By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A snorkeling excursion around the USS Arizona, a site of solemn remembrance, was coordinated by the military for FBI Director Kash Patel. This outing, described as a “VIP snorkel” and not disclosed by the FBI, occurred days after Patel’s official visit to Hawaii. While such dives are generally restricted due to the site’s designation as a military cemetery, a select few dignitaries have been permitted these excursions since at least the Obama administration. The Navy confirmed the outing, stating it was “not an anomaly” and participants were instructed not to touch the sunken vessel, though the initiation of the event remains unclear.
Read the original article here
The recent revelation that FBI Director Kash Patel participated in a “VIP snorkel” excursion around the USS Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor, as indicated by leaked emails, has ignited significant public outcry and raised serious questions about decorum and respect for sacred sites. This incident, which occurred days after his visit to the memorial itself, involved an outing described by government officials as a special privilege for high-ranking individuals. The sunken battleship, USS Arizona, serves as the final resting place for over 900 sailors and Marines who perished during the attack on Pearl Harbor, making it a solemn graveyard and a hallowed memorial.
The notion of a “VIP snorkel” at such a profoundly significant location is, to many, deeply jarring and indicative of a severe lapse in judgment. The very essence of the USS Arizona Memorial is one of solemn remembrance and respect for sacrifice. Visitors are consistently reminded that they are on consecrated ground, a place where the fallen remain entombed. To then engage in recreational activities like snorkeling, even with official sanction, fundamentally contradicts this solemnity. It suggests a detachment from the historical weight and emotional gravity of the site, treating it more like a tourist attraction than a national cemetery.
For those with personal connections to Pearl Harbor or a deep understanding of its historical context, this news is particularly offensive. Many individuals who have served at Pearl Harbor, or whose families have been directly impacted by the events of December 7, 1941, view the USS Arizona Memorial as sacred. They emphasize that such a location should be approached with the utmost reverence, likening a snorkeling excursion to desecrating a cemetery or engaging in trivial activities within a place of deep mourning. The idea that the memorial could be considered a venue for leisure, even for those in positions of authority, is seen as an insult to the memory of those who lost their lives.
Furthermore, the cost associated with such “VIP” excursions, presumably borne by taxpayers, adds another layer of concern. The sentiment is that public funds should not be used to facilitate recreational activities at national memorials, especially when these activities are perceived as disrespectful. This is amplified by observations that some within the current administration are seen as treating their roles as opportunities for personal enjoyment and lavish spending, rather than as serious responsibilities. This perception fuels criticism that taxpayer money is being diverted to self-serving pursuits rather than being used for essential government functions.
The comparison of snorkeling at the USS Arizona Memorial to other highly sensitive historical sites, such as driving a golf cart through a cemetery or taking photos at Auschwitz, underscores the depth of the perceived disrespect. These analogies highlight the extreme nature of the insensitivity that the “VIP snorkel” incident suggests. It implies a mindset that is either unaware of or indifferent to the profound historical and emotional significance of such places, prioritizing personal experience over the solemn duties associated with them.
The approval process for such an excursion also raises critical questions about accountability. Many are left wondering who exactly permitted such an activity to take place. The assertion that, regardless of one’s position, such a request should have been met with a firm refusal speaks to a desire for common sense and ethical boundaries, especially when dealing with sites of national mourning. The fact that this was apparently allowed to happen suggests a breakdown in protocol or a willingness to bend rules for those deemed important, leading to widespread condemnation.
The broader context of Kash Patel’s tenure as FBI Director, as characterized by some accounts, further colors the reaction to this incident. Allegations of erratic behavior, a tendency to jump to conclusions, and potential political motivations in his decision-making add to the narrative of a leader whose judgment is consistently being called into question. When juxtaposed with the disrespect shown at Pearl Harbor, these concerns paint a picture of someone who may not be equipped to handle the gravity of their responsibilities, particularly when it involves safeguarding national security and upholding the law with impartiality.
The potential for such an incident to be viewed as a symptom of a larger pattern of behavior within the current administration is also evident. Remarks suggesting that this is consistent with a disregard for tradition, respect for service members, and ethical conduct paint a stark picture. The comparison to a “make-a-wish program for mediocre fascists” or suggestions that “VIP snorkel” might be a euphemism for illicit activities, while extreme, reflect the intense frustration and disillusionment felt by many observers. The perceived cronyism and the consolidation of power by loyalists, rather than by individuals with genuine qualifications, are seen as deeply damaging to democratic institutions. The outrage over the Pearl Harbor incident is, therefore, intertwined with broader anxieties about the state of leadership and the respect afforded to fundamental principles of governance and national memory.