John McCain Is NOT a 'War Hero'

[the48er]

Of all the bullshit in which McCain's candidacy is grounded, none's more offensive to me than the "war hero" crap. Actually, offensive doesn't begin to capture it. Insane is more the word.

Though we're often told about his five and a half years as a POW, what we never get is what matters most: an honest explanation of how, specifically, he wound up in that North Vietnamese prison in the first place.

There are two salient facts: (1) McCain participated in Operation Rolling Thunder, which killed at least 100,000 North Vietnamese -- the 2008 equivalent of 1.8 million Americans: 600 times the number who died in the 9/11 attacks. (2) He helped attack a power plant in the middle of Hanoi. The plant had previously been off-limits to American bombers for fear of collateral damage.

To my mind, the bottom line in this matter is very, very simple: it's not okay to help kill vast numbers of people who have done nothing wrong to you, and it's not okay to destroy their infrastructure. Not even if bad people command you to do those things -- it's not okay.

And let's be clear: John McCain was no 18-year-old draftee. He was a man of 31, and he was part of America's permanent officer class. (His father and grandfather were four-star admirals.) That officer class helped devise the living hell that America inflicted on Southeast Asia.

In 2008 more than ever, hyper-militarized America needs to explore alternatives to the "diplomacy is for appeasers, send more troops" mentality that bred catastrophes in Vietnam, Iraq and elsewhere.

More about this and other McCain b.s. here.

[gaiilonfong]

1. McSAme is an OLD TROLL

also;
adulterer
suspected wife beater
LIAR
BushBot
Rove asskisser


I could go on but y'all got the gist

[speedoo]

2. bookmarked. Interesting site you linked.

It appears not to involve the Kerry swift boat people.... is that correct? Are these folks not involved with Sampley, etc.?

[the48er]

4. The Site's Mine

I worked it up since the beginning of this month, after the depth of the media's bullshit concerning this campaign became too much to tolerate. After a while, stupidity physically hurts.

[gaiilonfong]

23. KUDOS

GREAT SITE
keep it up and thanks for your work!

[the48er]

67. No, Thank *You*

I really appreciate it.

Especially when one builds and maintains a lot of "public service" type websites, it's awfully easy to get the feeling that one's running in sand. The simple fact is that the vast, overwhelming majority of people surfing the internet will almost always choose to skip such sites. So it's mighty nice to get a little boost once in awhile.

Thanks again.

[tekisui]

3. He is a War Monger.

[Guava Jelly]

5. I refuse to attack his service.

It is a no win angle. Your thread is an interesting read and I don't disagree with it.
But he was tortured He can't even comb his own f'n hair for crissake.
Lets not go this route, remember how we hated it when they did it to Kerry?
Lets not become our enemies.

[the48er]

10. It's NOT About Strategy

Thirty some years ago I reached a point at which I could no longer in good conscience participate in military activities, so basically refused all orders, and was eventually honorably discharged as a conscientious objector. A lot's changed since then, but I still believe that Gandhian nonviolence is better both morally and pragmatically that armed force.

But I cannot stress enough, this post was NOT about strategy. It was about what's right and wrong, sane and insane; it's about who and what I am.

[Guava Jelly]

15. I take my hat off to you for your courage

Just don't assume that the electorate is smart enough or deep enough thinkers to look past the talking points. Because they aren't
They will read this as a bunch of liberal tree huggers who hate the Military shitting on a war heroes service.
That is where I am coming from

[gaiilonfong]

21. Maybe we need to change this

How people are viewed when attacking warmongers.
This has nothing to do with so,eones service.
I understand what you are saying, and this is how ant-war, war criminal comments are viewed.
We need to define what anti-troops actually means, the ReTHUGS have been allowed to define this for year, it is time to take back from them all of the LIES about progressives that they spew.
The only way to do that is thru the truth and redefining meme's!
just mu .02 cents

[Guava Jelly]

32. That is a change I would like to see

Sort of a mass deprogramming.I'm not holding my breath though.

[the48er]

25. You're right

(... except about my courage. There was little or no courage involved -- just lots of deep down disgust.)

Anyway I most assuredly do not assume the general electorate is terribly bright. I even posted a fact-laden page to that effect: NitwitNation.com

[Guava Jelly]

34. Well we are on the same page then.

Nice read btw ( http://nitwitnation.com /)

[krawhitham]

62. The truth is a "no win angle"?

[Guava Jelly]

68. Sometimes it is.

If it wasn't we wouldn't have invented the lie.

[Thothmes]

6. That officer class devised that living hell

on the direct orders of President Lyndon Baines Johnson with the concurrence of the Congress of the United States.

[dems_rightnow]

8. What???

You mean John McCain didn't get to select his own targets?

[the48er]

13. He Could Have Said 'No'

Many others did.

It's not okay to help kill vast numbers of people who have done nothing wrong to you, and it's not okay to destroy their infrastructure. Not even if bad people command you to do those things -- it's not okay.

[Political Heretic]

17. All wars are crimes.

[LostinVA]

24. And John Kerry could have also said "no" and didn't

By your logic, you should also denounce him, too. And Al Gore, even if she was techically a REMF. But I won't, nor will I attack McCain for his part in the Vietnam War. We had no reason to be there, but I won't condemn any man or women who served there bases solely on their having served there.

I agree with GOPSux upthread: going that way is also not politically smart, either. Lots of people have familoy members who served there -- and who have served in Itaq -- and many people know McCain was tortured.

[the48er]

38. YOUR logic, NOT mine

Here's mine:

My objection is to McCain's willing, conscious assistance in the butchery of vast numbers of civilians.

You're not okay with the willing, conscious assistance in the butchery of vast numbers of civilians, are you?

Kerry and Gore, as far as I know, did nothing of the sort.

Actually, there's at least one thing laudable about their service: as sons of the privileged, they presumably didn't have to go -- they could have let poor folks go serve and possibly die in their places.

[LostinVA]

54. If you laud Kerry and Gore, you laud McCain

If you think Kerry never killed anyone, you need to look stuff up. Gore was there supporting the war. By your "logic," Bush is the moral one, because he did everything he could to avoid the war.

McCain was also a "son of the privleged," he could have gotten out of a combat position. He also could have gotten out of the POW camp, due to his father, but he chose not to leave his comrades behind.

This issue needs to be dropped. It will only hurt us. There's lots of legitimate things to tar and feather him on, but this isn't one of them. There are a lot of good Dems who served in Vietnam, both on DU and in the halls of Congress. As far as I'm concerned there's no difference between killing one and killing a thousand. Killing is killing.

[the48er]

56. That's Not What I Said

You have again significantly misrepresented what I said. I hope it was not intentional.

I most assuredly never said that "Kerry never killed anyone." Most of us are aware of at least one instance in which Kerry very definitely killed at least one armed enemy combatant -- a guy who was trying to kill Kerry and his crew with an RPG or some such thing.

I find that quite different from killing unarmed noncombatants. You don't?

[hack89]

65. So Bush is the moral one?

considering he did everything to avoid war.

[windbreeze]

51. Perhaps it would help

IF we could put ourselves in their place...how about Russia/China get together and invade us, bomb our cities, kill millions of us who didn't do anything to them..I wonder if that would that give us a different perspective? Unfortunately, I believe it's just a matter of time before that becomes possible....our actions worldwide, our attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, have without a doubt, influenced their need to update their military and carry on joint exercises...

Why is it ok for McCain to use his POW status to his benefit, then scream bloody murder if anyone challenges it...IF he uses it, in any way, it becomes a fair point to discuss and question...I recall we weren't allowed to challenge *'s military service either...after all, we had to understand it wasn't fair, if we did so...look where that got us...

We Democrats have allowed others to define how we regard the military for way to long..It IS possible for us to support our troops while pointing out that not all the military does, is admirable, and that whenever they do whatever they do, no matter where they are, they represent us...disclaimer; jmho...wb

[Thothmes]

64. No, though there is a good chance that

the President did.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

7. Let's not go there, shall we?

It was reprehensible when the Swift Boaters did it to Kerry in 2004, and it won't be any less reprehensible if we do it in 2008. Whatever your opinions are about militarism and role of the military in our society, within the context of what was expected of him as a soldier, John McCain did his duty to the best of his ability. As Wes Clark has noted, that doesn't automatically qualify him to be President.

[the48er]

35. I'm NOT the Swift Boaters

And I sure as hell resent the comparison.

I'm one guy, with ZERO funding. For all of my adult life I've found militarism to be about the most insane and utterly counterproductive activity in which our species engages, and I've devoted big chunks of my life to opposing militarism.

I particularly don't like it when people knowingly help kill lots of civilians -- which McCain did -- but as far as I know, Kerry did not.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

39. You can resent it all you like

Act like an asshole, don't be surprised if people call you an asshole.

Is there some brilliant strategy behind attacking the military and military service that you think is going to win votes for Obama this fall?

Because let's be real clear on this point. I don't give a rat's ass what you say or think. But to the extent that you and your asine opinions reflect poorly on my candidate and my party, then I care a lot. The "McCain is a War Criminal" meme is going to gain us exactly ZERO votes in November, but it has to potential to alienate any voter who doesn't think that serving in the military constitutes a crime against humanity.

McCain is wrong on the environment.
McCain is wrong on women's issues.
McCain is wrong on taxes.
McCain is wrong on national security.
McCain is wrong on immigration (no, wait, he's right; no, wait, he's wrong again).

With a candidate this abysmal, we don't have to dredge up grievances from forty years ago. Stick to the issues.

[the48er]

41. Wow. An obscene personal attack. Cool.

Have a nice day.

[krawhitham]

63. Swift Boat my ass

He was singing in 3 fucking days, and may have cost other soldiers (Real Heroes) their lives

[Motown_Johnny]

9. I'm sorry, but you are wrong. he could have been released form that camp but choose to stay because

he didn't want to leave the other Americans there. He could have benefited from his father being an Admiral but he didn't.


The fact that he followed orders and bombed civilian targets does not diminish his heroic decision.


I am strongly Pro 'Bama and will vote for him no matter who is the repug candidate. Your trying to swift boat McCain isn't helpful.

The truth has a liberal bias, stick to the truth and don't get us all caught up in a debate about McCain being a hero. Just sucking up news cycles with that debate will hurt us all.

[EV_Ares]

11. I agree on the fact that this election can be won by focusing on many other weaknesses of

McSame. We need to forget about his hero or non-hero status, his war record, military service, etc. That is not going to get us anything. However, we can beat him on his support of the war, his ineptness on various subjects such as his time line of the surge, and other issues. Barack can beat him just on debating the issues at hand that we are all concerned about right now. Forget the whether or not he was a hero, that is not a winning issue or going to get Barack any votes.

If anybody could have addressed McCain's military experience and service, Wes Clark could have and where did that go.

[Motown_Johnny]

20. Clark had the right idea, but did it poorly. He should have focused on McCain being someone who

just followed orders, or passed on orders to his squadron from his superiors. He never held a rank where he decided on strategy (the way Wes did).


Clark sounded like he was attacking McCain's service. That is never going to go over well.

[EV_Ares]

29. Yeah, I don't think he realized how it was going to come out or how they would make it

sound which is why McCain's service is a no-win situation and one to just stay away from.

[dems_rightnow]

33. I didn't see it that way.

I don't think most Americans did. Wesley Clark definitely understands and respects the sacrifices made by all members of the military. He just doesn't consider it a qualification for President, and he's right about that.

[the48er]

40. All this Swift Boat crap ...

... is getting mighty, mighty old.

For god's sake, folks, can't you see with your own eyes and discern with your own minds that ONE GUY with ZERO funding and a lifetime's worth of opposition to militarism is JUST A LITTLE BIT FRIGGING DIFFERENT than the Swift Boaters?

Damnit! Give me a break, will you?

[salonghorn70]

12. As a veteran

I resent the attack on McCain's military service just as I resented the attack on Kerry.

[speedoo]

18. I'm a veteran also.

I don't see this as an attack on McCain's service. There are some things on the site that I would change, but on balance, it's a worthwhile source of information.

[the48er]

19. I'm a veteran, too

And I've got a major effing problem with people who knowingly kill lots of civilians and wreck their stuff. How about you?

From what I know of Kerry's service, he wasn't into stuff that killed lots of civilians. As far as I was concerned, his service was about as honorable as it could have been, given the fact that Vietnam was an insanely dishonorable war.

Not all veterans are created equal.

[Motown_Johnny]

22. So McCain should have refused to bomb targets he didn't like?

I'm not a veteran so please excuse my ignorance.

[dems_rightnow]

28. Yes

That's why they're called "Combat Suggestions" instead of "Combat Orders". They're completely optional on the recipient.

[the48er]

30. He Should Have Said NO

When he saw that he was helping to kill lots of civilians (and I'm sure he saw this from the beginning) he could have resigned his commission or sought alternative duty or outright discharge as a conscientious objector.

He didn't have to help with the wholesale butchery of vast numbers of civilians. He did so willingly and, to one degree of another, consciously.

[treestar]

46. Now that's interesting

I didn't know there was such a thing as a suggestion in the military!

Which if true, means he also took his risk of getting captured willingly.

One aspect that might be OK to attack is that story of how there was a Vietnamese person who helped rescue Mclame from the wreckage and McLame ignored that person over the years and did not seem grateful to him at all.

Goes along with Mclame's general crankiness.

[the48er]

48. Actually ...

McCain parachuted into an downtown Hanoi lake. He was pulled from the lake by what I gather was an angry (gee, I wonder why?) mob, beaten with gun butts, bayoneted in the crotch and elsewhere, and generally treated pretty horrifically.

I could be wrong, but I'm not sure McCain has too many captors -- especially from the actual capture -- he needs to feel terribly grateful to.

That's one thing I won't dispute at all: McCain was treated like hell in prison, and he often displayed remarkable bravery in response.

[treestar]

49. Yeah, but there was somebody who rescued him from that

And they were identified. I'll have to google around to find it again.

[gaiilonfong]

27. My father DIED in service to this country

AND...he died so everyone would have the right to say what they feel.
So veteran or no veteran.....alike have the same rights.
McSame is a criminal and he is a LIAR despite his service!

[treestar]

45. As a Democrat, I resent the fact that Kerry could be attacked for

his strengths and have the attackers win the election and then hear that it's oh so unfair to do it to their candidate.

Kerry got an accolade for an actual brave act that led to success in the war. If he's not a war hero, neither is McLame.

Why should mcLame get away with what Kerry couldn't?

[Major Hogwash]

47. Then, as a veteran, you should know that McCain is a piece of dawg shit!

And when it comes to voting for benefits for other veterans, McCain doesn't give a shit, he votes against veterans by voting against increasing their benefits.

[the48er]

71. YES! -- And Let's Note a Couple Details:

According to Project Vote Smart ...

"McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 20 percent in 2006. ...

"In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator McCain a grade of D. ...

"Senator McCain sponsored or co-sponsored 18 percent of the legislation favored by the The Retired Enlisted Association in 2006."

Nice grades for John B.F. Hero McNasty there, huh? Not only is McCain not a war hero, when it comes time to fish or cut bait he votes like a guy who doesn't give a damn about today's warriors. Talk is cheap, Senator McMaverick -- What about the troops?

[lonestarnot]

75. hmmmf.

[Political Heretic]

14. He's a torture survivor. That should be different than "war hero"

[unblock]

31. exactly. he should be praised for honorably enduring things that damaged his mind

we thank senator mccain for the way he suffered and endured things that cause people to be afraid of shadows, to be randomly violent, to be cause them horrific flashbacks, and to lash out and relive those horrible moments from years ago.

it's absolutely inexcuseable what the north vietnamese did to that poor old man.
survivors of that sort of thing have often wound up as alcoholics, violent criminals, abusive people, and all manner of mentally unstable people.

john mccain's mind is warped today thanks to the pain he endured back then, and his country and i thank him for it.

[vssmith]

42. Correct

Someone on DU Said this in another thread over a year ago: "You are not a hero just because you survive; you are a hero when you help other people survive."

[bobd0]

66. McCain is not a torture survivor.

Because McCain wasn't tortured. The North Vietnamese were merely using "enhanced interrogation techniques".

McCain wasn't tortured because he didn't suffer, "death, organ failure or permanent damage".

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/washington/03intel.ht...

Memo Sheds New Light on Torture Issue

...inflicting pain would not be considered torture unless it caused "death, organ failure or permanent damage".

McCain wasn't tortured because the North Vietnamese said he was never tortured and McCain has never proved they weren't acting "in good faith".

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/torture-memos

Torture Memo Shields Interrogators
Government Memo Says Even Brutal Actions OK if Done in 'Good Faith'

THIS IS WHY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR VIOLATIONS OF U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE WAR CRIMES THEY HAVE COMMITTED. WITHOUT REJECTION OF THESE CRIMES AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THEM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS OPENED THE DOOR FOR ANYONE TO USE THEIR SICK, TWISTED REASONING TO REPEAT THE SAME CRIMES.

And what recourse will we have when they do? Our own "leaders" made, implemented, and used these rules. If we refuse to reject their rules and hold them accountable then how can we complain when they are used against us?

How can it be torture when it's done to an American but not when it's an American doing the torture?

[EvilAL]

84. What speech did he say it was "vague"

I can't remember what he was trying to describe as vague in a speech he was giving. The definitions of torture or what "demeaning" was or something....

Edit.. I mean Bush was giving the speech or press conference.

[bobd0]

93. You're referring to this --

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/etn/2006/statemen...

Application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions

What the President said:

"The Supreme Court's recent decision has impaired our ability to prosecute terrorists through military commissions, and has put in question the future of the CIA program. In its ruling on military commissions, the Court determined that a provision of the Geneva Conventions known as "Common Article Three" applies to our war with al Qaeda. This article includes provisions that prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment." The problem is that these and other provisions of Common Article Three are vague and undefined, and each could be interpreted in different ways by American or foreign judges."

Here's a link to the text of the Bush's speech:

President Discusses Creation of Military Commissions to Try Suspected Terrorists

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/2006090...

So John McCain suffered NO TORTURE because the Geneva Conventions are "vague" and "undefined".

AND GUESS WHO SUPPORTED BUSH AND THE MCA -- NONE OTHER THAN JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/27/mccai...

Glenn Greenwald
Sunday April 27, 2008 10:40 EDT
John McCain and Bush's torture powers

An article by The New York Times's Mark Mazzetti this morning discloses a letter (.pdf) from the Justice Department to Congress which asserts "that American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law." In other words, even after all of the dramatic anti-torture laws and other decrees, the Bush administration insists that American interrogators have the right to use methods that are widely considered violations of the Geneva Conventions if we decide that doing so might help "thwart terrorist attacks."

There are two reasons, and two reasons only, that the Bush administration is able to claim this power: John McCain and the Military Commissions Act. In September, 2006, McCain made a melodramatic display -- with great media fanfare -- of insisting that the MCA require compliance with the Geneva Conventions for all detainees. But while the MCA purports to require that, it also vested sole and unchallenged discretion in the President to determine what does and does not constitute a violation of the Conventions. After parading around as the righteous opponent of torture, McCain nonetheless endorsed and voted for the MCA, almost single-handedly ensuring its passage. That law pretends to compel compliance with the Conventions, while simultaneously vesting the President with the power to violate them -- precisely the power that the President is invoking here to proclaim that we have the right to use these methods. As Columbia Law Professor Michael Dorf wrote at the time:

Americans following the news coverage of the debate about how to treat captives in the ongoing military conflicts could be forgiven for believing that the bill recently passed by Congress, the Military Commissions Act ("MCA"), was a compromise between a White House seeking far-reaching powers, and Senators seeking to restrain the Executive. After all, prior to reaching an agreement with the President, four prominent Republican Senators -- Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and John Warner -- had drawn a line in the sand, refusing to go along with a measure that would have redefined the Geneva Conventions' references to "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment." No doubt many Americans believe that because these four courageous Senators stood on moral principle, the bill that emerged, and which President Bush will certainly sign, reflects a careful balance between liberty and security.

Yet if that is what Americans believe, they are sorely mistaken. On nearly every issue, the MCA gives the White House everything it sought. It immunizes government officials for past war crimes; it cuts the United States off from its obligations under the Geneva Conventions; and it all but eliminates access to civilian courts for non-citizens -- including permanent residents whose children are citizens -- that the government, in its nearly unreviewable discretion, determines to be unlawful enemy combatants.

Destroying the protections of the Geneva Conventions while pretending to preserve them was accomplished by Section 6(a)(3) of the MCA (.pdf), which provides:

INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT - (A) As provided by the Constitution and this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions . . . .

Paragraph (C) provides that such decisions "shall be authoritative" under U.S. law. McCain supported the MCA knowing that the President retained virtually unfettered discretion to decree that the interrogation methods we were using that are widely considered in the civilized world to be torture could continue. That's John McCain -- and his Principled Maverickism and alleged torture opposition -- in a nutshell. He continuously preens as some sort of independent moralizer only to use that status to endorse and enable that which he claims to oppose. In Great American Hypocrites, I wrote about his numerous deceitful maneuvers to legalize torture as follows:

The mirage-like nature of McCain's alleged convictions can be seen most clearly, and most depressingly, with his public posturing over the issue of torture. Time and again, McCain has made a dramatic showing of standing firm against the use of torture by the United States only to reveal that his so-called principles are confined to the realm of rhetoric and theater, but never action that follows through on that rhetoric.

In 2005, McCain led the effort in the Senate to pass the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which made the use of torture illegal. While claiming that he had succeeded in passing a categorical ban on torture, however, McCain meekly accepted two White House maneuvers that diluted his legislation to the point of meaningless: (1) the torture ban expressly applied only to the U.S. military, but not to the intelligence community, which was exempt, thus ensuring that the C.I.A.—the principal torture agent for the United States—could continue to torture legally; and (2) after signing the DTA into law, which passed the Senate by a vote of 90–9, President Bush issued one of his first controversial "signing statements" in which he, in essence, declared that, as President, he had the power to disregard even the limited prohibitions on torture imposed by McCain's law.

McCain never once objected to Bush's open, explicit defiance of his cherished anti-torture legislation, preferring to bask in the media’s glory while choosing to ignore the fact that his legislative accomplishment would amount to nothing. Put another way, McCain opted for the political rewards of grandstanding on the issue while knowing that he had accomplished little, if anything, in the way of actually promoting his "principles."

A virtual repeat of that sleight-of-hand occurred in 2006, when McCain first pretended to lead opposition to the Military Commissions Act (MCA), only thereafter to endorse this most radical, torture-enabling legislation, almost single-handedly ensuring its passage. After insisting that compelled adherence to the anti-torture ban of the Geneva Conventions was a nonnegotiable item for him, McCain ultimately blessed the MCA despite the fact that it left it to the President to determine, in his sole discretion, which interrogation methods did or did not comply with the Conventions' provisions.

Thus, once again, McCain created a self-image as a principled torture opponent with one hand, and with the other, ensured a legal framework that would not merely fail to ban, but would actively enable, the President’s ability to continue using interrogation methods widely considered to be torture. Indeed, by casting himself as the Supreme Arbiter of torture morality, McCain's support for this torture-enabling law became Bush and Cheney's most potent instrument for legalizing the very interrogation methods that McCain, for so long, flamboyantly claimed to oppose.

And then this year, McCain voted to oppose a ban on waterboarding, claiming that it was unnecessary given that waterboarding is already considered illegal by the Bush administration -- an assertion about which he later admitted he had no real knowledge and which is, in any event, simply untrue.

As the NYT story illustrates this morning, we continue to be a rogue nation when it comes to international norms on the treatment of detainees. The DOJ explicitly claims the right to use methods otherwise prohibited under the Conventions as long as it claims doing so is necessary to stop the Terrorists. And despite his media-sustained reputation as a righteous, principled opponent of torture, much of these disgraces are the direct by-product of John McCain's work.

-- Glenn Greenwald

McCain is no hero. McCain is a fucking lying hypocrite. McCain is a disgrace. McCain is a sellout to Bush.

A former victim of torture would NEVER be complicit in such legislation. To make matters worse, McCain has the gall to accuse others of using issues for political expediency while he is in fact the chief among those that do.

WHEN IS OUR LIBERAL MEDIA GOING TO COVER THIS McCAIN HYPOCRISY?

[mwb970]

82. My view exactly. /nt

[vicman]

16. The difference between the Swift Boaters...

and this is that the Swift Boaters all told demonstrable LIES about John Kerry. There are no lies in this OP.

[ecstatic]

55. That's my sense too. Kerry and McCain are apples and oranges

McCain's service is fair game, since he's always bringing up.

[moondust]

26. He's a sleazebag.

Proving on a daily basis that he is not an honorable man.

[pretzel4gore]

36. notice the sleigh of hand?

tricky little two bit sluts! They want the subject (that Vietnam war was illegal, unnecessary and probably an affront to God, or a national 'sin') pushed back, outta mind, so they try to put focus on mccain's war heroism, his bravery, his sacrifice, and his defiance of the 'same old same old' best typified by the men behind that guy, 'Whobama' (kerist, i missed my calling!) Now the point is NO ONE IS TAKEN IN by the cheap trickery, except the 'masses' who, besides not having a voice, which the conmen therefore provides via foxnews etc, don't exist in real terms, and therefore can never demand revenge for being cheated.
Neat, eh?

[frogcycle]

37. I like your headline but

don't know that the actions in rolling thunder make your point

I agree that there was nothing heroic in flying those missions. He was doing the job. Whether it was an appropriate mission or not is immaterial.

His supposed "heroism" is based on his having been a POW, and having tried for a long time to follow orders as to behavior when captured. He held up to a lot of physical abuse, made up false info to give them, declined an offer to be released because of who his father was. Those are all admirable. He is to be respected for trying to tough it out. A good soldier. Better than many who would have caved in earlier.

The word "hero", though, should, in my view, be reserved for those who knowingly put their own lives at risk to save others. Firemen who enter burning buildings, soldiers who throw themselves on grenades, that sort of thing. McCain found himself in a situation and he performed admirably. Declining the release was brave, highly principled. But it was not to save anyone; it was to avoid the shame of taking the deal and having to live with it. Not ratting out any and everyone he knew to his captors was following orders and was highly principled. That was, indirectly at least, to save others, but once again it was not voluntarily putting himself at risk; it was choosing the lesser of two evils given the circumstances. (1) He knew that even if he ratted out everyone, he'd not be released and the torture would not stop, and (2) he knew that if he ratted out everyone he'd have to live with it.

This is the real sham. That his admirable performance, given the circumstances, is equated to heroism. Many, many soldiers are unsung heroes. It is a discredit to them and in many cases their memories that his performance gets such unwarranted accolades for political purposes.

John Kerry put his own reputation on the line, knowing he'd be severely criticized, for something he believed, to support principles, end the war, and save lives. He did not have to. He chose to go public with the attendant risk. It was not taking a bullet, but it was more heroic, in that he at least had a choice and he chose the one that was not self-serving.

[katandmoon]

43. Thank you! McCain is NOT "an honorable man," as the Obama campaign tries to have it so it can

have it both ways. McCain is as dishonorable as they come. If Obama can't get THAT message across, he will lose the election.

[treestar]

44. If Kerry is not a hero, then McLame is not

Simple way to put it to the republicons.

they can't have it both ways.

If McLame is a "war hero" then so is every single soldier who ever served during wartime. mclame was just doing his job - and poorly (in right wing terms) since he got captured.

If Kerry's heroism in battle, that was successful, does not count, then Mclame's getting captured does not count either.

Republicons are such hypocrites, they really think they deserve a double standard to their advantage.

[rasputin1952]

50. All McCain has is the POW status, and after going out of his way

to make the point he would not use that as a campaign tool, he has reneged, (by way of 2nd and 3rd parties).

I respect anyone who served this nation in a uniform. As a vet, I cannot, in good conscience, disparage those who serve now. They are under orders from an insane group of princes, starting w/bush and his cabal, they are doing what they are told to do. Until they are ordered to do something else, this will continue.

The same is w/McCain and his time in cockpit. The destruction of a power plant is a both a strategic and tactical situation, a legitimate target, considering the action, not the overall concept of the war, or the morality/legitimacy of said war.

The point is, he was a POW, was treated harshly & broke under pressure (somewhat, and I do not necessarily blame him for that). The incredible situation is that he learned nothing from his own experiences. Voting against a GI Bill of Rights, increased spending for the VA and veteran home care, is a ghastly record for anyone who ever wore the uniform of one of the services...much less one who is receiving a military pension, a VA benefit package, Senatorial pay and Social Security payments as well. When was the last time McCain ambled down the halls of a VA hospital talking to PFC's about their wounds? I can't recall any time he did this, after all, after denying them so much, how could he move through their ranks and expect to be "lauded" for being a former servicemember.

Wes Clark was correct, being shot out of the sky and becoming a POW does not a president make, but since that is all he has. He has no domestic policy, no economic policy, in fact, no policy at all that would benefit Americans...except those that produce military hardware and munitions.

John Sidney McCain III is quite simply, one more GOP candidate in a long line of GOP candidates, that is not qualified for the job.

[AZ Criminal JD]

52. Thank goodness Obama rejects your B.S.

He is a hell of lot smarter than many who post here.

[the48er]

53. Okay, you've accused me ...

... of slinging b.s.

Where I come from that's a bad thing. It's not a charge to be made lightly.

So I might want to respond ... as civilly and honestly as I'm able.

Before doing so, however, I'd need to have some idea of what, specifically, I said that you think constitutes b.s.

Would you be so good as to tell me?

[AZ Criminal JD]

94. You are implying or actually charging that the military in Vietnam were war criminals.

That is B.S. And I don't care where you are from. They were following mission orders, just as we will expect them to do if Obama becomes President.

[WillyT]

57. Here's A REAL War Hero...

Hugh Thompson, Jr.

<snip>

In the early morning hours of March 16, 1968, Thompson's OH-23 encountered no enemy fire over My Lai 4. Spotting two possible Viet Cong suspects, he forced the Vietnamese men to surrender and flew them off for a tactical interrogation. Thompson also marked the location of several wounded Vietnamese with green smoke, a signal that they needed help.

Returning to the My Lai area at around 0900 after refueling, he noticed that the people he had marked were now dead. Out in a paddy field beside a dike 200 meters south of the village, he marked the location of a wounded young Vietnamese woman. Thompson and his crew watched from a low hover as Captain Ernest Medina (C Company Commander, 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment) came up to the woman, prodded her with his foot, and then shot and killed her.

Thompson then flew over an irrigation ditch filled with dozens of bodies. Shocked at the sight, he radioed his accompanying gunships, knowing his transmission would be monitored by many on the radio net: "It looks to me like there's an awful lot of unnecessary killing going on down there. Something ain't right about this. There's bodies everywhere. There's a ditch full of bodies that we saw. There's something wrong here."<2>

Movement from the ditch indicated to Thompson that there were still people alive in there. Thompson landed his helicopter and dismounted. David Mitchell, a sergeant and squad leader in 1st Platoon, C Company, walked over to him. When asked by Thompson whether any help could be provided to the people in the ditch, the sergeant replied that the only way to help them was to put them out of their misery. Second Lieutenant William Calley (1st Platoon Leader, C Company) then came up, and the two had the following conversation:<3>

Thompson: What's going on here, Lieutenant?
Calley: This is my business.
Thompson: What is this? Who are these people?
Calley: Just following orders.
Thompson: Orders? Whose orders?
Calley: Just following...
Thompson: But, these are human beings, unarmed civilians, sir.
Calley: Look Thompson, this is my show. I'm in charge here. It ain't your concern.
Thompson: Yeah, great job.
Calley: You better get back in that chopper and mind your own business.
Thompson: You ain't heard the last of this!

Thompson took off again, and Andreotta reported that Mitchell was now executing the people in the ditch. Furious, Thompson flew over the northeast corner of the village and spotted a group of about ten civilians, including children, running toward a homemade bomb shelter. Pursuing them were soldiers from the 2nd Platoon, C Company. Realizing that the soldiers intended to murder the Vietnamese, Thompson landed his aircraft between them and the villagers. Thompson turned to Colburn and Andreotta and told them that if the Americans began shooting at the villagers or him, they should fire their M60 machine guns at the Americans:<4> "Y'all cover me! If these bastards open up on me or these people, you open up on them. Promise me!" He then dismounted to confront the 2nd Platoon's leader, Stephen Brooks. Thompson told him he wanted help getting the peasants out of the bunker:<5>

Thompson: Hey listen, hold your fire. I'm going to try to get these people out of this bunker. Just hold your men here.
Brooks: Yeah, we can help you get 'em out of that bunker - with a hand grenade!
Thompson: Just hold your men here. I think I can do better than that.

Brooks declined to argue with him, even though as a commissioned officer he outranked Thompson.

After coaxing the 11 Vietnamese out of the bunker, Thompson persuaded the pilots of the two UH-1 Huey gunships (Dan Millians and Brian Livingstone) flying as his escort to evacuate them. While Thompson was returning to base to refuel, Andreotta spotted movement in an irrigation ditch filled with approximately 100 bodies. The helicopter again landed and the men dismounted to search for survivors. After wading through the remains of the dead and dying men, women and children, Andreotta extracted a live boy. Thompson flew the survivor to the ARVN hospital in Quang Ngai.

Upon returning back to their base at about 1100, Thompson heatedly reported the massacre to his superiors. His allegations of civilian killings quickly reached Lieutenant Colonel Frank Barker, the operation's overall commander. Barker radioed his executive officer to find out from Captain Medina what was happening on the ground. Medina then gave the cease-fire order to Charlie Company to "knock off the killing".

<snip>

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr .

[the48er]

58. Wonderful Post

Thanks for that. I heartily agree that that's what a "war hero" looks like.

Richard Rowland Kirkland's another.

I first learned of him 15 years ago when I chanced upon his monument at Fredericksburg. I was really bowled over by the story then, and I still am.

[WillyT]

69. And Thank You For Yours...

I was unaware of Kirkland.

Thanks.

[grantcart]

61. thank you for reminding us --- I had forgotten about him

[lonestarnot]

77. Yes!

[Zavulon]

59. Yes, he is.

The media says so, and they couldn't report it if it weren't true.

[Balbus]

60. He's a war hero in my book.

[ClayZ]

70. K and R

[the48er]

72. 'K and R' ... 'Ketch and Release'?

When fishing for trophies, ketch and release is often the best way to go.

I suspect it means something other than that in this instance, however.

Yes?

Seriously -- I plead ignorance. What's it mean?

[ClayZ]

81. Kick and Recommend

It kicks it to the top of the page~

Welcome to DU!

[Joe Chi Minh]

73. I read a couple of months ago that some of our British female pilots,

in Afghanistan, maybe males too, deliberately miss civilian targets, or targets where a lot of collateral damage would be caused to civilians.

People say they feel proud about all sorts of things other people do, when I'm kind of puzzled, but I'm not sure if it was pride or just a good feeling, but I felt something like those things when I read it. I found it really heart-warming. Maybe we've not entirely lost all the old-fashioned values in the UK, despite all the anomie, chaos and mindless violence engendered by the politicians; or maybe those values are making a come-back.

[Kurovski]

74. McCain is an elitist who shits on veterans.

K&R.

[the48er]

76. I agree with you BUT ...

... please enlighten me: what does K and R mean?

The Google guv me The Nada.

[Kurovski]

78. It means "Kicked and Reccommended"

It means I like you, I really, really like you.

[the48er]

79. Thank You Very Much ...

... although as a German-Norwegian, schooled prior to Vatican II, I'm deeply aware of how unworthy I am of all that liking. Of any liking, probably.

[Hubert H. Hubert]

80. Kernighan & Ritchie

'War Hero' is an oxymoron.

[erpowers]

83. Leave McCain's Military Record Alone

I am not a fan of McCain, but Democrats need to leave his military record alone. I do not care how or why he ended up in a prisoner of war camp. What matters is the fact that he was actually in a prisoner of war camp. He did his job. I have never faulted any military veteran for doing their job and I will not split hairs in order to fault John McCain for doing his job. If people want to attack McCain for his policies I think that is great; he has some really bad policies. However, he is a military veteran and in my opinion any military veteran is a hero because they put their life on the line in service to their country. I was against things like this when it happened to Democrat like Max Cleland and John Kerry and I am against things like this now that it is happening to John McCain.

I would like to point out that I am not against free speech, but I think attacking a person military record is wrong. This is a political campaign it needs to be about policy not about where McCain deserves to be supported for what he did in Vietnam and what happened to him in Vietnam.

[the48er]

85. It's Okay That McCain Helped Kill 100,000 Civilians?

That was the civilian death toll from Operation Rolling Thunder. It works out to something like 1 in every 170 North Vietnamese civilians -- murdered by Rolling Thunder -- and McCain was in Vietnam specifically to participate in Rolling Thunder.

And when he was shot down, it was because he was trying to bomb a power plant in the middle of Hanoi that had previously been off-limits to U.S. bombers for fear of collateral damage.

We're talking about the murder of vast numbers of civilians. Good lord, how can we just look the other way for that?

"I do not care how or why he ended up in a prisoner of war camp."

Wow. Well I do care. A lot.

[EvilAL]

86. The real question is..

Will he do it again? The answer is yes. 100 fuckin years!

[Tarc]

87. 72,000 civilians, not 100,000. Still unacceptable by any measure

but don't lump in NV troops, as it weakens your argument.

[the48er]

89. I Understated It: It Could Have Been 182,000

So says PBS's Battlefield Vietnam (last entry, bottom of the page).

And in his Vietnam: A History, Stanley Karnow says 100,000.

Maybe you've got the credentials to argue with Stanley Karnow about what happened in Vietnam, but I sure as heck don't.

[Waiting For Everyman]

88. Some POWs say McC wasn't tortured...

I don't know about that because I haven't seen his war records. As far as I know, nobody has except the AP. Since that's what he is running on, don't you think we (the public) should see them?

I do know that McC sold out the remaining POW/MIAs at the 1992 hearings. He made sure the records were sealed and stayed that way, so that no one would see his own records. Who says so? Bob Dornan (R-CA) and Bob Smith (R-NH), and the chiefs of both the House and Senate committee staffs, and the POW/MIA family members. I watched every one of those hearings myself and I know it's the truth.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g


Is that a hero? Not in my book. I call that a traitor - especially someone who not only claims to know what it was like, but built his fame and fortune off of it - maybe all the way to the Presidency.

There is so little interest in the way McC obstructed those hearings, it leads me to feel that there is STILL nobody who cares about those who were left behind. By the way, I also know that no matter how he "lost it" toward the end, John Kerry was the prime reason those hearings got started.

I just hope this isn't one of those stories the public gets interested in after a President McC is in office.

[Arkansas Granny]

90. I do not refer to McCain as a "war hero", but I do respect his military service.

These are facts: he did serve his country, he was a POW and he was honorable discharged. I will not make negative comments about his military service or his behavior while he was a POW because I didn't walk in his shoes. I believe that if we attack McCain on anything regarding his military service we are no better than the swiftboaters regardless how much money or how many backers are involved or what we perceive to be moral. We could alienate voters who have been or have family members in military service.

We have so many issues that show Obama to be the better choice for President that I don't believe we need to criticize McCain's military record.

[the48er]

91. Do You Respect These:

A) a bombing campaign that killed roughly 1 out of every 170 North Vietnamese CIVILIANS

B) an attack on a downtown Hanoi power plant that had previously been off-limits to U.S. bombers for fear of killing even more civilians

If you don't respect those, I'm unclear about how you can respect John McCain's military service, because prior to being shot down, those were his military service.

[TexasObserver]

92. Bottom 2% of his class. Crashed several planes. Terrible military record.

McCain was a fuck up from the time he entered the Naval Academy until the time he got shot down.

He was a POW, like many others were, and as such, was treated poorly by his captors, who understandably resented the terror that he and fellow bombers rained down on them and their families.

He still thinks the US should have WON the Vietnam war, that we could have won it, and he's still stuck in the 1960s trying to vindicate himself with a war victory.

He is making his military record the centerpiece of his basis for being president, so it has to be examined and revealed for what it was. It is not dirty tricks to talk about what everyone agrees he did. I don't fault him for breaking, or being a collaborator, because I don't know about those.

I KNOW that he was almost last of 900 grads in his Naval Academy Class. I KNOW he crashed more than one plane, and was a lousy pilot. I know he dumped his crippled wife to chase the skirt of a woman who was 24 and almost half his age. I know he was in bed with Keating.

We go after him where he is vulnerable, and all these folks that keep trying to SHHHHHHHish the discussion can like it or not. If they knew anything about winning elections, they wouldn't be making such asinine statements.

[L0oniX]

95. Fuck all policy wars. Policy wars are for suckers and for the capitalist pigs...

to make more money.