USS Georgia Visits Bahrain
USS Georgia (SSGN 729) became the first Ohio-class submarine to operate in the Arabian Gulf during her current deployment. Here's a story from Fifth Fleet about their port call in Bahrain, and here's a blog entry by CAPT Brian McIlvaine (my old XO) describing the port visit.
Back during the Bush Administration, stories like this would have brought the "we're about to attack Iran" crowd to screaming levels of hysterics. I wonder if any of them are now willing to admit, given that we never did attack Iran before President Bush left office, that they were wrong in thinking that President Bush was purely evil, and are maybe even willing to entertain the idea that he was actually a man who had the best interests of the country at heart, even if they disagree with him on how to achieve what was best for the country?
posted by Bubblehead at 9:12 AM
45 Comments:
While I disagree with those who bashed the previous president, given his track record on attacking supposed wmd armed (or arming) nations, it would not take a huge leap of faith to assume he entertained the possibility of attacking a country that is indisputably on the road to having wmd's. Furthermore, Dick Cheney has said, in some quite uncertain terms, that he was an advocate of military action against Iran.
9/30/2009 9:44 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
9/30/2009 10:44 AM
So since he did not attack Iran, he's a was a president? That falls under the "have you stopped beating your wife" logic. And I'm curious what you consider the "best interests" that he had at heart? All I got from him was a stop loss, an loss on my house in Groton, and bunch of wounded and dead friends.
-LT L
9/30/2009 10:58 AM
Politics aside, I'm glad to see CAPT McIlvaine still doing awesome missions and gaming the system by staying in command so long. Unlike a lot of the captains who seem chosen more for their technical expertise than leadership ability, he really seems able to find his men's strengths and apply them well. One of the best COs my husband has worked under.
9/30/2009 11:03 AM
Let's try again:
"So since he did not attack Iran, he was a good president?"
-LT L
9/30/2009 11:21 AM
The fact that he did not attack Iran without Congressional authorization, despite the fact that Vice President Cheney may have wanted to, indicates that he did respect the rule of law and was not just purely evil and wanting to destroy the country, as some of his detractors seemed to think. The spate of "we're about to attack Iran" stories that always came up when a carrier deployed all featured people who believed that President Bush would attack without Congressional authorization, which he clearly would (and did) not. (Note that there are people who believe that President Obama also wants to destroy the country; I think they're wrong as well.)
9/30/2009 11:27 AM
Yes, phw, I would have been very surprised if he would have attacked Iran without Congressional authorization.
9/30/2009 11:28 AM
From the article: "I wonder if any of them are now willing to admit, given that we never did attack Iran before President Bush left office, that they were wrong in thinking that President Bush was purely evil, and are maybe even willing to entertain the idea that he was actually a man who had the best interests of the country at heart, even if they disagree with him on how to achieve what was best for the country?"
Questions like this always leave me rolling my eyes. The premise: "how can you think he's evil... he's such a nice guy! Was kind to animals, respected his mother, etc...". Yes, for what it's worth, I take it for granted that GWB wasn't some sort of Manchurian Candidate that was actually seeking to do harm to the US. But that's a ridiculously low standard of acceptability for the President of the US. In fact, GWB was ignorant and lazy - essentially subcontracting out his responsibilities to Cheney. And there comes a point beyond which ignorance and laziness rise to the level of being evil. In the legal system, it's called "reckless disregard", "criminal negligence", and similar terms. What was going on in his heart is rather irrelevant - the most charitable interpretation of his behavior suggests that GWB didn't know that what he was doing (or was being done in his name) was actually harmful to the interests of the US. And that's something I won't forgive him for.
9/30/2009 11:46 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
9/30/2009 12:06 PM
When you use the term "neoconservatives," phw, whom, exactly, are you speaking of?
Jews...? Because they're somehow 'new' to conservatism?
When I see someone use that term, I always question their intellect and honesty. Nothing personal...just the fact of it.
9/30/2009 1:00 PM
phw,
People can "argue" whatever they want; for example, some progressives now seem to be arguing that private non-profit organizations somehow have a Constitutional right to government funding, and that cutting their funding is a "bill of attainder". The question is whether the President agrees with and takes action on a given argument; I never thought that President Bush would do so, and I was proven right.
9/30/2009 1:09 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
9/30/2009 1:36 PM
And yes Joel, you were right and I was wrong. Bush did not invade Iran. One can have good intentions, but still do very bad things. This was one bad thing Bush did not do.
9/30/2009 1:39 PM
Joel,
This doesn't sound like very good Minnick talk. Or "realist democrat" talk either.
Could it be that you've become a South Park republican again???
9/30/2009 3:01 PM
CAPT McIlvaine is a great guy. He rode my ship once as a deputy and provided some great assistance. No, really, great stuff.
Bush43 no doubt acted in what he thought was the best interests of the country as he assessed it at the time. Whether or not the rest of us agreed is not really the question. We choose a leader and for better or for worse he speaks for us until he leaves office. We cannot have a system that just has an opinion poll every time we need to do something.
9/30/2009 4:25 PM
Srvd SSN CO:
Couldn't agree more - opinions are like Assh@#es - everyone has one and they all stink!
Case in point is this blog thread that has quickly transformed from SSGN accomplishments to opinions about Bush and his policies.
FOCUS Boys! The topic of interest is SSGN ops. "Match Sonar Bearings and Shout!"
9/30/2009 4:45 PM
Actually, Joel's "Jumping Off Point", if you will, is: "I wonder if any of them are now willing to admit, given that we never did attack Iran before President Bush left office...."
Check-Fire...Target has maneuvered!
FWIW, my opinion on GWB: Wrong execution of the right idea.
9/30/2009 4:58 PM
so do you think the guys have wedged the grenade hatch open a little bit so the below-decks watch doesn't have to come around everytime someone comes back from being out and about?
-STS-
9/30/2009 5:39 PM
Ret ANAV:
Concur - Check Fire. Tracker tracked off.
I skipped over the political drivel in Bubblehead's second paragraph. It obviously makes for more particpation from the twits, but adds little to the submariner's side of this, otherwise outstanding, Blog.
SSGNs are a great topic though, without all the political comment BS that attracts twits like Mike Mulligan and "phw".
9/30/2009 7:03 PM
My husband is serving as XO on the USS Georgia with Captain McIlvaine. Bahrain has never been my favorite place for my husband to port. Always makes me nervous. I feel like their sitting targets, over there.
They've had a great tour, so far. Captain Mcilvaine IS a great commander and we couldn't have been happier to be on his ship. It's three weeks and counting for us. My husband's replacement is taking over the rest of the deployment. WHOO-YA!
9/30/2009 7:25 PM
Liza said...They've had a great tour, so far. Captain Mcilvaine IS a great commander and we couldn't have been happier to be on his ship. It's three weeks and counting for us. My husband's replacement is taking over the rest of the deployment. WHOO-YA!
A slight OPSEC oops?
10/01/2009 5:47 AM
On the "Jews" question - this is a sort of standard tactic to deflect any criticism of the neo-conservative viewpoint by making the claim that if you question neo-conservatism, you must, by definition, be anti-semitic. Ironically, the same people who make this argument also claim that if you argue with them about their criticism of Obama, you're "playing the race card"... but then again, projection is nothing new to this crowd. The idea that criticizing neo-consertivism == anti-semitism is one you can pretty safely ignore.
10/01/2009 6:42 AM
What does all of this have to do with the Georgia-fish being in Bahrain???
10/01/2009 7:34 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
10/01/2009 7:51 AM
Sean Peter: The reason people wonder is that much of the criticism that would logically be directed against "republicans" or "conservatives" or "the right" got instead directed at "neo-conservatives" which are a very small group. This occurred even in areas where neo-conservatives traditionally have no sway at all, like domestic policy.
The conspiracy theorists believed that a few folks like Perle, Feith, and Wolfkowitz were really running the administration. The problem was when that conspiracy went mainstream in the democratic party and no one was smart enough to notice that these guys were spear carriers, not the guys running the show.
The folks who started the meme you are mindlessly repeating, about neo-conservatives, had and have axes to grind against jews. That you were unaware of this just shows how effectively they mainstreamed it.
That being said, I do think Obama is being pretty stand-up about saying he thinks opposition to his policies is not racism. He could be keeping his mouth shut about it and letting the windbags scream.
10/01/2009 8:08 AM
As the anon that originally brought up the 'Jews' question, a brief explanation: it's the tacking on of the "neo" that I find questionable...literally.
In other words, I question in every instance why anyone would use "neo" in conjunction with the word "conservatives." If they're not thinking when they use it, I'll be more than happy to point it out, as it does change the meaning of the word.
It's not a 'Jews' issue, per se -- I only brought that up to point out that said-user of the 'neo...' word was being effectively illiterate by way of using the 'neo' preposition without realizing how it could be (im)properly interpreted...or not.
10/01/2009 8:29 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
10/01/2009 7:05 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
10/01/2009 7:59 PM
If these posts are indicative of the numbers of the submariner community who were/are naive enough to have partaken of the BO Kool-Aid, I certainly see how BO was elected.
10/02/2009 5:31 AM
All of these references to Mulligan are troubling. Don't you people realize that by mentioning his name, he could be drawn to this website? Clearly, someone hasn't watched Beetlejuice enough times.
10/02/2009 7:21 AM
I just wont be easily drawed in to these comments just because somebody slanders my name. Anyway Im too busy these days having intemate with my older sister. Ill come back once my sister is done.
Mike Mulligan
10/02/2009 10:50 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
10/02/2009 11:05 AM
I will get to the heart of the issue with Iran, cause you guys are still wearing your panties. It seems nobody wants to understand what really happened in Iraq...60 to 70% of our Iraq casualties came from Iran munitions and explosive expertise. Seems nobody wanted to confront what Iran was doing to our troops on the ground...the "I see nothing defence"...so we allowed them to hack and slash our troops with IED’s. This issue with nuclear materials, we are trying to undermine Iran because we are still trying to hold them accountable to all our deaths. We don’t want them to get off scot free.
The implications are staggering, a future so call hidden combatant has been given permission hack and slash our troops, because we believe in the real politics that it is better to make hamburger over a small percentage of our troops...than to confront those who are intentionally inflecting casualties to our troop from outside the country. The aims of this strategy has always been with Iran maintaining a heavy influence over Iraq.
They are playing the same game with what our enemies have learned from Iraq with Afghanistan. You can maul the Americans because they will give you plenty of warning, they might even pay you off politically...before they widen the war for those who are importing weapons, material and expertise into our war zone. There is absolutely no discipline where our enemies are prevented from importing munitions into our war zone...we believe in a war zone with porous borders. That is what is happening in Pakistan and Iran today...they are trying to exhaust us, all it is going to take is one lost and our credibility is sunk...we set in motion the idea that you can export into our war zone military materials, and we will never expand the war zone no matter how much American hamburger is made.
They are just playing politics with our causalities as in Viet Nam. You can make the case that the Bush administration lost so much political credibility with the start of the Iraqi war and weapons of mass distructions and lies...we lost so much credibility in the world’s eyes...that Bush couldn’t risk defending our causalities caused by the provocations of Iran becuase the war was so politically mismanaged.
And the outcome of all of the above is a fully democrat govermnment. The democrat's might yet have to clean up the mess of the republicans?
10/02/2009 5:18 PM
Sigh
...You had to poke the troll, SSN CO!
If anyone is a twit, you are!
10/02/2009 5:24 PM
SSN CO is correct - it's a shame to have the blog hijacked into the same tiresome back and forth around partisan politics. We can get that drivel in the comment areas of newspaper websites if we want. It sucks to see it here. PHW - you are a twit.
10/03/2009 9:39 AM
Hi Mark,
Joel posts topics around submarines and politics. This particular topic combines both, but I really try not to inject politics on submarine topics, and vice versa.
In any event I post on Joel's topics and I try not to go beyond it, so I am hardly hijacking anything. To the extent that my politics disagree with yours and seem partisan, well what can I say. I guess that makes me a twit. I call it as I see it.
If you don't like it, send a note to Joel. He knows who I am and how to get in touch with me. If he tells me I am out of line, well then I will apologize to all and go away. Pretty simple stuff.
You can also send me an email and gripe, if you like. My profile contains my email address. Or put up more posts telling me what you think-- just like the one you just sent. I won't necessarily respond, but I will read it and listen. If it is silly insults, well generally I am not going to trade insults. If it makes sense to me, I will adjust my thinking.
10/03/2009 10:38 AM
Oh yes,
In the future I will be a little more careful posting on topics that appear talk about both submarines and politics. Perhaps that's the source of some of the outrage here.
10/03/2009 10:54 AM
I'm going to get a beer now that I just read mulligan's post and completely agree with him. Wow.
10/03/2009 6:15 PM
don't worry - its go to be someone sane PRETENDING to be Mulligan. Right?
10/03/2009 9:27 PM
Dammit Mulligan, Git back in your cage. Don't make me get the whippin' strap and the fire hose! You ain't gonna be none too happy in the morning.
10/03/2009 10:19 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?ref=world
Eight U.S. Soldiers Dead in Bold Attack in Afghanistan
By SABRINA TAVERNISE and SANGAR RAHIMI
Published: October 4, 2009
Excerpts:
But Mr. Badar believes that would be a mistake. Too few troops in the area and clumsy airstrikes have created a poisonous mix for his province, whose proximity to the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan allows easy passage for the Taliban.
“We knew the Taliban was getting stronger every day in eastern Nuristan,” he said, describing how teachers and civil servants in the area had received threats and can no longer travel to the central parts of the province.
10/04/2009 7:23 AM
Liza, Liza, Liza... Wow.
Wow.
10/04/2009 9:17 AM
So, did anyone see last nights episode of Desperate Housewives?
10/05/2009 4:40 AM
This is why outright banning people is such a dicey thing. However rarely, Mulligan is indeed 100% on the money in this case.
Ask any grunt who's deployed to Iraq about Iran's deadly influence on our troops, and it all comes spilling out. At the same time, they'll otherwise (when unasked) tend to treat it as classified information -- and I somehow doubt that this is their idea.
This whole 'hide the Iranians' game is bullshit, except for the fact that the U.S. clearly does not want to take on Iran publicly. However, IMHO, our unwillingness to do so has been a strong motivator for them to pursue nuclear weapons capabilities such as they have been. Where's the downside, from their perspective?
You should air this issue out more, Joel. I'm guessing that even IA submariners know quite well just how much 'American hamburger' (as Mulligan insensitively puts it) has been made by the Iranians.
10/06/2009 12:04 PM
nice posting..............
Bathmate
12/31/2009 2:57 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home