Liz Cheney to back Romney

(CNN) — Liz Cheney, Vice President Cheney's daughter, plans to endorse Mitt Romney for president, three Republican sources familiar with the discussions tell CNN.

One of the sources says she will also serve as a senior adviser on foreign policy.

OK. I'll play. In an act of what some say was spite the discontinuation of the U.S. Navy's best ever built carrier based fighter. Not only did he end production he ended ANY possibility that if we needed future production it would even be possible. We lost about as many ships under Bush/ Sec of Def Cheney as we did Poppy. Better yet see for yourself. U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1917- 1989-1993 121 ships gone. 1993-2001 was 117 ships gone and six years of that was with a GOP majority sitting in both house thanks to ones such as John Warner who did nothing NOR HAS BUSH Jr/ Cheney now has they?.

Poppy/Sec of Def Cheney started us on an undermanned military course that even after a GOP majority in congress/senate and a two term GOP POTUS RINO we have yet to even begin to rebuild or recover from. We are at 1996 End Troop Strength Levels as well. Still want Cheney now?

The military downturn began under Poppy/Cheney. We lost a carrier thanks to poor maintenance funding of their era. I can back that one up as well. Poppy used cutting the military budget and maintenance for his 1000 points of Gerald Ford Liberalism.

1.) What carrier based fighter are you referring to?

The F-14 Tomcat. Great air frame still unmatched by it's replacement in overall preformance such as speed, payload, and radius capabilities. The replacement was an airframe downgrade. Lot's and lots could have been saved in both R&D and production start up cost etc by simply putting money into it's Avionics systems and weapons upgrades instead. It was the perfect mouse trap.

Have our current levels of ships affected our ability to project naval power, and if need be fight the ‘2-1/2 wars’ that strategic planners and thinkers talk about?

Yes. One good example was the USS COLE two days out from fleet. That added to a now complete dependence on the Suez to get into the PG and IO.

3.) As for the number of ships cut from 1989 to 2001, the decisions, right or wrong, were made by the Commanders-in-Chief at the time, i.e., Bush I and Clinton, not Dick Cheney.

Cheney had a lot to do it. So did POTUS. So did Senate Armed Services Committee. The GOP from 1989 on is every ounce as guilty in this fiasco as the DEMs including Slick Willie.

So what would YOU have done differently?

Kept two thirds of the Reagan military strengths for starters. Not ended production on current defense programs until a proven replacement {better} came along. Not put our national defense dependent upon other nations {F-15 grounding and 9/11 as well}. Sec of Def Rummy should have known month one what was functional and what wasn't IOW there should not have been the Kitty Hawk and KENNEDY issues discovered when Ooops they won't go. Of course Rummy was another Ford era mistake. He wasn't a good Sec of Def under Ford and caused a lot of issues even back then why did Bush think he would do better? I would put a man as smart and as wise as Cap Wienberger in as Sec of Defense. I would have insisted congress address National Defense as it's first primary Constitutional duty and not rebuilding Iraq with money our troops needed.

I’m impressed. You know your stuff.

I was always mystified by the decision to shut down the F-14 program, and for the life of me I don’t understand why we would keep older (and presumably less reliable) Minuteman III missles in the inventory while dismantling a newer and more powerful ICBM i.e., the LGM118A Peacekeeper aka the ‘MX’ as of the end of 2005.

The justification for such a bonehead move cannot be justified, as the Russians withdrew from START II in 2002 in a tit-for-tat response for the U.S. withdrawing from the absurd ABM treaty that should never have been negotiated in the first place.

I don’t share your view of Rumsfeld however, I think that history will vindicate him, especially since he was thrown under the bus by our illustrious Commander-in-Chief after the mid-term elections of 2006. But I fully agree with you that the Reagan/Weinberger perspective on defense policies was the best America could have hoped for.

Speaking of ‘America’, what are your views on the decommissioning and scuttling of CVA-66? Was that also a case of desposing of a carrier with useful life still in it?

I presume you have some personal experience with her? ;)

I went in the Navy in late 1976. Sec of Defense was Rummy. Don't take me wrong on this. I am not a Carter fan by any means as most of my enlistment was under him. But Carter was handed a royal mess too. I don't credit Carter for the improvements I saw before I got out in late 1980 but rather his Sec of Navy who took over in 1979. That man understood something Rummy did not. If you want men to act like sailors then treat them as such.

Naval tradition {Highly important to maintaining morale} was zilch in 1976. Edward Hidalgo I think his name was gave us back Bosuns whistles, crackerjack dress blues, and seriously and aggressively addressed retention. Up till then I saw 16 year lifers getting out.

The carrier I mentioned ran to the early grave was AMERICA CVA/CV-66. During Gulf War one and following she did three six month deployments in three years time. Two of them under Bush/Sec of Def Cheney. She should have headed into at least a year long overhaul at that point or better yet gotten S.hip L.ife E.xtension P.rogram. Her third and next to final deployment came under Clinton. However months before deploying she was in no shapes to go.

At one point no radar, unable to pump fuel, and two of six generators functional. I can't vouch for the fuel issues. But two of six generators meant no Air Conditioning which meant no electronics and I do know what I am saying on that issue. My job back in the 70's was working on air conditioning and refrigeration systems. Two of six generators would have made lighting off a more than one or two of her ten chillers an impossibility. She departed Norfolk August 1993 and returned March 1994. At the pier in Norfolk she had a major boiler room explosion which resulted in a Cold Iron Tow to Norfolk Ship yards. She was band-aided and sent on a final deployment. She was just over her half life expectancy at that point and was decommissioned.

America was the newest of the Kitty Hawks and second in age conventional carrier only to the Kennedy. Had she been treated right we would still have her and if the Kennedy had been treated right also we would have both about another decade. Maintenance means everything>

Which brings up another matter. Look at my bookmarks on Naval readiness. If Rummy and Bush ever read a paper they would have known things were royally screwed up before 9/11 hit. Kennedy had went through a botched overhaul intended to be S.L.E.P.

For shipyard repairs which is where these issues come from the crew from NCO-Captain must submit shipyard work request. This is generally done on the six month deployment so the yards can get things ready. The approvals must be signed by the Commanding Officer then are sent to fleet and Sec of Navy then Sec of Defense if it is a major cost. What I am saying is this. Two Navy Captains {Kennedy and Kitty Hawk} paid with their careers for incompetence occurring way above their pay-grade.

Speaking of ‘America’, what are your views on the decommissioning and scuttling of CVA-66? Was that also a case of desposing of a carrier with useful life still in it?

That was a gross waste of a fine ship and taxpayer money. She was savable till she was ran literally to death. I can understand two deployments but three? In three years? I've heard all the rumors and none add up. One was McNamara changed the order from nuke to conventional. Impossible to do once the keel is laid. Keel was laid while Ike was POTUS. I think the rumor got started because of a blueprint typo I remember seeing down in Central Control. The plumbing drawings had CVN-66 with a line though it. I remember it and so does a few others. But AMERICA was awarded conventional and keel laid under Ike. Next was a rumor of a thin hull. In 1960? Steel was cheap and the Navy had money to burn.

She was decommed in 1996 and sent to Philly. Over the course of time some crew members became organized and later took on a possibility of museum preservation. The Navy as well as some senators were less than honest about the issue. The word was no way. Next came the idea to sink her to gather data for the CVN78 class. Not what a lot of us wanted to hear but a noble fate though. So the idea of obtaining the namesake for that class came up. All along former crewmemebers had been writing letters making calls etc. In steps John Warner and puts forth a resolution to name it Ford. The same Warner who knew about Americas issues in 1994 as shown here Congressional Record 24 February 1994 Page: S1853

I read this article in about 1998 or so. I was mad then and I'm still angry now. It's not just the AMERICA. No ship should have been done like this and no crew exposed to such danger. Those boilers are 1200 PSI super heated steam systems. A leak the size of a #2 pencil lead can decapitate you. Here is an excerpt of what I was talking about.

The America needs constant attention. Commissioned in 1965, it is showing its age. A month before leaving Norfolk, a senior enlisted crew member complained to his congressman: The ship was operating on only two of its six electric generators, without radar and unable to pump fuel. This would be its third six-month cruise in three years, and without the standard 18 months at home for repairs, salt water and full steaming had taken their toll.

They were lucky to make it back and even more lucky no one got killed on that cruise. If the powers that be think they can abuse the nukes like this GOD help us all.

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.