Can't Find Dogger's Thread on This

[rayboyusmc]

Not the best pilot in the world. As an instructor, I would have had serious doubts about this PUI.

] This is totally true. Wait until he has to go one on one with Hillary or Obama. I don't think he will do that well.

Article removed for not complying with USMB rule regarding copyright law.

Gunny

 

[Gunny]

Either edit this thread to conform with USMB rules regarding copyright violation or it will be deleted.

 

[Dogger]

You should move it back anyway; it's not about "Armed force strategies, news and comments".

It's about McCain's dismal performance as a Navy aviator.

And it's inaccurate, because it absolves him of any guilt on the 4th accident, when he was the most likely culprit in a fire that killed 132 sailors.

Witnesses blamed him. He was the only person evacuated along with the wounded.

 

[Gunny]

You should move it back anyway; it's not about "Armed force strategies, news and comments".

It's about McCain's dismal performance as a Navy aviator.

And it's inaccurate, because it absolves him of any guilt on the 4th accident, when he was the most likely culprit in a fire that killed 132 sailors.

Witnesses blamed him. He was the only person evacuated along with the wounded.

If you have some question concerning the actions of any staff members on this board, feel free to PM one of us. USMB staff members decisions as USMB staff members will not be questioned in a public forum on this board.

As far as your comment goes, there is nothing either current nor news about this, and personally, I find it reprehensible bullshit and any moron that posted it just as reprehensible.

As far as the contents of the thread goes, I see nothing but unsubstantiated allegations, as usual.

Where is the evidence McCain has collaborated with the enemy?

Where is the evidence McCain ever called himself a hero?

What does what he did in the Vietnam War have to do with running for President now?

Not a damned thing. This is just extremist leftwingnut garbage from the head extremist leftwingnut on the board, and apparently he now has a puppy tagging his heels.

 

[Dogger]

McCain thought his service was relevant during his Biography Tour. You know, the one that detailed all of his military experience (except the parts mentioned above), and stopped at the day he left the service. Conveniently omitted were his adultery with Cindy, his divorce of the wife who waited and raised his children while he was imprisoned, the Keating Five mess, and the 25 years he spent as the ultimate Washington insider.

The GOP examined John Kerry's military record ad nauseum, challenged his record of heroism, and ridiculed his Purple Hearts by wearing them on Band-aids. Yet you dismiss discussion of matters that McCain himself campaigns upon, saying "there is nothing either current nor news about this, . . . "

Unlike the Swiftboat Liars for Bush, the McCain critics have considerable proof. There is certainly room to discuss the value of the evidence, but there is no room claim it cannot be discussed.

NOTE: Here is the link to the story above: McCain lost five U.S. Navy aircraft

 

[CrimsonWhite]

This thread is horseshit. As a vet, the person that made this thread should be ashamed. You just trashed one of your own and for what?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

McCain thought his service was relevant during his Biography Tour. You know, the one that detailed all of his military experience (except the parts mentioned above), and stopped at the day he left the service. Conveniently omitted were his adultery with Cindy, his divorce of the wife who waited and raised his children while he was imprisoned, the Keating Five mess, and the 25 years he spent as the ultimate Washington insider.

The GOP examined John Kerry's military record ad nauseum, challenged his record of heroism, and ridiculed his Purple Hearts by wearing them on Band-aids. Yet you dismiss discussion of matters that McCain himself campaigns upon, saying "there is nothing either current nor news about this, . . . "

Unlike the Swiftboat Liars for Bush, the McCain critics have considerable proof. There is certainly room to discuss the value of the evidence, but there is no room claim it cannot be discussed.

NOTE: Here is the link to the story above: McCain lost five U.S. Navy aircraft

That website is horseshit propaganda. The first page talks about McCain being singled out for softer treatment. Have you ever noticed his left jaw is crooked as hell? Guess why that is shit stain. Soft treatment my ass. You should be ashamed as well.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

McCain thought his service was relevant during his Biography Tour. You know, the one that detailed all of his military experience (except the parts mentioned above), and stopped at the day he left the service. Conveniently omitted were his adultery with Cindy, his divorce of the wife who waited and raised his children while he was imprisoned, the Keating Five mess, and the 25 years he spent as the ultimate Washington insider.

The GOP examined John Kerry's military record ad nauseum, challenged his record of heroism, and ridiculed his Purple Hearts by wearing them on Band-aids. Yet you dismiss discussion of matters that McCain himself campaigns upon, saying "there is nothing either current nor news about this, . . . "

Unlike the Swiftboat Liars for Bush, the McCain critics have considerable proof. There is certainly room to discuss the value of the evidence, but there is no room claim it cannot be discussed.

NOTE: Here is the link to the story above: McCain lost five U.S. Navy aircraft

Not to be picky or anything but 3 through 5 are not in anyway McCain's fault.

Timberg reported that McCain radioed, "I've got a flameout" and went through standard relight procedures three times before ejecting at one thousand feet. McCain landed on a deserted beach moments before the plane slammed into a clump of trees.

McCain's fourth aircraft loss occurred July 29, 1967, soon after he was assigned to the USS Forrestal as an A-4 Skyhawk pilot. While seated in the cockpit of his aircraft waiting his turn for takeoff, an accidently fired rocket slammed into McCain's plane. He escaped from the burning aircraft, but the explosions that followed killed 134 sailors, destroyed at least 20 aircraft, and threatened to sink the ship. (Not his fault on this one.)

McCain's fifth loss happened during his 23rd mission over North Vietnam on Oct. 26, 1967, when McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. McCain ejected from the plane breaking both arms and a leg in the process and subsequently parachuted into Truc Bach Lake near Hanoi.

Staying with an aircraft for 3 tries to restart it and not leaving till 1000 feet is hardly cowardly.

And then we have his aircraft hit by a rocket, explain how HE fired a rocket from his aircraft and managed to HIT his aircraft?

And of course being shot down on his 23rd Combat mission sure was his fault as well. And then claiming he was a bad pilot, how is it he even managed one combat flight, much less 23?

I can not believe Rayboy would question the skill or courage of a Naval Pilot that flew JETS off aircraft carriers and landed those same jets back on said carriers.

Just more proof of his Partisan ignorance. Tell us Rayboy, how many combat missions did YOU fly?

 

[Dogger]

And then we have his aircraft hit by a rocket, explain how HE fired a rocket from his aircraft and managed to HIT his aircraft?

Thank you for conceding that you do not know the facts involved. That will make it harder for you to simply contradict the inconvenient facts. The discussion of the fire on the USS Forrestal is incomplete.

The fire began when McCain "wet-started" his jet. That involves pooling kerosene in the engine, which shoots a large flame from the tail on ignition. It can happen by accident if the pilot is careless, but pilots commonly did it for kicks, which was something of a jackass move if the guy in front of you does it.

So McCain isn't talking. But witnesses and investigators reported that McCain intentionally wet-started his jet to spook the guy behind him. That set off a rocket on the other jet, and the rocket hit McCain's fuel tank (or the drop tank) and knocked McCain's own bomb off its mount, both of which started a massive fire.

Over 130 sailors died. Many wounded were evacuated. McCain was the only uninjured person to be evacuated (some say for his own protection from those who witnessed the tragedy).

Given the rank of McCain's father and grandfather, there are allegations of whitewash and coverup. Obviously, he was never charged. But we do have eye witness accounts that raise serious fact questions, something which the Swift Liars for Bush claimed but never produced.

All we are asking here is media attention equal to the massive coverage given bald-faced lies four years ago. In 2004, Republicans said, "Let's hear the charges, and let the people decide." They do not say that today.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thank you for conceding that you do not know the facts involved. That will make it harder for you to simply contradict the inconvenient facts. The discussion of the fire on the USS Forrestal is incomplete.

The fire began when McCain "wet-started" his jet. That involves pooling kerosene in the engine, which shoots a large flame from the tail on ignition. It can happen by accident if the pilot is careless, but pilots commonly did it for kicks, which was something of a jackass move if the guy in front of you does it.

So McCain isn't talking. But witnesses and investigators reported that McCain intentionally wet-started his jet to spook the guy behind him. That set off a rocket on the other jet, and the rocket hit McCain's fuel tank (or the drop tank) and knocked McCain's own bomb off its mount, both of which started a massive fire.

Over 130 sailors died.

Given the rank of McCain's father and grandfather, there are allegations of whitewash and coverup. Obviously, he was never charged. But we do have eye witness accounts that raise serious fact questions, something which the Swift Liars for Bush claimed but never produced.

All we are asking here is media attention equal to the massive coverage given bald-faced lies four years ago. In 2004, Republicans said, "Let's hear the charges, and let the people decide." They do not say that today.

Sure thing. You need to readjust your tin foil hat, Bush's ray gun may slip in and you will be a mindless drone of the Evil empire.

 

[Gunny]

McCain thought his service was relevant during his Biography Tour. You know, the one that detailed all of his military experience (except the parts mentioned above), and stopped at the day he left the service. Conveniently omitted were his adultery with Cindy, his divorce of the wife who waited and raised his children while he was imprisoned, the Keating Five mess, and the 25 years he spent as the ultimate Washington insider.

The GOP examined John Kerry's military record ad nauseum, challenged his record of heroism, and ridiculed his Purple Hearts by wearing them on Band-aids. Yet you dismiss discussion of matters that McCain himself campaigns upon, saying "there is nothing either current nor news about this, . . . "

Unlike the Swiftboat Liars for Bush, the McCain critics have considerable proof. There is certainly room to discuss the value of the evidence, but there is no room claim it cannot be discussed.

NOTE: Here is the link to the story above: McCain lost five U.S. Navy aircraft

John Kerry tried to run for President on his Vietnam War record. The GOP didn't do a thing.

You were in Vietnam so you no for a fact the Swiftboaters were liars? I keep seeing that crap slug around here but have seen no real evidence. It is irrelevant anyway.

Kerry was either derelict in his duty as an officer in the US Naval service by failure to report witnesssing war crimes immediately up the chain of command, or he lied to Congress about what he allegedly witnessed. Being his testimony sounds like a bad Oliver Stone film complet with every miliraty crime imagineable in the script, I'll opt for the latter choice.

Want to accuse McCain of being a bad pilot? Provide the evidence and if it's factual, no problem. The rest is just smear tactic bullshit and questions his service in the military which I find unacceptable.

 

[ReillyT]

I don't really get this thread. Kerry served honorably in Vietnam, and should have been respected, rather than denigrated for his service. It seems equally clear to me that McCain served honorably in Vietnam, and likewise should be respected for his service.

Why does it matter if he got slightly better treatment as a POW because of his father? Regardless, it is pretty clear that his time in captivity was terrible.

Likewise, who cares if he was a substandard pilot? He went to war and did his job, which is all that can really be asked of anyone.

Finally, what does any of this have to do with his qualifications to be President? His service demonstrates his bravery and patriotism. These are important. His ability to handle an aircraft is irrelevant.

This kind of stuff shouldn't have been pulled on Kerry and it shouldn't be pulled on McCain.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Thank you for conceding that you do not know the facts involved. That will make it harder for you to simply contradict the inconvenient facts. The discussion of the fire on the USS Forrestal is incomplete.

The fire began when McCain "wet-started" his jet. That involves pooling kerosene in the engine, which shoots a large flame from the tail on ignition. It can happen by accident if the pilot is careless, but pilots commonly did it for kicks, which was something of a jackass move if the guy in front of you does it.

So McCain isn't talking. But witnesses and investigators reported that McCain intentionally wet-started his jet to spook the guy behind him. That set off a rocket on the other jet, and the rocket hit McCain's fuel tank (or the drop tank) and knocked McCain's own bomb off its mount, both of which started a massive fire.

Over 130 sailors died. Many wounded were evacuated. McCain was the only uninjured person to be evacuated (some say for his own protection from those who witnessed the tragedy).

Given the rank of McCain's father and grandfather, there are allegations of whitewash and coverup. Obviously, he was never charged. But we do have eye witness accounts that raise serious fact questions, something which the Swift Liars for Bush claimed but never produced.

All we are asking here is media attention equal to the massive coverage given bald-faced lies four years ago. In 2004, Republicans said, "Let's hear the charges, and let the people decide." They do not say that today.

Show me evidence of this.

 

[Dogger]

I don't really get this thread.

I actually agree with you. For me, the real issue is media coverage. As I wrote earlier, "All we are asking here is media attention equal to the massive coverage given bald-faced lies four years ago."

There are serious questions with McCain's service, based on statements from people who were there. I've recited the extant allegations in a effort to establish that this is not just a crackpot theory. In contrast, the Swiftboat Liars for Bush had no eyewitnesses. They aired commercials which contradicted official Navy findings with people claiming "I was there", but failed to reveal that "there" meant somewhere in Vietnam at the same time.

So with McCain, we have actual evidence (which might be inaccurate) and over 130 dead sailors, and the media says nothing, whereas Kerry was pilloried for months on no evidence at all.

If you do not appreciate the free ride that John McCain has gotten from the press, you will not understand how distorted the media coverage will be.

 

[ReillyT]

I actually agree with you. For me, the real issue is media coverage. As I wrote earlier, "All we are asking here is media attention equal to the massive coverage given bald-faced lies four years ago."

There are serious questions with McCain's service, based on statements from people who were there. I've recited the extant allegations in a effort to establish that this is not just a crackpot theory. In contrast, the Swiftboat Liars for Bush had no eyewitnesses. They aired commercials which contradicted official Navy findings with people claiming "I was there", but failed to reveal that "there" meant somewhere in Vietnam at the same time.

So with McCain, we have actual evidence (which might be inaccurate) and over 130 dead sailors, and the media says nothing, whereas Kerry was pilloried for months on no evidence at all.

If you do not appreciate the free ride that John McCain has gotten from the press, you will not understand how distorted the media coverage will be.

Even if I agree with you that McCain has gotten different treatment than Kerry received at the hands of the media (and I think that I do agree with this), this does not make me wish that the media would equalize. I think most democrats would agree that what happened to Kerry was shameful. It would be equally shameful for it to happen to McCain. I think condoning or promoting this kind of behavior because it is the other side's guy legitimizes that which should never have been considered acceptable in the first place.

I do sound pretty high and mighty, don't I?

 

[Dogger]

I do sound pretty high and mighty, don't I?

If I thought the GOP would stop, and the media would grow up, I'd agree with you completely.

Until they do, let them see what shit tastes like. Maybe they'll lose their appetite for it then.

 

[jillian]

The difference is Kerry made his military service an issue. He saluted and "reported for duty." He opened himself up for the questions about throwing his medals (or ribbons, I can't remember which) over the white house lawn. His testimony before congress about being in Laos or Cambodia, hell couldn't remeber which, when it was proven that he wasn't anywhere near there. Did he serve honorably? Absolutely, and it sickended me to see his treatment, but he brought it on. The attacks on McCain's service record are out of spite. A revenge tactic for Kerry. The man still walks around in pain from the beatings he took 40 years ago. As I said before, you should be ashamed of yourself.

And McCain HASN'T made his military service an issue?

Stop it. That's silly.

But I do love when people cry foul when it's their ox being gored.

 

[ReillyT]

The difference is Kerry made his military service an issue. He saluted and "reported for duty." He opened himself up for the questions about throwing his medals (or ribbons, I can't remember which) over the white house lawn. His testimony before congress about being in Laos or Cambodia, hell couldn't remeber which, when it was proven that he wasn't anywhere near there. Did he serve honorably? Absolutely, and it sickended me to see his treatment, but he brought it on. The attacks on McCain's service record are out of spite. A revenge tactic for Kerry. The man still walks around in pain from the beatings he took 40 years ago. As I said before, you should be ashamed of yourself.

You never told me I should be ashamed of myself, and for the life of me, I don't know why you would.

First, both McCain and Kerry use their military service as part of the campaign message (I am going to speak of them in the same tense to avoid confusion). Frankly, they both would be fools not to.

Do I think it was fair to call into question Kerry's political positions after the war? Sure. His testimony before Congess was very public, and he can fairly be evaluated on this (personally, it made me think more highly of him, but others disagree). He took a political (and arguably moral) stand, and it is fair to judge him as a result. (However, I still think the criticism here was tied up with lies and innuendos).

Do I think the Swiftboat stuff was acceptable? No. As you noted, he served honorably, and calling his service and bravery into question on flimsy evidence (and I loath to even use that word) 35 years after the fact was disgraceful.

However, issue 1 and issue 2 are separate issues. One can call into question his testimony before Congress and his actions after returning from war without denigrating his service in war.

The attacks against McCain may be partly out of spite, but mostly they are intended to win an election. You seem to be sacrificing some of the moral high ground when you suggest (or perhaps I am misinterpreting it) that it was okay to swiftboat Kerry, but it isn't okay for McCain to receive the same treatment. I don't think it is appropriate in either case.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I actually agree with you. For me, the real issue is media coverage. As I wrote earlier, "All we are asking here is media attention equal to the massive coverage given bald-faced lies four years ago."

There are serious questions with McCain's service, based on statements from people who were there. I've recited the extant allegations in a effort to establish that this is not just a crackpot theory. In contrast, the Swiftboat Liars for Bush had no eyewitnesses. They aired commercials which contradicted official Navy findings with people claiming "I was there", but failed to reveal that "there" meant somewhere in Vietnam at the same time.

So with McCain, we have actual evidence (which might be inaccurate) and over 130 dead sailors, and the media says nothing, whereas Kerry was pilloried for months on no evidence at all.

If you do not appreciate the free ride that John McCain has gotten from the press, you will not understand how distorted the media coverage will be.

The difference is Kerry made his military service an issue. He saluted and "reported for duty." He opened himself up for the questions about throwing his medals (or ribbons, I can't remember which) over the white house lawn. His testimony before congress about being in Laos or Cambodia, hell couldn't remeber which, when it was proven that he wasn't anywhere near there. Did he serve honorably? Absolutely, and it sickended me to see his treatment, but he brought it on. The attacks on McCain's service record are out of spite. A revenge tactic for Kerry. The man still walks around in pain from the beatings he took 40 years ago. As I said before, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

You never told me I should be ashamed of myself, and for the life of me, I don't know why you would.

First, both McCain and Kerry use their military service as part of the campaign message (I am going to speak of them in the same tense to avoid confusion). Frankly, they both would be fools not to.

Do I think it was fair to call into question Kerry's political positions after the war? Sure. His testimony before Congess was very public, and he can fairly be evaluated on this (personally, it made me think more highly of him, but others disagree). He took a political (and arguably moral) stand, and it is fair to judge him as a result. (However, I still think the criticism here was tied up with lies and innuendos).

Do I think the Swiftboat stuff was acceptable? No. As you noted, he served honorably, and calling his service and bravery into question on flimsy evidence (and I loath to even use that word) 35 years after the fact was disgraceful.

However, issue 1 and issue 2 are separate issues. One can call into question his testimony before Congress and his actions after returning from war without denigrating his service in war.

The attacks against McCain may be partly out of spite, but mostly they are intended to win an election. You seem to be sacrificing some of the moral high ground when you suggest (or perhaps I am misinterpreting it) that it was okay to swiftboat Kerry, but it isn't okay for McCain to receive the same treatment. I don't think it is appropriate in either case.

Sorry, quoted the wrong post, wasn't meant for you. edited accordingly