A  contrast with Bosnia snipers would present quite a little picture. Neh?

Ah, the sympathy election.

We vote for McCain because he survuved five years as a prisoner in VietNam.

We vote for Clinton because her husband got a blow job from an intern.

We vote for Obama because the US is hurting.

hmmm, a very quick google search on this shows that there is some controversy with respect to some sealed up Navy records and the possibility that McCain actually caused the accident.   I'm not saying I believe everything I read on the internet or anything like that, but maybe it's worth checking into a bit more.

There was a documentary maybe a decade ago about that incident. One of those "disaster: moment by moment" kind of docs. Quite gripping. If that documentary was to be believed, then this McCain promo actually understates his heroism in helping to save the Forrestal. (IIRC, the ship very nearly had to be abandoned before the fire was controlled.)

This is exactly why Hillary the fabulist is toast if she manages to wrestle away the nomination. There's simply no way she can stand up to McCain, a genuine war hero, after getting caught trying to make a fairly routine meet-and-greet on an airplane tarmac sound as dangerous as the D-Day invasion. It smacks of Bush in the flight suit, and I think she fatally erred in trying to get away with it.

It's an interesting juxtaposition that right next to the comment box I'm typing in are the headlines for today's stories, with Hillary's photo next to the title "Democrats say they want a fighter - here she is." Yes, Hillary has proven fairly adept at running a negative campaign - fighting, if you will - against the junior Senator with a funny name. Of course, the guy with the funny name has done a pretty good job of overcoming these attacks, and in fact leads in delegates and votes, despite the huge advantages in Hillary's favor when the race began.

What concerns me about Hillary the fighter is that a negative campaign will not work against John McCain. Even if Hillary manages to dig up some photo of McCain wearing funny clothes (hopefully allegedly Islamic funny clothes), it will still be hard to diminish a guy who risked his life to pull his comrades from the wreckage of burning planes and then went looking for another carrier so he could get back in the fight against the Viet Cong. If Gerry Ferraro says that McCain wouldn't be where he is today without the good fortune of being a prisoner of war, I'm a little afraid that it won't work. If Bill Clinton says electing a military man would be a disaster - "just look at US Grant and William Henry Harrison (Tippecanoe) for starters", it may not resonate. Maybe Penn is already working with focus groups to find out if "God-fearing, America-loving, family man" can be used as an insult, but even one as talented as he may find that difficult to pull off.  

Strangely enough,  Hillary seems to realize that her range of negative options against McCain will be limited, so she's been much more respectful of McCain than Obama.  Which raises two questions. One, if Hillary can run a positive campaign, why isn't she doing it now, instead of tearing down the person most likely to receive the Dem nomination? Two, if Hillary is planning to run a negative campaign against McCain, what is she smoking and where I can get some?

That's better, Crowley. Glad to see a decline in Kool-aid consumption. Trend's yer friend.

Yay, McCain (40 years ago) for President!  

Schwarzenegger isn't eligible to be his wingman, I mean, running mate.  Can we go through the Top Gun roster to find a real American for the ticket?  I think McCain (40 years ago) will be a heroic President and save millions of Americans from catching fire.

In Navy bootcamp we were shown a documentary of the Forrestal disaster - starting of course with the accidental firing of the Zuni rocket into parked aircraft.  I didn't know until now that it was McCain's aircraft.  

wyllie said:  "hmmm, a very quick google search on this shows that there is some controversy with respect to some sealed up Navy records and the possibility that McCain actually caused the accident.   I'm not saying I believe everything I read on the internet or anything like that, but maybe it's worth checking into a bit more."

I just checked on this, and damn, there's a whole SwiftBoat load of allegations that McCain was responsible;  one theory, despite warnings, he carried 1,000 lbs on pylons rated for only 500 lbs, or that as a prank, he "wet started" his A-4, a common prank that would send a large flame out the tail pipe, in order to rattle the F-4 pilot behind him.  Problem is the flame caused the Zuni rocket on the F-4 to cook off, hit McCain's plane, with those heavy 1,000 bombs.  Allegations go on that McCain's immediate transfer to the Oriskany wasn't because of his bravery, but because his mates on the Forrestal were going to kill him.  

geoffgraham, I think Hillary's reasoning is she is running against Obama now, but will run against the Republicans in November. I think she believes that after passions cool at her stomping Obama to bits all the Democrats will vote for her because the stakes are too high otherwise. She will take up Obama's call for change as her own and force McCain to either repudiate Republican rule, (and alienate the base) or embrace it (and alienate the center). She will treat McCain the same way Bill treated Dole.

It is an extremely dangerous route (white liberals might hold their noses and vote for her, but will blacks or will they stay home?) but I can still see it as a route that can take her to the white house. If it is over the wreckage of Obama then so be it. Better her to wreck Obama than McCain and so save the White House for the Democrats (I am not endorsing it, just see the logic in it)

dubya, I saw a documentary about the Forrestal, that rubbish you mention is so far from the truth as to be sickening. Just because people allege shit doesn't mean it is close to being true. Watch the video with your own eyes instead of reading about it.

dubyadoubte

Yeah. Pound those allegations real hard. We'll see how that turns out. I suspect you'd not like the net effect.

blackton - I'm not saying I believe it either, it's just that this whole raft of allegations interestingly comes from the far right who contend that the Dems would use it against McCain.

Again, I should have been clearer.  Apologies that I hit a nerve.      I was responding to an earlier post that first mentioned them and I checked it out. Should have left it at that.   But the point I was making, - hence the "SwiftBoat" reference is that these theories are found on right-wing sites, made by people who opposed McCain from the right.

I have great admiration for Sen. McCain.  

Well, blackton, it's not like the "swiftboat" attacks on Kerry were true either. As long as Baby Boomers have made up a decisive proportion of the electorate, nobody has ever lost money slandering a military veteran's service. Sad but true.

dubya, fair enough.

This is also a reminder why all the stuff about George Bush hiding from danger in the Texas National Air Guard is so much bulls**t.  Flying military jets of that era was very dangerous.

wyllie writes, "...hmmm, a very quick google search on this shows that there is some controversy with respect to some sealed up Navy records and the possibility that McCain actually caused the accident."

Give it a rest, wyllie.  You Lefties are so desperate and so shameless.  We've been hearing this kind of bulls**t since the sixties and people are damn sick of it.

When you find your proof, Miss W, post here.  Until then, keep it to yourself.

dubyadoubte writes, "...one theory, despite warnings, he carried 1,000 lbs on pylons rated for only 500 lbs, or that as a prank, he "wet started" his A-4, a common prank that would send a large flame out the tail pipe, in order to rattle the F-4 pilot behind him...the flame caused the Zuni rocket on the F-4 to cook off, hit McCain's plane, with those heavy 1,000 bombs.  Allegations go on that McCain's immediate transfer to the Oriskany wasn't because of his bravery, but because his mates on the Forrestal were going to kill him."  

This is ridiculous, dubya.  If your allegations or guesses are true, McCain would have been court martialed, whether his father and grandfather were admirals or not.  

And, if they hated him on the Forrestal for killing 100 sailors, they would have hated him on the Oriskany, too.  The Navy and the aviator community are small.

blackton, there is a big difference between Dole and McCain.  But, for starters, Dole was running against a popular incumbent.  That's not the case with McCain vs Obama, and especially against Hillary.

Rhubarbs, the reason the Swift Boat allegations stuck are:

a)  Kerry disgusting exploitation of anti-war sentiments to slander his fellow servicemen to launch his own political career.  

b)  The allegations were brought forward by a large contingent of fellow Swift Boat veterans.  Whether they were telling the truth or lying, they had credibility.

c)  Kerry is a twit.  When he marched out at the convention "reporting for duty" he came off like Shirley Temple in the Good Ship Lollypop.  He wasn't even credible as the veteran naval officer he actually was.  McCain does not have that problem.

Rhubarbs writes, "...As long as Baby Boomers have made up a decisive proportion of the electorate, nobody has ever lost money slandering a military veteran's service."

Uh, rhub, this is pretty ironic given that it was Kerry himself, freshly returned from Vietnam, who slandered his fellow veterans up and down the halls of Congress.

He accused, but never proved, his fellows of every kind of high crime and horrid atrocity.  

And that's how, along with marrying wealthy women, he got himself to the Senate.  

John Kerry is a loathsome man.  And I think he's too old to be an official Baby Boomer.  So, we'll let some other generation have him.

channy: "Flying military jets of that era was very dangerous." That is hilarious. Give me a break, what young man wouldn't love to fly a military jet? Yes, they were dangerous, but not that much. He was also not top gun either. And most importantly, the dangerous flights were the ones where enemies were shooting at you, you know, the ones in Vietnam. Bush's "military" service was his chickenshit way to avoid combat in Vietnam. Gore and Kerry both served in Vietnam, and Kerry was decorated for bravery under fire. Say what you want about him after the war but never disrespect that.

I will defend McCain a million times, but Bush?

Listen, I have gone skydiving. That is dangerous, so freaking what? I have also gone scuba diving in shark infested waters in Micronesia. I did mountain climbing in Austria. Do I get to be President? This shit was fun, balls to the wall fun. If someone said to me I can be trained to fly an F-16 today I would say yes, but ask me to walk down a street in Fallujah, I think I will pass.

Compared to McCain I am a bug. But so is Bush. Please don't put those two together in the same breath.

oh, and channy re Clinton vs. McCain/Dole, I meant Hillary's reasoning, not mine. Hillary so obviously thinks she is an incumbent already.

blackie, you don't know what you are talking about.  I'm a commercially rated pilot.  I have owned and flown aerobatic airplanes.  Yes, I would have loved to have flown military jets, and have a little stick time in them, as a matter of fact.

As to skydiving, I've hung out at skydiving fields and watched mom, and pop, granny and the kids climb aboard skydiving DC-3s to make jumps.  Taking proper precautions and if properly trained, it's a bit dangerous, but nothing compared to military flying of forty years ago.

But, the fact is, military fighters of the 50s and 60s, the kind Bush flew, had a very high accident rate and fatality record (see link and excerpt  below).  They were dangerous even when you weren't being shot at.  

Plus, you didn't just fly in daytime and good weather.  It was night, IFR, down to minimums (200 feet above the ground, visibility 1/4 mile) with a very, very demanding airplane that was particularly dangerous in landing configuration (the F-102).  

On top of that, all Air National Guard members were and are subject to call up at any time.  As they were called up in both the Berlin and Cubin crisies.

Blackie, I like you a lot, but on this subject you are simply ill informed.

www.aerospaceweb.org/.../q0185.shtml

The F-102 was a supersonic second generation fighter designed in the early 1950s for the US Air Force. The primary mission of the aircraft was to intercept columns of Soviet nuclear bombers attempting to reach targets in the US and destroy them with air-to-air missiles. The technologies incorporated into the aircraft were state-of-the-art for the day. The F-102 set many firsts, including the first all-weather delta-winged combat aircraft, the first fighter capable of maintaining supersonic speed in level flight, and the first interceptor to have an armament entirely of missiles…

… As the 1960s continued, many of these aircraft were transferred from the US Air Force to Air National Guard (ANG) units…

… Because of thier critical role in defending North America, these ANG units came under direct authority of the ADC itself and were considered a vital component of the Air Force's strategy to defend the US….

… The Air National Guard has often been ridiculed as a safe place for military duty during the Vietnam War. However, pilots from the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, as it was called at the time, were actually conducting combat missions in Vietnam when Bush enlisted. Air Force F-102 squadrons had been stationed in Thailand since 1961 and South Vietnam since March 1962. It was during this time that the Kennedy administration began building up a large US military presence in the region as a deterrent against North Vietnamese invasion.

accidents were commonplace even under peacetime conditions given the inherent risk to a pilot's life during any flight aboard a high-performance military jet. ANG members of the period who we've been able to locate indicate that only highly qualified pilot candidates were accepted for Delta Dagger training because it was such a challenging aircraft to fly and left little room for mistakes. According to the Air Force Safety Center, the lifetime Class A accident rate for the F-102 was 13.69 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours, and the rate was especially high during the early years of the plane's service.

This poor safety record may have been due in part to a deadly flaw in the aircraft's design that caused an engine stall and loss of control under a certain combination of angle of attack and airspeed frequently encountered during takeoff. According to a former F-102 pilot we've interviewed, this problem caused the plane to roll inverted and resulted in several fatal crashes. Numerous accidents were also encountered during landing because of the plane's steep angle of attack and high airspeed that reduced the pilot's visibility and reaction time….

… Regardless, the F-102 was still far more dangerous to fly than today's combat aircraft. Compared to the F-102's lifetime accident rate of 13.69, today's planes generally average around 4 mishaps per 100,000 hours….

Oh, and P.S., blackie, my father was an Air Force test pilot.  So, in addition to the documentation I gave you, I've got plenty of anecdotal.  Have also spoken with a contemporary test pilot friend on this subject (Navy and Lockheed Martin) and he backs me up.

channy, so what? 13.69 per 100,000? that is supposed to impress me? jesus, motocross racing has more mishaps per hour than that. The point is not the danger, hell that is part of the fun, it is the fact that he did it to avoid Vietnam. I promise you I would fly a jet if given the chance but won't walk down Fallujah. A jet at least has the illusion of control, and nobody is shooting at you.

I know planes are dangerous, I lost a buddy who died in an experimental plane, one I flew in myself a few times as passenger. Shit happens. But to mention Bush as being anywhere near the caliber of McCain, or Kerry's war time effort is far too much.

Test pilot is far more dangerous I grant you, but Bush wasn't a test pilot.

I would note that Kerry had the courage to publicly come out against a war that he profoundly disagreed with, when it would have been easier to just keep his head down.

I would note that Kerry was in combat in Vietnam, in contrast to either the president or the vice-president or the secretary of defense in 2004.

I would note that the Republican party tends to delirious embrace of the military and sneering contempt for anyone who says that there might be also other valid methods for dealing with problems -- except of course when people in the military disagree with them.  The rule appears to be, watch out servicepeople, if you end up on the other side of any argument from the GOP you will be dissed like nothing else as they seek to invalidate your record, experience, decorations, etc.

I would also note the Kerry was a bitter disappointment to me as he permitted the Swift Boat twister to gather strength while he stayed on vacation through August '04.

blackie, all military flying, particularly in that era, is hazardous.  they give you extra pay because of that.

Air Force flying is generally not as dangerous as naval aviation, because you don't have carrier landings in all weather to deal with.  But that doesn't mean that somehow Air Force service is less worthy than Navy.  

Your kind of conversation is the continuation of a lie, and it not only is an attack on George Bush, but on every other person serving in flight capacity in the Air National Guard.  Once again, and you refuse to listen, ANG members were then and are now subject to callup at any time.  At the height of the Cold War, that was hardly a technicality, any more than it is now.  Ask the ANG guys who were called into service during Berlin and Cuba.

And, sure, flying military jet fighters is kick.  No doubt that's one reason Bush chose flying rather than ground duty or sea duty.

And, speaking of which, if you became a naval officer during Vietnam, the odds were very high you would not be on the ground in Vietnam.  Does that make their service less honorable?  Of course not.

And, even if you were an Air Force pilot on active duty during Vietnam, you could easily have spent your time in Europe or Alaska or Korea.  That doesn't make you a shirker.

I'm just really sick of this big lie, Blackie.  From you, and every other ignoramus who promulgates it.  In your blind eagerness to get to George Bush, you are libeling every man who flew in the Air National Guard during the entire 12-year duration of the Vietnam war.

You don't have any goddamn right to make your smarmy, sniggering allegations.  It's disgusting, political lynching.

P.S., blackie, civilian flying done with proper training and care is not particularly dangerous.  And that so-called "experimental" plane you referred to, was probably a well tested design and that has been flown safely for hundreds of thousands if not millions of hours.

I'm a member of the EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) and such "homebuilt" aircraft are, for the very large majority, very good designs and very safe.   They are "experimental" in that they are not an FAA certified for manufacture aircraft.

Go to Oshkosh for the big annual fly-in and you'll see many hundreds of such aircraft.

It is regrettable that your friend was killed in an experimental plane, but it was not necessarily a hazardous airplane to fly.  And it would likely not been nearly as challenging to fly as an F-102 c. '50s to '70s.

irony, Kerry had political ambitions and he useds his accusations of military atrocities to move those ambitions forward after he left the Navy.

He didn't merely denounce the war, which he had every right to do.  He denounced the people he served with, accusing many of them of war crimes.  But never identifying any incident that was proven.

There were many people who served in Vietnam who thought we had no right to be there, and said so.  As was their right.  Of course, even draftees were spat upon by the Leftist morons when they happened to be seen in uniform.  People of that same mentality still people the Democratic Party today.  Which is why the Party since Vietnam continues to have disabling pathologies.

Chan blathers:

"Give it a rest, wyllie.  You Lefties are so desperate and so shameless.  We've been hearing this kind of bulls**t since the sixties and people are damn sick of it.

When you find your proof, Miss W, post here.  Until then, keep it to yourself."

Punch in "McCain Forrestal" in google and read it for yourself. You will find that a very large percentage of the documents returned question whether McCain was responsible,   As the republicans proved with swift boats and WMD - if you say it enough, it sticks.   In this case the questions are:  Why have the records been sealed?  Did he have 1000lb bombs  (this is hinted at in the documentary)?  Did he really crash five planes?  Why did he transfer off the Forrestal?   I'm not saying any of this is true - but I would like to see proof that it's not true.  Simply claiming that he is a great war hero and that it's unpatriotic to question his war record may work for the flag waving, unquestioning, paranoid righties - but is not going to fly around here.

So, John McCain survived an accident.  What does that fact add to his list of qualifications?  Past valor--or in this case good luck--only gets you so far in presidential politics.  I seem to recall that John Kerry steered his swift boat straight at a shore position that was targeting him with rocket fire, ran the boat aground, and then leaped onto the bank and ran the enemy rocketeer down and killed him at close range.

Chan, that's a speculative assumption.  As nobody knows what was in Kerry's mind, I would do him the favor of assuming he felt strongly about the war, and took appropriate action.  Apart from that, a lot of things were said in anger at the time -- including invective addressed to those against the war, some of which as been heard as a repeat broadcast over the last five years -- and I don't know that anyone could go back and defend every comma and period after thirty-something years.

With regard to the attitudes in America to soldiers coming back from SE Asia, it was the case at the time that, due to the draft, a much wider social demographic had relatives and friends in the services than now.  There was general relief at soldiers coming back alive, and (perhaps mistakenly in some ways) a broadly-held desire to put the experience behind us.  Precisely because it's hauled out as a club to beat the Democrats with, several researchers have looked into this much-repeated legend of returning vets being spat upon, but there is damned little evidence out there that it ever happened (apart from a few isolated incidents that say nothing except that there are aggressive lunatics at each end of the political spectrum).

Interestingly, anti-war marchers were spat upon now and again by pro-war demonstrators in the late 1960s.

In any case, I think the points I made above largely stand.

Chan said: When you find your proof, Miss W, post here.  Until then, keep it to yourself.

To which Wyllie said: Punch in "McCain Forrestal" in google and read it for yourself. You will find that a very large percentage of the documents returned question whether McCain was responsible.

To which I say: Teh internets! That is proof!

wyllie, if a Navy aviator through a prank had killed 100 plus sailors, the Navy would have court martialed him.  McCain isn't the only son of an admiral serving or flying in the Navy.

That would be way too big a thing to keep under a lid.  McCain has been prominent in politics for thirty years.  If the fix had been in on something that big, you can bet one of his shipmates, and then many more would have surfaced with the story long ago.

I'll google it for sure.  But, I know Left wing agitprop when I hear it.  Because I've been hearing it since the sixties.  And, I listen good.

By the way, Wyllie, right after I do punch in "McCain Forrestal," I'll punch in "Government blew up the Trade Center:  

After that I'll punch in "No airliner crashed into the Pentagon.  It was a U.S. missile."  

I have a lot of reading to do, Wyllie.  My ignorance of malice from the Right is vast.

Irony:

Are you old enough to  have lived through the Vietnam era? This question isn't loaded with implication. I'm simply curious.

I took a little time and cruised about the internet as per wylliies suggestion. I found some interesting cross currents. One particularly inventive detective found a Jewish cabal responsible not only for the successful cover up of McCain malfeasance but also and simultaneously responsible for his elevation to presidential contender. Hmmm. I wonder if that kind of sentiment should be considered left or right?

Yeah. The Dems should go there..... if they want to guarantee a McCain presidency. Keep howling about smoke and fire. Go get that swift boat revenge. That'll do the trick.

Chan,

Just wanted to note that your comments regarding the ANG are spot on. While I have no doubt that some people saw National Guard service as somehow avoiding danger, like others might have seen the Coast Guard, without clear, specific, and individual proof those sorts of charges are broad slander. Drives me crazy to see Democrats using that broad brush, and I wonder how few realize how tone deaf, ignorant, and marginal it makes them sound (for good reason).

Kerry was indeed a twit, and his service was of limited relevance to his fitness for presidency. McCain is very much not a twit, but his service is also of limited relevance to his fitness for the presidency. Any chance the US can get past both its hero-hating on the left and its hero-worship on the right?

Born in 1979, I have no particular cock in the Vietnam/boomer attitude fight, and can't WAIT until all of this crap is finally retired. I'm not an Obama supporter, but the chance to move beyond this stuff is a powerful call.

Chan said:

"if a Navy aviator through a prank had killed 100 plus sailors, the Navy would have court martialed him.  McCain isn't the only son of an admiral serving or flying in the Navy."

I agree and again, I never said it was true - Not sure how many times I have to write that statement before you will absorb it.  

Here's a report I found on NASA's website: pbma.nasa.gov/.../forrestal_sfcs.pdf

which has the same information as this documentary (www.youtube.com/watch) which looks pretty legit.  In this documentary,  they never mention McCain (at least not that I noticed) and they show how the accident probably happened which seems plausible and was not a result of anything McCain did directly.

In the report and the documentary, they DO say that the plane that was struck by the missile had 1000lb bombs on it.  They were running out of bombs, so they started using older bombs that were left over from World War II.  The problem with these older 'thin skinned' bombs is that their burn off times are about a minute shorter than the newer ones they had at the time.   The documentary suggests that it was these old bombs that caused the disaster.  That if they had the newer bombs, the fire would have been put out before anyone was killed - that's speculative, but it's true that they would have had more time and the bombs would have been half the size.

The part I can't seem to find any answers for is who was responsible for having those bombs on the ship  in the first place.  According to his obituary on www.arlingtoncemetery.net/mccainjr.htm "During the Vietnam War, Admiral McCain was serving as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command".      So, would the Commander-in-Chief be responsible for this in some way - for creating an unsafe situation on in an already dangerous environment which ultimately killed 138 men?  I kind find anything that links McCain's father to the decision to use the old bombs other than a few mentions of 'sealed navy records'.

"I'll google it for sure.  But, I know Left wing agitprop when I hear it.  Because I've been hearing it since the sixties.  And, I listen good."

Most of it is right wing conspiracy nuts - like the Jewish Cabal mentioned by boxofrox.  The problem for McCain is that a lot of the right wing voters are one issue voters and they eat this stuff up.   Check out the website for "Veterans against McCain" - obviously right wing attacks - suggesting that McCain is the 'Manchurian Candidate' - that he was brain washed by the Soviets when he was a POW.   The same way 10% of Americans think Obama is Muslim, and that Katrina was caused by gays and pro-lifers - they will believe that McCain is the 'Manchurian Candidate'.  To say otherwise would be ignoring the simple fact that much of the electorate in this country will vote against someone, like say John Kerry, not because they don't agree with his politics, but because he 'is too intellectual' or because 'he does not look presidential'.

I doubt that either Obama or Clinton would invoke this stuff, but if it's coming from the right all they have to do is point at the source of the attacks.  On the other hand, if it is a left wing attack on McCain - cleverly disguised as a bunch of paranoid,  wrapped in the flag, right wingers - then more power to them.

I also noticed that the original video referred to at the top of the page is no longer available?   Which leads to more questions - who would have had that video pulled from youtube and more importantly why?

Chan -- yes, more or less.  I was 16/17 when it ended.

Matt Stoller has a useful reminder to people (like me ) touting the power of McCain's war-hero biography

Wyllie, quit trying. Admiral McCain didn't become CINCPAC until a couple years **after** the Forestal disaster, so there's no way he can have had anything to do with it. For someone who doesn't believe this stuff, you seem awfully intent on repeating it. Hey, guess what: I don't believe Obama's a secret Muslim!

channy, again you are ignoring my main point, which is that Bush used the ANG as a way to avoid the draft and not have to serve in Vietnam. Strings were pulled for him to do this, and perhaps in the grand scheme of things another man died in his place. Frankly point, he did it for non noble reasons. You know it and I know it. Given the choice myself between flying or going to Vietnam I admit I myself would take flying in a heartbeat, especially since everyone knew what a clusterf#ck Vietnam was. But I would not have been given that choice. If he really wanted to serve, he could have joined the Air Force as an active duty officer, full time. If he did that no matter where he served than his actions would and only could be seen as honorable.

My Uncle was a Naval aviator. I am not saying anywhere that that job was safe or easy. I also have more than my share of cousins and other assorted relatives who have served. The difference is they joined. And anyone who joins any branch of the service today is far more worthy of praise than Bush. You can twist my meaning but you know this is true.

literatehobo, good comments.  I very appreciate your backing me up.  I think Butchie B, a former career officer, is the only other person on these pages to have done the same.

It should be obvious that honorable military service does not in and of itself qualify anyone for political office, let alone the presidency.

But, it is relevant in that a) it goes to character.  And b) a good understanding of the sensibility, mentality, and workings of the American military is, if not mandatory, certainly extremely useful for someone who is going to be the Commander in Chief.

Certainly during the Clinton administration the fact that Bill not only lacked military service, but had been hostile in the ugliest way to the military embarrassed Clinton himself.  

He did not enjoy the respect of most of those serving.  And he was clearly handicapped in being able to exercise moral authority over the military.

there is no question that McCain would from Day One enjoy the full an unalloyed respect of the entire military establishment from General to grunt, Admiral to sailor on deck.

Neither Obama nor Hillary would enjoy that sincere respect.  Although, of course, the military would always obey the CIC.

Inanova: yeah, I found that out about Admiral McCain after I posted.  I can't find anything one way or another on who's decision it was to actually use the bombs - so I'm going to leave it there.  I'm pretty sure it was not McCain himself though, it would have to be someone much higher up.

The main reason I was trying to find some definitive answer on this was not to necessarily discredit McCain, but to actually figure out what happened.   With the amount of conspiracy crap out there though, I'm a little bit surprised that he used this in one of his ads.  Surely, he must have other war experiences which are 'more heroic' and less controversial. Essentially, he's drawing attention to this controversy himself - I never would have bothered looking it up if I had not seen the ad.

wyllie, if your point had been to say, which seem now to be saying, "there's a lot of weird and nutty stuff out there accusing McCain of causing the Forrestal disaster" then that would have been good information.

But, your earlier imprecision of expression made it appear that you were at least advocating the possibility that this stuff is true.

I've visited some of those websites.  And they are heavily laden with bizarre Jewish conspiracy stuff.  

There is nothing particularly Right Wing about anti-semiticism, wyllie.  There was plenty of anti-Jewish activity in the Soviet Union, though Jews served prominently in the Soviet apparatus.

An their is plenty of contemporary Leftist anti-Israel and anti-Jewish agitation out there now as well.  

Meanwhile, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, usually associated with the Right, are Israel's ardent supporters.

I couldn't really tell from the McCain Forrestal websites where the accusers were coming from.  It was a moshpit of addled ideas.

wyllie, I went back and re-read your original post on this:

"hmmm, a very quick google search on this shows that there is some controversy with respect to some sealed up Navy records and the possibility that McCain actually caused the accident.   I'm not saying I believe everything I read on the internet or anything like that, but maybe it's worth checking into a bit more."

It was your, "maybe it's worth checking into a bit more" bit that set me off.  That implied neutrality to potential belief.

Having been to several of the conspiracy sites re this, the tonality is so over the top as not to evidence the least credibility.

And, again, being as dispassionate and logical about this as possible, the Navy is a bit institution, but also an intimate one.  

If any honorable contingent within the Navy believed that McCain had been responsible for a disaster of this magnitude, the mumbling and scuttlebutt would be rife throughout the fleets.  Certaily at the time, then when McCain ran for the Senate.  And certainly once again now.

Not to mention that he would have been blackballed and cold-shouldered by all his fellow aviators.  The Navy is tight.  They wouldn't sit still for manslaughter within the aviator ranks.

The fact that this conspiracy theory is so obscure shows how unlikely it is that there is the least truth to it.

Wyllie, I went to the NASA URL you site and got, "The requested resource could not be found."

A coverup already?

wyllie, your understanding of the technicl aspects of the various kinds of bombs is apparently sound.  But, I don't see why you think the use of WW2 bombs in the 60s would be such a scandal.

Yes, they were more dangerous than more modern bombs.  But, so waht.  These guys were in the middle of a war. Bombs, as you point out yourself, were short.  So, they added a bit more hazard to an already hazardous enterprise and employed earlier bombs.

We have 20-something kids flying fifty year old B-52s and nearly fifty year old Boeing aerial tankers.  The military does not always have the luxury of using the latest and newest.

I doubt tht Admiral McCain would have been drummed out of the Navy for employing WW2 bombs in 1967.  Only 22 years after that war.  There were plenty of ships, like the aircraft carrier Yorktown, for instance, of the same vintage.

Irony, it was boxofrox who asked how old you were during Vietnam.  But, it's always interesting to know poster's ages as it tells something about generational perspectives.

blackton, joining the ANG involved an active duty commitment of about a year.  The time it took to get the flight training in the regular Air Force.

Then you had a six-year commitment to weekend and part summer duty in the Guard.  During that time it was understood that you were (and are now) subject to active duty call-up.

Many were called to active duty during Berlin, Cuba, and to Vietnam itself.  If you'll go to that URL I gave you, or read the excerpt included in the post, you'll see that some TX ANG members of Bush's unit were sent to Vietnam where F-1902 were used in limited ways as they weren't designed for that kind of role.

You suggest Bush could have joined the USAF.  For a pilot, that was a six year full-time commitment.  A naval officer like Kerry, who was not an aviator, only had a four-year commitment.  Enlisting in the Army was two years, for an officer, three.

It is not unpatriotic to wish not to serve full time in the military for six years.  Putting yourself in danger of being called up at any time for six years is a major commitment in itself.  

Flying hazardous jets in proficiency maintenance on a regular basis is an honorable commitment, as well.  And every year, to this day, we lose many service people in stateside training ops.

I don't know one way or another if strings were pulled for Bush to get into the ANG.  I do know that all branches of the military were eager to recruit pilots during Vietnam.  I qualified for Navy flight training, but then they wouldn't make the large investment because I wore glasses.

You are intent on impugning George Bush's service no matter what, Blackie.  And you neglected to pull out that "string pulling" and other stuff until challenged on your entire premise.

But, I will reiterate, every time you call Bush's service in the ANG, you are also impugning the honor of the many other thousands who also served and do serve in the National Guard.

It is a lie, and a damn lie that you are spreading.  And I will raise a ruckus every time you try to libel people with it.

Blackie, you are generally a man of decent impulses.  You really ought to drop this unworthy calumny.

wyllie, you write, "... I can't find anything one way or another on who's decision it was to actually use the bombs - so I'm going to leave it there.  I'm pretty sure it was not McCain himself though, it would have to be someone much higher up."

wyllie, the direction and tonality of your conversation is ludicrous beyond measure.  Of course it would not have been Ensign or Lt. McCain's decision on what bombs the fleet would employ.

For god sakes, do you know anything about the military at all?  You seemed to have been able to learn a lot about the technical aspect of military armament, so why so clueless about command structure and such in the Navy.

I'm driven out of my mind at the ignorant drivel you hear nowadays about the military from people who clearly don't get it a whit.

When I was a kid, all our fathers and most of our older brothers had served.  We were all subject or soon to be subject to the draft.  WW2 and Korea were not far distant.  We all had a pretty good working knowledge of the basics of military life.

Now, the average 20 to 40 year old sounds like an 8 year old when they talk about military affairs.  It's just amazing.  Especially given that we have been in two hot wars for the past five years.

wyllie writes about McCain, "...Surely, he must have other war experiences which are 'more heroic' and less controversial."

Uh, whllie, maybe I better ascertain if you live in the United States or not.  There is hardly a person twelve years or older who does not know that John McCain flew many missions over Vietnam.  And that he was eventually shot down by a Russian missile over Hanoi, imprisoned and tortured for five years by the Vietnamese.

He returned to the United States a war hero in the mid 1970s.  And, partly on the basis of that ran for the Congress and won.

You can just google McCain for starters and then you'll be up to speed with the other 300+ million of us.

CORRECTO:  "...Bush's unit were sent to Vietnam where F-102s were used in limited ways as they weren't designed for that kind of role."

wyllie,

Your posts on this subject have been the equivalent of a newspaper running front-page stories about how Barack Obama probably isn't a secret Muslim, but "lots" of people are saying he is. Maybe a kernel of truth in there somewhere, but it effectively functions as a smear job, whether or not intentional.

Chan,

You make an interesting point regarding the population's military literacy, but I wonder how many other professions could say the same thing? Certainly, anyone involved in banking, finance, or other economic venues could easily find cause to belittle the average American's financial acumen. As a vegetable farmer who butchers his own meat, I find it depressing how little most people know about food, including children who can't even identify vegetables, when in your given time frame most people used to keep gardens, cook real meals, and buy meat straight from a butcher. If we were to have a long discussion on Talkback about food policy, I bet we'd see the same patterns from many posters with me playing your role, and food/ag is about as fundamental an issue as it gets, it ties into virtually everything else. So you're right, but it's not an isolated trend or one that targets the military disproportionately.

Regarding military credentials for president, point well taken, but once again the same thing holds true in so many other ways. Wouldn't, say, Obama (as a law professor) recieve more respect from many quarters of the government he would be expected to run in ways that McCain wouldn't, or the same for a professional scientist/engineer? The military is fundamentally different from, say, the financial sector, but what I'm getting at here is that there seems to be some feeling within the Right that military service trumps all else when it comes to presidential material. In fairness, there's plenty of thinking on the Left that says "so what?", which is dangerous too.

hobo, I think you an I are pretty much in synch on this wider topic.

I've often wondered why, in the greatest capitalist country on the planet, you can go through 13 years of basic schooling, then four years of college, then get a graduate degree.  And still not know ANYTHING about basic finance, let alone higher economic concepts.  It's nuts.

It amazes me, that in a population that travels long distances usually by air, most people are as ignorant as an 18th Century aborigine about the basic reason an airplane can fly.  And many sit in their seats for five hours in abject fear that the aircraft could arbitrarily fall out of the sky at any moment.

In the case of the military, however, as you allude to a bit, military service is not just another "job" like accountant or lawyer.  

It has, and should, special status because people in the military make commitments over and above that of their fellow citizens and are subject to the rigors of military justice, and give up some of their freedom while in the service.

I think an understanding of the basic particulars of military life and service ought to be taught in middle school and high school as part of our essential civic knowledge.

One of the many unfortunate things about the ending of the draft (by Republican Nixon, by the way) is that it removed this natural military literacy, as you call it, from American society.

It creates problems all the time through ignorance and misunderstanding.

Chan,

If my state's educational standards were up to me, no student could recieve a high school diploma without demonstrating a full set of basic financial, legal, and citizenal knowledge and abilities, preferably with multiple involved, hands-on projects or experiences that drummed those things in. If you don't know how to pay taxes, make basic investments/savings plans, represent yourself in court, read and analyze a loan, start a small business, and so on, you have no business being a legal adult. I think that's where national standards could come into play, integrated with state-level implementation to tailor those standards to each state's situation.

So says me, anyway.

Back on topic, what would be your reaction to a proposal to re-institute mandatory national service, but with several options outside the military, like teaching, Peace Corps, or paramedic/fire service? People may not understand the military, but they don't understand teaching or nursing or many of the other "above and beyond" career choices either. I'd support "military education" in schools if it were coupled with other "essential careers" experiences as well. Teach our students about the people who really make this country work, not just about the ones that could make them rich.

Interesting discussion Channy and hobo. One might even describe it as civil.

While I find myself hesitant to advocate military service as a prerequisite for POTUS I will also allow that it is very helpful in understanding the weight and consequence. Military service is unlike any other world. Exposure to and experience of things military gives one a full appreciation of the gravities involved. After all, he/she is the big kahuna as soon as that oath is taken. CIC. He/she WILL be an armchair general. Ain't no ifs about it. I would think it an advantage to be able to talk to your generals and admirals with a degree of acumen and confidence of independent appraisal.

So, while service experience isn't an absolute in my book it does carry some weight that can't be had otherwise.

hobo, I concur heartily with your essential knowledge curriculum and qualifications for graduation.  If you learned basic finance and never touched algebra, you'd still be decently prepared for real life.  Ditto, basic law principles, and the rest.

As to mandatory national service, I would support that.  I think it would have a great democratizing effect.  As did mandatory military service.  

My worry about it would be that it might degenerate quickly into a kind of WPA with a lot of make work and such.  And, the military has zero interest in draftees.

We have the finest military now that we have ever had in our history.  Precisely because they are volunteers, self-motivated, and highly professional.  but, there is also a downside and a civil danger long term to such a large standing army of professionals, sequestered from the larger population.

Our previous professional army and navy were very small.  And the services only enlarged at wartime.  And in every large war, consisting of a large quotient of citizen soldiers, whether volunteers for the duration or draftees.

chan says:

"wyllie, your understanding of the technicl aspects of the various kinds of bombs is apparently sound.  But, I don't see why you think the use of WW2 bombs in the 60s would be such a scandal."

Thanks, I learn quick.   I was born in the states, but I grew up in another country so I missed all the US History stuff in school.  My dad served sometime in between Korea and Vietnam - it's not something he ever really cared to talk about though.  

"If any honorable contingent within the Navy believed that McCain had been responsible for a disaster of this magnitude, the mumbling and scuttlebutt would be rife throughout the fleets.  Certaily at the time, then when McCain ran for the Senate.  And certainly once again now."

I see and agree with your point.  I have not read anything from any reputable source that would indicate the McCain had anything to do with the accident.

In the end though, I still question the relevance of the ad (the video posted at the top of the thread).  As I said earlier - though I think you missed what I was getting at so I'll rephrase - McCain has a very long list of accomplishments during the war.  Why did he choose to make a campaign ad which draws attention to this tragic accident?  An accident which could have been prevented on many different levels (the design of the safety pins which apparently were blown out by the wind, the fact that they connected the pig tails to the bombs too early).  Would you agree that a jet, misfiring into another jet, starting a fire and blowing up a number of bombs which almost sinks the ship, reflects somewhat negatively on the Navy?

boxofrox,

Excellent point, especially with the insinunated (though not stated) point that those who may have to send soldiers into action may have a deeper understanding of what that means. But I agree that it cannot ever be a full prerequisite, for obvious reasons. And therein lies the problem. If it's strongly preferred, but not technically required, don't you end up creating a requirement in effect? Perhaps this is my non-military background showing a distrust that a servicemember wouldn't feel, but history demonstrates over and over the dangers of having too much power and preference on the side of the military. I'm not going conspiracy theory here, just exploring the issue.

Chan,

I think you're describing what I'm trying to get at with box, above. If we maintain a strong yet isolated standing army without large-scale civic engagement, along with a strong preference for presidents with military experience, are we not setting the stage for abuse as you describe? Thus, possible solutions include either full service again, or decreasing our preference for military credentials in presidents in favor of educated civilians who will respect and listen to their military advisors. So suggests the civilian.

There's definately a danger of "busy work" in any kind of national service. I certainly wouldn't want to be the person responsible for finding meaningful two-year jobs for millions of teens every year. This is why I do like Obama's proposal to tie government college loans to national service of any kind; you can go your own way if you want to, but your country only has as much responsibility to you as you contribute to it. Sort of a G.I. bill with a broader base. I'd like to see him develop it a lot further, but it's a start. And I say that as a reluctant Clinton supporter.

BTW, this discussion has been on my mind all day, such that I'm making a point of coming in every few hours to fire up the laptop and check. Not a good work pattern for me, but it's been good.  One thing that has kept coming up in my mind is that there are multiple ways for people to reach some familiarity with military issues. Neither I nor my parents served, but my maternal grandfather served in the European theater until he was wounded in Italy, and we've talked a lot. My father's family was living in the Philippines in 1941, and three generations spent the war in Japanese internment camps. I still have a letter in my possession written by my great-grandmother to her son in college in the US; it was the last letter out before the Japanese arrived, describing the bombing of Manila, the destruction of friends' houses, and the eternal hope that McArthur would be back in time. He joined the Navy, spent the war in the Pacific, and never saw or heard from his family until 1945. We were fortunate not to lose anyone; many were not so lucky. I've been to Corregidor and walked the tunnels and ruins there. Even those who don't serve can maintain the memories and the respect for what it means.

boxofrox,

Excellent point, especially with the insinunated (though not stated) point that those who may have to send soldiers into action may have a deeper understanding of what that means. But I agree that it cannot ever be a full prerequisite, for obvious reasons. And therein lies the problem. If it's strongly preferred, but not technically required, don't you end up creating a requirement in effect? Perhaps this is my non-military background showing a distrust that a servicemember wouldn't feel, but history demonstrates over and over the dangers of having too much power and preference on the side of the military. I'm not going conspiracy theory here, just exploring the issue.

Chan,

I think you're describing what I'm trying to get at with box, above. If we maintain a strong yet isolated standing army without large-scale civic engagement, along with a strong preference for presidents with military experience, are we not setting the stage for abuse as you describe? Thus, possible solutions include either full service again, or decreasing our preference for military credentials in presidents in favor of educated civilians who will respect and listen to their military advisors. So suggests the civilian.

There's definately a danger of "busy work" in any kind of national service. I certainly wouldn't want to be the person responsible for finding meaningful two-year jobs for millions of teens every year. This is why I do like Obama's proposal to tie government college loans to national service of any kind; you can go your own way if you want to, but your country only has as much responsibility to you as you contribute to it. Sort of a G.I. bill with a broader base. I'd like to see him develop it a lot further, but it's a start. And I say that as a reluctant Clinton supporter.

BTW, this discussion has been on my mind all day, such that I'm making a point of coming in every few hours to fire up the laptop and check. Not a good work pattern for me, but it's been good.  One thing that has kept coming up in my mind is that there are multiple ways for people to reach some familiarity with military issues. Neither I nor my parents served, but my maternal grandfather served in the European theater until he was wounded in Italy, and we've talked a lot. My father's family was living in the Philippines in 1941, and three generations spent the war in Japanese internment camps. I still have a letter in my possession written by my great-grandmother to her son in college in the US; it was the last letter out before the Japanese arrived, describing the bombing of Manila, the destruction of friends' houses, and the eternal hope that McArthur would be back in time. He joined the Navy, spent the war in the Pacific, and never saw or heard from his family until 1945. We were fortunate not to lose anyone; many were not so lucky. I've been to Corregidor and walked the tunnels and ruins there; it was one of the most moving experiences of my life. Even those who don't serve can maintain the memories and the respect for what it means.

wyllie writes, "...I still question the relevance of the ad .  McCain has a very long list of accomplishments during the war.  Why did he choose to make a campaign ad which draws attention to this tragic accident...which could have been prevented...a jet, misfiring into another jet, starting a fire and blowing up a number of bombs which almost sinks the ship, reflects somewhat negatively on the Navy?"

whyllie, they chose to recount this incident because it reflects well on McCain's devotion to duty.  He chose to continue flying from another carrier rather than accept the Navy's offer to send him home to recuperate.

Does it reflect well on the Navy?  First of all, this happened 41 years ago.  To most Americans, that might as well been during the Spanish American War.

Second of all, it was wartime, with lots of dangerous aricraft and ordinance on the deck of a ship.  Stuff happens.  Fortunately, very very rarely this bad.  And, besides, a Navy mishap of long ago is not going to reflect poorly on McCain.

I am sure that as a result of that accident, a whole long list of new procedures were developed to make sure it would not be repeated.  The cost in lives and materiel was immense.

boxo, you hardly have to worry about military service becoming a requirement for the presidency, de facto or otherwise, in our era.  There just aren't enough people in the pool with military experience.  Which is a real problem, given that Congress oversees military expenditures and policy.

Up through Bush II, there have been plenty of politicians with a military background, because, with Vietnam, even a lot of Boomers served.

Since then, with no draft, the military is something of a specialty.  A civic danger given that the military industrial sector will be large for the imaginable future.  (China will rise next as a serious rival.)

This cycle, I'm having trouble remembering anyone outside of McCain with any military service.  And McCain is James Dean's generation, not a Boomer.

sorry, the last was directed at hobo, not boxo.

hobo, although I point out the potential for danger over the long term with an isolated and large professional military service, the history of high ranking American officers in terms of their loyalty and obedience to the civil authority is superb.  Starting with Washington who refused a virtual kingship and aklso retired after two terms.

You should know also that service academy education nowadays, particularly West Point and Annapolis, is much akin to the Ivy Leagues.  The faculties in those academies even tend to think of themselves that way.  So, the professional officer corps is hardly a junta.

the bigger danger for the near term is to get a president who is ignorant of the military ethos as well as how it functions.

In the long term, I think the sollution is to maintain a fairly large core of professionals, like we have now.  But to leaven it with a corps of people who will be more like citizen soldiers.  

Maybe through the ROTC program empahsizing a service expectation of six years, but not expecting a career.  And maybe a supplimental draft.  Probably not practical in the current political envirnoment, and because the military doesn't think draftees can meet their standards of competence and commitment.

hobo, that is an extraordinary story about your relatives in the Phillipines under the Japanese occupation.

I fear that most Americans don't even remember that episode anymore.  The fact that so many Americans, including civilians, were under the brutal captivity of the Japanese.  Who were a very nasty bunch in that war.

Chan,

Believe me, I'm more exploring the theoreticals here than postulating any real danger of coups and so on. I am quite aware (to the extent I can be) of the history and quality of the officer corps and the academies. Argentina this ain't. The only reason i delve into this at all is that we Americans, often for good reason, tend to think that we're somehow different and not subject to the same laws of historical decay and change as anyone else. I'm sure the Roman Senate felt quite invulnerable at its peak. As you point out, just something to keep in mind long-term.

I think you're on the right track with working toward integrating the military into civilian life a little more; helpful to both sides.

Regarding my family, many things are forgotten in a culture that emphasizes the individual over the community. What incentive do we have to learn and remember when we are told that life is about us, now?

hobo. Yeah. the unique job of POTUS  does end up making an intimate experience of things military a de facto. As president you are in fact a general/admiral, too. I suspect Clinton would have made better military decisions if he had been more familiar with the territory.

I've known officers that I wouldn't allow any proximity to stop/go, beginning/end command protocols for the gamut of temperarment suitabilities. Aggressive, rash, timid, indecisive etc. Obviously like concern with civilians of no experience. Military training isn't any guarantee of judiciousness, it is an experiential marker which allows at least the opportunity to see raw power potentials for what they are. An opportunity to measure the full weight of it all.

Not to say that this cannot be fully gauged and engaged by someone without experience. But I end up taking their measure with a bit more scrutiny than otherwise. Simply because I'm hiring them for a job which will require marshal capacity.

boxo, hobo, when I grew up in the fifties and sixties, knowledge of the military was a natural to an American male of almost any age as was a general understanding about automobiles and how to run them.  The military experience was just part of the culture.

This because we had in the first half of the century experienced two very large wars in which most men under forty served.  Plus the Cold War which caused a military draft to be permanent.

Nobody was crazy about having to do their two years, but until Vietnam, it was no big deal and there was little griping about it.  And many a father was glad to see his 18 year old and still immature son get honed and tempered by boot camp plus another year and half.

In the 19th Century, although there had only been a draft for a portion of the four-year Civil War, that experience was so central and had involved nearly a million men in aggregate on both sides, that again, an understanding of the military ethos was part of a man's general makeup.

Having such a large standing military that is also a specialty and a separate sphere, is unhealthy.  And, it is does not impugn the officer corps to worry that if this situation should last for centuries, it could sooner or later endanger our republic.

My long way of saying we are in pretty close agreement here.  But, I wanted to make sure it was understood precisely why I'm saying it.

I think you have a reasonable concern Channy.