Why debate with someone with no say in the US elections? Sez the guy with the Canadian Flag by his name, debating in a Canadian forum about a US election no Canadians can actually vote in. (minus the little pocket of duals)
Best for America..Obama or McCain?
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
- Status
Why debate with someone with no say in the US elections? Sez the guy with the Canadian Flag by his name, debating in a Canadian forum about a US election no Canadians can actually vote in. (minus the little pocket of duals)
You know, I think I mentioned the term "Soap Opera" before in a few other occasions.... as long as it's not just me thinking that
Carriers have a crew of about 5,000-7,000. I think the Forestall had about 5,500 crew members. So approximately 5,365 made it out as well. McCaine was not the only pilot to survive as quite a few ejected from the flight deck or popped their canopies and ran for it. Pilots jobs are not to fight flight deck fires. That is the crews job.
McCaine's plane was on fire. It was an A-4...HIS A-4...that was ablaze. Planes don't catch fire after they fire a missle. Unless you are saying that McCaine never was an A-4 pilot but rather flew F-4's and that the crew member that was arming the F-4's electronic missle system and fired it was actually John McCaine.
If that hit the bombs, McCaine would have been the first to die. If that hit his cockpit he would have been the first. It however hit his fuel pylon, rupturing it, spilling aviation fuel over the deck which ignited.
There is footage of the F-4 firing the missle. It is a close up.
Well what do you think happened then? The fuel fire traveled across the deck, it is liquid.
Are you saying he was not even there? Again...135 died and over 5,000 lived.
How are they contradicting? This was never an issue until some blogger blamed McCaine using NO EVIDENCE at all! If you see the film they people are hardly represented by black blobs.
So what is your goal? To make him responsible because you don't like him. You don't want him to be president? So no evidence can persuade you because you WANT him to be responsible.
I guess you didn't read this total thread.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/political-debates/75613-best-america-obama-mccain-6.html
Dual citizen living in Canada. ;-) (I get a vote in the USA and Canada)
Like I said before Palin, Obama, McCain and Biden have never made an executive decision...... Merely privy to information.....so none of them are qualified....actually nobody in the U.S. is.....not even Bush.:lol:
Now Dick Cheney is another story.
Be nice to see a Liberally biased take on the two instead of the conservative one you linked.;-)
Agreed on the quality, and I have seen a few on Youtube as well.... I also seen a british documentary on the incident as well, which didn't focus directly on McCain.
Agreed with those details.
And I am only expressing a side argument about him possibly being the cause, based on a history of not trusting anything the republicans tell the public.... as they tend to either exaggerate or they edit information to suit their own agendas.
I agree that it was most likely by accident, but who was the one who fired it? What was their punishment if they lived?
My question is moreso directed towards which plane he was actually in. As I mentioned before, based on the details of the documentaries and youtubes I have seen, two bombs fell off a plane right next to him..... he apparently got unbuckled and jumped from his aircraft and landed hard, not being able to get up due to the distance..... apparently flaming gas was surrounding him, and then the two bombs went off. One would figure he would have died from that, or did he get out of there before that occured?
I personally don't think he should be president, but I am focusing directly on this incident in paticular and how it actually occured.... I can seperate the two and then once one is explained, I can then give a ligit opinion on the other.
The only thing I feel has a potiential of being fake is his involvement in this incident on the carrier.
See, that is where I got conflicting information. You claim that he jumped from the cockpit and ran, while other information provided to me said he jumped and then when he landed hard, he couldn't get up right away.
To me, in an unbiased manner as best I can, the information doesn't add up.
I have also heard that the bombs also had to be redesigned.
Oh wait, I found something that leans Obama's way.....
McCain's Tricky Calculation
Palin is 'change'—but keeps the 'experience' issue alive.
Jonathan Alter
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 8:08 PM ET Sep 3, 2008
Faced with a shaggy, seat-of-the-pants convention, Republicans are determined to get back on message. So now their new, more disciplined line is about experience. That's right, after John McCain selected a vice presidential candidate who is clearly unprepared to be president, his aides—and any other Republicans who want a future in the partyare singing from the same choir book. In speeches, interviews, a new ad, and even off-the-record sessions with reporters, the line is that Sarah Palin is more prepared than Barack Obama to be president.
I asked a senior McCain aide on Tuesday: "So what you're saying is that Barack Obama is not ready to be president on day one, but Sarah Palin is?"
"Yes," he said with a straight face.
Obama won 18 million votes, faced countless tough interviews and emerged with a reputation for fluency in discussing affairs of state, whatever one thinks of his politics. Palin's vote totals for mayor were measured in the hundreds; she has served only 20 months as governor of a state half the size of Brooklyn, and knows nothing of national or international issues beyond energy.
No matter. The argument stands.
Here's the logic, if you can call it that. Governors and mayors have executive experience, and the presidency is an executive job. Palin has been a manager and Obama has not. When faced with the obvious question—"So does that mean that Palin is more qualified than McCain, who has never been an executive?"— Republicans (working from talking points) have an answer. McCain commanded a training squadron in Florida in 1976 (the fact that he was not promoted to flag rank afterwards doesn't get mentioned).
This is what it has come to. But how? Before we understand how experience got back into the campaign, we have to recognize why it disappeared with the Palin pick.
The Obama campaign claims that it's simple. "They [McCain and company] spent four months trying to make this about experience and it didn't work," says Obama communications director Robert Gibbs, visiting St. Paul to offer a little spin of his own. "The McCain campaign recognized that this election is about change, and that's why they changed their strategy."
The idea behind selecting Palin was to move away from the experience argument—which hadn't worked for Hillary Clinton—and toward a campaign theme focused on reform and resistance to Washington business-as-usual. In other words, McCain picked Palin, in part to steal some of Obama's thunder; not just with women and younger voters but among those hungry for change.
Unfortunately for McCain, problems with that approach arose immediately. Even many Republicans believe it irresponsible of McCain, now 72, to put someone so lacking in familiarity with Washington (and the world beyond America) a heartbeat from the presidency. At least governors who have run for president have studied national and global problems for a couple of years. Palin has not. Moreover, Palin's credentials as a reformer were tarnished by reports that he she had favored the inexcusable "Bridge to Nowhere" before she opposed it, and as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, had hired a Washington lobbyist to obtain $27 million in federal aid for her town of less than 9,000, not including an expensive passageway from Wasilla to Sen. Ted Stevens's country home nearby.
Meanwhile, second thoughts emerged about jettisoning the experience argument altogether. "Ready to be president" had been the centerpiece of McCain's campaign and it looked a little cynical to junk it overnight. It was also inconvenient to explain why McCain had stated repeatedly that the most important criterion he was using in choosing a vice president was the capacity to be a highly qualified president on day one if necessary.
So the McCain camp decided to try to make lemonade out of lemons (though they remain hopeful that Palin herself will turn out to be a peach). McCain aides figure that any day spent talking about experience—even if their argument about it is absurd—is a good day for McCain and a bad day for Obama. Their presidential candidate has it; the Democrat does not. The rest, they figure, is just noise.
Will it work? It depends on how successful the McCain campaign is at keeping Palin from embarrassing herself. Her lack of experience will only become an issue if it is manifested during the campaign. To decrease the odds of a gaffe, expect her to be carefully shielded from the questions of tough-minded reporters.
I'd imagine that Palin will dodge press conferences in favor of interviews with people like Sean Hannity, Larry King and Ellen DeGeneres. Then, when the media complain that she is being kept away, the McCain campaign will cite the half dozen or so interviews she has granted as proof that the campaign press is just bellyaching. Brief press "avails" on the plane will be useless, unless reporters ask open-ended queries designed to elicit proof of real knowledge.
That should get Palin through the next three weeks. By the end of the month, the McCain camp can say she has to go to ground to prepare for the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate, where expectations will be so low for Palin that she will likely emerge intact. It will be up to the press and public to raise enough of a stink about this, that Palin is forced to submit to real interviews with real questions that show whether her real-life experience is any preparation for assuming high office. In that sense, the Palin nomination is as much of a test of us as it is of her.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156982
McCain's Tricky Calculation
Palin is 'change'—but keeps the 'experience' issue alive.
Jonathan Alter
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 8:08 PM ET Sep 3, 2008
Faced with a shaggy, seat-of-the-pants convention, Republicans are determined to get back on message. So now their new, more disciplined line is about experience. That's right, after John McCain selected a vice presidential candidate who is clearly unprepared to be president, his aides—and any other Republicans who want a future in the partyare singing from the same choir book. In speeches, interviews, a new ad, and even off-the-record sessions with reporters, the line is that Sarah Palin is more prepared than Barack Obama to be president.
I asked a senior McCain aide on Tuesday: "So what you're saying is that Barack Obama is not ready to be president on day one, but Sarah Palin is?"
"Yes," he said with a straight face.
Obama won 18 million votes, faced countless tough interviews and emerged with a reputation for fluency in discussing affairs of state, whatever one thinks of his politics. Palin's vote totals for mayor were measured in the hundreds; she has served only 20 months as governor of a state half the size of Brooklyn, and knows nothing of national or international issues beyond energy.
No matter. The argument stands.
Here's the logic, if you can call it that. Governors and mayors have executive experience, and the presidency is an executive job. Palin has been a manager and Obama has not. When faced with the obvious question—"So does that mean that Palin is more qualified than McCain, who has never been an executive?"— Republicans (working from talking points) have an answer. McCain commanded a training squadron in Florida in 1976 (the fact that he was not promoted to flag rank afterwards doesn't get mentioned).
This is what it has come to. But how? Before we understand how experience got back into the campaign, we have to recognize why it disappeared with the Palin pick.
The Obama campaign claims that it's simple. "They [McCain and company] spent four months trying to make this about experience and it didn't work," says Obama communications director Robert Gibbs, visiting St. Paul to offer a little spin of his own. "The McCain campaign recognized that this election is about change, and that's why they changed their strategy."
The idea behind selecting Palin was to move away from the experience argument—which hadn't worked for Hillary Clinton—and toward a campaign theme focused on reform and resistance to Washington business-as-usual. In other words, McCain picked Palin, in part to steal some of Obama's thunder; not just with women and younger voters but among those hungry for change.
Unfortunately for McCain, problems with that approach arose immediately. Even many Republicans believe it irresponsible of McCain, now 72, to put someone so lacking in familiarity with Washington (and the world beyond America) a heartbeat from the presidency. At least governors who have run for president have studied national and global problems for a couple of years. Palin has not. Moreover, Palin's credentials as a reformer were tarnished by reports that he she had favored the inexcusable "Bridge to Nowhere" before she opposed it, and as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, had hired a Washington lobbyist to obtain $27 million in federal aid for her town of less than 9,000, not including an expensive passageway from Wasilla to Sen. Ted Stevens's country home nearby.
Meanwhile, second thoughts emerged about jettisoning the experience argument altogether. "Ready to be president" had been the centerpiece of McCain's campaign and it looked a little cynical to junk it overnight. It was also inconvenient to explain why McCain had stated repeatedly that the most important criterion he was using in choosing a vice president was the capacity to be a highly qualified president on day one if necessary.
So the McCain camp decided to try to make lemonade out of lemons (though they remain hopeful that Palin herself will turn out to be a peach). McCain aides figure that any day spent talking about experience—even if their argument about it is absurd—is a good day for McCain and a bad day for Obama. Their presidential candidate has it; the Democrat does not. The rest, they figure, is just noise.
Will it work? It depends on how successful the McCain campaign is at keeping Palin from embarrassing herself. Her lack of experience will only become an issue if it is manifested during the campaign. To decrease the odds of a gaffe, expect her to be carefully shielded from the questions of tough-minded reporters.
I'd imagine that Palin will dodge press conferences in favor of interviews with people like Sean Hannity, Larry King and Ellen DeGeneres. Then, when the media complain that she is being kept away, the McCain campaign will cite the half dozen or so interviews she has granted as proof that the campaign press is just bellyaching. Brief press "avails" on the plane will be useless, unless reporters ask open-ended queries designed to elicit proof of real knowledge.
That should get Palin through the next three weeks. By the end of the month, the McCain camp can say she has to go to ground to prepare for the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate, where expectations will be so low for Palin that she will likely emerge intact. It will be up to the press and public to raise enough of a stink about this, that Palin is forced to submit to real interviews with real questions that show whether her real-life experience is any preparation for assuming high office. In that sense, the Palin nomination is as much of a test of us as it is of her.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156982
Is it now?
Check how they meld the speeches together.:lol:
http://watch.ctv.ca/the-daily-show-...ith-jon-stewart---september-5-2008/#clip90659
Unbelievable.:roll::lol:
.....and more fumbling and stumbling by cons of the Sarah Palin hypocrisy abortion issue.
Agreed... I'm not questioning that he should have stayed and help put out the fire.... if he had no experience in that, then why risk it?
That's what I an hypothetically suggesting. A-4 and F-4 are easy to edit on paper.
Fair enough, I believe my previous vision of missile contact with aircraft is built apon seeing them break apart in mid-air, which I suppose is at high speeds and those speeds would quickly take advantage of the impact zone and tear the crap out of the jet, while on ground and no speed, it wouldn't have exploded as it would have in air. On that detail I stand corrected.
Then perhaps someday I will come across it.
I know the fire spread, but based on the information I have seen, the bombs broke off very close to him, and if he was near them when they went off, he wouldn't have survived.... if he did, he's probably look like Freddy K. minus a few limbs.
But then the question being updated, if it was indeed him in the aircraft, when he jumped from it, did he quickly get up and run off as you suggest, or did he land hard and was planted on the ground for a period of time like in the information I have seen? If he landed hard and stunned or injured a leg, etc.... would he have had enough time to get out of there before the bombs went off?
No, I wasn't suggesting that... I was suggesting that if he was at ground zero of this incident, the chances of his survival compared to the many others who did die would have been quite slim, if any at all..... which led me to believe that perhaps he wasn't in that area, but was in another plane.... perhaps the one which fired.
Face-wise is what I was referring to. Granted you can see arms, leg's and torsos, but there is no information in that footage which can positively identify most shown, including McCain.
Nope... I was just presenting the concept that neither your argument or my hypothetical can not be really proven. And since it can not be directly proven who McCain actually was in the footage without doubt, then that situation perhaps should not be another example of how he was such a war hero.
Hi capture is also something anybody with rational thought would considder not something that makes him a hero. To me, he was only following orders.
It didn't because there was no reason to focus on him. His role was his plane was hit and he got out of dodge one way or the other.
Well the tragedy on the Forestall was not political. Now it is becoming political as folks want to blame him. The blogger that started this, and I read his accusations is off his rocker on this. He claims McCaine's "wet start" shook up the pilot behind him in an F-4 causing him to fire his missle. McCaine's jet was on the edge of the flight deck with his engine hanging over the flight deck. The rocket came from an F-4 near the island. It was not even a pilot in the F-4. Plane crews prep the plane before take off.
It was a plane crew member. Not a pilot. From what I can remember he activated the electronic firing system and the zuni rocket discharged hitting McCaines plane.
I would have to say he got out and was probably below before the bombs cooked off. I cannot be sure but when I saw the film at Sea School the flight deck crew was finally getting hoses to the fire when the first bomb(s) cooked off killing everyone in that area. They simply vanished.
We shall see! :lol:
I'd be more focused on his first crash and him hitting power lines.
I could be wrong here. He may have been carried away after he jumped. The flight deck is hard LIKE concrete. A jump from an A-4 would have had to have at least stunned him. The point is that his role in this is minimal as far as blame. However this is a clip that says he got away on his own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxGV-eRUC_0&NR=1
I do not think you are looking at this as being unbiased though.
You may be right. I read a book on this many years ago. After I saw this film I was always interested in what happened that day. Years ago I saw a book on the incident and read it but it has been quite some time.
Right. Pilots are too valuble, as crappy as it may sound to be fighting fires on a flight deck.
Some things should not even be a hypothetical when there is no place for it. There are facts to this story. McCaine and his fellow A-4 pilots were on the wrong end of an F-4's zuni rocket.
I am not sure that there is an arming distance on the zuni rocket. Some weapons have to travel a certain distance before they become "exploding" munitions to protect the person/plane firing it.
It is just a short part and shows nothing more than a "WHOOSH" from a plane.
Upon further reading I read that he did make it out on his own power and got to the island before the first bombs cooked off.
Well, it was him and as I just found out that he got far enough away. I do not think he would have survived if he was injured in the fall as he jumped into the flames. He would have burned.
He was at ground zero at the start but got out of dodge before the bombs started going off. The main casualties were flight deck crew members and sailors in the berthings directly below the aft flight deck.
[/quote]Face-wise is what I was referring to. Granted you can see arms, leg's and torsos, but there is no information in that footage which can positively identify most shown, including McCain.
Because he was kept isolated from other U.S. prisoners during these years of captivity, no one, except McCain and his captors, know exactly to what he was subjected or how he responded. Most information in the public record detailing McCain's experience with the North Vietnamese during this time frame came from McCain and McCain only
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.
When I was a Plebe (4th classman, or freshman) at the Naval Academy in 1957-58, I was assigned to the 17th Company for my four years there. In those days we had about 3,600 midshipmen spread among 24 companies, thus about 150 midshipmen to a company. As fortune would have it, John, a First Classman (senior) and his room mate lived directly across the hall from me and my two room mates. Believe me when I say that back then I would never in a million or more years have dreamed that the crazy guy across the hall would someday be a Senator and candidate for President!
John was a wild man. He was funny, with a quick wit and he was intelligent. But he was intent on breaking every USNA regulation in our 4 inch thick USNA Regulations book. And I believe he must have come as close to his goal as any midshipman who ever attended the Academy. John had me "coming around" to his room frequently during my plebe year. And on one occasion he took me with him to escape "over the wall" in the dead of night. He had a taxi cab waiting for us that took us to a bar some 7 miles away. John had a few beers, but forbid me to drink (watching out for me I guess) and made me drink cokes. I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates.
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.
4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW's in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor - 8, Service Crosses - 42, Silver Stars - 590, Bronze Stars - 958 and Purple Hearts - 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.
John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.
I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.
Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60's and 70's. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years.
I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.
It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush's war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John's views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.
I'm disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don't see that John is the "straight talk express" he.markets himself to be.Senator John Sidney McCain, III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who "Returned With Honor." That's our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I've decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain, III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.
..
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859,00.html
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.
When I was a Plebe (4th classman, or freshman) at the Naval Academy in 1957-58, I was assigned to the 17th Company for my four years there. In those days we had about 3,600 midshipmen spread among 24 companies, thus about 150 midshipmen to a company. As fortune would have it, John, a First Classman (senior) and his room mate lived directly across the hall from me and my two room mates. Believe me when I say that back then I would never in a million or more years have dreamed that the crazy guy across the hall would someday be a Senator and candidate for President!
John was a wild man. He was funny, with a quick wit and he was intelligent. But he was intent on breaking every USNA regulation in our 4 inch thick USNA Regulations book. And I believe he must have come as close to his goal as any midshipman who ever attended the Academy. John had me "coming around" to his room frequently during my plebe year. And on one occasion he took me with him to escape "over the wall" in the dead of night. He had a taxi cab waiting for us that took us to a bar some 7 miles away. John had a few beers, but forbid me to drink (watching out for me I guess) and made me drink cokes. I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates.
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.
4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW's in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor - 8, Service Crosses - 42, Silver Stars - 590, Bronze Stars - 958 and Purple Hearts - 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.
John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.
I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.
Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60's and 70's. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years.
I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.
It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush's war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John's views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.
I'm disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don't see that John is the "straight talk express" he.markets himself to be.Senator John Sidney McCain, III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who "Returned With Honor." That's our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I've decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain, III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.
..
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859,00.html
About Phillip Butler
Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals.After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace.
- Status