Newshoggers Comments
Pretty below the belt stuff.
And that "soft treatment" McCain was singled out for? Maybe the "Communist official" was referring to McCain only being tortured every other day instead of every day. And perhaps his food didn't have quite so many weevils swimming around in it.
Or maybe they gave him medical treatment for his broken back, pelvis and his other injuries instead of waiting six weeks...
Oh, wait. That's right. They sorta forgot that part.
Sure was soft of them to leave all that out. Maybe they were too busy complying with the Geneva Convention?
Hi Rick,
LOL - any Republican accusation of "below the belt" is laughable simply on evidence of past excesses. But wouldn't you be better off addressing such queries to the very, very conservative newspaper that ran the story?
Soft treatment maybe only included sleep deprivation, stress positions, hypothermia and dehydration - as opposed to waterboarding. I'm only speculating here. Certainly McCain used to think all of those were torture. Nowadays he doesn't seem so sure.
Regards, C
What both you ignore is McCain's shoddy treatment of his rescuer. It is worse than how he treated his first wife - dumped for a younger, prettier and richer model.
waterboarding isn't torture so if the vietnamese did it to mccain then he wasn't tortured
what a world
McCain was never waterboarded.
Beaten? Starved? Subjected to 24 hour (or longer) interrogations? Deliberate withholding of medical care?
What torture?
Rick, according to the Bush administration those are "enhanced techniques", not torture. Keep up. You can laud McCain for surviving torture or accept the Bush administration's assertions that they don't torture - not both at the same time.
But what about McCain's knavery in ignoring his rescuer and cutting him out of his autobiographical account? That speaks to his supposedly honorable character, doesn't it?
Regards, C
I have this question: how does McCain know that torture is an effective way to get useful intelligence? If he did not give any useful intelligence to his tortures, then why he expects others will? If he did, then how exactly he is a hero?
McCain is very dirty...his disrespect of a guy that saved his sorry ass in Viet Nam is nothing compared to the cover-ups of the USS Forrestal and USS Liberty events by him and his Father. Wayne Madsen has been on this for a long time...
Styve
--------
November 20, 2007 -- More details emerge on McCain carrier incident
WMR has learned additional details regarding the deadly fire aboard the Navy aircraft carrier, the USS Forrestal, on July 19, 1967 in the Gulf of Tonkin. The additional details point to then-Lieut. Commander John McCain playing more of a role in triggering the fire and explosions than previously reported.
On January 16, 2006, WMR reported that according to a U.S. Navy sailor who was aboard the Forrestal on the fateful day of the fire, "McCain and the Forrestal's skipper, Capt. John K. Beling, were warned about the danger of using M-65 1000-lb. bombs manufactured in 1935, which were deemed too dangerous to use during World War II and, later, on B-52 bombers. The fire from the Zuni misfire resulted in the heavy 1000 pounders being knocked loose from the pylons of McCain's A-4, which were only designed to hold 500-pound bombs." WMR further reported, "The unstable bombs had a 60-second cook-off threshold in a fire situation and this warning was known to both Beling and McCain prior to the disaster."
WMR also cited the potential that McCain's Navy records were used against him by the neocons in control of the Pentagon, "The neo-cons, who have had five years to examine every file within the Department of Defense, have likely accessed documents that could prove embarrassing to McCain, who was on board the USS Forrestal on July 29, 1967, and whose A-4 Skyhawk was struck by an air-to-ground Zuni missile that had misfired from an F-4 Phantom."
WMR has been informed that crewmen aboard the Forrestal have provided additional information about the Forrestal incident. It is believed by many crewmen and those who have investigated the case that McCain deliberately "wet-started" his A-4E to shake up the guy in the plane behind his A-4. "Wet-starts", done either deliberately or accidentally, shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft.
In McCain's case, the "wet-start" apparently "cooked off" and launched the Zuni rocket from the rear F-4 that touched off the explosions and massive fire. The F-4 pilot was reportedly killed in the conflagration.
"Wet starting" was apparently a common practice among young "hot-dog" pilots. McCain was quickly transferred to the USS Oriskany (the only Forrestal crewman to be immediately transferred). After the disaster, McCain was shot down over North Vietnam on October 26, 1967.
As WMR previously reported, at the time of the Forrestal disaster, McCain's father, Admiral John McCain, Jr., was Commander-in-Chief of US Naval Forces Europe (CINCUSNAVEUR) and was busy covering up the details of the deadly and pre-meditated June 8, 1967, Israeli attack on the NSA
So now we're criticizing McCain for not giving proper credit to someone who rescued him while he was unconscious? This means that he doesn't remember being rescued and knows about it only second-hand. People are never much impressed by what happens when they are unconscious.
One Swift Boat episode was enough. Let's not do it again.
"One Swift Boat episode was enough. Let's not do it again."
Y'know what? Let's.
Layperson, I'm fairly sure McCain should remember the same guy beating back the villagers who wanted to kill him. McCain's autobiography says he was conscious for that - but doesn't mention Mr. On, even though McCain later met him to give him a cheap souvenir in thanks. That's classy...
Regards, C
The Daily Mail is a huge circulation right-wing tabloid. I'm british and I can't work out their motivation for going for mccain. read the article, it's very carefully couched and sourced. the mail doesn't quotes former communist officials because it's liberal.
Commenting by HaloScan
