Skip to comments.USS George H.W. Bush Hosts Namesake
Posted on 07/15/2010 7:53:03 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), the Navy's 10th and final Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, received a visit from its namesake, former President George H.W. Bush and former First Lady Barbara Bush, while underway July 14.
Bush and Barbara were escorted on board by Adm. J.C. Harvey, commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command.
During his two-day visit to the aircraft carrier, Bush toured the ship, observing day-to-day operations and spending time with the crew, as well as taking part in a reenlistment ceremony for nearly 60 Sailors, which he said was an honor.
"I am proud of every man and woman on this ship," said Bush. "I was honored to be able to reenlist those who are ready to serve again. I am very emotional about service to country, particularly the Navy. I am very proud of the Navy and extremely proud of this ship. That this ship is named after me knows no bound in terms of my emotion and my pleasure and the honor that I feel."
Commanding Officer Capt. Chip Miller expressed what a huge privilege and inspiration it was to host two individuals who devoted their lives to selfless service.
"What an honor it is to have our special guests on board to see freedom at work first hand," said Miller. "We are so grateful to have them join us at sea to see what we do and how we do our part to defend freedom."
Barbara pointed out how much the aircraft carrier and its crew meant to her and her husband.
"This ship is probably the greatest honor that George Bush ever had given to him," said Barbara. "He and I pray for this crew every single night of our lives.
(Excerpt) Read more at navy.mil ...
I wonder how much the ship’s basic design has changed since 1975?
There are many legitamite detractions one can make regarding the Bush terms in office, but love of country and it’s military are not among them.
Under his leadership, the Gulf War was a success.
God bless the Bush family.
Then the Clintons got in and revised history and by the end of their term they had everyone blaming him for it. All because the Clintons didn't know what to do with Iraq so by the end of their term we had a disaster.
My comment actually applies to both Bushes. There are many grievances a FReeper can hold against both men. Today, Karl Rove admitted the admin erred in letting detractors of the Iraq War get the upper hand. At least one problem with both Bushes was that they ignored the seditious media.
However, it had always been clear that the Bush family has had deep appreciation for the sacrifices made by the US military.
Nevertheless, a controlled crash onto a postage-stamp sized hunk of steel steaming through 30-foot waves is a really dumb way to make a living. IMHO. ;-)
Didn’t see this on the nightly news.
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
Probably a lot.
I wonder about the powerplant, but I presume that’s so tippy-top secret there’s no point in wondering.
I’ve got absolutely no problem naming a carrier after GHWB. It’s a tiny bit creepy to name something so prominent after a President that is still living... but beyond that it’s a fitting tribute to a man who devoted his entire life to the service of his country.
However, sorry but George H Bush is a rally cruddy name for an aircraft carrier.
However, sorry but George H Bush is a really cruddy name for an aircraft carrier.
I’d argue that all US carriers should continue to be named after great American battles..... however, once the Congress started naming them for pols, I’m glad that there is a USS Reagan and a USS George W. Bush.
However, the idea of one of our great subs named for Jimmy Carter is a travesty, and when the ‘Rats push through a ship to be named for Bill Clinton and eventually for Barack Obama, what nausea will follow....
Much better to go back to naming carriers for Saratoga, Lexington, Yorktown, Midway, etc. The USS Independence was a great carrier name, too (my uncle flew A-4s from her for many years).
There doesn’t seem to be any hope for avoiding a USS Clinton and a USS Obozo in our future, though, with politicians in charge.
Principled disagreement. (The kind we specialize in here on FR.)
One, naming ships of war after living persons is untraditional and a no-no.
Furthermore, I'm tired of the trend toward naming capital ships after political nabobs who lived out their lives in DC, like Carl Vinson and Mr. Bush. This is just wrong on so many levels. I can see naming a carrier after someone who championed the Navy and was once a Secretary of the Navy: Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt (with big, black asterisks denotated "Pearl Harbor/Back Door to War"), and James Forrestal are all good examples. John Lehman is a candidate in waiting, for having rebuilt the Navy under President Reagan.
But George H.W. Bush built down both the Navy and carrier air, and he did it because his topsider, Yacht-Club-preppie friends wanted tax cuts. We saw how that worked out in the Persian Gulf: if Saddam had just waited 18 months or two years, we'd have been completely unable to respond if he'd grabbed the entire southern shore of the Persian Gulf and had himself an execution party with all the emirs and their principal ministers.
Dwight Eisenhower was a great American leader -- but he was Army, not Navy. Sorry, I can't get behind naming a carrier for him just because he was a Republican President.
Carl Vinson was the embodiment of a rotten, alienated, corrupted, and politically and intellectually decadent political culture that embarrasses every day the original intentions of the Framers and the People who sent the Framers to Philadelphia to build us a better Union. People like Carl Vinson need to be remembered with garbage scows and honey barges, not 90,000-ton CVA's.
I'd like to return to the naming conventions of World War II, which parsed internally and made sense.
I would not disagree with that. However, Republicans and conservatives need to come to grips with the tendency of GOP topsiders to want -- to demand on behalf of their penthouse-ridden, Old-Money-encrusted audience (using Jas. Q. Wilson political "technical term" here, "audience") -- that taxes be cut and the Army reduced to wooden guns and the Navy to few ships, fewer ships, and low steaming hours and lower ammunition budgets for training.
Remember what the U.S. military looked like in the 1920's and 1930's: That's what I'm talking about.