Skip to main content

Forget about whatever it is that Allen West was bayonetting about earlier today.  I want you to hear this instead, straight from the horse's mouth: "I thought the president's line was terrific," said former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig. "The Navy is stronger than it's ever been."  Let that sink in.

From HuffPo:

BOCA RATON, Fla. -- President Barack Obama's "horses and bayonets" zinger, shooting down Mitt Romney's concerns about the state of the Navy, may have drawn reproach from Republicans, who called it "petty" and "belittling." But at least one former Navy secretary told The Huffington Post after Monday night's foreign policy debate that Obama was right on the mark.

Aww, the Republicans can't take a joke, though they sure can make "retarded" ones.

Continues the corroborative Huff piece:

"I thought the president's line was terrific," said Richard Danzig, who served as secretary of the Navy for two years under President Bill Clinton. "You don't measure efficacy by the number of ships. You measure it by your firepower, by the character of your people, the character of your equipment."

[snip]

After the debate, Romney aides and surrogates decried the line as unbecoming of the president and a sign of Obama's "desperation."

"I think the president belittled the military," said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). "He compared the modern Navy to bayonets and horses -- I thought that was an amazing statement."

That's actually really touching, really, coming from a guy whose party's main presidential candidate didn't mention our troops during his RNC acceptance speech because "you talk about things you think are important"; defends that glaring omission on the basis of word choice; has a wife who openly compares two-year Mormon missions to tours of war; and doesn't mention war veterans a single time during a 90-minute debate on foreign frickin' policy.

By the way, Politifact Romney's Navy claim "pants on fire" lie.

Now for the nuclear take-down from Danzig:

"The basic point that didn't get mentioned, that I would add, is the number of ships actually went down during the years of George W. Bush and have gone up in the Obama years," Danzig said. "So the notion that Republicans are more effective in building the Navy is not a correct one."

"The Navy is stronger than it's ever been," [Danzig] added.

But, hey, who cares about facts, right?  Not Romney, that's for sure.




Chip in.

Poll

Favorite pun in this piece?

8%5 votes
5%3 votes
11%7 votes
1%1 votes
72%43 votes

| 59 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I Mentioned This Late Last Night (11+ / 0-)

    I will mention it again. I saw a ton of Republicans go crazy when China launched its first Aircraft Carrier. That carrier, was once on eBay. Yes, let me say that again, the Ukraine had it on eBay.

    I follow military stuff closely and there could be some debate about our Army and even the Air Force, but not the Navy. From a force projection POV they flat out rock.

    When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

    by webranding on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 02:56:17 PM PDT

    •  Woah, eBay? That's incredible. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drmah, Wheever, webranding, JeffW, luckylizard

      Glad to know our Navy passes your test, as you clearly know your domain, my friend! =)

      Follow me on Twitter: @THTBAW. I crush trolls with truth, boredom with snark, and ignorance with links.

      by therehastobeaway on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 02:58:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It Was A Decomissioned Former Russian (11+ / 0-)

        nuclear carrier. The Ukraine didn't want it so they tried to sell it. They had a lot of Russian shit they no longer wanted when they pulled away ....

        I used to do some consulting work for Litton/PRC. They make the command and control system for the AGEIS cruiser. It is maybe the most advanced technology on the face of the earth.

        So advance that Obama is scraping the Star Wars missile defense program of land based systems and use these ships. The ships can literally target the launch of a missile thousands of miles away, lock on it, and knock it out of the sky. It is like something out of the movies.

        Heck China get pissed like every five years when we sell a few of these to Twain. Twain parks them between them self and main land China. If China was every to attack, and just threw a "few" nukes their way, they'd never get there.

        Oh and I am an Air Force brat so it pains me to hype the Navy :). But the military is about the projection of force. And an Air Craft carrier is like a mobile military base. We can park it just about anywhere we want and project force.

        Not to get to inside the "geek" but Obama noted that we're going to park an entire carrier group outside of China. This made Japan and South Korea very happy.

        Cause we just don't let air craft carriers tool around on their own. They travel with what is known as a "carrier group." The air craft carrier. Multiple tankers. But the key is a few subs, destroyers, and battle ships.

        Just one of those groups, if you factor out say China, the UK and France, could take over the world. They are that powerful.

        When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

        by webranding on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:09:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've been beating my head against the wall (5+ / 0-)

          over this nonsense. It's one of those things that makes you wonder if Republicans are actually retarded. (Apologies for using that word, but non other fits as well.) I mean, the idiocy inherent in the framing of "..since 1917.." beggars belief. Our carrier groups are basically the mightiest force the world has ever known when it comes to projecting war. Bar none. (And I'm including all the insanely huge naval armadas of the Pacific war, yes.)

          Why? Yes, this little thing called technology. That same thing that made battleships obsolete by 1942. It's like the Republicans are literally too stupid to understand this.

          Idiots.

          "'club America salutes you' says the girl on the door/we accept all major lies, we love any kind of fraud"--The Cure, "Club America"

          by Wheever on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:20:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  LOL. I can feel your rage, my friend. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wheever, webranding, JeffW, Wee Mama

            Like Romney's waffling last night:

            "We need to strengthen our military!!" | "We have the strongest military in the world!"

            Such idiocy.

            Follow me on Twitter: @THTBAW. I crush trolls with truth, boredom with snark, and ignorance with links.

            by therehastobeaway on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:27:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  There Is An Amazing Book (5+ / 0-)

            Into The Storm, by Fred Franks, which was the commander of the VII Corp in Iraq (the first time around). He commanded all the tanks we had. Ours were not that much newer than what the Iraqis had. But they were not upgraded with the weapon systems we had.

            At one point he called back to his command and asked permission to stop. In an afternoon, cause of our advance weapon/targeting systems, we destroyed more than 1,000 Iraqi tanks (we didn't lose a single one) before they even knew we were there.

            There is no other way to say it, we slaughtered them wholesale!

            When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

            by webranding on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:33:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh This Is What Happened (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wheever, Wee Mama, billso

              this is known as the "highway of death."

              CABAA-CCBCA-DDBCH-BJ_thumb

              This went on for miles and miles. Cause as Franks drive through the desert to open up a route for our troops to invade the Iraqi were of two minds: (1) shit we got to get out of there  and.or (2) I am not going to die for Saddam.

              So they fled, as we knew they would, to the closet highway, and we were waiting with a few A-10s and we just decimated them.

              What we did isn't "sexy." Just cause I follow this stuff doesn't mean I like it. I am about the most peace loving hippie you will find.

              But Mitt saying this stuff means he is just, not dumb cause his advisers know all this and more, a person that will lie, cheat, and steal to get what he wants.

              When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

              by webranding on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:46:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  My eyes just got watery. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Wheever, webranding

                I think I spotted some dead bodies, and blood, in the pic.  I don't think most of us understand just how horrific war is, or just how much damage we do to life and property abroad.  

                It's almost incomprehensible.

                How do we live with the cognitive dissonance that images like these literally happen daily?

                Follow me on Twitter: @THTBAW. I crush trolls with truth, boredom with snark, and ignorance with links.

                by therehastobeaway on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:54:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That Is A "Polite" Pic (5+ / 0-)

                  there are many that make that look like nothing (don't Google it). The Iraqis soon figured out if that if they got out of their vehicles we stopped. That is what you see in the above pic. There where miles and miles of where you see the above with charred out vehicles and bodies for as far as the eye can see. Those people didn't know that getting out of their vehicles might "save" them.

                  I often mention here my father worked at high levels within the DoD. Taught at the Army War College. He HATES war at least as much as I do. He was against us going into both Afghanistan and Iraq. Heck he is a Republican.

                  War is fucking hell. And if you have to engage in it, well as Sun Tzu said you have already lost. Nobody wins in war. Nobody.

                  When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

                  by webranding on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:08:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Yup, it was our sights, among other things (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wee Mama

              The Iraqis were still using optical sights, not much better than WWII. The Russians hadn't sold them the good stuff. We could target and hit them something like a mile further off, as I recall. They never even got a shot off.

              "'club America salutes you' says the girl on the door/we accept all major lies, we love any kind of fraud"--The Cure, "Club America"

              by Wheever on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:58:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Wow. (0+ / 0-)

          Are those the only three nations that have the firepower to defend against one carrier group?

          Just one of those groups, if you factor out say China, the UK and France, could take over the world. They are that powerful.

          Follow me on Twitter: @THTBAW. I crush trolls with truth, boredom with snark, and ignorance with links.

          by therehastobeaway on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:44:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I Might Have Overstated That (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wee Mama, billso, myboo

            In reflection, I'd in Russia. Maybe the Aussies. But yes outside of those nations I am not sure anybody could stand up against a carrier battle group. I mean the only thing that would stop them is we'd run out of fuel, bombs, and missiles.

            When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

            by webranding on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:51:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  scraping the crazy Star Wars! Stellar! Yet another (0+ / 0-)

          reason to be glad I voted for him.



          Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

          by Wee Mama on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:22:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Thing Didn't Work (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wee Mama

            I like the concept. If we could have a "shield" around us, then we wouldn't have to worry. We could cut back on military spending. Whoops, I just threw up a little in my mouth writing that. That would be my hope. Will of course never happen.

            But again the thing didn't work. It was an epic failure. Then somebody, and I don't know who, must have mentioned we already have the technology and the system, it works, to do just want we need.

            Why not use that ....

            When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

            by webranding on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:30:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  can you provide some proof of this? i know that a (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      therehastobeaway, Wee Mama

      shipbroker tried to sell a british built, wwii era aircraft carrier for the brazilian navy.  the auction price was into the millions when ebay cancelled the auction base on their prohibition on selling military ordinance.  another shipbroker had tried to sell a decommissioned navy warship for scrap on ebay.  i don't know if the auction was stopped.

    •  It's my theory... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      myboo

      ... that a single, present-day Arleigh Burke class destroyer, assuming it was carrying enough torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, could have wiped out the entire 1916 German High Seas Fleet - 12 U-Boats, 16 Dreadnaughts, 6 Pre-Dreadnaughts, 5 Battle Cruisers, 11 Light Cruisers, and 61 Destroyers - at the Battle of Jutland, before any of the German ships even knew it was there. Am I right?

      Or, as Charlie Pierce said on the Stephanie Miller Show this morning, "Give me one Trident submarine and a time machine, send me back to 1916, and I could be emporer of the world by lunchtime."

      I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

      by ObamOcala on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 05:39:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "# of ships went down in Bush years, up in Obama.. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sue B, therehastobeaway, JeffW, myboo

    years." -- End of story ignorant Mittens, chickenhawk neocons & mewling, fact-impoverished pundits.

    I'm getting just a wee bit tired of the chickenhawk, draft-dodging spawn of a long line of non-serving types trying to act as if he has some sort of knowledge of the military that he obviously does not have.  

    His (also) chickenhawk, non-serving neocon advisers feed him this stuff.  Romney and his advisers are listening to their campaign-fund-donating defense contractor friends about what sorts of military armaments, ships, vehicles, and hardware that they want to sell to the US military.  

    Romney & Co. are more concerned about supporting the Defense Contractor profit margins than they are about supporting the US military service members.

    •  Just out of curiousity, what do you say (0+ / 0-)

      to people that liken Obama's responses last night to Bush, or say he sounded too hawkish?

      Follow me on Twitter: @THTBAW. I crush trolls with truth, boredom with snark, and ignorance with links.

      by therehastobeaway on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:50:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would say that Obama has the intelligence... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        therehastobeaway, myboo

        both in the personal and the military/political sense to make rational judgments in the best interests of the country, based on objective assessments.  

        Geopolitics are complicated complicated. Sometimes the conventional wisdom regarding motivations don't always tell the full story.  Sometimes an enemy just won't back down as easily as one might hope.  Sometimes diplomacy works.

        But more specifically to the point of Obama's "hawkishness":  Very often tough talking and/ "Public Deals" go hand-in-hand with "private ultimatums", but also with  "secret sweetners": Behind-the-scenes dealmaking--that the public never really finds out about, that allows both sides to get at least some of the things they want.

        Obama has proven so far that he's been capable of navigating the complexities of foreign policy.  OTOH, Romney's ever-changing positions, his neocon war cabinet and his obvious lack of knowledge, including basic geography, shows that he would be less than competent in that complicated arena.

  •  E-bay..?!? (3+ / 0-)

    Hope they ran the carfax! Amazingly, deeply, incredibly  ignorant, on so many levels, for RomeyRyan to even mention ship count, in comparing US Navy circa 1917 to 2012.

    •  The Former Soviet States (3+ / 0-)

      got a ton of military equipment they never really wanted. When the Soviet Union fell they just left their military shit in all these countries. Including air craft carriers. This is why Obama and other are so worried about chemical and nuclear weapons in these "newer" states.

      These countries don't want the things. They are expensive to maintain, and honestly nobody is coming to "pick" them up even two plus decades later.

      When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

      by webranding on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:13:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you know what lengths we go to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        webranding, markdd

        to reclaim all our vehicles, equipment, technology, etc. once we leave countries?  Do we buy them back?  I mean, in cases of retreats in skirmishes and stuff, what ends up happening to abandoned gear?

        Follow me on Twitter: @THTBAW. I crush trolls with truth, boredom with snark, and ignorance with links.

        by therehastobeaway on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:49:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That Is A VERY Interesting Question (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          therehastobeaway, myboo

          and one not talked about much. We left, just in infrastructure billions and billions. Hundreds of billions of stuff in Iraq. We left just as much in equipment. We might leave gosh knows what in Afghanistan.

          My brother's wife works at TRANSCOM. That is the military unit that delivers every bullet, gallon of gas, and toilet paper to our troops. Both in and out of war zone.

          She deals with NO military bases and/or units. All contractors in Afghanistan. We don't even deliver our own food to our troops. I want out of the place yesterday, but honestly it would take us years and years to get all our equipment out of there.

          Maybe we are doing this and we just don't know about it, but if we leave by the end of 2014, well I'd argue that isn't enough time to get out everything.

          I've talked to my father, a military tactician, and it is hard to wrap you mind all the stuff we go to war with. We didn't bring an "overnight bag" into Afghanistan. We brought everything and the kitchen sink.

          When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

          by webranding on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:58:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Tell us more please (0+ / 0-)

          I know after WWII they scrapped tons of stuff right where it stood.  Just shoved B-24's over cliffs and into the ocean.  The Filipino Jeepneys were built out of abandoned jeeps.  PT Boats were tied together and burned to the waterline.

          I assumed that lots of stuff was just abandoned or sold locally for surplus / scrap after the first Gulf War.

          “that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” Thomas Jefferson

          by markdd on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:46:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  LMAO AT CARFAX (0+ / 0-)

      !!!

      Follow me on Twitter: @THTBAW. I crush trolls with truth, boredom with snark, and ignorance with links.

      by therehastobeaway on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:27:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  To put it in terms Mr. MBA Romney (7+ / 0-)

    would understand, the Navy is doing more with less.

    Isn't that what these business types are always saying is the objective?

    Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

    by NMDad on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:07:46 PM PDT

    •  Modern aircraft carriers... (6+ / 0-)

      ...are 5 times bigger than the typical WW2 carrier, but only employ 2 times the crew. This from my father-in-law, whose first assignment as a young Naval officer in 1940 was the USS Enterprise (CV-6).

      Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

      by JeffW on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:44:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That sounds way more efficient (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NMDad, JeffW, myboo, Calamity Jean

        than one of Romney's businesses.

        Follow me on Twitter: @THTBAW. I crush trolls with truth, boredom with snark, and ignorance with links.

        by therehastobeaway on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:48:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  An inflatable dinghy is more efficient... (4+ / 0-)

          ...than any of Romney's businesses!

          Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

          by JeffW on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:04:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That's not the half of it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          markdd, Calamity Jean

          They're so freaking huge they're stable in most weather.

          They can stay on station forever, literally.  No wasted time going back to base to refuel, etc.

          From a force projection standpoint there isn't anything like a modern carrier group in history.   Lobbing enough nukes at it will get the job done of removing one.  Not much else has a chance.

          •  We developed underway replenishment (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Calamity Jean

            before WWII to keep our ships on station longer.  The British didn't and consequently their ships were much shorter legged than ours.

            “that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” Thomas Jefferson

            by markdd on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:54:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I understand that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              markdd

              The German commerce raiders also had a strategy for this, as did the IJN.

              But the nuclear carriers could just do it much more efficiently than their predecessors.  Indeed that was a big reason we went down the road of carrier strike group, rather than putting our eggs into a bunch of smaller baskets.   It let us put a mobile airfield right off the coast of Vietnam (or wherever) without any gaps in coverage, ever.

              Even with underway replenishment, the previous generations of ships had to return to port a lot for maintenance, and when on station, the supply train was larger and more expensive.  

              They weren't designed from the ground up like the nuclear subs and carriers to stay at sea essentially forever.  Instead of being a supply burden, the center of a carrier strike group is essentially a supply depot.

              •  Yes, but there are tons of consumables (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Calamity Jean

                that have to be delivered, even if the nukes don't need fuel.  Lots of jet fuel, lubricating oil, bullets, bombs, missiles, and food, lots of food.  A carrier is the floating home to over 5,000 sailors, aviators and Marines.

                The strike group concept had it's origins at Pearl Harbor.  Within an hour, the backbone of the big gun navy was broken.  The eight battleships were out of service, five would eventually be returned to service.  Three, Arizona, Oklahoma and Utah would never fight again.  The aircraft carriers (and we only had 8) were the only means of effectively fighting back.

                “that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” Thomas Jefferson

                by markdd on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 07:25:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well yeah, Pearl Harbor was bad (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  markdd

                  But we had 32 Essex (24 built)  class carriers in the works as part of the two ocean navy appropriations, plus the 9 Independence class light carriers converted from cruiser hulls starting right after Pearl Harbor.   As dark as it seemed at the time, as long as we had the will to finish building them and train pilots, the IJN was toast after 1943 or so.

                  Also...while we were down 7 BBs at Pearl, we actually had another 10 in service scattered around, plus the the four South Dakota and seven Iowa class ships under construction (of which we only built 4)

                  We lost the force that was supposed to sail to the Phillipines and relieve it in the event of an IJN attack.  But we actually had enough BBs free to replace all of them with a fairly simple redeploy if carriers hadn't proved decisive and it turned out to be a BB war after all.   It isn't like they were any great shakes at the ASW war in the Atlantic (the brits had all the slow BBs anyone could need for that front, indeed they shook loose a half dozen or so for the Pacific front in the early going)

                  Carriers showed in WWII that they could project force better than BBs, both over the water and over nearby land.  But after 15ish years of transitioning to the Cold War kind of missions, a primary consideration for building the nuclear carriers was to keep them on station.    Yes they need consumables.  But if you do the math on the energy it takes to move something the size of a modern carrier, the fuel requirement would not only deeply eat into the space for, say, carrying aviation fuel and bombs, but it would require a whole fleet train just to move the damn thing from place to place in addition to what it already needs to support the craft it carries (and whatever is required to fuel and supply its escorts).

                  It goes 20 YEARS without needing refueling.  That's pretty cool.   50 year design life.   Decommissioning will be a bitch, but compared to the long term cost and maintenance of conventional carriers used the same way for 50 years...worth it.

            •  Yes, my father was Fueling Officer for a while. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              markdd

              That involves overseeing the passing of a line from the fuel ship to the carrier, making sure the fuel ship and the carrier are sailing at exactly the same speed, verifying that the fuel hose is securely attached, waiting for the fuel to be pumped, and then supervising the reversal of all that when enough of the proper fuel has been transferred.  And all this needs to be done as fast as possible, to minimise the possibility that an enemy submarine or flight of airplanes attack during the process.  

              Renewable energy brings national global security.     

              by Calamity Jean on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:29:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  But...but..what about The Kaiser!? (6+ / 0-)

    If we don't build more dreadnoughts, he could dominate the Baltic!

    We can't allow a Dreadnought gap!

    Good diary. T&R.

    "'club America salutes you' says the girl on the door/we accept all major lies, we love any kind of fraud"--The Cure, "Club America"

    by Wheever on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:13:23 PM PDT

  •  I guess Romney's "blind trust" (wink, wink) (6+ / 0-)

    will have to hustle to reallocate those investments from the big defense contractor stocks that were poinsed to benefit from his shipbuilding bonanza.

    Those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat it... in summer school.

    by cassandracarolina on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:16:34 PM PDT

  •  It's something we take for granted as Americans (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    therehastobeaway, JeffW, webranding, myboo

    something for which some say we should be proud, and others that we should be ashamed. I'm in the latter camp, for the most part, but I'd be blind if I didn't see the reality.

    Our military is a giant. Long ago famously awakened by the Japanese Empire, it never went back to sleep. It's been growing strong ever since.

    It's been a headlong cash-fueled rush to beat everyone else, one that has continued mostly unabated, and nevermind that our only signigicant competition fell off the map two decades ago.

    Americans are indoctrinated with that from an early age.

    Some come to love it and some come to hate it, but all acknowledge this fact:
     

    The notion that our military is weak is patently ridiculous.
    We aren't blind, and around the watercooler today Americans were making fun of Mitt and the GOP's desperate claims to the contrary. That angle really shows their desperation IMO.

     

    "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Isaac Asimov

    by Hammerhand on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:38:28 PM PDT

    •  Good point. Glad they're being hammered over the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hammerhand

      head with that today around water coolers everywhere :)

      Follow me on Twitter: @THTBAW. I crush trolls with truth, boredom with snark, and ignorance with links.

      by therehastobeaway on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:46:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's something I just now thought of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        therehastobeaway

        like just now on my way to take a shower and it strikes me: Mitt Romney and the GOP noise machine are insinuating that our military is weak. They claim publicly that our military is weak.

        It's happening; they're so eager to trash Obama that they are willingly, even gleefully, trashing themselves.

        "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Isaac Asimov

        by Hammerhand on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 03:58:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Just Going To Throw This Out There (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hammerhand, Wee Mama

        we are talking if our military is strong enough. We are not talking about if maybe it is too strong. That we need less. That war sucks and maybe not starting them would be a good idea. If I was a military contractor, and I've worked for many of them, I'd have a hard-on right now.

        When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

        by webranding on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:23:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  ah yes another chickenhawk (0+ / 0-)

    marcus"patojisimo" rubito

    "I think the president belittled the military," said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).
    the one with the made up past. those who sent this cabron to congress must be living in an alternate reality.

    Life is just for living - Ernie Smith http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3AegEwa124 DON'T VOTE HATE, VOTE FREEDOM

    by longtimelurker on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 05:57:32 PM PDT

  •  Andy Harris Scolds President (0+ / 0-)

    Neglects to check on number of horses now in use; misunderstands the English word "fewer."

    Does not clarify if the Obama Attack will live in infamy, or merely lie around as a footnote to history.

    Harris (R-MD-01) was elected in the teabag wave of 2010.

    Rep. Andy Harris Statement on President Obama's Attack on U.S. Navy

    October 23, 2012

    President Obama Engages in Unnecessary Attack on U.S. Navy

    In last night's debate, Governor Romney accurately pointed out that our Navy now has fewer ships than it has since 1916. President Obama incorrectly implied that Governor Romney was not aware of what a modern military force looks like. In his response, President Obama stated that, "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916 well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets."

    "When I was commissioned in the U.S. Navy in 1988 we had 565 ships - and today we are down to 287," said Rep. Andy Harris. "As a retired naval officer, President Obama's denigration of the U.S. Navy by comparing warships to horses is offensive. It is clear that as China rapidly develops a blue water navy, President Obama's lack of foreign policy leadership has placed Americans in a position of weakness – an always dangerous position. With our enemies looking for any sign that American resolve is faltering, to suggest that the world is safer today than in 1988 demonstrates an extremely naive worldview that places all Americans at risk. We can no longer afford President Obama's failed foreign policies and economic ideas that keep us from affording the Navy we need to compete in the modern world."

    In addition to not understanding the role of the Navy, it seems that the President does not understand what weapons our military actually uses. As Chuck Todd of MSNBC pointed out today, "a quick search of the Marine Corps website shows bayonets among the weapons actively used in combat."

     ###

    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

    by dadadata on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 07:27:20 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site