<< WE BE BAAAAAD ~ MAIN ~ POTENCY REVEALED >>
UNDERWATER JIMMY
Rabbits closing in on the starboard bow! Dive, dive, dive!
UPDATE. An excerpt from the captain’s log of the USS Jimmy Carter:
...the wound stings, but it’s only superficial. I have no idea how many rabbits are hiding aboard this vessel, how they got here, and why they are attacking everyone in site. The crew is spooked. They’re all taking it as a bad omen, just like how Ensign Chavez nearly choked to death on a peanut. Still, we…
If you’re going to name an underwater vehicle after a political figure, shouldn’t it be the USS Teddy Kennedy?
USS Jimmy Carter would be a more appropriate name for a self-inflating surrender vehicle - a big yellow balloon that you unload when the ship is sinking and you need to float off to Venezuela.
you know, it’s amazing how ironic irony can be sometimes…
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2005 02 16 at 02:13 PM • permalinkI wondered how the Navy was going to handle it when Carter’s name came up.
Washington? Carrier & missile submarine.
Lincoln? Carrier.
The Roosevelts? Carriers.
Truman? Carrier.
Reagan? Carrier.
George H.W. Bush? Carrier (in production)
It is a diplomatic choice, since Jimmy Carter used to be a submariner himself and all that. Still it seems fitting that his name be carried by a perpetually sinking ship (or a ship that is perpetually all wet)President Carter and the Swamp Rabbit sounds like a good name for a band.
Posted by Major Anya on 2005 02 16 at 02:26 PM • permalinkWatch it! That rabbit’s dynamite!!!
On a lighter note…how could something so manly, aggressive and loaded with testosterone be named after someone so…not.
Posted by tree hugging sister on 2005 02 16 at 02:48 PM • permalinkQ: What’s long and round and full of seamen?
A: Jimmy Carter
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2005 02 16 at 03:14 PM • permalinkGreat. We now have a billion-dollar sub that’s going to sit just there. Paint whiskers and big teeth on itso we’ll know whose it is.
Posted by Gary from Jersey on 2005 02 16 at 03:18 PM • permalinkThe 30-second Bunny Troupe could do a Sgt. Bilko-style sketch as the crew of the sub. “The SOS Carter.” Sounds fun.
Nah. With his kind heart a subtender would have been more appropos.
Posted by tree hugging sister on 2005 02 16 at 04:25 PM • permalinkwell, since we can’t sweep jimmah under the rug under the ocean will have to do.
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2005 02 16 at 05:10 PM • permalink“Shortly after the Reagan administration took office, they stumbled upon a copy of the picture—apparently while searching for a foreign policy—and reopened the old wounds by releasing it to the press.” [Emphasis mine]
Reagan didn’t need to search for a foreign policy; Carter left him plenty of messes to clean up.
The re-opening “old wounds” remark seems awfully thin-skinned for a former presidential press secretary. The Carter hacks were so far out of their depth, it was truly pathetic.
I wish that Jimmy Carter would spend more time hunting rabbits and less time hounding the current President, who is by the way a real President.
This is semi off-topic, but somehow I think it fits in with the outrageosness of naming of an attack sub after James Earl Carter — Warner Brothers redesigns Bugs Bunny to appeal to modern kids. The horror. The horror.
Let this character and the ex-president fight it out on some lake until they’re both gone forever.
The Navy admitted late today that they have a problem. They are unable to get the USS Jimmy Carter out of harbor. The vessel keeps making unexpected, radical left turns out of the safe channel…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 16 at 10:25 PM • permalinkAmazing to think back on the US Embassy Teheran crisis.
An act of war was committed. The US embassy and its staff was taken over by the revolutionaries who had seized power in Iran. (Think back - who correctly identified this among the msm?)
Carter was paralysed for about nine months, then launched an attack to free the hostages.
The attack had some technical problems (crash and burn variety) so Carter stopped trying.
When it became apparent to the Iranians that Reagan was taking over, they released the hostages.
Where is (was) the condemnation (by msm)of this act of war by the Iranians, which is as flagrant an act of defiance of international law as a declaration of war?
As well, where is the recognition that the former Shah of Iran, confronted by the revolutionaries, took the decision to leave and not plunge his country into any unnecessary bloodshed. Admittedly, he could not stop the revolutionaries from shedding blood after he left.
Saddam should have followed this example, but did not. Saddam must be recognised as causing additional damage to his country and his people by the manner of his non-departure.Looks like they’ve come up with quite a catchy slogan for the new boat.
And another thing;
See this example of Shoot Yourself In the Foot:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/02/the_case_for_ma.html
This is the sort of thing that Jimmeh could have been responsible for.
Don’t employ fighting men and expect them to stand there asking stupid questions rather than fight. The enemy is adaptable enough to take advantage of this sort of procedural crud.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Can we paint bunny ears on the sail? Please?