HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Speaking of HUBRIS, This ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:33 AM

Speaking of HUBRIS, This is the Reason WHY Republicans HATE Chuck Hagel

#!

Senator Hagel warns us with a lesson from the Vietnam War: our government lied to us then and could lie us into a war with Iran and Syria now.




Transcript:


SENATOR HAGEL: … but I would even begin with this evaluation; that we owe the military and their families a policy, a policy worthy of their sacrifices, and I don’t believe, Dr. Rice, we have that policy today.

I think what the president said last night — and I listened carefully and read through it again this morning — is all about a broadened American involvement, escalation in Iraq and the Middle East. I do not agree with that escalation, and I would further note that when you say, as you have here this morning, that we need to address and help the Iraqis and pay attention to the fact that Iraqis are being killed, Madame Secretary, Iraqis are killing Iraqis. We are in a civil war. This is sectarian violence out of control — Iraqi on Iraqi. Worse, it is inter-sectarian violence — Shi’a killing Shi’a.

To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives, to be put in the middle of a civil war is wrong.

It’s, first of all, in my opinion, morally wrong. It’s tactically, strategically, militarily wrong. We will not win a war of attrition in the Middle East.

And I further note that you talk about skepticism and pessimism of the American people and some in Congress. That is not some kind of a subjective analysis, that is because, Madame Secretary, we’ve been there almost four years, and there’s a reason for that skepticism and pessimism, and that is based on the facts on the ground, the reality of the dynamics.

And so I have been one, as you know, who have believed that the appropriate focus is not to escalate, but to try to find a broader incorporation of a framework. And it will have to be, certainly, regional, as many of us have been saying for a long time. That should not be new to anyone. But it has to be more than regional, it is going to have to be internally sponsored, and that’s going to include Iran and Syria.

When you were engaging Chairman Biden on this issue, on the specific question — will our troops go into Iran or Syria in pursuit, based on what the president said last night — you cannot sit here today — not because you’re dishonest or you don’t understand, but no one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won’t engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border.

Some of us remember 1970, Madame Secretary, and that was Cambodia, and when our government lied to the American people and said we didn’t cross the border going into Cambodia. In fact we did. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee.

So, Madame Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it’s very, very dangerous. Matter of fact, I have to say, Madame Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out. I will resist it.




36 replies, 3265 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply Speaking of HUBRIS, This is the Reason WHY Republicans HATE Chuck Hagel (Original post)
Segami Feb 2013 OP
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #1
JoePhilly Feb 2013 #2
Volaris Feb 2013 #5
JoePhilly Feb 2013 #12
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #6
JoePhilly Feb 2013 #14
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #15
JoePhilly Feb 2013 #33
spanone Feb 2013 #3
Dustlawyer Feb 2013 #4
libodem Feb 2013 #7
zeemike Feb 2013 #16
libodem Feb 2013 #18
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #21
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #23
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #28
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #29
libodem Feb 2013 #35
PatSeg Feb 2013 #24
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #26
PatSeg Feb 2013 #30
n2doc Feb 2013 #8
Bucky Feb 2013 #9
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #10
CitizenPatriot Feb 2013 #11
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #17
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #19
CitizenPatriot Feb 2013 #20
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #25
CitizenPatriot Feb 2013 #34
madokie Feb 2013 #13
dreampunk Feb 2013 #22
madokie Feb 2013 #27
Berlum Feb 2013 #31
dreampunk Feb 2013 #32
libodem Feb 2013 #36

Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:49 AM

1. Of course, Hagel's actual vote of Yes on the invasion of Iraq mitigates his late date qualms

It is not really possible, using his actual votes compared to others in his Republican Party, so demonstrate that when the important decisions are actually made he is really different from them in any measurable way. Anti choice, anti gay, in favor of the invasion when 23 other Senators showed good judgement and voted No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:00 AM

2. Same is true for Hillary Clinton and Kerry I suppose.

Neither should have ever been considered for President given that vote. Including in 2016.

The GOP hates Hagel because his very existence makes it harder for them to rewrite the full history of the Iraq war the way they would like.

That's why McCain focused on the surge, and not on any other aspect of the Iraq war.

Hagel's declaration that the Iraq war was a huge blunder is treason from the GOP's perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:24 AM

5. So, now pointing out treason, is treason?

I just want to make sure I don't end up inadvertently doing something illegal, that used to NOT be. While it changes often, I DO know that it's MY responsibility to keep myself informed of all changes, not the Governments or the Press...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Volaris (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:41 AM

12. It's treason against the GOP in this case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:55 AM

6. You say that as if I claimed otherwise. I did not mentionn others. I do not want either to be

President. Sorry if that stuns you, but I have a basic opposition to the rewarding of failure and error coupled with the punishment or shunning of excellence in politics and in all other aspects of our culture.
23 Senators displayed more discernment and wisdom than Chuck did when it counted, Chuck just voted along with the Republicans like he always did. Like he did when he voted against any pro gay legislation, against choice, against civil liberties protections. The folks trying to cast Hagel as an opponent of the Iraq War are the folks who rewrite history. Hagel supported the war for years on end. Voted for it.
As I said in my post, his supporters can not demonstrate using actual voting record that he is different from other Republicans. Your verbiage of course contains no such demonstration.
So thanks for proving that point again, so well with the 'the other kids did it too' defense. That always impresses me, it is so valid to claim that one person's actions are mitigated by the actions of another!

And edited to add that Kerry and Clinton did vote for the war, they are not also Republican anti choice and anti gay crusaders as Hagel is. I don't support either for President, but to claim they are 'the same' as Chuck requires us to ignore the reality of Hagel's voting record.
To me, Hagel's voting record matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:46 AM

14. They are the same on the topic of Iraq.

You are free to be against Hagel for what ever reasons you like.

The op is about why the GOP hates him.

They like that he voted to give Bush that authority, and they hate that he declared that war a blunder while Bush was still President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:03 AM

15. They are not the same on LGBT rights, not the same on choice, not the same on anything else.

The OP claims the GOP dislikes Hagel because he opposed the war, but he did not oppose the war, he voted right along with the rest of them to invade Iraq, either complicit or duped.
And again, you still have not demonstrated how Hagel's actual voting record sets him apart from the other Republicans. I'll give you one: he voted against McCain Feingold. McCain, obviously supported it. Perhaps that is why McCain is letting him have it, I don't know, I also don't think you know nor the OP.
Additionally if the goal is not excellence in office but angering the GOP, we could have really pissed them off with a Democratic nominee, they'd be more pissed off and thus, that would be a better choice, seeing as actual voting records don't matter, all that matters is making the Republicans angry. Making them angry is easy.
Just to repeat that after all these exchanges, you still have not shown what in his actual record recommends him for the job. The IRW Yes vote? The anti gay votes? The anti choice votes? Which?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:55 PM

33. Actually ...

Neither Hagel, Clinton, nor Kerry voted to "invade Iraq". I mean if you are going to be angry about it, at least know what they voted for. They voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, as a last resort, but not to invade, per se. They voted to give him the authority to make the decision, they did not vote for actually invading Iraq.

And the OP is correct about why McCain is pissed. McCain not only voted to give Bush that authority, he fully supported Bush in using that authority from day one. And then after day one, throughout the entire Iraq war, even after Bush left office.

I love that phrase "excellence in office" ... nice meaningless bumper sticker.

As for McCain / Fiengold, McCain no longer supports it.

And how exactly does any "anti-gay" vote from the 90s, or a "anti-choice vote" from then, impact his ability to be SECDEF today? DADT is over. And I'm not sure how his past votes on choice impact being SECDEF at all.

Regardless, NEITHER of those issues puts him at odds with the GOP, which means those issues aren't a factor in why the GOP hates him. Those are reasons that YOU hate him. Which is fine. But that has little to do with the topic in the OP ... the reasons that the GOP now hates him and thinks he can't be SECDEF.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:01 AM

3. k&r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:18 AM

4. No wonder grouchy McCain is pissed! Hagel was spot on speaking from experience and history!

He was also spot on about what they would do, and that since it was virtually the same scenario as Vietnam, he was correct in stating that it would be the worst Foriegn policy blunder since Vietnam!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:58 AM

7. My but Miss Condi

Looks like a mad, wet cat. Grrrr. Hisssss. Raaahhh. Spssssittt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:07 AM

16. That was my thought too

Kind of the iconic image of anger, and hate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:23 AM

18. Those are some mean

Squinty little, slits for eyes, are they not? Ew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:31 AM

21. Hagle voted to confirm her anyway. So what was the value of the threatrics?

'Blah, blah, Yes she should be Sec of State' is the same as simply voting Yes without the verbiage, in every real way.
Senators who actually voted against Rice as Sec of State:
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:37 AM

23. Possibly because he believes that the President should have his choice of cabinet, barring

ethics violations or personal misconduct--none of which Condi was accused of at the time. Of course, ironically, the GOP isn't going to allow him to be confirmed because he isn't pro-Israel enough and will cut defense spending--not for ethics/conduct reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #23)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:06 PM

28. Well if that is the case his going to the press to attack President Clinton's nominee Mr Hormel

was an odd choice. Clinton had to use a recess appointment in the end. Hagel actually said in the press that the President should not have nominated him. That's in addition to the already discussed diatribe against openly gay people being unfit to serve the United States.

He never voted against defense spending. So thinking he's the cut king is not supported by his record. He did in fact vote to invade Iraq, pumping the military budget to new heights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:16 PM

29. That had more to do with the Catholic/gay pride-related controversy surrounding Hormel, IIRC--

Hagel thought it would be a cloud over the ambassadorship in a Catholic country, although he voted for the guy in committee, apparently. Ambassadors are not a cabinet appointment, though--cabinets are the President's closest advisors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:49 PM

35. Look at those

Commendable Dems. I knew we were clearly smarter than Pukes. Proof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:39 AM

24. That's how she always looked in those hearings

The administration was always throwing her to the wolves and she is the worlds worst liar. Her facial expressions, voice, and body language almost always contradict her words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:42 AM

26. Yes--Bush made an absolute fool of her near the end of his second term, in regard to

a UN resolution she drafted concerning Israel. She actually wasn't that bad as an SoS (better than she was as NSA). She and Bob Gates realized an attack on Iran would be a disaster. John Bolton told Bush he had to "rein her in".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #26)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:21 PM

30. It often looked like she was their token "girl"

and she was a minority which was a plus. They probably thought opponents would go easier on her, but I recall Barbara Boxer and Bob Kerrey didn't cut her any slack. I don't like the woman at all, but I have some sympathy for her trying to survive among all those blood sucking sharks.

Kind of reminds me of Republican senators who use Kelly Ayotte as their "gal" and John Boehner usually keeps Cathy McMorris Rodgers standing behind him whenever he speaks to the press. Once and awhile they let the "girls" speak as they pull the string on the back of their necks. Are they really fooling anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:08 AM

8. I don't know if this is the real reason

I think it is more likely that his perceived lack of support for Israel and perceived willingness to cut the defense budget are more likely reasons for the opposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:08 AM

9. This makes me want him as Sec'y of Defense.

I've not heard a thing about his qualifications up till now. I've only heard paranoid crap about Benghazi and pontifications about him not loving Bibi Netanyahu enough (like that's even possible). In typical Washington fashion, no one seems to care whether he can actually to the job or not. They only care what "signal" it sends if they vote for or against him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:17 AM

10. This video is the guy everyone wanted to see at the hearings:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:29 AM

11. here's the link to that article

with the quotes from Russ Feingold about Hagel as well:

http://www.politicususa.com/speaking-hubris-republicans-hate-hagel.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CitizenPatriot (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:12 AM

17. That article claims he opposed the war at the start, but he supported it and voted for it...

That article says "Speaking of Republican hubris, Chuck Hagel was one of the few elected officials on either side of the aisle who had the courage and conviction to speak his mind in the lead up to the Iraq invasion and after it."

23 US Senators and 150 US House Members actually voted NO on the Iraq War Resolution, it was those No voters who had the courage to speak up and to take the right action, who had the discernment to say No to the invasion. Hagel voted Yes. How that makes him 'one of the few' I don't know, he was with the majority, a Yes vote on the war, thought there were WMDs.
He also voted to confirm Condi Rice. There was some rhetoric, then he voted that he thought in his wisdom that she should be Sec of State.
His actual voting record and actual actions do not fit the narrative his boosters want to push. Hagel did not criticize the war he voted for until years of horrors made the error obvious to many other Republicans, such as Andy Sullivan, who called war protestors every name in the book then later muttered 'they were right'. When it mattered, Chuck was with his Party, the Republican Party, in every way and on every issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:29 AM

19. David Corn's take on Hagel's IWR vote--

...Of all the senators eyeing the White House in 2008, this Nebraskan was the only one to express deep reservations about the resolution—while still voting for it. "America—including the Congress—and the world, must speak with one voice about Iraqi disarmament, as it must continue to do so in the war on terrorism," Hagel said in explaining his vote. But he was prescient: "If disarmament in Iraq requires the use of force, we need to consider carefully the implications and consequences of our actions. The future of Iraq after Saddam Hussein is also an open question. Some of my colleagues and some American analysts now speak authoritatively of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds in Iraq, and how Iraq can be a test case for democracy in the Arab world. How many of us really know and understand much about Iraq, the country, the history, the people, the role in the Arab world? I approach the issue of post-Saddam Iraq and the future of democracy and stability in the Middle East with more caution, realism and a bit more humility." He added, "Imposing democracy through force in Iraq is a roll of the dice. A democratic effort cannot be maintained without building durable Iraqi political institutions and developing a regional and international commitment to Iraq's reconstruction. No small task."

...Hagel took a thoughtful approach to the question of the invasion. His worries were dead-on. Yet he had the wiggle room to vote for the measure because there remained a possibility—albeit slight—that Bush would not use this authority and the conflict with Saddam Hussein would be resolved without US military intervention. In considering the invasion and its implications, Hagel had the right take; he just couldn't bring himself to vote accordingly."

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/hagel-hearing-defense-secretary-iraq-war

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:30 AM

20. It says he spoke out against it

If you recall, that wasn't being done a lot.

He did vote for it, but he urged using diplomacy and not preemptive force. He urged working thru UN in 2002:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/chuck-hagel-iraq-2002-010813

Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions. Actions in Iraq must come in the context of an American led, multilateral approach to disarmament, not as the first case for a new. American doctrine involving the preemptive use of force. America's challenge in this new century will be to strengthen its relationships around the world while leading the world in our war on terrorism, for it is the success of the first challenge that will determine the success of the second. We should not mistake our foreign policy priorities for ideology in a rush to proclaim a new doctrine in world affairs. America must understand it cannot alone win a war against terrorism. It will require allies, friends, and partners.

American leadership in the world will be further defined by our actions in Iraq and the Middle East. What begins in Iraq will not end in Iraq. There will be other ‘‘Iraqs.'' There will be continued acts of terrorism, proliferating powers, and regional conflicts. If we do it right and lead through the U.N., in concert with our allies, we can set a new standard for American leadership and international cooperation.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CitizenPatriot (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:42 AM

25. But how does that make him 'one of the few'? He voted with the majority, he voted Yes.

Many other Senators actually voted NO, they were the few, sadly. If we must reward those who failed us so deeply, can we not at least remember that many elected officials were correct and did actually vote against the invasion?
I mean, Hagel also voted to confirm Rice after the verbiage posted in the OP. The actual vote was in her favor.
The votes are what matters, the rhetoric is not counted. The deaths that came as a result of the invasion were not mitigated by that rhetoric, they were caused by that vote. A vote other Senators did not make.
Voted for Rice, voted for the invasion, voted against choice, against LGBT rights. Not sure which aspect recommends him for the job. This OP says 'look at how he rips into Rice' but the fact is he supported her appointment. First he chattered a bit, but he supported her appointment. Others actually voted against her. They were the opponents of Rice, not Chuck who voted in her favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:22 PM

34. It's not about the confirmation of Rice

or the Democrats who voted for the war and never said a word on the record to object. It's about having the courage to say anything back then. Those people deserve notice.

You don't agree, so that's fine, but expecting him not to confirm Rice over that is buying into the Republican idea of confirmations being a battleground. He explained why he was voting for her. So did many Democrats who did not agree with her def of torture. Does that suck? Yes. But pretending that is just as bad as sitting there silently and never even asking a damn question clears the decks for a whole lot of people who should have spoken up.

You keep trying to equate everything he has said with his vote. That's like suggesting that it doesn't matter at all what they say or if they bother to question anyone before they vote. Did he save us from Iraq? Hell no. Could he have done better? Hell yes. Did he do more than MOST? Hell yes.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:43 AM

13. I was in Vietnam when the Cambodian bombing started

and Chuck is right. It started a long time before the government admitted it.
They lied to get me to go to Vietnam and I'm still bitter about that, actually. I know as well as Hagel that the government is capable of lying to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:31 AM

22. madokie,

I'm glad to see that you survived that meat grinder and are still with us!

I had just gotten out of the service by 1970, though I did not go overseas. I and many others were, and are STILL angry about that whole lie-war, and we saw through the charade of the bush crew's Iraq lie-war, if not the whole of 9-11....speaking of cans of worms....not opening that one today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreampunk (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:03 PM

27. Welcome to DU

You know at least we did our part and no one can take that away from us. I'd like to think that I hadn't but not to the point as to do what a lot of guys did to get out of the service.
Be proud

knowing what i know today not so sure if I'd gone the route I went back then when I was so young and dumb to the ways of the rich.

Thank you for your service to our Country DP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:36 PM

31. Wow - Condi (R) screws her face up into some, mean ugly looks

Rightwing Republican fear and hate just glare from her sold-out soul through her pinche eye bulbs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:46 PM

32. As McCain wet started his A-4E

McCain crashed 5 jets, plus was responsible for the Forrestal fire. Something made the plane behind McCain fire a rocket, which hit McCain's external center fuel tank, and caused a fire. McCain panicked, and dropped two bombs into the fire.
Surviving crewmen of the USS Forestal and those who investigated the Forrestal fire case reported that McCain deliberately 'wet-started' his A-4E Skyhawk to shake up the guy in the F-4 Phantom behind his plane.
'Wet-starts', done either deliberately (the starter motor switch allowed kerosene to pool in the engine and give a wet start) or accidentally, shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft.'Wet starting' was a common practice among young 'hot-dog' pilots.
In McCain's case, the 'wet-start''cooked off' and launched the M34 Zuni rocket from the rear F-4 that punctured the Skyhawk's fueltank, knocked the M-65 1000 lb bomb off it's 500 lb rated mount, and touched off the explosions and massive fire.

When the carrier Oriskany came along side, and McCain was put in a chopper and whisked away. McCain was the only Forrestal crewman to be immediately transferred .I have a hunch McCain left for his own safety, because the crew wanted blood.

[link:http://www.topix.com/forum/who/cnn/TIPHLLITR99DU2OKV|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreampunk (Reply #32)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:04 PM

36. That is crazy wild wacked out

Fucked up!!! Good grief. Go big or go home, huh? Gee.


I'm so stunned I can't make an intelligent comment.


That smug son of a bitch is a major fuck up. There.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread