Some Context:

Does the left know how old their arguments are?  They must have developed their world view from this easy to follow script:

From Utopia, by Thomas More
UTOPIA
BOOK ONE

    "These Achorians once made war in their king's quarrel to get him another kingdom, which he laid claim unto, and proclaimed himself rightful heir to the crown thereof, by the title of an old alliance. At last, when they had gotten it, they saw that they had quite as much vexation and trouble in keeping it as they had in getting it, and that either their new conquered subjects on sundry pretexts were making daily insurrections to rebel against, or else that other countries were continually with divers inroads and foragings invading them, and never could break up their camps. They saw themselves in the meantime despoiled and impoverished, their money carried out of the realm, their own men killed to maintain the glory of another nation. When they had no war, peace was no better than war, because their people in war had inured themselves to corrupt and wicked manners and had delight and pleasure in robbing and stealing. Through manslaughter they had gathered boldness for mischief, their laws were held in contempt, and nothing esteemed or regarded. Their king, being troubled with the charge and governance of two kingdoms, could not nor was able perfectly to discharge his office towards them both. Seeing again that all these evils and troubles were endless, they at last laid their heads together, and like faithful and loving subjects gave to their king free choice and liberty to keep whichever of these two kingdoms he would, alleging that he could not keep both, and that they were more than could well be governed by a king. For no man would be content to take him for his muleteer who kept another man's mules besides his. So this good prince was compelled to be content with his old kingdom and to surrender the new to one of his friends, who shortly after was violently driven out.

    "If, furthermore, I should declare unto them that all this busy preparation for war, whereby many nations for his sake would be brought into a troublesome hurly-burly, all his coffers emptied, his treasures wasted, and his people destroyed, should at length through some mischance turn out to be vain and ineffectual; and that therefore it were best for him to content himself with his own kingdom of France, as his forefathers and predecessors did before him; to make much of it, to enrich it, and to make it as flourishing as he could; to exert himself to love his subjects, and again to be beloved of them, willingly to live with them, peaceably to govern them, and not to meddle with other kingdoms, seeing that which he has already is even enough for him, yea, and more than he can well turn his attention to: this my advice, Master More, how think you it would be heard and taken?"

    "So God help me, not very thankfully," quoth I.

    "Well, let us proceed then," quoth he. "Suppose that some king and his council were together whetting their wits and devising what subtle craft they might invent to enrich the king with great treasures of money.

    First one counsels to raise and enhance the valuation of money when the king must pay any; and again to reduce the value of coin to less than it is worth when he must receive or collect any. For thus great sums shall be paid with little money, and where little is due much shall be received. 

    Another advises to make a feint at waging war, so that when under the color and pretense the king has gathered great abundance of money, he may, when it shall please him, make peace with great solemnity and holy ceremonies, to blind the eyes of the poor commonalty, as if he were taking pity and compassion, God wot, upon man's blood, like a loving and merciful prince.

    Another puts the king in remembrance of certain old moth-eaten laws, that for a long time have not been put in execution, which, because no man can remember that they were made, every man has transgressed. He counsels the king to exact fines for breaking these laws, for there is no way so profitable or more honorable than that which has a show and color of justice.

    Another advises him to forbid many things under great penalties and fines, specially such things as it is for the people's profit not to have practiced, and afterward to compensate with money those who by this prohibition sustain loss and damage. For by this means the favor of the people is won, and profit arises two ways: first by taking forfeits from them whom covetousness of gain has brought in danger under this statute, and, again, by selling privileges and licenses, which the better the prince is, forsooth the dearer he sells them, as one who is loath to grant to any private person anything that is against the profit of his people. And therefore he may sell none but at an exceedingly dear price.

    "Another gives the king counsel to bring under his jurisdiction the judges of the realm, that he may have them ever on his side, and they must in every matter dispute and reason for the king's right. And they must be called into the king's palace and be told to argue and discuss his matters in his own presence. So there shall be no case of his so openly and wrongly unjust, but that one or other of them, either because he will have something to allege and object, or because he is ashamed to say that which is said already, or else in order to seek favor with his prince, will not find some hole open to set a snare in, wherewith to trip up the other side. Thus while the judges cannot agree among themselves, reasoning and arguing of that which is plain enough, and bringing the manifest truth into doubt, meantime the king may seize the occasion to understand the law that shall most make for his advantage, unto which all others for shame or for fear will agree. Then the judges may be bold to pronounce for the king's side. For he that gives sentence for the king cannot be without a good excuse. For it shall be sufficient for him to have equity on his side, or the bare words of the law, or a twisted and distorted understanding of the same, or else (that which with good and just judges is of greater force than all the laws) the king's indisputable prerogative.

    "To conclude, all the councilors agree and consent together with the rich Crassus that no abundance of gold can be sufficient for a prince, who must keep and maintain an army; furthermore that a king, even though he would, can do nothing unjustly. For all that all men have, yea also the men themselves are all his. And every man has as much of his own, as the king's gentleness has not taken from him. And it shall be most for the king's advantage that his subjects have very little or nothing in their possession, for his safeguard consists in this, that his people do not wax wanton and wealthy through riches and liberty, because where these things are, there men are not accustomed patiently to obey hard, unjust, and unlawful commandments..."

If you cut and paste, More fits right over the leftist view of reality.

A Response....

From those that hold the line, standing in the face of those that pervert the truth of history,  against those that would achieve their political ends by perverting reality. 

A posting from one who will not be fooled:

November 19, 2007 at 12:13 pm (POLITICS)

The Jayson Blair Times has an article today by Paul Krugman entitled “Republicans and Race.” I will not be providing the link because nothing positive has ever been gleamed from anything written by any of the race baiting left wing bullies that work at the JBT. Krugman tries to show why Ronald Reagan is a racist, and then concludes his monstrosity of an article by saying that “we should be able to discuss the role of race in American politics honestly.”

From: The Tygrrrr Express at www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com

Spies in the Justice Department;
Cash In The Political campaign

"This isn’t like lying about your age to join the Navy in December 1941.”


Nada Prouty, 37, admitted last week she faked her first marriage to a Michigan man in 1990, enabling her to get US citizenship that helped her secure jobs with the FBI and CIA.  She also confessed to sneaking into government databases for secret information on her sister and brother-in-law, both linked to the Middle East terror group Hezbollah.

A spy, she joined the FBI during the Clinton administration in 1999.  She became a U.S. citizen by hiring an American to marry her.  “That can’t be glossed over,” said John Sennett, a retired agent and former president of the FBI Agents Association. “To get into the FBI under false pretenses is inexcusable".

But to Clinton era CIA veterans, where Prouty was recruited, painted her as a covert operations officer, a talented spy merely fudgeing the truth to win her citizenship.  In the wake of Nada Nadim Prouty’s guilty plea to lying her way into U.S. citizenship and sensitive FBI and CIA jobs, operatives of both agencies disagree.

For many in the buttoned-down FBI, a fellow special agent tarnished the bureau’s image and betrayed them by living the lie that she was a law-abiding naturalized citizen from Lebanon.

Gordon Prouty, her husband, was a foreign service officer under Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In 1999, he transferred to Islamabad, Pakistan, a State Department document shows.  Her third hubby, Gordon Prouty, 40, now works for the State Department in Washington, a spokesman confirmed night. He had been stationed at American embassies in Egypt and Pakistan.

This raises an important question: If Bill and Hillary really are two of the smartest people to ever walk the face of the planet as virtually all media members avow, how do they keep getting duped by people with legal problems?

The media has for seven years ignored, for the most part, Hillary's taped phone calls with convicted felon Peter F. Paul.  Calls taped during her 2000 senatorial campaign, provide clear proof of her involvement in Paul's endevors.  And revelations concerning Norman Hsu, the fugitive from justice continue to be "not" the talk of the town

There's yet another scandal involving the front-runner for the Democrat presidential nomination. Which, with the help of the compliant MSM, will be swept under the rug.  There to join the massive pile of corpses from other scandals.

Sant S. Chatwal, an Indian American businessman, the founder of the Bombay Palace restaurant chain, even as he battled to escape bankruptcy, managed to raise record amounts for Clinton.  One could ask if any of this money would have otherwise gone to settle tax liens?

Regardless, somehow this is the third known individual in seven years to be able to contribute to Mrs. Clinton despite serious legal troubles: Chatwal is one of a growing number of fundraisers in the 2008 presidential campaign whose backgrounds have prompted questions about how much screening the candidates devote to their "bundlers"

Warnings were raised, and ignored, about Hillary Clinton's fundraising operation. Chatwal recently said he plans to help raise $5 million from Indian Americans for Clinton's presidential bid.  Yet none of the legal and financial woes, occasionally touched on in American or Indian newspapers or highlighted by political opponents, generated any interest in the Clinton campaign.

Phil Singer said that major fundraisers are routinely vetted "through publicly available records."  Asked whether anything in Chatwal's background caused concerns about his activities on behalf of the campaign, he answered, "No."  Regardless he has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.

This pattern of unquestioned corruption, is aggravated by the Clintons inability to learn from past exposure.  The MSM that has hounded Republicans from office for verbal faux pause, enables the Clinton attack machine to reduce to ruble those who dare to recount the following history:  

Bernard Schwartz, a leading Democratic Party donor, received a Clinton approved a waiver that allowed Loral Space and Communications to export "national security" sensitive information.  

Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung has told Justice investigators that he passed on to the Democratic Party more than $100,000 from Liu Chao Ying, an official of a Chinese aerospace company who is also an officer in the Chinese army and the daughter of a top official in the Beijing regime."How did it come about that highly sensitive technical information was given to the Chinese? Why did the president ignore the national security experts who counseled against this deal? What damage has been done to our national security?" Rep. Porter Goss R-Fla asked.

"We know that Chinese officials chose to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 1996 re-election of the Clinton administration. What we don't know is what they expected to gain from that investment," Goss said.

The Justice Department was investigating whether political contributions, from either the Chinese government or American business interests, influenced the administration's China policies.
"You have a lot of troubling questions ... You have some significant policy matters being determined in the midst of some very questionable activity".  Sen. Fred Thompson has said.

At the time Attorney General Janet Reno, deflected probing questions from the frustrated Republican members of the Senate Judiciary committee.   The Democrats confused, obfuscated and obstructed the investigation into 1996 campaign finance abuses.

A House committee voted to hold Attorney General Janet Reno in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over Justice Department memos subpoenaed in a dispute over her failure to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the Clintons.

Vice President Gore lied to Justice Department officials looking into the campaign finance scandal.  We all remember the "no controlling legal authority", claim that made the nation laugh.

Attorney General Janet Reno took steps toward seeking to investigate Harold Ickes, over alleged favors to enlist support from the Teamsters union.

Former Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung told a congressional committee that he received $300,000 from a Chinese general interested in influencing the 1996 presidential election.  He was not to be prosecuted in connection with his fund-raising, this will eliminate testimony in open court. 

Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie entered into a plea agreement, telling all, in an investigation of improper campaign contributions originating in China.

Tennessee financier Franklin L. Haney, a longtime friend of Vice President Gore's family, was charged with 42 counts accusing him of violating campaign contribution laws.

Twenty-two people were eventually convicted for fraud or for funneling Asian funds into the United States elections. A number of the convictions came against longtime Clinton-Gore friends and political appointees.

Intelligence information has shown the PRC Embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC, this violates United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to politicians and political parties.  The erecting of the "wall" between Intelligence and law enforcement was beneficial to the Clintons and the DNC.

Those who complain about the flow of U.S. currency to China, hardly ever mention this type of back flow.  We have the worst politicians in the world, but everyone wants to buy a few.



Source: http://michellemalkin.com/

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    WASHINGTON — Energy Department officials acknowledged

Thursday that they withheld information on an alleged Chinese

spying case from a House subcommittee last fall.

    A department intelligence officer said he was told by

the deputy energy secretary not to talk about the case, a charge

the senior agency, official denied.

    "We are very upset," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.,

chairman of the House Armed Services military procurement

subcommittee. He said the two officials, testifying under oath

in a closed session in October, dodged specific questions about

spying activities at the department's national weapons

laboratories.

    "I apologize," said Notra Trulock, the agency's special

adviser for intelligence.

    He said he acted at the behest of former Deputy

Secretary Elizabeth Moler, who also testified at the hearing,

when he didn't discuss the investigation into possible Chinese

espionage at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

    Trulock said Moler also edited written testimony he had

prepared for the hearing to delete references; to

counterintelligence operations.

    Moler denied editing the testimony and said she only

told Trulock to limit his comments to the subject of the

national labs' foreign visitor program.

    She said former Secretary Federico Pena had decided

at the time that because of the particularly sensitive nature of

the case, briefings to Congress should be limited to the House

and Senate intelligence committees. She said that was a common practice and that she had told Trulock to follow that policy.

    "With the benefit of hindsight, we should have been more responsive," she said,

    It was the second time this week that Trulock and Moler presented conflicting views before a congressional committee.

    Monday, Trulock told the Senate Armed Services Committee that in July 1998, Moler prevented him from briefing the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on the Los Alamos case on grounds that the committee was out to harm the administration's China policy.

    Moler strongly denied that she had blocked the briefing or was trying to cover up the case to protect the administration. "Those accusations are false," she repeated Thursday.

JAMES writes: Wednesday, November, 14, 2007 11:05 PM
From your blog: leolove7585.townhall.com
"ALTERNATIVE ENERGY" FAKERY
Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:57 PM

Try to see what cannot be seen and the rest of the mystery will then come into the clear.

Imagine a Sheik Moham bin Moola Moola whose primary social-financial-economic-political interest is OIL-OIL-OIL and the best thing possible for this creep-sheik is the US to remain desperately dependent on acquiring its oil needs for foreign sources.

My response:

Imagine you live in a country that has limited economic prospects. You want to feed your family, shelter them, provide an education and be left to live your life as you would leave others to live theirs.

Imagine mad men want to control your life and are fighting to control your countries relationship with the outside world.

Imagine the last best hope for world wants to find a way to ignore your suffering. The people who have sacrificed to liberate millions of people declare your cause to expensive. Your plight hopeless, your cause lost and the task of saving you too hard.

Imagine a segment of the society that is your only hope of salvation has an excuse. "Oil" is the only reason anyone could care about "you".
The few who can't see the desperation in your eyes because of the "oil" in their own, demand demand you be sacrificed.

Imagine you are ignored to death by the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world. Imagine

Stupid Does Not Explain It!

The date is November 14th, 2007, but the  demonicRAT party,  on the curse of the airwaves, c-span, has placed a long train of persons suited for a rubber room and straight jacket.

The house is on fire and a pyromaniac is in charge of the podium.

I wish I were better able to articulate myself.

Defeat leaks from the demonicRAT party like stink from a pig!.  

How often have I said a silent prayer, "I hope I am wrong", "I hope the demonicRAT party will see the light and at least shut-up, but I know they won't"

Lynn Woolsey 6th dist Ca Retard

Defeat leaks from the demonicRAT party, like stink from a pig.

I' so afraid

"The U.S. can't do a damn thing to us." And the deputy head of Iran's National Security Council, Mohammad Jafari, tells FRONTLINE in his first-ever television interview:  "You will not find a single instance in which a country has inflicted harm on us and we have left it without a response. So if the United States makes such a mistake, they should know that we will definitely respond. And we don't make idle threats."

A “single instance”, of course he’s right, you will not find a single instance.

The Iran Ajar, five dead, one mine layer taken.

Four U.S. destroyers fired over one thousand rounds of 5-in. shells into Iran's Rashadat oil-loading platforms in the Persian Gulf.  Put a clock on this to wonder why no Iranian forces came out to defend their platforms.

Near the Strait of Hormuz, two Iranian frigates and several gunboats were sunk by American warships and aircraft from the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.

Two SM-2 surface-to-air missiles hit the Iran Air Flight 655.

President Reagan ordered a retaliatory strike against two Iranian oil platforms in the southern gulf that served as bases for Iran's intelligence service. While one platform was shelled by the frigates Simpson and Bagley, Marines helicoptered to the second, seized it, planted explosive charges, and destroyed it. A few minutes later, the Simpson sank an Iranian patrol boat that had fired a missile at the USS Wainwright.

The MSM reports:

"Military officials said they worry that Musharraf's imposition of emergency rule is

weakening, not strengthening, his ability to conduct military operations in the tribal

areas, in part by directing troops toward a crackdown on domestic protests."

But:

Increased pressure from Pakistan and the combination of Musharref and Bhutto have increased

the “fractionalization” of the terrorist organization. By distancing himself from “Anti

Coalition Militia”, Hekmatyar and the HiG are also distancing themselves from the Taliban.

As the various organizations effectiveness comes into question, both the Taliban and the

HiG are valiantly attempting to “save the burning bridges” that would allow it to re-unite

with the increasingly effective and successful Islamic Republic of Afghanistan government,

led by President Hamid Karzai.

Link to LA Times provided by slate
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-tightrope11nov11,1,190085.story?

amp;ctrack=1&coll=la-headlines-frontpage&cset=true&ctrack=1&cset=true

But even as activists across Pakistan vow to step up their defiance of de facto martial

law, many of those arrayed against Musharraf are beginning to believe he may just survive

this crisis, at least in the short term.

From the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/10/AR2007111000265.html?

wpisrc=newsletter

"Pervez Musharraf as an ally in the battle against Islamic extremists a week after the

Pakistani president declared emergency rule and began a crackdown on human rights

activists, lawyers and journalists....Yet, he has also dismissed many of the country's

judges, curbed the news media, rounded up opposition figures and generally sought to smash

elements of Pakistan's civil society."

What the MSM does not explain is how "not strengthening" is related to Musharraf's

"imposition of emergency rule", or why he's closing the courts.

Clue 1:

Bush noted that several senior al-Qaeda leaders "have been brought to justice" and that

"that would not have happened without President Musharraf honoring his word."

Clue 2:

Pakistan has deployed more than 100,000 troops along its Afghan border to combat terrorists

in the region and captured and eliminated hundreds of terrorists since 2001 US war in

Afghanistan.

Clue 3: Is a Question

Did the Paks go it alone?

Clue 4:

ISLAMABAD, Nov 7 (APP):Emergency has been imposed in the country for a limited period to

cope with the increased terrorism activities as extra powers were imperative to eliminate

the menace, Attorney General of Pakistan Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum said

Wednesday.Talking to PTV, he said terrorists are enjoying the same fundamental rights as

enjoyed by layman.The need was to do something to ensure elimination of terrorism.....
Emergency was necessary because Supreme Court was acting beyond its jurisdiction. Suo moto

action is the right of SC only to protect fundamental rights."


Clue 5:

03 November 2007

Gulbaddin Hekmatyar and the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbaddin Flee the Sinking Al Qaeda/Taliban Ship

The Wolas Hila Weekly quoted Gulbaddin Hekmatyar when he stated he, and his organization

Hezb-e-Islami Gulbaddin, “have no relationship with Anti Coalition Militia” and vehemently

denied any relationship with Al Qaeda. Already recognized as ineffective and broken in

Iraq, Al Qaeda is beginning to suffer the same problems in Afghanistan.

Clue 6:

04 November 2007

Taliban Continue to Crumble, Islamic Republic Continues to Gain. Whether they are Afghan

citizens or reformed insurgents trying to get on the bandwagon, the immediate result is the

same. Afghan citizens come to Coalition and Afghan National Security Forces to report

locations of IEDs, mortar, rocket and weapon caches with increasing frequency. The mortar

and rocket rounds turned in on the 2nd of November alone, could have supplied the Taliban

for a winter month. Normally secretive insurgents don’t reveal the location of their

ammunition supply and quite often have guards set in ambush locations to watch them. Those

collected on the 2nd were collected without opposition, suggesting it may have been Taliban

insurgents, changing sides as evidence of their imminent collapse mounts.

My Kingdom for a Dictionary!

It is sad to lose a kingdom for want of a horse, but sadder to gain one based on the want of a dictionary.
http://www.onelook.com/

 

hy·poc·risy (hi päk'r? se)

noun

a pretending to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel; esp., a pretense of virtue, piety, etc.

From Wikipedia:
Hypocrisy is the act of condemning or calling for the condemnation of another person when the critic is guilty of the act for which he demands that the accused be condemned. Though hypocrisy is frequently invoked as an accusation in debates, a few theorists have studied the utility of hypocrisy, and in some cases have suggested that the conflicts manifested as hypocrisy are a necessary or even beneficial part of human behavior and society

An editorial by E. J. Dionne Jr., in the Washington Post published Friday, October 12, 2007; Page A17

"Conservatives claim to be in favor of stable families, small businesses, hard work, private schools, investment and homeownership. So why in the world are so many on the right attacking the family of Graeme Frost?"

It appears that the honorable Mr. Dionne has heard that Conservative Republicans believe that "stable families" are brought about by government subsidies for health care.  That people who are under insured should be bailed out by the government in order not to lose their home or other asets.

If you read the rest of his article, you discover he has not informed his headline writer that he does not want to call people meanies or hypocrites.  Aside from the infantilism of calling people "meanies", he displays a child like disconnect from reality.  The Cult of Death, Cult of Fear has long been criticized for using "perfected" victims.  If any victim is beyond attack, then I claim the status of "victim of overtaxregulationgovernmentintrusionmindnumbingleftistdiatribe mentalism".  I am therefore beyond any assault by those who disagree with me.
  

"So rather than just condemn the right-wingers as meanies, let's take their claims seriously. Doing so makes clear that they are engaged in a perverse and incoherent form of class warfare" says Mr. Dionne.  Proof that he really does know the meaning of hypocrisy!   So, there really is no excuse that his list of the things that republicans support are equal to this issue.  He knows better and is a hypocrite for calling out the sins of others from his own bed of sin.

Or Snipe From The Rear

Ex-General Sanchez Faults Iraq War Strategy
'No End in Sight,' Says Sanchez

"There has been a glaring unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders."  Apparently not happy with his reputation for lack of leadership in the Abu Ghraib scandal, General Sanchez hopes to earn a reputation as a sniper by firing warning shots.  Unaware, or not, that every critical word is immediately amplified by the MSM, he lays ground work for a best selling novel.  "Why I Agree With Everything Already Said", sure to be a best seller on discount racks near you.

"The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat," Sanchez said.  The best question that I can think of is, "how flawed can an approach be if it staves off defeat?"  We, the armed forces of this nation have never, and will never lose a war.  With apologies to General Patton.  I read an article, subject, "Top Military Leaders of WWII", my observation is that if you must have "Top Leaders", they must be accompanied by less capable leaders. 

The politicians have lost a war, and tried to, many times.    "Without bipartisan cooperation, we are destined to fail. There is nothing going on in Washington that would give us hope", well Gen Sanchez, lets turn off the lights and go home.  The politicians who are deeply involved in the "Lets lose the War" industry appreciate your chiming in.  Having already said "the best we can do is.....stave of defeat", Gen Sanchez switches gears to "destined to fail".  That is what I like in a leader, flexibility.
   
The Washington Post reports "But Sanchez offered little advice about fixing military problems in Iraq, instead saying that current efforts generally need more resources and skill".  The question here is who got duped?  The Post for reporting on Gen Sanchez, or congress for giving this man three stars.  The Peter Principle says a person rises to their level of incompetency, well peeling potatoes is not a three star job.
 
"Some officials thought the anti-U.S. attacks would fade away after Saddam Hussein was captured", according to the Post.  It is not really important who "Some officials" are, but they should hang their head in shame.  If they had information that the democrat party was going to reduce their anti-U.S. attacks, it was faulty.  I hope these are not the same people in the intelligence community who fail us so often.  I hope they are not the government office holders that fail us so often.  Our only hope is that they were interviewed at a softball game, which was their last post officiating.
 
Josh White a Washington Post Staff writer says "Sanchez declined to say whether he thinks he was scapegoated by the Army over Abu Ghraib and refused to name senior leaders he believes failed at developing war strategy".  What Josh fails to understand is that a person who does the honorable thing and retire can change their mind. When Gen Sanchez says "more to come", you know he desires to stay in the lime light for as long as his skills as a sniper hold out.

Mike Burleson: Waiting for the Navy's Petraeus
"I would dearly love to see a Navy admiral with the courage to stand up to the status quo, as America's new commander in Iraq General David Petraeus has done for the Army, to answer the challenges of modern war at sea..."

No Admiral in the United States Navy is willing to buck the junior enlisted members.  Those who are willing to live in the real world.  You call for making a metal container that keeps sailors dry obsolete.  I can tell you that even if sailors like to swim, they will not go on all swim WestPac's, Med cruises and the North Atlantic is way too cold.

Unfortunately, advancements in active and passive sonar, Helo ASW platforms and actively homing torpedoes have made them more vulnerable.  The good news for "pig boats" is that they will be obsolete the day after surface shipping is obsolete.

Another unfortunate truth in the real world is that air power has become the determining factor in the outcome of major engagements.  That means that aircraft carriers are decades from being obsolete.  Amphibious assaults need air cover, SAG's (Surface Action Groups) need air cover.  Even the lowly jarhead on the beach needs air cover.  Anything less than the most powerful CAG (Carrier Air Group) will not do the job.  Having served on three Super Carriers (USS Constellation CV-64, USS Enterprise CVN-65, USS Ranger CV-61) leaves me cold at the thought that concern for money will cost us control of the worlds major sea lanes.

You need not be concerned that Iran or North Korea will employ an effective submarine force as a tool to deny access to commerce via the sea.  Recent history has shown that any nation with anti-ship missiles can endanger ships at sea and the commerce they engage in.

During my tour aboard the USS Henry B. Wilson (DDG-7) and the USS Fletcher (DD-992), we detected and engaged the most advanced submarines in the world (ours),  well out side the range of any conventional ability of theirs to attack us. 

Judging from the tenor of your article, your response not doubt will be, well then we couldn't attack them.  I say that since in your article you failed to mention ASW Helo's and ASROC systems. 

By the way, an aircraft carrier is a metal bowl to land air craft on.  It is the systems to project power that become obsolete.  I know, the only ship I ever served on less than twenty years old was the Fletcher.

What Is A Total Idiot?

Many people wonder what the meaning of IS is.  IS is the formula "Ignorance plus Stupidity" when determining the mental competence of an individual.  The maximum point total for each category is 50.  When a person receives a score of 100, they are considered a "Total Idiot".  People can receive a score of 51/50 and be declared crazy.

My Oath:  To support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic and to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed above me.

My Creed:  I am a member of the forces that guard my country, I shall make no statement disloyal to my country nor harmful to our allies or our cause.

My Tradition:  I, I, Sir . (I understand and I will obey)

It is easy to be an idiot:

It is easy to talk about no bid contracts and not give a list of the qualified contractors.

It is easy to talk about no military solution and not enough military force being used.

It is easy to talk about accountability and not mention the real rules that are followed.

It is easy to talk about accountability when your party is not held accountable.

It Is easy to talk about the aggressiveness of others when you are not being shot at.

It is easy to talk about withdrawal when you will not be abandoned to savages.

It is easy to talk about undermining our mission and undermine our mission by talking.

It is easy to talk about actions when you are immune from consequences.

It is easy to talk about cost when you spend like a drunken sailor who has picked anothers pocket.

It is easy to talk about losing when you have nothing to lose and every thing to gain.

It is easy to talk about no negotiations when actual negotiation would be and should be secret.

It is easy to talk about the actions of others when your actions should be under review.

It is easy to talk about cowboys when you ignore the existence of indians.

It is easy to talk about the number of people who die when you don't value the cause for which they die.

It is easy to talk about shooting first when it's not your head that the bullet must whiz past.

It is easy to talk about a living constitution when it's your goal to kill the one that exists.

It is easy to talk about cover ups from the cover of the MSM.

It is easy to talk about throwing mud from your endless supply of mud.

It is easy to talk about what horribly unavoidable with feigned indignation and demands for perfection implied.

It is easy to talk about liars when you know and follow the rules for lies.