Legal fight to keep JFK in service begins...

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2005-01-06 02:11pm

Fight to Keep JFK Begins in Washington

JACKSONVILLE, FL (AP) -- Florida lawmakers will announce today they will
fight to require the Navy to keep 12 aircraft carriers in the fleet.

Lawmakers are introducing the bills this month in both houses of Congress.

They're responding to a Pentagon budget-cutting proposal that would decommission the Jacksonville-based aircraft carrier USS
John F. Kennedy in 2006.

Representative Ander Crenshaw will introduce the bill in the House, while Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez do the same in the Senate.

The ten (b) billion dollar cuts are expected to be part of the Pentagon's annual budget, which President Bush will submit as part of his overall spending plan to Congress on February seventh.

Hmm, while was skeptical of the idea of retiring the JFK 12 years before it was originally scheduled, I also don't like the idea of legally requiring the Navy to operate at least 12 carriers at a time...

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-06 02:14pm

"Don't touch our pork!!!"

Well, they're Florida legislators ... maybe if we tell them that there was an incident of gay sex on the JFK, they'd insist that it not only be decomissioned, but burned to the waterline .....

Or we could just lie and tell them there really are 12 carriers in 2006 ... it's not like they can count down there.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2005-01-06 02:15pm

While I understand that Jacksonville will take a hit economically if the JFK is retired the Pentagon should come back with a request. Where should we then make the cuts? Name me a city that should take the hit instead of you? Perhaps cut appropriations for our troops in Iraq. Maybe body armor can be reduced, - look when the military starts cutting someone's going to get hurt. The thing is Jacksonville really needs to prove why it shouldn't be them.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-01-06 02:35pm

Via DefenseTechBlog wrote:Rep. Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., said he sent a letter to President Bush expressing his concern about the proposed cut in the carrier fleet. "I'm going to do everything in my power to convince the president that our national security demands at least 12 carriers, if not more," he said.

More? More? What the fuck are you going to station on them?

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2005-01-06 02:35pm

Stravo wrote:Perhaps cut appropriations for our troops in Iraq. Maybe body armor can be reduced, - look when the military starts cutting someone's going to get hurt. The thing is Jacksonville really needs to prove why it shouldn't be them.

Hmm, maybe we could scrap the Stryker program?

(not that I think that's likely to happen)

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-01-06 03:32pm

JFK is a floating wreck. Good riddance

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2005-01-06 03:57pm

MKSheppard wrote:JFK is a floating wreck. Good riddance

That might be the case- but its still a much better carrier then anything any other country in the world has.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2005-01-06 04:00pm

They were fine ships in their day, but the Kitty Hawks are as obsolecent as the Essexes. JFK had a good run in fleet service, but it's time for her to be turned into a museum. Or razor-blades.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-01-06 04:02pm

Patrick Degan wrote:They were fine ships in their day, but the Kitty Hawks are as obsolecent as the Essexes. JFK had a good run in fleet service, but it's time for her to be turned into a museum. Or razor-blades.

They're worn out because of the Budgit battles of the 1990s.

During the Clinton years, Clinton kept trying to cut the USN's carrier force,
but Congress kept saying no, so Clinton decided to just cut their funding.

The USN was very wary of cutting the funding of anything with a reactor
on it, so the conventional carriers took all the budget cuts, and as a
result were reduced to virtual floating wrecks.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-01-06 04:54pm

Ah this is nice, more pork the military doesn't need. Why can't they just let the admirals decide how to run the Navy, they are in fact the ones who know best.

And Congress controls force levels and funding, not the President.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-01-06 05:48pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
Stravo wrote:Perhaps cut appropriations for our troops in Iraq. Maybe body armor can be reduced, - look when the military starts cutting someone's going to get hurt. The thing is Jacksonville really needs to prove why it shouldn't be them.
Hmm, maybe we could scrap the Stryker program? (not that I think that's likely to happen)

And FCS! [claps]

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-01-07 02:24am

Rep. Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., said he sent a letter to President Bush expressing his concern about the proposed cut in the carrier fleet. "I'm going to do everything in my power to convince the president that our national security demands at least 12 carriers, if not more," he said.

Who the fuck are we going to need more than 12 carriers to fight?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2005-01-07 03:22am

HemlockGrey wrote:
Rep. Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., said he sent a letter to President Bush expressing his concern about the proposed cut in the carrier fleet. "I'm going to do everything in my power to convince the president that our national security demands at least 12 carriers, if not more," he said.
Who the fuck are we going to need more than 12 carriers to fight?

The TERRORISTS, man! Haven't you been watching FOX NEWS???