Posted on 04/16/2016 12:10:22 PM PDT by DeathBeforeDishonor1
A member of the House Armed Services Committee wants an explanation for why the next Arleigh-Burke class guided-missile destroyer will be named for a politician instead of a war hero. Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Republican from California and a Marine Corps veteran, sent a letter to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus Wednesday, asking him to explain his decision to name DDG-120 after former Sen. Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan, who retired last January after 36 years in office. The letter was first reported by Defense News. Hunter cited July 2012 Congressional Research Service report to Congress that showed that destroyers are traditionally named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard, including former secretaries of the Navy. The report, however, notes that exceptions to ship-naming rules can be made by the secretary of the Navy. "A secretary's discretion to make exceptions to ship-naming conventions is one of the Navy's oldest ship-naming traditions," the report found, noting that exceptions in order to name ships for presidents or lawmakers happened often enough to constitute a "special cross-type naming convention." "It is my firm belief that Senator Levin served this country honorably as a member of the United States Senate and was a strong advocate for our men and women in uniform," Hunter wrote. However, the congressman added, "it is important that the Navy adhere to its own ship naming rules and take every effort necessary to avoid politicization of this process." Other recent exceptions to the destroyer-naming tradition have included the Thomas Hudner (DDG-116), the Paul Ignatius (DDG-117), and the Daniel Inouye (DDG-118).
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
The USS Worthless?
Its Carl Leven so yeah...”USS Worthless”.
Then why does he think we called Sen. Carl Levin — Sen. Karl Lenin?
The USS Chris Kyle would have been the perfect name.
The POS in the WH must be dreaming of one day a USN ship in his name; “The USS LIAR, OBOZO”
Exceptions: Thomas Hudner and Paul Ignatius both served in the Navy. Daniel Inouye fought in World War II as part of the 442nd Infantry Regiment, a war hero. They were military, unlike Carl Levin who never served.
Naming a vessel after that dope should be a crime.
I agree, but why would the people who carefully arranged his murder name a ship after him?
Wait until they start naming stuff after Obama !!!
One of minor, but important degenerations of American traditions in the explanation for the current anger that permeates the nation.
No longer can it be assumed that elected persons are honorable, with a solid sense of history, honor, morals, character and ethics.
Just because something absurd was allowed once and, with time, increasing more often does not make it acceptable to the People.
Perhaps the time has come to question the practice, and remove the option for exceptions from the Secretary of the Navy. Clearly some of those appointments have been corrupt political actions which should not be allowed to stand.
Also, it perhaps time to consider correcting past mistakes, and renaming politically motivated military ships.
Also, perhaps a name should be compiled of the administrations which allowed the practice to flourish, the name of the SECNAV serving at the time, and the name of the politician(s) who enabled the corrupt practice.
I realize that there are more important issues to address, but this one is costless. Traditions are much more important than tolerating the culture of corruption and cronyism rampant in OUR country, specially, as it affects the military.
Ever wonder what or who created the existence of Donald Trump?
USS century link would be appropriate. 25% of the speed for full price. Maybe it will sink in trials or permanently break down. Could be an “accidental fire’ like McCain was involved on the Forestall.
Thomas Hudner and Daniel Inouye were both Medal of Honor winners.
Paragraphs are your friends.
Apr 14, 2016 | by Hope Hodge Seck
A member of the House Armed Services Committee wants an explanation for why the next Arleigh-Burke class guided-missile destroyer will be named for a politician instead of a war hero.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Republican from California and a Marine Corps veteran, sent a letter to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus Wednesday, asking him to explain his decision to name DDG-120 after former Sen. Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan, who retired last January after 36 years in office.
The letter was first reported by Defense News.
Hunter cited July 2012 Congressional Research Service report to Congress that showed that destroyers are traditionally named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard, including former secretaries of the Navy.
The report, however, notes that exceptions to ship-naming rules can be made by the secretary of the Navy.
“A secretary’s discretion to make exceptions to ship-naming conventions is one of the Navy’s oldest ship-naming traditions,” the report found, noting that exceptions in order to name ships for presidents or lawmakers happened often enough to constitute a “special cross-type naming convention.”
“It is my firm belief that Senator Levin served this country honorably as a member of the United States Senate and was a strong advocate for our men and women in uniform,” Hunter wrote.
However, the congressman added, “it is important that the Navy adhere to its own ship naming rules and take every effort necessary to avoid politicization of this process.”
Other recent exceptions to the destroyer-naming tradition have included the Thomas Hudner (DDG-116), the Paul Ignatius (DDG-117), and the Daniel Inouye (DDG-118).
Here are a few names that need to come back:
USS Saratoga
USS Wasp
USS Ticonderoga
USS Hornet
USS Yorktown
USS Lexington
USS Bunker Hill
USS Independence
USS America
USS Midway
USS Coral Sea
and many, many, many others. Ships that had pride, prestige and fight.
Naming a ship after a weasel is a non-starter for me. (spit).
I remain opposed to naming US Fleet units after politicians, living or dead.
I would have been willing to make exceptions for Washington and Lincoln, except that it was perfectly foreseeable that this would lead to the Ford, the Reagan, and the HW Bush, not to mention Carl Vinson and John C. Stennis.
And, once you concede Ford, Reagan, and HW Bush, you make the USS William J. Clinton and the USS Barack Hussein Obama inevitable. Once you concede Vinson and Stennis, you have to have the USS Charles Rangel and the USS Harry Reid.
We should have stuck with battles for aircraft carriers (or, given the fact that they replaced BBs as ships of the line, states).
I suppose it’s too late to do anything about this now, but it was wrong the first time, and it still is.
Kyle was the first guy I thought of that would be a far better choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.