during WWI. Aand just to give you the benefit of the doubt I went through several archived news reports on troop patrols looking for bayonets on guns. Didn't see one. Stop covering for Gov. Romney's game of shadows Grandpa. You're better than that.
stephley stephley 4 years
The far more important point: President Obama was absolutely correct to point out that to compare the U.S. military of 1916 to today’s military is useless. It is not the number of ships the Navy has, it is the capabilities of those ships that matter most. The President did not, as you claim, display ignorance of any things military. He spoke as a commander in chief interested only in developing the most effective military with the resources necessary and available today, not maintaining an inefficient standard set nearly 100 years ago.
stephley stephley 4 years
Only the Marines carry them - and not every Marine. Your "in fact" is a supposition based on numbers of personnel, not bayonets. Given up talking about aircraft carriers, haven't you Mr. Military? :rotfl:
Grandpa Grandpa 4 years
train and carry into battle.. We inf act have MORE not LESS bayonets in the military now then in 1916. :-)
stephley stephley 4 years
I have Gramps - the Marines TRAIN with bayonets; the Army stopped training with bayonets in 2010. The US has aircraft carriers, planes do land on them. The US also has submarines that go under water. All true.
Grandpa Grandpa 4 years
Staph, your blowing smoke. I suggest you check some military blogs, see what the consensus is. :-)
stephley stephley 4 years
“Obama used the aircraft carriers and submarines as an example why the navy can safely be smaller. In fact aircraft carriers require more ships not less.” That’s an interpretation on your part. The author of your article seems to think it was all snark. I think he was just trying to bring Mitt up to speed. In fact, the U.S. Navy can be safely smaller because it is so outrageously superior to any other Navy in the world: With 332 thousand personnel in active duty and a further 124 thousand in reserve, the United States Navy is the largest in the world. Its battle fleet tonnage is greater than the next 13 largest navies combined.
stephley stephley 4 years
Marines train w/bayonets, but not every Marine carries one. Your article does not talk about numbers of bayonets but numbers of military personnel. You show an abysmal ignorance of all things numeric, comparative AND military. Romney’s statement about Syria being Iran’s route to the sea was totally absurd.
Grandpa Grandpa 4 years
Obama used the aircraft carriers and submarines as an example why the navy can safely be smaller. In fact aircraft carriers require more ships not less.
Grandpa Grandpa 4 years
BTW the Marines still do, and there are 200,000 of them, more then the army and marines combined in 1916.
Grandpa Grandpa 4 years
Romney did not make the absurd statement, Obama did. He thought he was putting Romney down, just show is abysmal ignorance of al things military.
stephley stephley 4 years
Maybe you should try to explain how Mitt was right to say that Syria is Iran's route to the sea...
stephley stephley 4 years
This article counts military service members & assumes each is given a bayonet - it does not count bayonets. Marines use bayonets in training. The Army stopped that two years ago. Obama isn't wrong about aircraft carriers. He said: "We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.” The President is correct. We do have aircraft carriers. Planes do land on them. We have submarines. YOU are mistaken again: the President was not.
Grandpa Grandpa 4 years
Of course he is wrong about aircraft carriers as well. They replaced the battleship. But, and a BIG but, battleships could and did act independently' while an aircraft carrier needs an escort fleet for support and protection. Another example of Obama not having a clue as to what he is saying, as long as it seems good for a talking point.

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

From Our Partners
Latest Celebrity & Entertainment
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds