Team Romney: We Need A Bigger Navy. A Much Bigger Navy

The indispensable naval blog Information Dissemination turns 5 this month and they are celebrating with a virtual symposium on the challenges facing the US Navy (yeah, they're nerds).

Today's installment features John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan and current adviser to the Romney campaign. Neither he nor Romney are impressed with Obama's plan for the Navy.

Our Navy stands today at 285 ships. It has never come close to the long-held goal of 313, a number that was itself found to be far too low by the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel which called for a force of 346 ships. This is because, as the QDR commission said, “it is unlikely that the United States can make do with less than it needed in the early 1990s, when Americans assumed the world would be much more peaceful post Cold War.”

In his 2013 budget request and shipbuilding plan, President Obama scrapped even the 313-ship goal for a fleet of “around 300.” Yet at the same time, President Obama wants U.S. foreign policy to “pivot” toward Asia. The important states of Asia form a great maritime region in which dominant sea power is the key to prosperity, security, and a balance of power. However, the President’s latest budget cut 16 ships out of the shipbuilding plan and takes nine ships out of commission years before their service lives have expired, while spending hundreds of millions of dollars on algae for jet fuel and other unaffordable distractions. The unavoidable fact remains that the Navy is retiring ships faster than it builds them, and the “pivot” to Asia exists mainly in words.

The President’s plan for the Navy continues a pattern of kicking the can down the road. Like the coming pain of Obamacare and the drastic need to address the nation’s growing debt burden, the President considers a decision deferred to be a decision made. In reality, he has consistently pushed off the tough choices so that his successors face the consequences. We must begin to rebuild our Navy today and reject empty “out year” procrastination when it comes to shipbuilding.

Right now Obama's shipbuilding plan calls for adding 8 ships a year (even though he doesn't fully fund that plan) but he'll be retiring other ships faster. Romney, according to Lehman, would plan for 15 ships per year.

Advantage: Romney (with a caveat...What kind of ships does Mitt want to see us increase in numbers? Subs and amphibious assault ships or the useless LCSs? If they are real ships, then it's unquestionably advantage Mitt.)

If the strategy is to be leaner and smarter (liberal code words for smaller) the Navy is still the best bang for the buck.

The simple fact is, the world isn't getting any safer and it's still covered mostly by water. The Navy is strained as it is, Obama's plans will only make things worse. As covered in this post at ID, you can't just decide one day to build more ships and expect to have them in reasonable time horizon. You have to invest now for what you're going to need 5, 10, 20 years down the road.

Almost no one is going to make their mind up about Obama v. Romney based on ship building plans but it's an important issue and it gets to the larger question of how each candidate approaches national defense. It's well worth your time to read the whole piece and see just how bad Obama is on this stuff.

Congratulations to Ray and his gang on 5 years of blogging, they provide a great service to those of us novices with an interest in this area.

Bellow the fold...a brilliant US Navy commercial that lays out in 30 seconds the basics of sea power.

Posted by: DrewM. at 01:29 PM



Comments

1 And he's right. I say this as a former Army guy.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 06, 2012 01:30 PM (sbV1u)

2 YEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAWWWW!

Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at June 06, 2012 01:31 PM (4/NTV)

3 Nationalize John Kerry's yacht.

Posted by: nickless at June 06, 2012 01:32 PM (MMC8r)

4 Oh, that's very persuasive.

Posted by: huerfano at June 06, 2012 01:33 PM (bAGA/)

5 Ordinarily I'd agree, but how are we going to pay for it? Shouldn't deficit reduction be the priority?

Posted by: joncelli, for more than 4 hours at June 06, 2012 01:33 PM (RD7QR)

6 All my friends from SF are already "In the Navy".


Why do we need to make it bigger?



http://tinyurl.com/4dbgfa



Posted by: Barney at June 06, 2012 01:33 PM (hXJOG)

7 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Free Soona! at June 06, 2012 01:34 PM (8y9MW)

8 If we put wings on ships, they can be our Air Force AND our Navy.

Billions created or saved!

Posted by: Joe Biden, deep thinkin' at June 06, 2012 01:34 PM (MMC8r)

9
Dear Mr President.

Water Hazard isnt just that thing you cant hit over on #3 tee at Camp David.


Posted by: fixerupper at June 06, 2012 01:35 PM (C8hzL)

10 My son's dream is to go to the Naval Academy to become a Marine officer.

Please, dear Lord, let America elect Romney.

Posted by: goddessoftheclassroom at June 06, 2012 01:35 PM (dpYPW)

11 Shouldn't SOMEONE be posting about ace winning the first annual Breitbart blogger award?



Someone.....anyone!?

Posted by: Tami at June 06, 2012 01:35 PM (X6akg)

12 You can't go wrong with more Arleigh Burke Destroyers.

Posted by: Kaitian at June 06, 2012 01:36 PM (xMvDB)

13 @11

You are doing a great job at it. What does he win? Cheese pudding?

Posted by: Billy Bob, the guy who drinks in SC at June 06, 2012 01:37 PM (hXJOG)

14 Of course Obama isn't interested in building up the Navy.

Kenya doesn't have one, so why should the U.S.?

Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius at June 06, 2012 01:37 PM (exvgC)

15 Ordinarily I'd agree, but how are we going to pay for it? Shouldn't deficit reduction be the priority?Posted by: joncelli, for more than 4 hours at June 06, 2012 01:33 PM (RD7QR)



The Army and the Marines are being cut, they are personnel intensive and personnel costs are a mammoth proportion of the DoD budget. That will save cash. Some lower priority weapons systems should be cut to pay for this too.

But let's face it, the real money is in entitlements, and those can easily absorb at 2-3% across-the-board reduction.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 06, 2012 01:37 PM (sbV1u)

16 You'd think Barry would be drawn to the Navy like bees to honey.

Posted by: Dr Spank at June 06, 2012 01:37 PM (I/Xad)

17 Eliminate DOJ, EPA, DOE, DOL, and the DOA and it will pay for any increase in the military we need. Besides increasing the economy and tax receipts by ten-fold.

Posted by: Vic at June 06, 2012 01:37 PM (YdQQY)

18 Exit polls show Barack Obama is a Stuttering Clusterf*** of a Miserable Failure by 2 to 1.

Posted by: Dirk Hardpeck at June 06, 2012 01:38 PM (e8T35)

19 I like boats with smokestacks best.

Posted by: Joe Biden at June 06, 2012 01:40 PM (QKKT0)

20 I hate to say it, but carriers are becoming obsolete. In twenty years most aircraft will be unmanned. You won't need a big-deck flattop to launch an airstrike; an ordinary destroyer or even a sub will be able to do it. The Navy needs a lot more small and medium platforms, especially subs.

Posted by: Trimegistus at June 06, 2012 01:40 PM (igSy1)

21 I'm one of those conservatives that thinks we waste far too much money on our military.

It made sense during the Cold War, but not now, especially when deficits are far more likely to destroy this country than any sort of ridiculous foreign invasion. No one can honestly say with a straight face our Navy would have the slightest problem dispensing with ANY current adversary.

Big government waste is big government waste, even if it's for a constituency that votes Republican.

Posted by: Jillian at June 06, 2012 01:41 PM (0kf1G)

22 Ah, the Smart Military Blog rears its head!

Yes, deficit reduction should be job #1. But at some point we need to remember that we're (stuck with being) the primary worldwide deterrent to imperial ambitions, the spread of terror, and generally countries creating big threats to us and our allies and interests, because deficits are a vital enemy but unfortunately not the only one.

I can lament our position with a Libertarian instict while still recognizing it as a fact we have to deal with.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 06, 2012 01:41 PM (bxiXv)

23 Posted by: Tami


Provide a link.

Posted by: Dr Spank at June 06, 2012 01:41 PM (I/Xad)

24 Eliminate DOJ, EPA, DOE, DOL, and the DOA and it
will pay for any increase in the military we need. Besides increasing
the economy and tax receipts by ten-fold. Posted by: Vic at June 06, 2012 01:37 PM (YdQQY)



DOJ?!?! DOJ?!?!? Someone's gotta keep you crackas in your place!! How am I gonna get the Black Panthers to play ball if some State judge is sendin' them to prison all the time?!?!? No siree, we be defendin' them until we finally have a black preezy! We needs DOJ!

.....

What? We have a black President? Really?

Never mind.

Posted by: Eric Fucking Holder at June 06, 2012 01:41 PM (sbV1u)

25 There are 2 kinds of ships: Submarines and Targets.

I would rather we spent money on planes than ships, but that is just me.

Posted by: E.M. August at June 06, 2012 01:42 PM (zeBNm)

26 Even more of the earth's surface will be covered with water once the polar ice caps melting due to climate change. But rather than pour precious resources into war-making, why not seek to make our carbon footprint smaller? Christians of all denominations, and non-Christian faiths such as Islam and Mormonism, can agree that we need to be good stewards of our natural resources.

Posted by: Skyler at June 06, 2012 01:42 PM (NCkFb)

27 We're gonna need LOTS of bigger boats!

Posted by: Chief Brody at June 06, 2012 01:42 PM (Y+DPZ)

28 Our problem is that Chinese military is built mainly as a rock paper scissor model designed solely against us. Aircraft carriers are big heavy and expensive and can be sunk cheaply and comparatively easily, in an actual all out modern war.

Posted by: Shiggz RocketSurgeon at June 06, 2012 01:42 PM (RfvTE)

29 You won't need a big-deck flattop to launch an airstrike; an ordinary
destroyer or even a sub will be able to do it. The Navy needs a lot more
small and medium platforms, especially subs.


Armed pontoon party boats are the wave of the future.

Posted by: Bull Halsey at June 06, 2012 01:42 PM (QKKT0)

30 I saw this in the movie theater in San Diego 3 weeks ago. I am happy to report there was much cheering from the seats.

Posted by: mpfs at June 06, 2012 01:43 PM (iYbLN)

31 26 Skyler

Does your glass overflow when the ice in your drink melts?

Posted by: goddessoftheclassroom at June 06, 2012 01:43 PM (dpYPW)

32 The Navy needs a lot more small and
medium platforms, especially subs.Posted by: Trimegistus at June 06, 2012 01:40 PM (igSy1)


That's why the LCS program should be funded. DDG-1000 too.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 06, 2012 01:43 PM (sbV1u)

33 Nationalize John Kerry's yacht.

Posted by: nickless

I like the way you think.

Posted by: Shiggz RocketSurgeon at June 06, 2012 01:43 PM (RfvTE)

34 Almost no one is going to make their mind up about Obama v. Romney based on ship building plans

WRONG The turnout in the economically depressed Virginia tidewater may be critical to this election. Mittens needs to get a few retired squids out talking about this plan in Norfolk, VA Beach, etc. At the local level, the national media will not cover it.

Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 01:44 PM (WkuV6)

35 Sailors are cute. We need more.

Posted by: LASue at June 06, 2012 01:44 PM (wAhNv)

36 Provide a link.


Posted by: Dr Spank at June 06, 2012 01:41 PM (I/Xad)

================




The journalist award will be given to the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein, author of the new ebook Conservative Survival in the Romney Era. Ace of Spades will be honored with the blogger award, while Hating Breitbart director Andrew Marcus will take home the citizen award.


http://tinyurl.com/72lgp6y

Posted by: Tami at June 06, 2012 01:44 PM (X6akg)

37 I love that they use the USS Ronald Reagan in the video.

Posted by: mpfs at June 06, 2012 01:44 PM (iYbLN)

38 A democrat society would be eliminated within 50 years were it to exist on its own. They hate the military, the police and anything else that is in place to protect them. They think that if they would all just go away, everything would be just one big happy piece and love fest.

They never got out of fairy tale land from when they were 3.

Liberalism truly does suck.

Posted by: © Sponge at June 06, 2012 01:44 PM (UK9cE)

39 26
Even more of the earth's surface will be covered with water once the
polar ice caps melting due to climate change. But rather than pour
precious resources into war-making, why not seek to make our carbon
footprint smaller? Christians of all denominations, and non-Christian
faiths such as Islam and Mormonism, can agree that we need to be good
stewards of our natural resources.

Posted by: Skyler at June 06, 2012 01:42 PM

Are you coming to Brattleboro this Saturday night for our memorial service for democracy?

Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein, Brattleboro Vt at June 06, 2012 01:45 PM (Y+DPZ)

40 Even more of the earth's surface will be covered
with water once the polar ice caps melting due to climate change. But
rather than pour precious resources into war-making, why not seek to
make our carbon footprint smaller? Christians of all denominations, and
non-Christian faiths such as Islam and Mormonism, can agree that we
need to be good stewards of our natural resources.Posted by: Skyler at June 06, 2012 01:42 PM (NCkFb)



You do, of course, realize that post was a logical train wreck and full of non sequiturs, don't you?

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 06, 2012 01:45 PM (sbV1u)

41 The simple fact is, the world isn't getting any safer and it's still covered mostly by water.

Those are facts and facts are racist, you racist.

I honestly think people forget just how far away things are and how long it takes to get there. There's a bit in Red Storm Rising where the US and Russian generals are talking after shaking on the surrender and the Russian general makes a comment about how if they'd stopped three or four more shipments of supplies, the war would have ended differently and the general thinks more like one or two. That's always stuck with me because it points out that this whole instantaneous supply chain of anything anywhere is tissue paper strong. Hell, look what happened to hard drive supplies last year after the earthquakes and tsunami. If you can't get your troops or supplies there, you can't win.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 06, 2012 01:45 PM (VtjlW)

42 Sorry but we are going to be entering a phase of reduced budgets, and ships are very, very expensive. I don't care who wins, shipbuilding isn't going to increase significantly. We don't have the money, and we don't have the capacity. A couple billion dollars per ship (at least) is very pricy, and then after you build them you have to operate them. It ain't cheap.

The Defense budget is about $800B a year. It has to get smaller - and not just in a reduction in growth way. Yes, I know that the real problem is entitlements but that doesn't mean there aren't other places that will have to cut when we are borrowing 41 cents on the dollar.

Posted by: blaster at June 06, 2012 01:45 PM (HR5x9)

43 That's why the LCS program should be funded

Mehh. Give the LCS to the Coast Guard and take the DeepWater Cutter for the Navy. LCS is flawed, too much of a ship for the Caribbean and Persian Gulf.

Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 01:46 PM (WkuV6)

44
Sounds like my webbed toes will finally come in handy.

Thanks, Skyler!

Posted by: Soothsayer at June 06, 2012 01:46 PM (eMRto)

45 Mittens needs to get a few retired squids out
talking about this plan in Norfolk, VA Beach, etc. At the local level,
the national media will not cover it.Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 01:44 PM (WkuV6)


Randy Forbes and Miss Lindsay are already on it. They're doing some national "listening tour"

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 06, 2012 01:46 PM (sbV1u)

46 36

sniff Our little Ewok is all growed up.

I'm so proud.

Posted by: mpfs at June 06, 2012 01:46 PM (iYbLN)

47 Racists.

Whe have to level the playing field by sinking ships and filling the rest with minorities. It is only fair.

Posted by: Mr. Level at June 06, 2012 01:46 PM (AQ6wq)

48 Goddess, if there was an ICEBERG or GLACIER in it of course it would overflow !! Do you have an idea how much ice we have at the poles??? Plus the poles don't have sides like cups so naturally it will run all over the place.

Posted by: Skyler at June 06, 2012 01:47 PM (NCkFb)

49 Heh
Bigger navy?
Everyone knows that sailors are 'bigger'
Right ladies?

Posted by: navycopjoe at June 06, 2012 01:47 PM (5tiWJ)

50 Damn straight we need more ships and we need to stop pissin' away money on fucking green energy initiatives.

Posted by: CDR M at June 06, 2012 01:47 PM (Mv/2X)

51 The Defense budget is about $800B a year. It has to
get smaller - and not just in a reduction in growth way. Yes, I know
that the real problem is entitlements but that doesn't mean there aren't
other places that will have to cut when we are borrowing 41 cents on
the dollar.
Posted by: blaster at June 06, 2012 01:45 PM (HR5x9)



Proposed defense budget for FY13 is $545B.

It's already coming down.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 06, 2012 01:47 PM (sbV1u)

52 Apologies if mentioned earlier. Obama and his buffoons are also reclassifying ships to get to the 313 number counting smaller ships and non-combatants as higher and more capable than they were traditionally.

Posted by: yankeefifth at June 06, 2012 01:48 PM (Z9EHQ)

53 Dear Mr President.

Water Hazard isnt just that thing you cant hit over on #3 tee at Camp David.




Posted by: fixerupper at June 06, 2012 01:35 PM (C8hzL)


I thought he didn't go to Camp David because there wasn't a golf course....

Posted by: © Sponge at June 06, 2012 01:48 PM (UK9cE)

54 Heh

Bigger navy?

Everyone knows that sailors are 'bigger'

Right ladies?

Posted by: navycopjoe


*ahem* So I've heard....

Posted by: mpfs at June 06, 2012 01:48 PM (iYbLN)

55 32 The Navy needs a lot more small and
medium platforms, especially subs.Posted by: Trimegistus at June 06, 2012 01:40 PM (igSy1)


That's why the LCS program should be funded. DDG-1000 too.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 06, 2012 01:43 PM (sbV1u)

they also need to start working on the replacement for the Ohio class and get a lot more drones on those carriers - ucavs.

Posted by: yankeefifth at June 06, 2012 01:50 PM (Z9EHQ)

56 blaster -- the key is to buy new ships that are cheaper to operate (essentially fewer sailors, sorry LASue) with greater capability and endurance. The operations costs on some older boats is insane, you can save money by replacing them. Then you need to increase your tooth to tail ratio, which I would consider before increasing the number of platforms.

Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 01:50 PM (WkuV6)

57 Sean, I say what I THINK and don't have to resort to Latin to puff myself up.

Posted by: Skyler at June 06, 2012 01:50 PM (NCkFb)

58 Heh

Bigger navy?

Everyone knows that sailors are 'bigger'

Right ladies?

Posted by: navycopjoe


*ahem* So I've heard....
Posted by: mpfs at June 06, 2012 01:48 PM (iYbLN)

yeah and those ships are covered and overflowing with seamen.

Posted by: yankeefifth at June 06, 2012 01:50 PM (Z9EHQ)

59 I'm one of those conservatives that thinks we waste far too much money on our military.


There is no historical precedent for a world leading military power to be completely disinterested in annexing new territory, and comitted to global peace. There is also of course, no historical precedent for the peace the world has enjoyed for the last 70 years. Why do you think that peace will persist when our global presence diminishes?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at June 06, 2012 01:51 PM (0q2P7)

60 The LCS is crapola. It is suppose to replace the capable FFG-7 Perry Class frigates. Not happening, to little firepower and manning. Heck a WWII Destroyer Escort had more firepower and capability than these stupid LCSs. There are better alternatives out according to Commander Salamander blog, which has detailed this for years. It is some Pentagon flunkie's power point presentation wet dream (LCS) of jointness/lean/6-sigma/transformation goobleygook that won't work in the real world. The DDG-1000, are not the game changers they claim to be, and only 3 will be built. Not even sure they could handle the power requirements for the in development "Rail Gun" or the laser gun to shoot down missiles (forget about the LCS having any power for either of these weapons). There is no dedicated tanker aircraft for the carriers, nor is there any carrier borne aircraft for anti-submarine warfare since retiring the S-3s. The Ticos are being retired, which is not good, since they also provide the Standard S3 missile defense. In other words a major ship building program needs to be implemented for surface warfare ships (DDG-51s are great ships, according to Sal) as with a re-emphasis on anti-submarine warfare both in ships and carrier borne aircraft.

Posted by: Jim Scrummy at June 06, 2012 01:51 PM (sbV1u)

61 Proposed defense budget for FY13 is $545B.

It's already coming down.


Well, plus another $90B for war operations (which I was including in the $800B)

But, yes, it has started.

Posted by: blaster at June 06, 2012 01:51 PM (HR5x9)

62
skyler

love the little dig about mormanism not being a Christian faith.....you mad bro?

Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at June 06, 2012 01:51 PM (4/NTV)

63 Useless LCS? Not being confrontational, but this is the first time I've ever heard someone call it useless, and I've been working systems designed for the LCS (and other classes) for years.

Did I miss something?

Posted by: Dave in Fla at June 06, 2012 01:52 PM (USExO)

64 58. Oh gee
Starbucks all over the dashboard...
Hey thanks

Posted by: navycopjoe at June 06, 2012 01:52 PM (3A7PP)

65 CDR M, its a shame the "green navy" concept couldn't have been hijacked to include small, common reactors for every ship. Screw the algae.

Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 01:52 PM (WkuV6)

66 Are you coming to Brattleboro this Saturday night for our memorial service for democracy?



Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein, Brattleboro Vt at June 06, 2012 01:45 PM (Y+DPZ)


Who shit?!?

Oh, hi Mary.

What part about people voting for what they believe is the right thing isn't a democracy? I'm curious about that, so please, when you can, enlighten us.

Posted by: © Sponge at June 06, 2012 01:52 PM (UK9cE)

67 Plus the poles don't have sides like cups so naturally it will run all over the place.

Posted by: Skyler at June 06, 2012 01:47 PM (NCkFb)

Now is the time for a massive federal effort to put sides on the poles. It will be our generation's Manhattan Project.

Posted by: Cicero at June 06, 2012 01:53 PM (QKKT0)

68 Since the drones are kicking ass, I told Barack that the sharks with lasers was the next big thing

I just hope the sharks aren't homophobes

Posted by: Joe Biden at June 06, 2012 01:53 PM (Y+DPZ)

69 The journalist award will be given to the Washington
Examiner’s Philip Klein, author of the new ebook Conservative Survival
in the Romney Era. Ace of Spades will be honored with the blogger award, while Hating Breitbart director Andrew Marcus will take home the citizen award.


http://tinyurl.com/72lgp6y


Posted by: Tami at June 06, 2012 01:44 PM (X6akg)

Need more pudding. And Valu-Rite.

Posted by: Retread at June 06, 2012 01:53 PM (joSBv)

70 It made sense during the Cold War, but not now, especially when deficits
are far more likely to destroy this country than any sort of ridiculous
foreign invasion. No one can honestly say with a straight face our Navy
would have the slightest problem dispensing with ANY current adversary.


Preamble:

We the People of
the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.


Posted by: That Guy Mistaken for Oprah ex-boyfriend at June 06, 2012 01:53 PM (kqqGm)

71 Okay, we build a six hundred ship navy.

We are still spending $5,000 per fucking container to move material through the Islamic fraud of a nation known as Pakistan.

$400/ gal is what a gas costs on base by the time it reaches Kandahar. Good plan.

This fraud of a war only enriches a few.

Posted by: Mr. Level at June 06, 2012 01:54 PM (AQ6wq)

72 64 58. Oh gee
Starbucks all over the dashboard...
Hey thanks
Posted by: navycopjoe at June 06, 2012 01:52 PM (3A7PP)

nothing personal. huge fan of the Navy just a little Army reflex.

Posted by: yankeefifth at June 06, 2012 01:54 PM (Z9EHQ)

73 What is the purpose of our military?

I always thought it was to defend us from a foreign invasion. I didn't know it was to be a "world leader" ie get involved in every single foreign dispute we possibly can.

Do you really think the Founders envisioned our Republic to be some sort global Sheriff?

Romney is doing this for one reason only: to win the state of Virginia. period. He's not actually worried about our Navy being overtaken as a result of lack of billion dollar ships on the sea.

I'm all for him winning the election, and understand this is part of the game, but conservatives have got to get off of this idea that More Military Spending=Conservatism.

If we truly want balanced budgets, our military is going to have to get leaner.


Posted by: Jillian at June 06, 2012 01:54 PM (0kf1G)

74 Nationalize John Kerry's yacht.

Posted by: nickless at June 06, 2012 01:32 PM (MMC8r)


LOL.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 06, 2012 01:54 PM (X3lox)

75 Even more of the earth's surface will be covered with water once the

polar ice caps melting due to climate change. But rather than pour

precious resources into war-making, why not seek to make our carbon

footprint smaller? Christians of all denominations, and non-Christian

faiths such as Islam and Mormonism, can agree that we need to be good

stewards of our natural resources.



Posted by: Skyler at June 06, 2012 01:42 PM


Have you seen the commercial where there's some company that figured out how to tow ice bergs to remote locations to provide a large sum of fresh water where it wouldn't normally be?

Well, I think actually towing the ice away from the cold places does more to melt the ice than your "global warming" does, so stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

Posted by: © Sponge at June 06, 2012 01:55 PM (UK9cE)

76 I say bring back or built a new version of the battleships
I world come out of retirement to serve on one

Or buy one for home defense of course

Posted by: navycopjoe at June 06, 2012 01:55 PM (3A7PP)

77 Wanna know something else? Almost all the shipbuilders are union shops. Good paying, skilled, union jobs. What's not to like, from the perspective of a patriotic Democrat?

Posted by: Jimbo at June 06, 2012 01:55 PM (O3R/2)

78 but this is the first time I've ever heard someone call it useless,

Just like F-111, designed for every mission, incompetent at all of them.

You must have really have had your nose on the grindstone to miss the LCS chatter.

Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 01:55 PM (WkuV6)

79 You're right Jean. They're gonna wish they had when the rail gun comes along!

Posted by: CDR M at June 06, 2012 01:55 PM (y67bA)

80 blaster -- the key is to buy new ships that are cheaper to operate (essentially fewer sailors, sorry LASue) with greater capability and endurance. The operations costs on some older boats is insane, you can save money by replacing them. Then you need to increase your tooth to tail ratio, which I would consider before increasing the number of platforms.

Now you are getting into people's rice bowls. Rumsfeld started the military on that path and if anyone remembers the Washington Post carried an article on September 11, 2001 about how he would be the first Bush Cabinet member to leave because the services did not like him because of it. The military has a bureaucracy and entrenched interests just like any other part of government, and it resists change, too. Look at the internecine warfare over UAVs.

Sure, all the things you say are true. Tell it to the Navy and they will tell you why you need to increase the budget to save money.

Posted by: blaster at June 06, 2012 01:55 PM (HR5x9)

81 Now is the time for a massive federal effort to put sides on the poles. It will be our generation's Manhattan Project.


Posted by: Cicero at June 06, 2012 01:53 PM (QKKT0)



BUILD THAT FENCE!!!!

Posted by: © Sponge at June 06, 2012 01:55 PM (UK9cE)

82

If anything, this will reinforce and/or strengthen those associated with and those supportive of the Navy, and military in general.

Not only will this build a stronger national security web, but it will increase morale and get some folks back to work.

Posted by: my dad serviced on a sub; my brother, a ship at June 06, 2012 01:56 PM (HOOye)

83 76. And screw you Samsung autocorrect

Posted by: navycopjoe at June 06, 2012 01:56 PM (3A7PP)

84 Nationalize John Kerry's yacht.

Posted by: nickless at June 06, 2012 01:32 PM (MMC8r)


LOL.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 06, 2012 01:54 PM (X3lox)

did he ever get around to paying the voluntary taxes on that thing? someone needs to go rodney dangerfield on that tub.

Posted by: yankeefifth at June 06, 2012 01:56 PM (Z9EHQ)

85 Cicero the world has enough walls, fences and borders. Let's bring people together instead. We don't need to put sides on the poles if we don't make them leak in the first place.

Posted by: Skyler at June 06, 2012 01:56 PM (NCkFb)

86 Way OT, but Ray Bradbury dead.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 06, 2012 01:56 PM (piMMO)

87 I got slapped twice yesterday!

Posted by: Mayor Tom Barrett at June 06, 2012 01:56 PM (c3mby)

88 I'd love to have a huge, massive, unbeatable-in-a-million-years military, but that can't happen. Nor is it necessary. First, no military is big enough to suffice for the do-gooder approach to war the US is now burdened by. We waste huge numbers of dollars on avoiding collateral damage. That is folly of the worst kind. Second, if we had the balls to fight wars the way they should be fought, we'd use strategic weapons - nukes and gas and germs.


Let the rest of the world police it's waters for once. Our oil mostly comes from our hemisphere now. If we need a big navy in order to facilitate a land war in Asia, well, I hope we downsize the navy as quickly as possible, to reduce the temptation to get into such a foolhardy enterprise.

Posted by: Reactionary at June 06, 2012 01:56 PM (xUM1Q)

89 Skylar,

Put down the bong and back away for a while.

Posted by: mpfs at June 06, 2012 01:56 PM (iYbLN)

90 Carriers may be sort of obsolete.

Carrier groups are not. You miss that a lot of the value of the carrier is to provide CAP for the group. There is a lot of strategic force projection in the Tomahawks on the cruisers.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at June 06, 2012 01:57 PM (USExO)

91 We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.

Posted by: That Guy Mistaken for Oprah ex-boyfriend at June 06, 2012 01:53

All that wingnut shit in the Constituition has to go, except for the Welfare part ..

Posted by: Larry "Forehead Vein" O'Donnell at June 06, 2012 01:58 PM (Y+DPZ)

92 NOTE:

Lehman's father was a doctor in Philadelphia and handled my delivery. Or so I am told.

END

Posted by: CJ at June 06, 2012 01:58 PM (9KqcB)

93
Cicero the world has enough walls, fences and borders. Let's bring
people together instead. We don't need to put sides on the poles if we
don't make them leak in the first place.

Posted by: Skyler


This has to be a fucking joke. No one can be this naive and ignorant of the world.
WTF are you on? Please share with the class.

Posted by: mpfs at June 06, 2012 01:58 PM (iYbLN)

94 I will pay you Tuesday for 12 cheese burgers today.

Posted by: Meg McCain at June 06, 2012 01:58 PM (vZKJk)

95 What are the first words said by the CinC when the shit hits the fan somewhere?

"Where are the carriers at?"

What's Bammer's first words when the shit hits the fan?

"When is our tee time at Andrews, Reggie?

Posted by: Satan's Barbed Schnitzengruber at June 06, 2012 01:58 PM (Jls4P)

96 79, CDR M, I was down at Eglin a few weeks ago - they miss it already.

The future ships with a couple of solid state lasers and a rail gun are going to need more juice then a CODAG can pump.

Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 01:59 PM (WkuV6)

97 school is out for the summer and skylar's summer camp hasn't started yet...skylar...go clean up your room

Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at June 06, 2012 01:59 PM (4/NTV)

98 BTW...Lehman was only 38 when he was named Secretary of the Navy.

Posted by: CJ at June 06, 2012 01:59 PM (9KqcB)

99 @39
Are you coming to Brattleboro this Saturday night for our memorial service for democracy?


Now that is some good shit!

LOL

Posted by: Billy Bob, the guy who drinks in SC at June 06, 2012 01:59 PM (hXJOG)

100 Do you really think the Founders envisioned our Republic to be some sort global Sheriff?



Posted by: Jillian at June 06, 2012 01:54 PM (0kf1G)


Ruling the seas is not being a "global sheriff", it's keeping the lanes of commerce open to America, which the Founders were 3000% in favor of, and which our nation needs. It's also about the minor issue of national security.

Space is also a serious issue of national security, but I'm guessing that you don't even want to think about that. Isolationism was never an American thing. We are an engaged and dynamic nation, as the Founders wished and as has been a good part of the source of our greatness for all these years.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 06, 2012 01:59 PM (X3lox)

101 Hi Kids. I really like that Navy commercial. Spending a couple years working on the flight deck of a carrier during the cold war was difficult and dangerous, as well as rewarding. I really liked the number 600. We need a six hundred ship navy to keep the Chicoms and Russians in check. Oh, a revamped space program focusing on military dominance would also be helpful.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 06, 2012 01:59 PM (9TTOe)

102 This has to be a fucking joke. No one can be this naive and ignorant of the world.
WTF are you on? Please share with the class.


Posted by: mpfs at June 06, 2012 01:58 PM (iYbLN)

An agent provocateur. No real troll is that stupid. (Well, except gerg.) My guess is Average Joe.

Posted by: Cicero at June 06, 2012 01:59 PM (QKKT0)

103 If most planes will soon be unmanned,, then how will we do that pesky job of supporting the troops on the ground?

Posted by: CBD on a phone at June 06, 2012 02:00 PM (QfczW)

104 As an ex-submariner I'd love to have a roundtable discussion on this, but honestly it is pointless over the internet!

Posted by: Grim at June 06, 2012 02:01 PM (gyNYk)

105
If most planes will soon be unmanned,, then how will we do that pesky job of supporting the troops on the ground?

They'll all be battle droids by then.

Posted by: George Lucas at June 06, 2012 02:01 PM (QKKT0)

106 I think Skylar was just sarcing you.

Posted by: Jimbo at June 06, 2012 02:01 PM (O3R/2)

107 >>>Do you really think the Founders envisioned our Republic to be some sort global Sheriff?

As far as the Navy goes, since the US Navy has performed that duty since about 1794, and since the founders gave congress unfettered ability to create the Navy in the enumerated powers, I would say yes.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at June 06, 2012 02:01 PM (0q2P7)

108 mpgs there are lots of videos of melting polar ice and snow on YouTube. It's several feet a year and that adds up into miles over time.

Posted by: Skyler at June 06, 2012 02:01 PM (bN5ZU)

109 Reactionary, one path to a cheaper peace would be an immediate blitz of warfare - knock every conceivable foe back (NOrks, Chavez, Iran, etc.) and turtle up under a constellation of God Rods. We are too nice to do that, so we play cop.

Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 02:02 PM (WkuV6)

110 A global force for good? A global force for a good ass kicking if you screw with us.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 06, 2012 02:02 PM (9TTOe)

111 101. Which one?
I did the fid 85-88

Posted by: navycopjoe at June 06, 2012 02:02 PM (3A7PP)

112 And stop naming our ships after commies and politicians; Cesar Chavez, Medgar Evers, Gabrielle Giffords...

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 06, 2012 02:02 PM (gPDxp)

113 You're right Jean. They're gonna wish they had when the rail gun comes along!
Posted by: CDR M at June 06, 2012 01:55 PM (y67bA)

Railgun was canceled by your boss. Embrace the suck.

Posted by: Mr. Level at June 06, 2012 02:02 PM (AQ6wq)

114 Posted by: Jillian at June 06, 2012 01:54 PM (0kf1G)

Um Jillian, if you look at spending as a percentage of GDP, military spending has actually gone down over the years and it is entitlement spending that is rapidly eating up your budget. Defense has dropped from 51.7% in 1962 to 22.6% in 2011.
http://tinyurl.com/cqgx2ka

Posted by: CDR M at June 06, 2012 02:03 PM (cqZXM)

115 77
Wanna know something else? Almost all the shipbuilders are union shops.
Good paying, skilled, union jobs. What's not to like, from the
perspective of a patriotic Democrat?


Posted by: Jimbo at June 06, 2012 01:55 PM

That's why when it comes to defense spending, Dem Congressmen fight like rabid pitbulls to keep making even the most obsolete shit that happens to be built in their district

That's what kept crooked turds like Jack Murtha in office until he was term limited by the Grim Reaper

Posted by: kbdabear at June 06, 2012 02:03 PM (Y+DPZ)

116 Out, damn sockpuppet.

Posted by: John P. Squibob at June 06, 2012 02:03 PM (kqqGm)

117 We can pay folks to sit on their asses, but we can't pay them to be welders and pipefitters? Bullshit.

Posted by: Jimbo at June 06, 2012 02:03 PM (O3R/2)

118 BTW...Lehman was only 38 when he was named Secretary of the Navy.

Was he younger then Teddy

Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 02:04 PM (WkuV6)

119
There are 2 kinds of ships: Submarines and Targets.


Yea, we used to say that the worst thing a destroyer could do was locate a sub.

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at June 06, 2012 02:04 PM (mFxQX)

120 My mom was a secretary with the navy when she was 19.

Posted by: Skyler at June 06, 2012 02:05 PM (bN5ZU)

121 I say bring back or built a new version of the battleships

Speaking of battleships, I saw Battleship and liked it. (Everyone who is stunned that I liked a movie about alien invasion that had Brooklyn Decker in it, rasie your hand)

I'll admit it, I got choked up when the Missouri went back to sea.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 06, 2012 02:05 PM (VtjlW)

122 120
My mom was a secretary with the navy when she was 19.
Posted by: Skyler at June 06, 2012 02:05 PM (bN5ZU)
And they named a port of entry after her, didn't they?

Posted by: Satan's Barbed Schnitzengruber at June 06, 2012 02:06 PM (Jls4P)

123 112 And stop naming our ships after commies and politicians; Cesar Chavez, Medgar Evers, Gabrielle Giffords...

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 06, 2012 02:02 PM

And the USS Ted Kennedy

http://tinyurl.com/yfmcoys

Posted by: kbdabear at June 06, 2012 02:06 PM (Y+DPZ)

124 119, the unmanned - long duration underwater drones may change that

Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 02:06 PM (WkuV6)

125 Railgun was canceled by your boss. Embrace the suck.
Posted by: Mr. Level at June 06, 2012 02:02 PM (AQ6wq)

That's funny. It was successfully tested earlier this year.

http://tinyurl.com/85x7qd7

Posted by: CDR M at June 06, 2012 02:06 PM (cqZXM)

126 110. Heh
The best words i ever heard in the navy
"now launch the bat cat pack"

Iran in 88 got frisky, Ronald maximus didn't like frisky

Posted by: navycopjoe at June 06, 2012 02:06 PM (Ca+zh)

127 We can pay folks to sit on their asses, but we can't pay them to be welders and pipefitters? Bullshit.

Yeah, Peggy Joseph could weld your ship.

Posted by: Cicero at June 06, 2012 02:06 PM (QKKT0)

128 >>>I got choked up when the Missouri went back to sea.

Mighty Mo gets underway again? The same ship the Japanese surrendered on? Yeah, big rah rah USA moment right there.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at June 06, 2012 02:07 PM (0q2P7)

129 West Pac on the Kitty Hawk and world Cruise on the Carl Vincent. I was an Aviation Electronics Technician, F-14's. I never felt so old then when they retired my bird.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 06, 2012 02:07 PM (9TTOe)

130 48 Goddess, if there was an ICEBERG or GLACIER in it of course it would overflow !! Do you have an idea how much ice we have at the poles??? Plus the poles don't have sides like cups so naturally it will run all over the place.
Posted by: Skyler at June 06, 2012 01:47 PM (NCkFb)

My God ! some people are just too stupid to help!

Posted by: RUReadingthis at June 06, 2012 02:07 PM (V92KK)

131 mpgs there are lots of videos of melting polar ice
and snow on YouTube. It's several feet a year and that adds up into
miles over time.

Posted by: Skyler at June 06, 2012 02:01 PM (bN5ZU)


You're an idiot.....you know that, right?

Satellite imagery currently shows the polar ice caps at the North Pole are BIGGER than they were a few years ago.


Keep trying, it's fun!!!!

Posted by: © Sponge at June 06, 2012 02:07 PM (UK9cE)

132 " We don't need to put sides on the poles if we don't make them leak in the first place.
Posted by: Skyler"

OK, who is this, really? Leaky poles?

Posted by: Hobbitopoly at June 06, 2012 02:08 PM (SBBF5)

133 Here's a problem:

Under Bush, the Navy reduced from 316 to 282 ships.

Under Obama, the number has stayed around 282-285.

So, Obama is doubtlessly gutting future deployments, but Bush seems to have done a fair job of gutting the force as well.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 06, 2012 02:08 PM (gPDxp)

134 Ill bet we could save some good money by oh say . . . Not being the charity world police. The term "our interests" has been stretched like the octomoms lady parts. Defending our international ability to trade without harassment = good. Attempting to make civil war illegal throughout the world = bad.

Posted by: Infidelswine at June 06, 2012 02:08 PM (aJkFM)

135 Oh, source:

http://www.history.navy.mil/ branches/org9-4.htm

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 06, 2012 02:09 PM (gPDxp)

136 The Obama plan for the Navy is NO ships. NO nukes. No modern Aircraft. No viable military at all. The world will love us, not fear us and we can all be BFF!
The money spent on ships will be spent building High speed rail everywhere!
The liberal mantra is "If the United States disarms everyone will disarm."
It's a crock of shit but that is what is believed.

Posted by: HEP-T at June 06, 2012 02:09 PM (1q00g)

137 20I hate to say it, but carriers are becoming obsolete. In twenty years most aircraft will be unmanned. You won't need a big-deck flattop to launch an airstrike; an ordinary destroyer or even a sub will be able to do it. The Navy needs a lot more small and medium platforms, especially subs.<><<Because weapons lockers, spares stores and bunkerage for refueling take up zero space, right?Are these miracle unmanned planes also going to refuel, rearm and maintain themselves? Assuming you build your magical VTOL fighter/bombers, how big do they need to be to carry a full complement of weapons? How big does a submarine need to be to store, maintain and launch a squadron of these planes?OBJECTS HAVE MASS.You are never going to eliminate large ships as long as you have the need to project large amounts of power.Yes, UAVs are and will continue to have an increased role, but to suggest that they will displace all manner aircraft or thatifthey even could, the support and logistics package for them could fit in your fucking pocket is ludicrous.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 06, 2012 02:09 PM (A+odv)

138 I'm finding the libertarian "we are only supposed to provide defense" line to be a little trite. Go take a look at the amount of US flagged commercial tonnage that passes through Shanghai. Don't tell me that the Navy is just being the global cops. They are protecting our national interests in the most cost effective manner possible, by being IN the areas where we can be damaged and keeping the troublemakers under control.

You want to reduce military costs? Go after the procurement regulations, not the ships.

Also if the LCS is only good in the Persian Gulf, then that is a pretty useful ship to have. The Straits of Hormuz are going to remain a problem long after the useful life of the LCS.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at June 06, 2012 02:09 PM (USExO)

139 Carl Vincent? I call Bullshit. It's the Carl Vinson.


Posted by: Jimbo at June 06, 2012 02:10 PM (O3R/2)

140 mpgs there are lots of videos of melting polar ice

and snow on YouTube.


There are also talking dogs on Youtube, only an idiot would conclude all dogs talk from watching a few videos.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at June 06, 2012 02:10 PM (0q2P7)

141 This is all well and good people.

What is important is I really need several cheese burgers often to keep my butt big.

Posted by: Meg McCain at June 06, 2012 02:11 PM (vZKJk)

142 Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 06, 2012 02:09 PM (A+odv)

I'm not gay, but I think if you asked me, I would do you.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 06, 2012 02:11 PM (9TTOe)

143 Unless and until the U.S. Navy is used to sail around the world collecting tribute from the countries we protect, it is big enough already.

As conservatives, we need to stop this blank check bullshit to the military.

Posted by: jwest at June 06, 2012 02:11 PM (ZDsRL)

144 He should worry about this after he signs a balanced budge amendment. One that is designed properly so that it's difficult to BS around.

Once that is done, they can allocate their spending appropriately. But we are out of money, and it sounds like Romney is applying for a new credit card because we really need that safer newer car and so we shouldn't stick with the older model.

I think we are facing an emergency with our debt level and the GOP needs to treat it like one. We need to make do for 20-30 years as we gut entitlements, shutter the doors on post offices, disband the Department of Education, undo all public unions, and for the military: I think they have to make do with older tech. Take some ships out of mothballs if you need to.

And change the rules of engagement accordingly. Nation building can work, but it's unaffordable and not really necessary for deterrence.

If America can get on top of her spending, we can afford a great military and will be much more secure in a number of ways.

As things stand, we're bankrolling Chinese stealth fighters that will probably wind up in Iran one day. That's not very smart.

Posted by: Dustin at June 06, 2012 02:12 PM (z36s0)

145 Do we really need a BIGGER Navy? We already have almost half of the world's aircraft carriers and 1/10th of the world's warships combined. Only on smaller class ships like Corvettes and landing craft do we find ourselves in lower numbers.

Not that I'm complaining if we do find ourselves with a bigger Navy. I'll sleep that much easier at night.

Posted by: WheelmanForHire at June 06, 2012 02:12 PM (l8nIR)

146 I'm drunk give me a beak. My Sea Cadet unit was called the Vinson division before the Carl Vinson was even launched.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 06, 2012 02:13 PM (9TTOe)

147 Another way to say the navy money?

Stop changing their fucking uniforms!!!!!!

Posted by: navycopjoe at June 06, 2012 02:13 PM (+Aarq)

148 Im all for protecting our trade ships in the pacific or wherever needed, but can we pleaase keeps our boots, cia, money out of syria, africa, and anywhere else that wants us to pick sides in something that doesnt matter to our trade?

Posted by: Infidelswine at June 06, 2012 02:14 PM (aJkFM)

149 I can get behind this.

Sea/air power is of utmost importance in the modern warfare era.

Posted by: sgt. york at June 06, 2012 02:15 PM (FqBlL)

150 147, They did that to us. A leftover from the Zumwalt navy. The Chiefs cover for enlisted men. I didn't mind the Dixie cup.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 06, 2012 02:15 PM (9TTOe)

151 150. The new working blues is a khaki shirt and black pants
Same as a mcdonalds manager

Posted by: navycopjoe at June 06, 2012 02:17 PM (+Aarq)

152 IMHO The Navy needs:

1. More Amphibs, less or no LCS. I fail to see how three LCS, regardless of configuration and assuming they work, can do the job of an amphib, esp with a complement of drones

2. laser and rail gun work - need to reduce the footprint needed for self defense significantly

3. Consider cutting bait on the F35

4. Manpower, bottoms up review on everything to reduce manpower for operations and maintenance.

Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 02:18 PM (WkuV6)

153 I'm more worried about the Army and Marine Corps reductions. War always has, and always will be, about taking and controlling territory and closing with and destroying the enemy. Defense budget cuts are going to not only reduce manpower on our ground forces, but is going to deny them state of the art equipment which keeps them alive.

Posted by: UGAdawg at June 06, 2012 02:18 PM (jShXB)

154 >>>So, Obama is doubtlessly gutting future deployments, but Bush seems to have done a fair job of gutting the force as well.

Obama's plan for recovering the lost ships is? Oh that's right he's just copying Bush again. It's funny, despite the fact that Obama and Bush have never ran against each other, Obama spends a lot of time campaigning against "Bush era policies" then copies them.

None of this has to do with Romney who is not named George W Bush BTW.

We've seen the results of a 285 ship Navy, it's too few ships, even that dummy Bush would bump the number up at this point. But not Obama. Nope.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at June 06, 2012 02:18 PM (0q2P7)

155 Jillian writes: 73 What is the purpose of our military?

I always thought it was to defend us from a foreign invasion.


That's it, to defend us from a foreign invasion? So we should have taken a pass on the whole "fight the Nazis" thing, then, right? We weren't invaded by them, after all. Interesting take on things, on this day of all days.

Posted by: Boston12GS at June 06, 2012 02:18 PM (rdSyJ)

156
Ehhh, letting you do me IS pretty gay, Oldsailor's Poet. Not my thing.

I'd take a beejer, though.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 06, 2012 02:19 PM (A+odv)

157 156, Your my f'ing hero dude.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 06, 2012 02:21 PM (9TTOe)

158 Why are we paying for food and fuel for our carrier battle groups?

It’s time they just pull into whatever foreign port they happen to near and tell the authorities of town to supply whatever they need. Plus, they should tell them to send down some women to fuck if they enjoy the way their town is standing upright.

No more Mr. Nice Navy.

Posted by: jwest at June 06, 2012 02:21 PM (ZDsRL)

159 Lets keep the current fight in front of us -- build some hulls in Norfolk = win Virginia and Obama goes home, along with all of the CAP idiots. Then reconsider with adults at the table.

Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 02:21 PM (WkuV6)

160 jwest, so your saying let the chiefs run the Navy and send the officers home

Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 02:22 PM (WkuV6)

161 Another way to say the navy money?

Stop changing their fucking uniforms!!!!!!
Posted by: navycopjoe at June 06, 2012 02:13 PM (+Aarq)

That is funny. I was poking fun at a friend over his blue camo pattern. Personally, I would rather have something that did not blend into the background so well in the event that I fell overboard. I did not realize how many of those Japanese ships had their positions given away by the red uniforms their crews wore.

Posted by: yankeefifth at June 06, 2012 02:22 PM (Z9EHQ)

162 So, Obama is doubtlessly gutting future deployments, but Bush seems to have done a fair job of gutting the force as well.
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 06, 2012 02:08 PM (gPDxp)

Yeah. It doesn't matter which socialist you elect, an Obama, or a Bush, the end is the same.

Posted by: Mr. Level at June 06, 2012 02:24 PM (AQ6wq)

163 "Stop changing their fucking uniforms!!!!!!"

I don't want to hear it; the Army has completely fucked up their uniforms, both dress and combat. To save money, the Army jettisoned the woodland and desert camo combat uniforms for one which was supposed to work in both environments yet works in neither. Then, it 86s the dress greens altogether, leaving the dress blues, which was for special occasions before, as the only dress uniform. Bollocks. Issue the Multicam used in Afghanistan for everybody, and bring back the brown and khaki WWII dress uniforms, and stop making soldiers look ridiculous.

Posted by: UGAdawg at June 06, 2012 02:24 PM (jShXB)

164 152
#2 need to reduce the footprint for defense?

Thats why we cant win a f-n war and spend 10 years bandaging ppl aftr we shoot them and buildng schools for them to blow up. Politics needs to stay out of war. Lets the generals decide whats best for our military and stay out of conflicts unless were prepared to blow somebody to hell as fast as possible, win, and then leave them to pick up the pieces.

Posted by: Infidelswine at June 06, 2012 02:25 PM (aJkFM)

165 jwest, so your saying let the chiefs run the Navy and send the officers home

Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 02:22 PM (WkuV6)

Either that or start training some pirates at Annapolis.

Posted by: jwest at June 06, 2012 02:25 PM (ZDsRL)

166 Why are we paying for food and fuel for our carrier battle groups?

It’s time they just pull into whatever foreign port they happen to near and tell the authorities of town to supply whatever they need. Plus, they should tell them to send down some women to fuck if they enjoy the way their town is standing upright.

No more Mr. Nice Navy.
Posted by: jwest at June 06, 2012 02:21 PM (ZDsRL)

uh, it is even meaner now than you noted. not only do we need to tell them to pony up some food and women, but now, they are gonna have to cough up some men as well thanks to obama.

think about that, it was bad enough when the vikings showed up to plunder and pillage your stuff and your women, but what if they wanted to do the same to the men? Seeing those ships come over the horizon is going to instill a whole new set of terrors in the locals thanks to obama.

Posted by: yankeefifth at June 06, 2012 02:25 PM (Z9EHQ)

167 Our shipbuilding plan has been dorked up for ~15 years, dating back to CNO Vern Clark. I blame him for the infestation of MBA-think in the Navy. We are not a goddam enterprise - our job is to break shit and kill people, anywhere, any time, and under any conditions.
Retired Navy here.

Posted by: BUTCH at June 06, 2012 02:25 PM (0APJ3)

168
"In reality, he has consistently pushed off the tough choices so that his
successors face the consequences."

I stronglyobject to this absurdcharacterization.

Obama has every intention of staying in office. The point of pushing off choices is so that the voters will not be able to hold HIM accountable for his decisions and their consequences. He undoubtedly feels that it is "unfair" for the US to have the disproportionate power it has enjoyed in recent decades, and knows that the voters feel differently about it.

This is the part of the really scary prospect of a potential Obama re-election.

Posted by: Optimizer at June 06, 2012 02:26 PM (As94z)

169 Gregory of Yardale writes: 133 Here's a problem:

Under Bush, the Navy reduced from 316 to 282 ships.

Under Obama, the number has stayed around 282-285.

So, Obama is doubtlessly gutting future deployments, but Bush seems to have done a fair job of gutting the force as well.


Or, to put it more succintly:

BOOOOOOOOOSSSSHHH!! It's not just a floor wax!!

Posted by: Boston12GS at June 06, 2012 02:27 PM (rdSyJ)

170 152
IMHO The Navy needs:



1. More Amphibs, less or no LCS. I fail to see how three LCS,
regardless of configuration and assuming they work, can do the job of an
amphib, esp with a complement of drones


2. laser and rail gun work - need to reduce the footprint needed for self defense significantly


3. Consider cutting bait on the F35


4. Manpower, bottoms up review on everything to reduce manpower for operations and maintenance.

Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 02:18 PM (WkuV6)
Sharks with Freaking Laser Beams...that's what the Navy needs!

Posted by: Satan's Barbed Schnitzengruber at June 06, 2012 02:27 PM (Jls4P)

171 The best thing to do to make the military good again is to fire all the officers, and make all the gunneys generals.

Until that happens, the military will remain the money sucking betrayer of the enlisted. QED.

Your officer's mess is filled with incompetent traitors.

Posted by: Mr. Level at June 06, 2012 02:29 PM (AQ6wq)

172 We will always need carriers and airpower. I would consider a Carrier that has the deck about 20ft from the waterline with no super structure (O level for those of us that know) with interior instead of exterior elevators. Hard to see on radar. Maybe a little smaller and faster. The third world shitbags are our biggest threat. The Muzztards training in africa etc. The warfare with China will be more computer based. Zuckerburg and the rest of the aspergers crew need to be drafted. (My daughter has aspergers and she is brilliant at everything but dealing with people)

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 06, 2012 02:29 PM (9TTOe)

173 164, #2 need to reduce the footprint for defense? Logistics not politics

Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 02:31 PM (WkuV6)

174 167 butch

Yes! Have u seen the latest navy commercials? Its like were supposed to be the natural disaster global safety patrol. Militaries r for killing ppl that screw w us. Nothing else.

Posted by: Infidelswine at June 06, 2012 02:31 PM (aJkFM)

175
This discussion becomes moot when we get off our ass and build a Death Star or two. Just sayin'.

Someone please remember to uparmor the damn thermal exhaust port this time. Cripes.

Posted by: Jaws at June 06, 2012 02:32 PM (4I3Uo)

176 BOOOOOOOOOSSSSHHH!! It's not just a floor wax!!
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 06, 2012 02:27 PM (rdSyJ)

That is your idea of a valid response to the fact that Bush was the first prez to sell the "peace dividend"?

You are the one trying to override the truth with your bullshit show.

Posted by: Mr. Level at June 06, 2012 02:33 PM (AQ6wq)

177 170, Yes - Sharks with 100kW solid state lasers

Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 02:34 PM (WkuV6)

178 >>>As conservatives, we need to stop this blank check bullshit to the military.

Give me a break a 300+ ship Navy is not a "Blank Check"

In 1944 the US Navy had 6000 ships
In 1950 the US Navy had 600 ships
In 1960 the US Navy had 800 ships
In 1970 the US Navy had 750 ships
In 1980 the US Navy had 530 ships
In 1990 the US Navy had 570 ships
In 2000 the US Navy had 318 ships
In 2010 the US Navy had 288 ships

We are at the lowest level since pre-WWI era US Navy.

You folks who are isolationist, need to come to grips with history. The world in absence of a dominant power is chaotic and violent. The UN is feckless and impotent when it comes to peacekeeping. By advocating a return to isolationism, you are advocating returning to a pre-WWII geo-political model. You need to be forthright with the fact that you don't give a damn about all the bloodshed that will cause both to us, and to people around the world.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at June 06, 2012 02:34 PM (0q2P7)

179 173 logistics

If u had said to reduce weight and increase fuel eff then yes, but carbon footprint talk in military logistics has the same place as gay pride parades in military.

Posted by: Infidelswine at June 06, 2012 02:37 PM (aJkFM)

180 Infidelswine @ 174 - Yes I saw those commercials. Disaster response is a tertiary mission. When the CNO, Dickhead, uh, I mean Roughead said his #1 priority was diversity - not waging winning wars - I facepamed. I think we have more admirals than ships.

Our current crop of admirals and generals aren't qualified to carry the jockstraps of our WWII FOGOs. Who, BTW, won aWORLD war without PowerPoint or instantaneous global communication systems.

Posted by: BUTCH at June 06, 2012 02:37 PM (0APJ3)

181 model. You need to be forthright with the fact that you don't give a damn about all the bloodshed that will cause both to us, and to people around the world.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at June 06, 2012 02:34 PM (0q2P7)

If you are going to use the proles to raise the nations financial postition, you need to pay them more.

Or you could admit they are not fighting for freedom, but dirty, filthy money.

Posted by: Mr. Level at June 06, 2012 02:39 PM (AQ6wq)

182 Mike,

All the U.S. has to do is declare that in the interest of World Peace, no nation (except for a few close allies) will be allowed to have warships in excess of 100ft. All foreign navies will be order to assemble their fleets in the open ocean for sinking. If they don’t comply, they will sunk in port, along with whatever collateral damage is necessary to complete the task.

288 ships is a lot if no one else has any.

Posted by: jwest at June 06, 2012 02:41 PM (ZDsRL)

183 Mike the moose

I dont give a damn about all the bloodshed to ppl that despise us and are lazy and barbaric around the world. I do care about our blood and our TRUE allys blood but we r protecting far beyond that category for free like a bunch of chumps. The entitlement mentality uas been spread like the plague far beyond our borders. When i see pricks protestng n haiti and pockeeestan that we havent arrived to giv them free shit fast enuf, i want to drop a bomb on them.

Posted by: Infidelswine at June 06, 2012 02:42 PM (aJkFM)

184 288 ships is a lot if no one else has any.
Posted by: jwest at June 06, 2012 02:41 PM (ZDsRL)

Never happen. That might hurt some commie Euro's feelings. Seems we are fools governed by the mad.

Posted by: Mr. Level at June 06, 2012 02:44 PM (AQ6wq)

185 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at June 06, 2012 02:46 PM (Xb3hu)

186 Who needs a navy when we have Commando Barry who can take out bin Laden all by his gutsy self?

Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 06, 2012 02:46 PM (1Jaio)

187 Never happen. That might hurt some commie Euro's feelings. Seems we are fools governed by the mad.

Posted by: Mr. Level at June 06, 2012 02:44 PM (AQ6wq)

But…but…it’s for the children! If the U.S. would just take this peaceful action, all the countries in the world could spend their money on the people instead of war machines. It’s a utopian dream.

Posted by: jwest at June 06, 2012 02:47 PM (ZDsRL)

188 of war machines. It’s a utopian dream.
Posted by: jwest at June 06, 2012 02:47 PM (ZDsRL)

Isn't it proof the Gods are assholes that all the examples of Utopian dreams has resulted in "millions dead" and totalitarian police state?

Man is an insane creature.

Posted by: Mr. Level at June 06, 2012 02:57 PM (AQ6wq)

189 So I take hits from the trolls and the isolationists.
Let's take this one at a time

>>>Or you could admit they are not fighting for freedom, but dirty, filthy money.

Um no, no one else is in a position to lead the world right now, so it's either us or chaos. We have enough cash, we don't get more with our armed forces, we lose money on this whole global power business. You libtards were constantly reminding us of that recently. What changed? Argument of convenience?

>>>All the U.S. has to do is declare that in the interest of World Peace,
no nation (except for a few close allies) will be allowed to have
warships in excess of 100ft.

Sure instead of being a global superpower, declare ourselves the one and only global government. And deprive all other nations of the autonomy of conventional self defense. And we would be the sheriff sinking all these non compliant countries vessels when the whole world flips us the bird?

>>>I dont give a damn about all the bloodshed to ppl that despise us and are lazy and barbaric around the world.

Care or don't care about the bloodshed of foreign peoples that's your call. However, imagining that the violence won't reach us here if we just stay out of it is a mistake we made in the 30's. It cost us 300,000 lives. More than the total of every conflict we've fought in the last 70 years after WWII.




Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at June 06, 2012 03:01 PM (0q2P7)

190 "Um no, no one else is in a position to lead the world right now, so it's either us or chaos."

I wonder how the world managed before we came along, with the really big guns.

We don't support freedom, we support the IMF, The World Bank, and JPM.

We really have become everything we should despise. And true patriots are dying to maintain the fiction that we give the smallest flying fuck about freedom or justice.

Posted by: Mr. Level at June 06, 2012 03:10 PM (AQ6wq)

191 We need more subs, more nukes, and more bombers.

4% of GDP for defense at a minimum. Obama wants to gut it down to 2%.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at June 06, 2012 03:11 PM (ZPrif)

192 Fuck these anti-military concern trolls.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at June 06, 2012 03:13 PM (ZPrif)

193 Sure instead of being a global superpower, declare ourselves the one and only global government. And deprive all other nations of the autonomy of conventional self defense. And we would be the sheriff sinking all these non compliant countries vessels when the whole world flips us the bird?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at June 06, 2012 03:01 PM (0q2P7)

Yes, declare that we are the sole superpower and that our desire to rid the world of offensive weapons is our gift to the planet. Give all the nations six months to dispose of their ships in an environmentally friendly manner or we will do it for them from afar.
It doesn’t make any sense building a paying for a military that is 100 times more powerful than anyone else if you’re not going to use it to attain security and peace.

Posted by: jwest at June 06, 2012 03:14 PM (ZDsRL)

194 No that was a mistake Europe made in the 30's. Just like were both doin w islam now. Pretending to believe if we concede just one more piece, suddenly the muslims will see what wonderfully cultured people we r. Again im not in the perfect isolationist box but we have waaay overstepped our view of our interests. Add that to our military decisions being made by mushy bleeding hearts w no concern for efficiancy and we have the modern nation-building never ending or winning money pits. Bashar assad is not on his way to world domination. Neither r african tribal lords. And europe is grown enuf to fund their own defenses. We do too much for no pay. And what we do we half ass. I would b happy to bomb the sh*t out of a true threat, then promptly leave and say to other miniature tyrants to think about that examle. But we hav come to insist civil wars which have existed since the beginning of humanity must not be "allowed" by us to occur anywhere. And worse yet, our best and brightest foot the bloodshed bill to b some tribal-minded group's mommy.

Posted by: Infidelswine at June 06, 2012 03:22 PM (aJkFM)

195 >>>I wonder how the world managed before we came along

They didn't, the post Roman world routinely had wars on a large scale about every 30 years, in which large portions of populations were lost. That's what you are advocating for.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at June 06, 2012 03:24 PM (0q2P7)

196 >>>Give all the nations six months to dispose of their ships in an
environmentally friendly manner or we will do it for them from afar.

It doesn’t make any sense building a paying for a military that is
100 times more powerful than anyone else if you’re not going to use it
to attain security and peace.

And when the WHOLE WORLD says NO! What then?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at June 06, 2012 03:25 PM (0q2P7)

197 George Washington's farewell address told America to beware of entangling European alliances. It would disgust the Founding Fathers to see what our military has become, basically a giant Peace Corps that mainly involve themselves in disputes that have absolutely nothing to do with the safety of American citizens.

These people that constantly long for a larger military are no different than these cops or fire fighters that are bankrupting states with their absurd demands. They can scream it's about safety all they want, it's all about lining their own pockets or hobby horse interests.

Posted by: Jillian at June 06, 2012 03:27 PM (0kf1G)

198 Dont me wrong, i want our military to b top notch state of the art, just not policing countries for them and never being able to win or knowing when to cut leeches off.

Posted by: Infidelswine at June 06, 2012 03:29 PM (aJkFM)

199 And when the WHOLE WORLD says NO! What then?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at June 06, 2012 03:25 PM (0q2P7)

We start taking their navies out, one country at a time. All the while, a massive propaganda campaign is put in place extolling the virtues of world free from the threat of naval warfare and how the U.S. is just trying give these countries the freedom from paying for military equipment so that their wealth can be spent (wait for it) “for the children”.

Posted by: jwest at June 06, 2012 03:35 PM (ZDsRL)

200 Fun fact: the USS Ted Kennedy is built to look like an Oldsmobile.

Posted by: The Q at June 06, 2012 03:39 PM (LnQhT)

201
probably just getting picky but when talking about the size of a navy don't they use the term hulls instead of ships? kind of a naval buff here and i know thats how they used to do it because the term ship was strictly used for surface combatants of a certain size

Posted by: kj at June 06, 2012 03:44 PM (KbZ/r)

202 179 173 logistics

If u had said to reduce weight and increase fuel eff then yes, but carbon footprint talk in military logistics has the same place as gay pride parades in military.

Posted by: Infidelswine


Not sure what you misunderstood - lasers and railguns reduce the burden of munition handling, which is a major task. They can also allow smaller ship designs.

Posted by: Jean at June 06, 2012 03:45 PM (WkuV6)

203
@202
it also reduces the risk of fire and explosion the main killer of ships at sea

Posted by: kj at June 06, 2012 03:50 PM (KbZ/r)

204 Two kinds of ships. Subs and targets.

Story goes that a young destroyer ensign asked his skipper why they drilled for emergencies like missile and aircraft attack, but never for a torpedo hit. Skipper says because there's no need to practice being fucking dead.

Posted by: Sherlock at June 06, 2012 03:52 PM (Gf9XL)

205 Jean

If by footprint u meant something other than "carbon footprint" then i apologize. Words like footprint, green, awareness, etc. hav just been seriously twisted these days. My bp shoots when i think i hear hippy talk and i apparently mistook ur statement.

Posted by: Infidelswine at June 06, 2012 03:52 PM (aJkFM)

206 They didn't, the post Roman world routinely had wars on a large scale about every 30 years, in which large portions of populations were lost. That's what you are advocating for.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at June 06, 2012 03:24 PM (0q2P7)

Maybe God's plan include Euro slugs killing each other by the millions every other generation.

If that's what they want, then I say rock on Euro destroyers of life. No sense in expecting them to stop being the most awesome destroyers of life in the history of the world.

Best just to find a way to profit from the inate death wish.

Posted by: Mr. Level at June 06, 2012 03:58 PM (AQ6wq)

207 Care or don't care about the bloodshed of foreign peoples that's your call. However, imagining that the violence won't reach us here if we just stay out of it is a mistake we made in the 30's. It cost us 300,000 lives. More than the total of every conflict we've fought in the last 70 years after WWII.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at June 06, 2012 03:01 PM (0q2P7)


The mistake we made in the 30's (andWW1 especially)was to get involved in the first place. We should have been building up our forces to defend our own hemisphere. Not playing cop/do-gooder. THAT was what cost us so many lives and so much treasure. We should have sold Japan as much scrap metal as they wanted to buy, and let France and England know that if they wanted to go to war for Poland, that was their call and not our concern.

Posted by: Reactionary at June 06, 2012 04:05 PM (xUM1Q)

208 Ok, I'm feeling better now.

Long time Romney supporter, but I had a "moment" when Mitt hired on Mike Leavitt. I'm going back to the big picture and overall Mitt's choices in policy, advisers and campaign tactics have been good! Liked the way he helped Walker and now as a side benefit he has a strong organization in WI - smart. His views on foreign policy - smart. His ignoring the media critics - smart. And every thing I have seen about his approach to defence spending - very smart!

Posted by: Evan at June 06, 2012 04:07 PM (DSW5f)

209 "But rather than pour
precious resources into war-making, why not seek to make our carbon
footprint smaller?"

I agree! Let's go with more nukes, screw the stupid windmills. LFTR rocks!

"Christians of all denominations, and non-Christian
faiths such as Islam and Mormonism, can agree that we need to be good
stewards of our natural resources."

100% of Mormons would call you a moron for categorizing them as "non-Christian", but they would do nice way and invite you to share some jello salad with them.

Posted by: Evan at June 06, 2012 04:20 PM (DSW5f)

210 I personally would settle for if not a bigger Navy then at least a Navy that's not going to shrink any more. An ever-increasing number of missions + an ever-shrinking pool of sailors and ships = CMS's kids never getting to see their Daddy.

Everyone knows the LCS is crapola. They don't call it the "Little Crappy Ship" for nothing.

Posted by: CMS2004 at June 06, 2012 04:30 PM (arttL)

211 The mistake we made in the 30's (andWW1 especially)was to get involved in the first place. We should have been building up our forces to defend our own hemisphere. Not playing cop/do-gooder. THAT was what cost us so many lives and so much treasure. We should have sold Japan as much scrap metal as they wanted to buy, and let France and England know that if they wanted to go to war for Poland, that was their call and not our concern.

I'm sure Nazi/communist Europe or the imperial Japanese empire would have been great neighbors if we had just left them alone. Bloodthirsty mass murderers just want to keep to themselves, y'know? Look how nice the Soviets were during the Cold War!
(BTW, no American troops got involved when France and England went to war for Poland; not that there was much of an US army to send at that point in time)

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at June 06, 2012 04:47 PM (v3pYe)

212 Lots of Aegis cruisers with ABMs.

We need a bigger Air Force, too

Posted by: Arms Merchant at June 06, 2012 04:52 PM (+XVQe)

213 More important than a larger Navy, we need to ensure that we maintain the required industrial base to quickly expand the Navy if we need to. That might mean mothballing shipyards rather than selling them, same with power plants, steel mills, etc.


Posted by: crosspatch at June 06, 2012 05:02 PM (ZbLJZ)

214 @73: I didn't know it was to be a "world leader" ie get involved in every single foreign dispute we possibly can.

---------------------------

Not getting involved in EVERY foreign dispute doesn't mean we shouldn't be involved in ANY foreign dispute, and a strong Navy is integral for those instances when we do.

Posted by: Megyn Kelly Leg Shot at June 06, 2012 05:36 PM (sTS/8)

215 Having a strong Navy (military) means we will be LESS likely to have to get involved in foreign disputs. Having other nations fear/respect us means that they are more likely to listen to our diplomatic solutions instead of crap on us!

Posted by: Evan at June 06, 2012 09:08 PM (DSW5f)

216 Mr. Level, before we came along it was the big guns of the Royal Navy. Then England let Socialism take over.

Oh, and if we are going to beef up the Navy, we'll need more Marines too. That's who does the landing parties to hang pirates as needed.

Posted by: SDN at June 06, 2012 10:58 PM (is/83)






Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0404 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0135 seconds, 225 records returned.
Page size 129 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat