Recently, my colleague Paul had a little fun with the Navy’s newest attack submarine being named after Jimmy Carter. Lord knows I enjoyed that whole thread, but I have to be perfectly honest — Jimmy Carter was a nuculer submariner, served his country honorably while in uniform, and while an inept president, didn’t bring disgrace to the office. Naming a submarine after him strikes me as an eminently honorable and decent thing to do.
Likewise, I have no problems with the ships named after a few other presidents. Kennedy was a navy veteran. Ronald Reagan led the rebirth of the navy in the 80’s. And George H. W. Bush was a Navy carrier pilot.
Now it’s time for another of my rants — this one about warship names. Since this would probably bore most people, I’m stuffing this in the extended entry.
J.
Update: I’m closing comments on this thread. It’s degenerated into a pissing contest between a fool and an idiot about matters completely off-topic. Thanks for ruining it for everyone, schmucks.
In the old days, the U.S. Navy had a fairly simple system for naming its ships. Battleships were states, cruisers cities, destroyers people, submarines fish, and carriers battles or famous ships from U.S. naval history.
After World War II, though, we stopped building battleships. Since states have Senators and Representatives that vote on navy budgets, cruisers briefly took on that role, then ballistic missile submarines. Now it’s carriers for presidents and other notable leaders, cruisers for battles, destroyers for people (still), and submarines for cities and states. (The latter came about when, as Admiral Hyman Rickover, the father of the nuclear navy, pointed out, “fish don’t vote.”)
Now, the British, THEY know how to name warships. I have reprints of Jane’s Fighting Ships of World War I and World War II, and just perusing the Royal Navy’s listings makes the heart swell.
Resolution. Revenge. Warspite. Valiant. Audacious. Thunderer. Conqueror. Colossus. Superb. Repulse. Renown. Tiger. Lion. Indefatigable. Invincible. Inflexible. Indomitable. Triumph. Formidable. Irresistible. Implacable. Glory. Vengeance. Magnificent. Majestic. Victorious. Illustrious. Furious. Courageous. Glorious. Vindictive. Terrible.
Even the nicknames the British gave their ships were clever. The Courageous, Glorious, and Furious were absurdly-designed battlecruisers, and earned the name Outrageous, Uproarious, and Curious. Likewise, the Repulse and Renown spent so much time in docks that they were known as Repair and Refit. And the battleships Nelson and Rodney… nah, that one’s too damned obscure to properly appreciate. Trust me, it’s very funny, and very biting.
The United States came close a few times. The best was probably the U.S.S. Reprisal, and that aircraft carrier was canceled and scrapped when half-finished at the end of World War II.
I’m getting a little tired of the U.S. Navy essentially “selling” the names of its warships out for political gain. I’d like to see the next aircraft carrier to be named after one of the proud fighting ships we lost during World War II. We need another Lexington, another Saratoga, another Hornet, maybe even another Langley. I’d also like to see carriers named Yorktown or Wasp, but those names are currently borne by a cruiser and an amphibious assault ship respectively. In fact, the first seven ships of the Wasp class are all named for World War II aircraft carriers.
But that won’t be happening any time soon. As Rickover said so eloquently, “fish don’t vote.” And neither do long-scrapped or sunken warships that served their nation proudly, to the bitter end.
I couldn’t disagree with you more, Jay. Jimmy Carter was not only a terrible President, but he has disgraced himself repeatedly since leaving office. This is a man who, time and again, has sided with America’s enemies. He has given his vocal and consistent support to terrorists who murder Israelis, and has contributed, as much as almost anyone now living, to the massive nuclear threat we face from North Korea — and the terrorists they may sell their nukes to.
Jimmy Carter was not merely a disgrace as a President. Bill Clinton was a disgrace, and I wouldn’t react with nearly as much horror to the U.S.S. Bubba. Jimmy Carter, however, is a bona fide traitor. The idea of America’s finest risking their lives of a ship named for this piece of shit of human being positively sickens me.
Maybe a better idea would be to trade warship names for political favors. For example, if the Democrats agree to stop filibustering judges, we’ll name the next aircraft carrier the U.S.S. Nuance.
I think we should give our ships more meaningful names like, Duck and Cover, Kiss You Ass Goodbye, Run For Your Life, Kaboom, Mushroom Cloud, and Jihad This, MF. Then we could name all our naval exercises things like “Don’t even think about it” and “You better not” followed by numbers. Let the sailors name them, they can come up with wonderfully creative things just like the little messages air crews write on the sides of bombs and missiles.
I’d also add that Carter did more in 4 years to demoralize, disembowel, and destroy the military than any president in our history. His handing over the Panama Canal to a committed Marxist/Soviet lunatic was bad.
Then there was his refusal to allow the B-1 bomber into production, and instead trying to say that the B-52 could be reconditioned/retooled to do fly-low missions to deliver cruise missiles, which of course, is insane since the B-52 is a wet-wing plane.
Then there is the fact that he sat idly by and allowed the Soviets to make inroads in the Middle East, Latin America, etc.
Also, Reagan was a Captain in the Army Air Corps. Not only did he do training films (which our liberal friends never cease to point out), he also made films for highly classified bombing missions. In other words, Reagan was a uniformed officer who was entrusted with highly classified material. I’d say Reagan’s contribution to the armed services even before he served as Commander in Chief were worthy enough, wouldn’t you? He may not have been as gallant as those that fought in battle, but he certainly made a serious contribution to the war effort.
So the fact that Carter is a committed Marxist himself, coupled with the fact that he willfully damaged our military’s competitive stature in the world is enough alone to make naming anything after the SOB, in my book, a travesty.
But in theory, you are right, Kevin, that Carter did serve his country. But the above, in my book, is almost unforgivable.
KCTRio
My appologies. I meant Jay Tea, not Kevin. Sloppy post on my part.
Anyway, Carter’s was about the worst President we ever had during the Cold War. If the Cuban Missile Crisis had happened under his watch (under JFK we enjoyed a 10-1 edge against the Soviets in almost every military measure), we’d all be speaking Russian right now. And that’s no exaggeration. Some may think this is a bit extreme, but think about it. In 4 short years, Carter took the US from a firm leadership position in almost every military metric to a deficit position on almost all.
Oh yeah, he also sold out Taiwan. Nixon visited China, but also told the Chinese that if they were to ever invade Taiwan, they’d have to get past the Pacific Fleet (sorry don’t remember the number) to get it.
Carter visited the Chinese and tossed the Taiwanese overboard, so to speak, and we gained nothing in return for this.
The man sold out ally after ally. This man makes me want to puke.
KCTrio
Jimmy Carter was also instumental in giving us the Mullacracy on Iran when he sold out the Shah. And he extended an amnesty to all the feckless crap- weasels who hid out in Canada during Vietnam. Liek genital herpes, Jimmy Carter has been a gift that kept on giving.
Spoons writes: I couldn’t disagree with you more, Jay. […] Jimmy Carter, however, is a bona fide traitor.
Fine. Get another witness to the same overt act that you claim to have seen, and make a formal accusation of treason. Either do that, or stop being such a wanker.
The ships go by nicknames for exactly this reason.
I do like trying to retain ship _names_ with a ‘good reputation’ while phasing out the others. The Nimitz should be (eventually) reborn for instance.
You seem reluctant to talk about these interests in ships, planes and the like that you have, but I do not think you are boring anyone.
I have found the ensuing discussion very interesting. And I am glad you are one of the few ‘big blogs’ to have comments enabled.
Yeah….Jimmy Carter while not the most effective President has done a lot to give respect to the office and define what an ex-President should be. I respect him because he hasn’t joined the Carlysle Group to perpetuate war or gain self enrichment unlike some others. Carter has helped humanity, but maybe that’s not a popular cause among Bush supporters.
At least he spent time in uniform commanding a “nuklar” sub, which is more than Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, etc. and others have done for their country. He deserves a sub named after him.
Here’s a joke……Do you think maybe the Swedes (or anyone) will give Bush a Nobel Peace Prize or how ’bout a mission accomplished prize?
Don’t forget the HMS Dreadnaught, which gave its name to a new class of battleship.
Perhaps the most surprising names I’ve encountered were the Spanish Cacafuego (shit fire) and the French Belle Poule (hot chick.)
S9:
If someone on this Blog wants to call Carter a traitor, then so be it. Isn’t that something one is allowed to do on a Blog? Would you have the same attitude if someone called W a traitor?
Thomas:
You may think that Carter was and is a man of high integrity, but there are those of us that don’t. And we have reasons for saying so. His giving the seal of approval to fraudulent elections that he didn’t even closely monitor, his receiving the Nobel Piece Prize as a political statement by the Nobel committee to stick their finger in our President’s eye; his insulting Florida voters by comparing it to a 3rd world country and demanding UN watchers at the polls and then having to later apologize for having done so.
I respect the fact that Carter isn’t motivated by money or greed. That’s fine. But why don’t you respect the fact that most people (if not all) are motivated by something, and usually those motivations are rather reflective of man’s appetitive nature. I’d say Carter is motivated by vanity. The man you say is a Saint I say ran the White House with an iron fist. You want proof? There’s plenty of it.
So Carter has done some good in the world, and he should be proud of that. But what if, in the name of peace, he does something that causes more violence? Shouldn’t he be held accountable for his actions? Are we to judge him by his noble intentions and not by the dire, violent and bloody consequences of those actions? Carter’s yielding to the Soviets and the Cubans let to millions of dead bodies, directly by his inaction. If you think this soi-disant “man of peace” doesn’t have blood on his hands, then you need to learn a bit about your hero’s history.
KCTrio
I agree with Blogworthy above. A little ideosynchratic, hobbyhorsing around now and then gets my attention. What else ya got?
KCtrio writes: If someone on this Blog wants to call Carter a traitor, then so be it. Isn’t that something one is allowed to do on a Blog?
Yeah, yeah… and if someone else calls that person a wanker, then so be that too.
The problem is that Spoons is trafficking in a pretty toxic meme here— a very old one, at that: the “stabbed in the back” meme about liberals and intellectuals being avowedly in league with the enemies of the proletariat— and if the rest of you pampered children won’t scold him/her for it, then I’m ready to step up and be responsible adult in the room.
KC: As I said in my first statement he was not an effective President. He still was President and honorably served in the military.
My own view is that Carter was the opposite of GWBush. Carter did nothing and Bush has done too much, most of it except Afghanistan being wrong.
Thomas:
I agree, you did say that he was not an effective president. But you also took some not-too-subtle swipes at W. That language implied to me that you don’t regard W very highly, and that you do regard Carter quite highly, at least post-presidency. You also seemed to imply, rather clearly, that W had done some things that you find reprehensible, such as the comment about the mission accomplished banner.
I believe that, from your post, you hold Carter in high esteem based upon his lack of interest in making money after he left the White House. Thus, my retort.
Now, I do agree with you that the man did serve honorably in the military, and also was President of the US, and if that’s what qualifies for the naming of a major piece of military hardware after oneself, then I also agree that you are correct that the ship did deserve his name.
In this respect, if I misinterpreted your statement in any way, I apologize immediately for having done so.
But there’s simply too much W-bashing in your original post for me to have simply ignored it.
Let me ask you this: What’s wrong with someone wanting to make lots of cash after leaving the White House? I know it’s rather distasteful to think about, but who amongst us wouldn’t do so? Carter, in this respect, is rather admirable, I agree. However, I also say that he does seem to enjoy the attention he gets by all the good actions he does around the world. Men of honor and dignity don’t go on self-promotion tours about the good they’ve done. They just do it.
There is a ritual in the Jewish community, of which I don’t know the name, that is considered the ultimate mizvat, or an act of giving, and it is this: The cleaning and watching over the body of the dead. This is the highest act of mitzvat because it cannot be returned. Furthermore, in our Jewish and Christian traditions, acts of giving are considered best when done anonymously. Think about Ted Turner and his glorious announcement of giving $1 billion on national TV about a decade ago. Something about that act smacked to me of silliness or worse.
Now, if I were a personal beneficiary of one of these men’s acts of kindness, I’d never stop saying “thank you’ to them. Furthermore, it’s wonderful that Carter gives of himself. But he is also, completely and utterly, human, all too human.
KCTrio
Anyone who wants to defend Jimmy Carter should go to where the World Trade Centers USED TO BE and witness the ultimate result of Carter’s Presidential policies.
Thanks for proving that radical Islam is an effective weapon against America, Jimmy.
Thanks for allowing an act of war against America without the least response, Jimmy. The world NEEDED a lesson in what a pack of helpless cowards we were when you ran the show.
Thanks for encouraging Soviet adventurism in Afghanistan, Jimmy (boycott the Olympics? That’ll show ’em!)
Thanks for accepting a Peace Prize that was offered with the EXPRESS, STATED intention of “giving America a kick in the leg”, Jimmy.
Bullwinkle, I love those names. Iain M Banks is a British SF writer who writes about ‘the Culture,’ which is an anarchist utopia (Mr. Banks is himself a raving leftist/marxist loonie, but he writes well enough.) The ships in the Culture have names like:
Frank Exchange of Views, Attitude Adjuster, It’s Character Forming, Reasonable Excuse, Kiss My Ass, Of Course I Still Love You, So Much For Subtlety, Big Sexy Beast, What Are The Civilian Applications?, and my favorite — Funny, It Worked Last Time.
S9:
Toxic meme? Meme’s by their definition are neutral. What if there is some validity to this meme? Then is it then toxic? Or is it a fair meme?
And though I appreciate you stepping in, metaphorically speaking, and taking on the role of the adult surrounding by pampered children, I would prefer to learn for myself whether those I’m surrounded by are pampered or enlightened.
If you are a responsible parent, you’d wish to point the way to what is the truth, and not simply have me or others accept your version of the truth by force of will, or by the force of you simply saying it. And you’d also let us pampered children learn by our errors and misguided ways to evolve into a more enlightened individual, such as yourself.
And I’ll start here, under your steady guidance, by incorporating into my lexicon the use of the term “wanker” as a proper means of acting like an adult.
Now, I just need an opportunity to use the word. I just can seem to think of it yet. Perhaps I need to ruminate a bit, do some growing up, then maybe I’ll find the target of my new word.
KCTrio
Naming a submarine after him strikes me as an eminently honorable and decent thing to do.
And when those NK nuclear missles hit the west coast and I’m vaporized, I’ll be thinking of you, Jay.
Jay:
In my neck of the woods, NOAA has a command group (civilian and military), and two of their hurricane tracker planes are named “Miss Piggy” and “Kermit.” The name and the cartoon figure adorn the front of the plane, along with the dozens or even hundreds of hurricanes they’ve hunted.
Thinking of this gave me some sort of strange image of the next major Navy ship to be named after our Messiah and ex-president, who commanded the ship of State through four of the finest years in our nation’s history, James Earl Carter, could be called “The Jimmy,” along with a cartoon drawing of a rabbit being bashed upside the head with an oar.
Just a thought.
Thanks for a wonderful post. Those British ship names are a joy to read. Thanks so much for sharing.
Best regards,
KCTrio
S9:
I’m starting to think that this toxic meme of yours is beginning to look more and more to be grounded in truth, and therefore I deny your characterization of the charge Spoons made, and will aver now that his description is rather accurate in many cases.
In aggregate, of course, a generalization of any kind is never fair; but, after reading Spoons post again, he wasn’t generalizing at all. He was as specific as one could get. Therefore, you found a meme where one wasn’t placed. You inferred a generalized assault where none was written.
So not only is your charicterization of Spoons’ post as perpetuating a toxic meme simply ungrounded, since it is nowhere to be found in his specific post, you’ve also not even spent a lick of time defending the assertion that you inferred from Spoons to be false or toxic.
You simply tried to talk down to one person in particular, then a wider group at large, and offered up no argument for why this generalization that you’d found lacked veracity.
It would seem to me that you are the child and Spoons was the adult.
Perforce, you are, in my mind, the wanker. And since the word “wanker” is a negative description of a masturbator, I think you have done just that, mentally speaking.
Thanks for your fine parenting skills. You’ve enlightened me.
Kind regards,
KCTrio
I wonder what the sailors aboard U.S.S. Jimmy Carter will call their boat? “The Rabbit Habitat” might get a few votes among the more literate crewpersons.
Just as a matter of accuracy, Mr. Carter never commanded a submarine. He did serve on them.
There is some speculation that Mr. Carter’s near-enemity for Israel comes from the fact that Adm. Rickover, a Jew, rejected him for command of a sub.
It’s somewhat telling of the esteem in which Mr. Carter is held by the Navy that the sub named after him is simply called by it’s hull number by the sailors and officers.
Jay, you’re a warmongering fascist. Also, insensitive.
Once again, the conservatives are completely divorced from reality. It’s so hysterical to read some of these comments denouncing Carter, and yet we have a current sitting President who dodged his national guard duty and never served a day in the actual military. Wow, that seems like a honorable guy. Cheney had 4 (or was it 5?) deferrments from the Vietnam War, and you wackos have the audacity to criticize Carter for serving honorably and then having a sub named after him. I think it’s fantastic. I think Carter is one of the best Ex Presidents we’ve had. Ya, his term in office was shitty, but who cares, he has made himself a great statesman, won the Nobel Peace Prize, and is not afraid to speak his mind when the Fuhrer Bush takes this country on the downward spiral that we are currently on. Carter rocks, and I think it’s hysterical that all your panties are in a bunch because the Navy decided to name a sub after him. Too bad…do you think your whining and crying about it is going to change a damm thing? Go cry in a corner if you think it’s so horrible.
Once again, the conservatives are completely divorced from reality. It’s so hysterical to read some of these comments denouncing Carter, and yet we have a current sitting President who dodged his national guard duty and never served a day in the actual military. Wow, that seems like a honorable guy. Cheney had 4 (or was it 5?) deferrments from the Vietnam War, and you wackos have the audacity to criticize Carter for serving honorably and then having a sub named after him. I think it’s fantastic. I think Carter is one of the best Ex Presidents we’ve had. Ya, his term in office was shitty, but who cares, he has made himself a great statesman, won the Nobel Peace Prize, and is not afraid to speak his mind when the Fuhrer Bush takes this country on the downward spiral that we are currently on. Carter rocks, and I think it’s hysterical that all your panties are in a bunch because the Navy decided to name a sub after him. Too bad…do you think your whining and crying about it is going to change a damm thing? Go cry in a corner if you think it’s so horrible.
Very interesting Jay…
I never nave gave boat naming much thought… I’m an airplane dude.
If Reagan has what he’s had named after him, Carter deserves a sub.
Dave P, If I may repeat your post……Anyone who wants to defend Jimmy Carter should go to where the World Trade Centers USED TO BE and witness the ultimate result of Carter’s Presidential policies.
I submit that instead you go to Crawford, Texas and look at the woodpile that Bush cut during his extended vactation in July/Aug 2001 and say to yourself, if not for that the FBI the CIA would have been on code red and odds are 9-11 prevented. Bush was cutting wood instead of doing the job of President. That’s why we had 9-11….not Jimmy Carter, not Bush 41, not Clinton. The buck stops with the man in the office and the blame lies in what was his inability to grasp the significance of the Al-Qauida problem.
Sincerely,
Thomas
( A Zell Miller Repub)
Oh The Bull:
Thanks for adding the force of your adult-level opinions to that of S9’s for the benefit of educating all of us pampered children here.
You’ve really gotten to the heart of the matter, haven’t you. You see right through the clutter that us children have spawned, and sliced through with your penetrating wisdom. You see hand-wringing, complaining and lamenting that your hero has had a piece of military hardware named after him.
What in the world are you reading here? I’ve seen humor, sarcasm and frustration over the fact that Carter got his name on something that’s designed to be used to make war. But I don’t see anyone divorced from reality, or whatever else you’ve seen.
I do see one thing though, and it’s rather odd: Why in the Almighty’s name would you want your man of peace to have his name on a weapon of war? If you really do believe those things about Carter, then you should be the first person upset about this singular fact, not excited about it.
The very reason you love Carter is why we here find it unfitting for him to have his name on such a weapon of war. You’re entire argument (if I could call it that; I’m being generous here) is a house of cards.
But as I said, thanks for teaching me how enlightened souls like yourself think.
KCTrio
Maybe you should check the ship lists.
http://www.wasp.navy.mil
http://www.wasp.navy.mil
It doesn’t have a nuclear reactor, but it carries ~2000 Marines – good enough for you?
KCTrio,
How funny, you’ve completely misrepresented my point, and missed the entire point ALL IN ONE FELL SWOOP… it’s all so shocking.
Because he won the Nobel Peace Prize he shouldnt have a peice of millitary hardware named after him? Is that what I said, or is that what YOU said…maybe you need to check back again. This is hysterical. He’s an Ex President, and whether you like him or not, he SERVED HONORABLY (as opposed to the current occupant of the White House) that was my only point.
Thomas:
How can you deny the continuum that Dave P postulates? Reagan immediately saw the problems inherent in letting the Shah hang on the vine and letting the government be taken over by thugs and terrorists. He hammered on this constantly during his radio addresses, which he himself wrote and broadcasted.
How can you assert that there is no connection between that initial turning point in history and our 9-11? You seem to be satisfied to draw the line of causation at a moment in history that serves your purposes, without offering any argument against the claim.
For us to find the cause of 9-11, we must ask ourselves how extremists in the Middle East became so emboldened to do such a thing. And we must search for root causes. Carter doing nothing, then Clinton doing little led to 9-11. So did the murder of Robert Kennedy, for that matter. But I wouldn’t say the major tipping point took place until 1979 and the Islamic revolution in Iran.
You make no statement as to why the above is wrong and yours is right, other than simply saying Bush was out chopping wood instead of doing his job. Nonsense. Everyone screwed up. Bush inherited the state of the world and the unrequited acts of war that were continuously perpetrated by enemies of the United States, from the Iran Hostage Crisis, to the Cole, to the bombings of our embassies in Africa, to turning down the offer of the capture of Bin Laden while Clinton was in office to the present day.
For you to simply ignore Carter’s role in the rise of Islamofascism does nothing in terms of negating the veridical nature of Dave P’s statement.
KCTrio
My Dear Mr. Bill:
I did read your post, and I responded. If you read my posts, you’ll find that I stated more than once that Carter deserved the honor. Period. I even said that he served honorably.
I attacked the more general character of your post, and I think my assessment of it was fair. If I’m wrong on this matter, then tell me why you’ve lugged into this discussion W’s service or his having served honorably or not? False dilemma logic failure.
Sorry to have shocked you, in one fell swoop,
KCTrio
I shipped to Okinawa on the Barrett, named after an Army General. Really never thought about ship names. Neat post. I was too young and too sea sick at the time to appreciate it.
thanks for the post. Bought back some memories.
Had time to think about your post a little and get out of memory lane. I certainly don’t possess the passionate conviction of spoons in this matter. You are right of course President Carter was an honorable man and a former submarine commander. It’s not that it’s wrong to name a submarine after him but an “attack sumarine”? Fromer President Carter’s whole aurora is one of good samaritan and quite franlky almost pacifist.
“Attack submarines” should be named stuff like “Hammer of G-d” or “Knock Knock”. Even “All your stuff are belong to me”. I’m getting dumb because I’m up too late but laid back and easy going is not the attitude of a fleet attack boat.
You know how in cartoons of submarines they have big teeth painted on them? That’s why they named it Carter.
Miguel,
You made me go back and re-read my posting, because I thought I remembered listing the name “Wasp” as available for use and then correcting myself, changing it to “Hornet.”
“I’d also like to see carriers named Yorktown or Wasp, but those names are currently borne by a cruiser and an amphibious assault ship respectively. In fact, the first seven ships of the Wasp class are all named for World War II aircraft carriers.”
Yeah, I had fixed it. The first 7 Wasp class LHD ships are Wasp, Essex, Kearsarge, Boxer, Bataan, Bonhomme Richard, and Iwo Jima, all names borne by Essex-Class carriers (save Bataan, which was an Independence-class light carrier).
Of course, I wasn’t thinking of the Essex-class Wasp, CV-18, but the first carrier Wasp, CV-7, lost at Guadalcanal.
I was impressed by how the end of 1942, the Japanese had sunk five of our first 8 aircraft carriers ever built (Langley, Lexington, Yorktown, Hornet, and Wasp), and we soon had new carriers bearing those honored names back in the fight.
J.
Sir,
A great piece on the perfidious Mr. Carter over at Powerline. For years, I liked Saint Jimmy, felt he was a good man but inept president. Read the book. It’ll be an eye opener for you.
rcl
You recall the smirk from the left as Carter got the Nobel award to take a whack at Bush.
Somehow, I can’t help think that many at the Pentagon are smiling today at the thought of an attack sub named Carter.
same same.
“Hornet” is presently being used as the name for the carrier-based F-18 fighter, so I’d argue that’s memorialized as well.
I never did like the names of the carriers John C Stennis and Carl Vinson. They just seemed too political. Of course, the whole shipnaming thing has IMHO gone down the tank, probably starting with the Forrestal. It used to be as you said; that you knew what a ship was by its name, and maybe you still can, but its changed too many times for me to keep up.
The other tradition that has gone bye-bye is that once upon a time in order to have a ship named after you, you had to be dead. Now there’s a thought . . . .
KC Trio says …..How can you assert that there is no connection between that initial turning point in history and our 9-11? You seem to be satisfied to draw the line of causation at a moment in history that serves your purposes, without offering any argument against the claim.
Are you a tort attorney, because that is exactly how they postulate an event. They rationalize that accountability for any event is due to a chained cause and effect (until it reaches deep pockets). Instead of focusing on the immediate cause and effect, i.e. John was drunk and ran over Joe Blow. They will postulate that it really wasn’t John’s fault. It was because GM didn’t have drunk driving interlocks, because the bar tender didn’t recognize the problem, because the state didn’t have a satisfactory cross walk, and because the beer tasted too good. You get the idea.
I’m a strong believer in personal accountability. Obviously the terrorists were immediately responsible for 9-11. That said, Bush as President had a constitutional responsibility to prevent such an event and he was negligent. He fiddled while he should have been vigilant.
Sorry for diverging from the immediate thread.
Zell Miller Republican:
No, I am not an attorney. The analogy between a car accident and historical persepctive is not appropriate here.
Whether you read history, are a student of Hegel, or simply apply common sense to the question, you cannot simply look at 9-11 at look for direct causation. One must always look at significant turning points in our history (like 9-11) and look for things that may have led to that event. Of course, picking a line in the chain of history (I would aver that it’s more organic and less linear, as I may have implied in my previous post) is always difficult. But to ignore history’s unfolding over years and decades does an injustice as to why this event happened.
One only need to read the 9-11 Commision’s Report to find just this same reasoning. Remember after the event, everyone was saying “Connect the dots?” Well, that’s what they were talking about.
Your assertion that Bush should have been minding the office instead of wandering about ignoring things is simply not a fair attack. I am willing to grant you that there is some truth in what you say. But to the full hilt of your statement, that Bush bears near complete responsiblity, is simply too much.
Using your logic, you could blame FDR for Pearl Harbor. Doesn’t work. You could blame Neville Chamberlain. That doesn’t work. Studying any of these turning point events forces everyone, you and I and all responsible Americans to demand answers from our leaders, and then demand solutions from them.
I think that Bush has lived up to both of those demands. But saying the buck stops with him and that is the sum total of your thoughts on the matter is unfair to the President and unfair to those that have taken the time to answer these questions and struggled to offer solutions.
Why don’t you blaim Richard Clarke? Wasn’t he the self-proclaimed voice of reason surrounded by idiots? Well, his accusations have proven false. Not only that, I’d aver that there’s plenty of blame to go around. And Bush should receive a bit of that blame.
But, ultimately, when a devastating event like 9-11 takes place, people usually want to know why it happened and then how to fix it. To simply find one big scapegoat defeats that purpose, but it might make you feel good in doing so.
I don’t mind yourr commments. I’ve enjoyed them; I just don’t agree with you.
Best regards,
KCTrio
Why don’t you blame Richard Clarke? Richard Clarke resigned because he couldn’t get the administration to pay attention to Al Queida, and asked NUMEROUS times (as has come out recently in a declassified memo from him to Rice) for a principals meeting about the possibility of attacks. No, I blame Bush directly for 911, for allowing it to happen, for looking the other way, and reading a story about a goat on that day. The man is an idiot, and should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Mr. Bill:
I know you loathe our president, and therefore you’d find comfort in Mr. Clark. But if he was so smart and everyone else was so dumb, then should not he bear a little blame for not successfully enlightening those around him? When one has such deep knowledge as he, the onus is on him and him alone (as he has said over and over again) to convince others. Otherwise, he’s not using his information to aid others.
Richard Clark has been discredited by so many people I needn’t go through that here. Suffice it to say that I think if you look at his motive of writing a book, coupled with his ersatz tears before the 9-11 Commission, you’d have to at least suspect the guy’s a nihilist.
Best regards,
KCTrio
No, I disagree that he’s been discredited. He worked for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, do you think that those Presidents thought he was as inept as you do, or do you think that because he wrote a book he’s discredited? I actually met him once at his book signing and he explained that this Iraq war (which basically has been proven now, because there was no threat, and no WMD) was tantamount to the United States attacking Mexico after the Pearl Harbor attack. The CIA has come out and said this war was inane and now Iraq is more of a terrorist nation than BEFORE the war..so I’m not sure where you come up with Clarke being discredited, when he was the one fighting AGAINST the war in Iraq, and fighting FOR the dismanteling of AL Quieda since 2000.
>which basically has been proven now, because there was no threat, and no WMD) was tantamount to the United States attacking Mexico after the Pearl Harbor attack.
Actually, we attacked a French colony.
I don’t know whether to be more appalled at your ignorance or his.
Sure, claim that I’m ignorant, but go ahead and try and claim that Richard Clarke, the counterterroism expert that worked for many of your conservative Presidents is ‘ignorant’, that argument has basis in reality…no really, keep on telling yourself that. Once again, you’re divorced from reality.
Well, if Richard Clarke thinks we didn’t invade Africa in World War II, I guess it never happened. I mean, he’s so clever and stuff.