Am I the only one who thinks McShames answer re: his toughest decision

[randr]

was an exposure of his true selfishness.
How could this be a tough decision? All protocol, military and international, sets guidelines as to release.
He showed that he was conflicted over whether or not to take advantage of his fathers position and his own personal health, which remains questionable.
The decision he so valiantly arrived at was one that most all soldiers, and especially "claim to be heroes", would reach in a heartbeat.
His answer actually displayed him to be a person of extreme self interest!

[ContinentalOp]

1. Yeah, I thought that was weird too.

Shouldn't he be saying that it was a really easy, no-brainer kind of decision? He actually had to think twice about possibly betraying his fellow soldiers and his country?

[gateley]

2. He was confessing that he can be weak, like all human beings, yet he prevailed. nt

[Spazito]

3. I was just thinking about that "toughest decision" thing....

Wasn't it made clear in the military that, if captured, you do not accept "early release", that all POWs who have been held longer as well as the wounded must be released first?

If that is the case, why was it McCain's "toughest decision" to simply follow the military's dictate? I agree, it does display him to be "a person of extreme self interest", imo.

[ashling]

4. Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859,00.html

Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain
Phillip Butler | March 27, 2008

As some of you might know, John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. He is a man I respect and admire in some ways. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States.
****
People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always "No - John McCain was a POW with me." The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.

John's treatment as a POW:

1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POW's for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.

2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately this was often the case - new POW's arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was non-existent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John's father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW's suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.

3) John was offered, and refused, "early release." Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to "admit" that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was "lenient and humane." So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW's were released, with the sick and wounded going first.
*****

[Mz Pip]

5. If McCain had left early

he would have been vilified when he returned home. He knew that. It wasn't a tough decision. It was the only decision he could have made.

[Cosmocat]

6. YES !!! And ...

I would think to any other soldier, it was a no-brainer ...

It was just a pathetic means of interjecting his POW stories ...

Also, I want to note his greatest moral failure, "the failure of my first marriage" ...

Hey, Arshat ...

The "marriage" didn't fail ...

YOU freakin failed ...

The TRUTHFUL answer there would be somewhere in the spectrum of "my being completely unloyal to my wife at perhaps the lowest point in her life" ... Instead, of taking RESPONSIBILITY, he metted responsibility out to her, and to the "marriage" itself ...

This is basic stuff here ... But, MSM and the gen pop just can't even get superficial level stuff like that ...

[Bucky]

7. Well, it was a smart thing to say. To be fair, it probably was very tempting

He wasn't just being held prisoner. For those first two years, he was being physically mutilated.

I just don't think disparaging anything associated with his POW years will ever play among swing voters. You may be factually correct, but it's dumb politics to play up anything to do with his major strength. It's the equivalent of McCain's "attack" on Obama in which he pointed out how popular and celebrated Obama is. You end up helping the other side.