A friend recently regaled me with some stories regarding the recently-decommissioned Sturgeon-class submarine USS Parche.
It seems that Parche was the predominant US spy submarine during its long career, from 1979-2004,
"Parche is the most decorated ship in U.S. Navy history, receiving a total of nine Presidential Unit Citations, ten Navy Unit Citations, and thirteen Navy Expeditionary Medal awards during her thirty years of service."
I'd read of Parche's participation in the famous undersea cable tap in Blindman's Bluff, a book written about a decade ago providing the first public information concerning the US Navy's extensive undersea espionage activities. It's riveting reading. According to my friend, the recently-published Red November is similarly informative and worth the price.
What seemed incredibly ironic to me was the text at the end of the Wiki article:
Parche's research and development duties will be assumed by Jimmy Carter, a Seawolf-class submarine whose construction period was extended to include modifications that will allow her to carry out the same types of research and development.[1] According to Robert Karniol, Jimmy Carter in succeeding Parche has become "Washington's premier spy submarine."
I get the connections. Carter was a nuclear submarine commander. Carter was a president, ineffectual, mean-spirited, petty and comical though he may have been.
But, really, the guy was about the most anti-military president we've ever had. He personally botched the Desert-One Iranian hostage rescue. It took Ronald Reagan to restore America's military strength and, perhaps more importantly, international respect for and fear of that military's capabilities.
Why would you name a premier piece of Navy espionage equipment for one of the most pacifist, embarrassing Commanders in Chief in our nation's history?
Showing posts with label Carter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carter. Show all posts
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Wonderboy As The New Jimmy Carter
Roughly a month ago, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial by Peter Wehner, a former official in several Republican administrations, entitled, "No, America Isn't Ungovernable."
Written in the wake of Scott Brown's election to a Massachusetts Senate seat, Wehner's piece catalogued liberals' knee-jerk whining that government no longer 'works' whenever the electorate doesn't see fit to vote their way, or support their Progressive agenda.
Wehner identifies several typical Progressive rants when faced with dissenting voters:
-stupid Americans who don't know what's good for them
-"nihilistic" Republicans who block all change
-an "ungovernable" America in need of Constitutional change to allow speedier action
The first two explanations for Progressive failure are, on their face, simply wrong.
You cannot simply dismiss voter sentiment as wrong when it doesn't go your way. Further, it becomes supremely arrogant to lie to voters about the consequences of legislation, then pronounce them too stupid to be capable of recognizing where their own interests lie.
As Wehner points out, and the recent, post-editorial health care conclave at Blair House demonstrated, Republicans have had plenty of ideas on genuinely reforming health insurance and care. Paul Ryan, Lamar Alexander and their colleagues enumerated many good ideas which could be legislated in pieces to reform current shortcomings without nationalizing the entire sector.
But the final rant of Progressives is the most alarming. Faced with dissent, they simply declare a need to rip up the Constitution, as well as standing Congressional procedures, e.g., the Senate 2/3 majority rule for passage of legislation, in order to "govern."
This equates Progressive notions with truth and correctness, while those who disagree are to be marginalized by whatever means necessary, including Constitutional subversion.
Wehner reminds us of Carter's counsel, Lloyd Cutler, opining in 1980,
"one might say that under the U.S. Constitution it is not now feasible to 'form a Government.' The separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches, whatever its merits in 1793, has become a structure that almost guarantees stalemate today."
Funny how, in Carter's wake, Ronald Reagan did just fine moving most of his agenda through a Democratic-controlled Congress, isn't it?
I guess Cutler was wrong. America wasn't ungovernable, it's just that Jimmy Carter wasn't up to the task.
Neither, evidently, is Barry Obama. Thus the reference to him by some who say he seeks to rule, not to govern.
Written in the wake of Scott Brown's election to a Massachusetts Senate seat, Wehner's piece catalogued liberals' knee-jerk whining that government no longer 'works' whenever the electorate doesn't see fit to vote their way, or support their Progressive agenda.
Wehner identifies several typical Progressive rants when faced with dissenting voters:
-stupid Americans who don't know what's good for them
-"nihilistic" Republicans who block all change
-an "ungovernable" America in need of Constitutional change to allow speedier action
The first two explanations for Progressive failure are, on their face, simply wrong.
You cannot simply dismiss voter sentiment as wrong when it doesn't go your way. Further, it becomes supremely arrogant to lie to voters about the consequences of legislation, then pronounce them too stupid to be capable of recognizing where their own interests lie.
As Wehner points out, and the recent, post-editorial health care conclave at Blair House demonstrated, Republicans have had plenty of ideas on genuinely reforming health insurance and care. Paul Ryan, Lamar Alexander and their colleagues enumerated many good ideas which could be legislated in pieces to reform current shortcomings without nationalizing the entire sector.
But the final rant of Progressives is the most alarming. Faced with dissent, they simply declare a need to rip up the Constitution, as well as standing Congressional procedures, e.g., the Senate 2/3 majority rule for passage of legislation, in order to "govern."
This equates Progressive notions with truth and correctness, while those who disagree are to be marginalized by whatever means necessary, including Constitutional subversion.
Wehner reminds us of Carter's counsel, Lloyd Cutler, opining in 1980,
"one might say that under the U.S. Constitution it is not now feasible to 'form a Government.' The separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches, whatever its merits in 1793, has become a structure that almost guarantees stalemate today."
Funny how, in Carter's wake, Ronald Reagan did just fine moving most of his agenda through a Democratic-controlled Congress, isn't it?
I guess Cutler was wrong. America wasn't ungovernable, it's just that Jimmy Carter wasn't up to the task.
Neither, evidently, is Barry Obama. Thus the reference to him by some who say he seeks to rule, not to govern.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Wonderboy Cements His Fate As The New Jimmy Carter
I awoke this morning to what I thought was a faux news story on the radio. Wonderboy had been named as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize!
Indeed, this truly cements him as Jimmy Carter's hapless heir and protege in weakening America's economy and defense capabilities.
Not to mention that, once again, the focus is on words and promises, not actions. And, of course, since the Nobel committee routinely uses prizes such as those for peace and literature to chide and lecture America.
This time is no exception. Now that a gullible, weak, clueless American president is running around the globe apologizing for past actions by our country and promising not to act in our own self-interest, the global liberal community wants to be sure to reward such absurd behavior.
How ridiculous is it that someone who has done nothing more than give a few speeches and allowed Iran to proceed on its plans to develop a nuclear weapon can possibly, in any sane world, be judged to have promoted "peace?"
Only in some bizarro world inhabited by myopic, dreamy uber-liberals.
Indeed, this truly cements him as Jimmy Carter's hapless heir and protege in weakening America's economy and defense capabilities.
Not to mention that, once again, the focus is on words and promises, not actions. And, of course, since the Nobel committee routinely uses prizes such as those for peace and literature to chide and lecture America.
This time is no exception. Now that a gullible, weak, clueless American president is running around the globe apologizing for past actions by our country and promising not to act in our own self-interest, the global liberal community wants to be sure to reward such absurd behavior.
How ridiculous is it that someone who has done nothing more than give a few speeches and allowed Iran to proceed on its plans to develop a nuclear weapon can possibly, in any sane world, be judged to have promoted "peace?"
Only in some bizarro world inhabited by myopic, dreamy uber-liberals.
For me, this is actually a good predictor of the coming woes for the Democratic party in Congress, and Wonderboy's own defeat in 2012. I don't think I'm by any means in the minority of Americans who sense betrayal and the weakening of America's defenses when a president is so recognized by the liberals on the Nobel committee.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Jimmy Carter Embarrasses Himself Again While Playing The Race Card
Leave it to a cracker from a cracker state to let his own guilty feelings cause him to accuse anyone who legitimately disagrees with Wonderboy's socialistic health care designs to be a racist.
Yes, I'm talking about our still-living, national embarrassment, yellow stain on the Office of the President, Jimmy 'Jimmuh' Carter.
Won't this man just die (naturally or accidentally, of course) and leave us all in peace?
Anytime I see Carter in the news, I know I won't need to think too hard to come up with a topic for the next day's political post. Today is no exception. Listen to the tripe spewing from idiot's mouth.
Can you believe this guy's unmitigated gall? Calling anyone who dares to object to our First Rookie's attempt at a takeover of 1/6th of the American economy racist?
How could Carter possibly know what is in the mind of each and every legitimate opponent of this socialist grab for the entire US medical and health insurance system?
Does he see no grounds for objecting to mandating a government provider as introducing "competition," when the same Democrats won't take the more logical, simpler and less-expensive step of removing legislation mandating policy contents and allowing interstate purchase of health care insurance?
Is he blind to Medicare's cost overruns? Does he not see any problems with the current tort law situation in medicine?
No, Jimmy doesn't see any of this. He's too dense and, now, evidently mentally impaired.
After Carter's disastrous term as president, he apparently found his true calling in building simple houses for the poor and validating the regimes and rigged elections of communist strongmen across the globe. These, it seems, are his real skills.
That said, we can safely ignore anything he has to say on the subject of domestic politics.
Yes, I'm talking about our still-living, national embarrassment, yellow stain on the Office of the President, Jimmy 'Jimmuh' Carter.
Won't this man just die (naturally or accidentally, of course) and leave us all in peace?
Anytime I see Carter in the news, I know I won't need to think too hard to come up with a topic for the next day's political post. Today is no exception. Listen to the tripe spewing from idiot's mouth.
Can you believe this guy's unmitigated gall? Calling anyone who dares to object to our First Rookie's attempt at a takeover of 1/6th of the American economy racist?
How could Carter possibly know what is in the mind of each and every legitimate opponent of this socialist grab for the entire US medical and health insurance system?
Does he see no grounds for objecting to mandating a government provider as introducing "competition," when the same Democrats won't take the more logical, simpler and less-expensive step of removing legislation mandating policy contents and allowing interstate purchase of health care insurance?
Is he blind to Medicare's cost overruns? Does he not see any problems with the current tort law situation in medicine?
No, Jimmy doesn't see any of this. He's too dense and, now, evidently mentally impaired.
After Carter's disastrous term as president, he apparently found his true calling in building simple houses for the poor and validating the regimes and rigged elections of communist strongmen across the globe. These, it seems, are his real skills.
That said, we can safely ignore anything he has to say on the subject of domestic politics.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Jimmy Carter's Passport
Just when you thought Jimmah Carter had gone as far as he could to embarrass our country and the office he once held, he surprises you with a new low.
Not content to be hoodwinked by rigged elections in South America, Carter's latest gaffe is to meet with the leaders of the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas.
The Israeli government was so angry that their Prime Minister refused Carter even the courtesy of a cursory meeting while he was in the Mideast.
To compound his idiotic behavior, Carter 'clarified' his understanding of different governmental systems with this gem,
"In a democracy, I realize you don't need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that's the dictator, because he speaks for all the people."
Has this guy lost his mind? As Bret Stephens pointed out in his Wall Street Journal editorial on Carter's verbal and other gaffes, he has it exactly backwards.
In a democracy, the elected leader does represent all of the people. In a dictatorship, the leader represents only his own opinion, while muting his subjects at gunpoint. Very much like, say, Venezuela's Chavez.
It's no wonder there is a bipartisan Congressional call to revoke Jimmy's passport.
And no wonder why Carter's own party neglects to invite him to any of their conventions anymore. His term in office and, now, his actions afterward, clearly earn him the dubious distinction of the most embarrassing President in living memory. Even worse than Slick Willy, which is saying a lot!
Let's hope this is one action Congress does accomplish this session.
Not content to be hoodwinked by rigged elections in South America, Carter's latest gaffe is to meet with the leaders of the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas.
The Israeli government was so angry that their Prime Minister refused Carter even the courtesy of a cursory meeting while he was in the Mideast.
To compound his idiotic behavior, Carter 'clarified' his understanding of different governmental systems with this gem,
"In a democracy, I realize you don't need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that's the dictator, because he speaks for all the people."
Has this guy lost his mind? As Bret Stephens pointed out in his Wall Street Journal editorial on Carter's verbal and other gaffes, he has it exactly backwards.
In a democracy, the elected leader does represent all of the people. In a dictatorship, the leader represents only his own opinion, while muting his subjects at gunpoint. Very much like, say, Venezuela's Chavez.
It's no wonder there is a bipartisan Congressional call to revoke Jimmy's passport.
And no wonder why Carter's own party neglects to invite him to any of their conventions anymore. His term in office and, now, his actions afterward, clearly earn him the dubious distinction of the most embarrassing President in living memory. Even worse than Slick Willy, which is saying a lot!
Let's hope this is one action Congress does accomplish this session.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
