The most recent offense was the naming of a LCS after congress woman Gabrielle Giffords whose claim to fame is surviving a bullet wound in the head from a madman while others died. With decreasing numbers of ships will we reject the names of historic battles, states, famous ships, heros and naval men for "Victims"? That's the Obama way.

 

  I do agree though with naming aircraft carriers after presidents (CINCs) instrumental in winning wars: Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Truman, Reagan (Cold War), Bush I (Gulf War I and a much decorated carrier pilot), Eisenhower (not a war winning president but running the ETO comparable to Nimitz running the Central Pacific), TR? Ok, Spanish-American War notable and he built the Great White Fleet at the turn of the last century, a stretch for Ford ( although a serving officer on a CVE during WWII) and an even bigger stretch for JFK getting the second Ford class CVN although he was a heroic PT captain in WWII he screwed up the Bay of Pigs (cancel or support), taken apart by Kruschev at the Vienna summit  leading to Russian missiles in Cuba and the brink of WWIII and consequemtly having to give up our well established Thor and Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey for the Russian missiles in Cuba and last but not least pushing Special Ops forces into Vietnam, a expansion of mission with the soon after his death Marines at Danang and questionable involvement in the assasination of South Vietnamese Prresident Ngo Dinh Diem.

Enterprise still in the tradition of naming aircraft carriers after famous earlier warships...........Hornet, Wasp, Essex , Ranger, Intrepid, Reprisal etc. 

Ironic how this policy change comes right at the time the 'next' President to have a carrier named after him would be Bill Clinton - a man hated by the Navy.

The USS Clinton (CVN_??)  could be part of a carrier task force comprising a number of vessels including the USS Monica, which would be stationed discreetly just over the horizon.   Anyone wishing to continue this thread is welcomed.

Clinton wasn't impeached for adultery. He was impeached for lying under oath about it. Remember that whole "that depends on what 'is' is" nonsense? That must have really inspired confidence in anyone negotiating a treaty or contract with him. There were plenty of other things that could have kept him from either running or been prosecuted for, I don't know why they chose lying over Monica.

Isn't it timeto give up the canard that Bush lied about WMDs? Google to your heart's content the statements in 2002 &2003, in the run up to the war, by leading Democrats believing in Iraqi WMDs.... Gore, Hiliary, Teddy, Levin, Rockerfeller, Bob Graham, Byrd, Tennant (Clinton appointed CIA director) even Waxman a rabid left-wing Bush hater and others as well as the foreign intelligence reports on the subject. Go back a couple of years before and you get almost everyone in Congress stating their belief in Iraqi WMDs. Being wrong is not a lie. The misstatement that Bush had said Saddam was involved in 9/11 is based on Bush saying Saddam had been supporting terrorism and is based on the politically expedient extrapolation of those statements. In our age of information technology no one has been able to cite a date, speech, interview,  you tube video or any other documentation wherein Bush made that claim. It's the old propaganda trick if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes believed.