Uncommon Commentary #296: Our Military May Have Fewer Horses, but it Has a Jackass for a C-in-C

In the candidates' foreign-policy debate, when Mr. Romney noted that the Navy has fewer ships now than at any other time since before the then-isolationist USA entered World War I, President Obombast replied: "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets."  Expectedly, the incumbent's worshipers in the media have hailed his line (which was undoubtedly rehearsed during preparations for the debate, for use in the event that the Republican nominee should make such an observation as he did) as a witty retort; unexpectedly, I haven't heard any wise commentators, i.e., those called "Conservatives", point out the main reason for the inadequacy of Obama's response. (There was an item restricted in its subject to the fact that our military does still use bayonets, contrary to our commander-in-chief's placing that weapon into the same category as mounted soldiers.)  The Doman Domain exists partly for the sake of giving me an opportunity to say what others ought to have said but have not, and so: Unless the President is so obtuse as to think that the naval branch of our armed forces has no more need of ships than the Army does of true cavalry (as opposed to tanks, which are classified as "armored cavalry"), the drip's quip was not a serious attempt at rebuttal but merely a chance to score a "zinger", which (in tandem, naturally, with disingenuous personal attacks upon his opponent) seems to summarize the Obombast campaign's entire strategy for the final two debates.  Sarcasm has a legitimate place in political discussion, but only where it's used to help make a (valid) point, not to avoid having to make one.