Was John McCain secretly working for the Vietcong?

[Ravi]

Or that he faked a plane crash.

That one's pretty good. People so commonly *fake* plane crashes.

Deserters do.

 

[Valerie]

Or that he faked a plane crash.

That one's pretty good. People so commonly *fake* plane crashes.

Deserters do.

however far fetched faking a shootdown might be, i see your point. who knows, maybe mccain just flubbed the ejection and the plane went down...

we do know plenty of mccain's fellow soldiers questioned his actions...


in any event, both of them were captured as a result of their selfish recklessness.

 

[longknife]

This is, by far, the most ignorant, outrageous pile of BS I've ever read on any discussion forum!

As of this piece of stupidity, you are now on my Ignore List.

 

[Valerie]

Allegations that have never been confirmed = lies.

Why don't you apply this logic to Bergdahl, Babble?

That is the overall question.

amazing how people can't see that...

 

[Sallow]

The difference being that McCain's comrades don't say he was a deserter.

Maybe not..but many had plenty to say about McCain himself.

He lost several aircraft including one he was sitting in when a missile went off on the deck of the Forrestral. That cost the lives of 134 people.

Had his father not been an admiral, he would have probably been washed up as a pilot.

 

[Valerie]

Or that he faked a plane crash.

That one's pretty good. People so commonly *fake* plane crashes.

do you think bergdahl faked being captured, tortured, beaten and held in a cage by his Taliban captors in Afghanistan...???

You think this garbage is "thoughtful"?

You need a conspiracy theory for that one as well.

 

[Valerie]

when hotshot mccain went off course and hit the eject button over vietnam, he said he did so because his plane got hit...

his leg and arms reportedly got broken by that flubbed ejection.

if you all can check your partisan emotions for a second and THINK...

the question is how do we KNOW that is WHY he ejected..??

simply because he said so...

Bergdahl, now 28, was captured in June 2009 after he disappeared from his infantry unit. He was held for nearly five years by Taliban militants...

I could care less about Bergdahl. I dont' care that he came back. He'll be tried. Or just institutionalized...

ever wonder why john mccain was never tried??

Dumas then gave the reason why - the Pentagon's records would reveal McCain had collaborated with the Vietnamese. "He didn't want nobody to check his background because a lot of POWs who were with him in the camp said he was a collaborator with the enemy," Dumas said. "He gave the enemy information they wanted."

Lucier, identified as a former U.S. Senate Chief of Staff, said "we do know that when he was over there, he cooperated with Communist news services in giving interviews that were not flattering to the United States." Usry, identified as U.S. Senate Minority Staff former chief investigator, said "information shows that he made over 32 tapes of propaganda for the Vietnamese government."

Dornan said there were transcripts of other POWs reacting to McCain's false statements, saying, "Oh my God, is that Admiral McCain's son Is that the admiral's son? Is that Johnny, telling us that our principle targets are schools, orphanages, hospitals, temples, churches? That was Jane Fonda's line."

Dornan said those transcripts are in war museums in North Vietnam, where McCain, as a senator, pressured the country not to release them or face opposition concerning normalization of relations with the United States.

"McCain could not have wanted those to turn up in the middle of a presidential race," the ex-congressman said. "He knows that. I know that. And a few other people know that. That's why he was against Bob Dole's legislation."

Dornan then offered another interesting explanation why McCain refused an offer by the North Vietnamese to be released. Dornan said those released first were collaborators, which would have ended McCain's military career and hurt the Navy, where his father commanded the Pacific fleet.

 

[Ravi]

Wow, I didn't even realize there was all that evidence against him.

 

[Valerie]

Wow, I didn't even realize there was all that evidence against him.

i know, of course you were just trying to draw a parallel to make a valid point.

lmao as the hacks all screech Raaaavvviiiii waaaaaaaaaa!

 

[depotoo]

"Wrong-way Bill Kristol has dismissed him as a deserter not worth rescuing..."

Bill Kristol slams Bowe Bergdahl deal - Jonathan Topaz - POLITICO.com

Bullshit. Copy and paste from that article where he said that.

that quote and link came from the first article i posted just prior...





Of course Republicans are going to compare the prisoner swap that won the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to Benghazi. They both start with B. It leads to their favorite words that start with I: investigation, and possibly impeachment.

The ridiculous Andrew McCarthy, flacking his new book making the case for Obama’s impeachment, of course finds more fodder in the prisoner transfer. Tuesday morning he was joined by Fox News “legal analyst” Andrew Napolitano and a man who couldn’t even hold on to a congressional seat for a second term, Allen West. The shift to Bergdahl reflects growing concern that the right’s Benghazi dishonesty isn’t working with voters. Even conservative analysts have chided colleagues for Benghazi overreach. Sure, Trey Gowdy will continue with his election year partisan witch hunt, but the right is wagering the Bergdahl story might hurt Obama more.

The anti-Bergdahl hysteria plays into six years of scurrilous insinuation that Obama is a secret Muslim who either supports or sympathizes with our enemies. Even “moderate” Mitt Romney, you’ll recall, claimed the president’s “first response” to the 2012 Benghazi attack “was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” This is just the latest chapter.

The partisan opportunism over the Bergdahl deal shouldn’t be surprising, but it is, a little bit. This wasn’t some wild radical idea of the Obama administration; it was driven by the Defense Department and signed on to by intelligence agencies. Although Congress is claiming it wasn’t given the requisite 30 days’ notice of a prisoner transfer (more on that later), this deal or something very much like it has been in the works for at least two years, with plenty of congressional consultation.

And plenty of partisan demagoguery: In 2012 the late Michael Hastings reported that the White House was warned by congressional Republicans that a possible deal for the five Taliban fighters would be political suicide in an election year – a “Willie Horton moment,” in the words of an official responsible for working with Congress on the deal. In the end, though, Hastings reported that even Sen. John McCain ultimately approved the deal; it fell apart when the Taliban balked.

Two years later, the right’s official talking points are mixed: Some critics focus on rumors (buttressed by Hastings’ own sympathetic reporting on Bergdahl) that he was a soldier disillusioned by the Afghan war who deserted his post. Wrong-way Bill Kristol has dismissed him as a deserter not worth rescuing, while Kristol’s most prominent contribution to politics, Sarah Palin, has been screeching on her Facebook wall about Bergdahl’s “horrid anti-American beliefs.”

But missing and captured soldiers have never had to undergo a character check before being rescued by their government. Should they now face trial by Bill Kristol before we decide whether to rescue them? Is Sarah Palin going to preside over a military death panel for captured soldiers suspected of inadequate dedication to the war effort?

Why are laughing? It still doesn't show him stating what you said he did. It is someones poor biased interpretation of what he said.

 

[Valerie]

Bullshit. Copy and paste from that article where he said that.

that quote and link came from the first article i posted just prior...





Of course Republicans are going to compare the prisoner swap that won the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to Benghazi. They both start with B. It leads to their favorite words that start with I: investigation, and possibly impeachment.

The ridiculous Andrew McCarthy, flacking his new book making the case for Obama’s impeachment, of course finds more fodder in the prisoner transfer. Tuesday morning he was joined by Fox News “legal analyst” Andrew Napolitano and a man who couldn’t even hold on to a congressional seat for a second term, Allen West. The shift to Bergdahl reflects growing concern that the right’s Benghazi dishonesty isn’t working with voters. Even conservative analysts have chided colleagues for Benghazi overreach. Sure, Trey Gowdy will continue with his election year partisan witch hunt, but the right is wagering the Bergdahl story might hurt Obama more.

The anti-Bergdahl hysteria plays into six years of scurrilous insinuation that Obama is a secret Muslim who either supports or sympathizes with our enemies. Even “moderate” Mitt Romney, you’ll recall, claimed the president’s “first response” to the 2012 Benghazi attack “was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” This is just the latest chapter.

The partisan opportunism over the Bergdahl deal shouldn’t be surprising, but it is, a little bit. This wasn’t some wild radical idea of the Obama administration; it was driven by the Defense Department and signed on to by intelligence agencies. Although Congress is claiming it wasn’t given the requisite 30 days’ notice of a prisoner transfer (more on that later), this deal or something very much like it has been in the works for at least two years, with plenty of congressional consultation.

And plenty of partisan demagoguery: In 2012 the late Michael Hastings reported that the White House was warned by congressional Republicans that a possible deal for the five Taliban fighters would be political suicide in an election year – a “Willie Horton moment,” in the words of an official responsible for working with Congress on the deal. In the end, though, Hastings reported that even Sen. John McCain ultimately approved the deal; it fell apart when the Taliban balked.

Two years later, the right’s official talking points are mixed: Some critics focus on rumors (buttressed by Hastings’ own sympathetic reporting on Bergdahl) that he was a soldier disillusioned by the Afghan war who deserted his post. Wrong-way Bill Kristol has dismissed him as a deserter not worth rescuing, while Kristol’s most prominent contribution to politics, Sarah Palin, has been screeching on her Facebook wall about Bergdahl’s “horrid anti-American beliefs.”

But missing and captured soldiers have never had to undergo a character check before being rescued by their government. Should they now face trial by Bill Kristol before we decide whether to rescue them? Is Sarah Palin going to preside over a military death panel for captured soldiers suspected of inadequate dedication to the war effort?

Why are laughing? It still doesn't show him stating what you said he did. It is someones poor biased interpretation of what he said.

i posted an article, then i posted a quote from that article which provided a follow-up link to that quote. then you acted like i made up the quote, and some other poster acted like i had not read the article...

i guess the messenger is damned either way in the eyes of hacks with blinders who see shooting the messenger as paramount...


clue: i did not say that is what he said, and ironically if y'all had read the first article, you would have known that!

to me, that's funny stuff!

yes, i purposely quoted the article to follow-up on that characterization of bill kristol's quote which could then viola, speak for itself! you're welcome!


"Wrong-way Bill Kristol has dismissed him as a deserter not worth rescuing..."


yes, a more accurate paraphrase would have been, "dismissed him as a deserter not worth rescuing... for the trade we made..."

While McCain notes that he objected to an earlier proposal that would have called for releasing the very same high value terrorists as an act of “confidence building” with the Taliban, he clearly states that he would support the release of these people if the prize were to be the American soldier being held by the Taliban.

He later modifies his response to say that if the exchange were for one of these terrorists—whom he told us just this past Sunday were people responsible for the deaths of thousands—he would support the deal.

Does anyone out there believe that the critics would have been silenced if the exchange had only involved one terrorist…or two…or three? If you believe that our policy of not negotiating with terrorists is the correct policy, does negotiating for the release of one high ranking terrorist make it better? Yet, there is Mr. McCain voicing his support for a deal that , just three months later, he would go on TV to condemn.

I don’t think anything more need be said except that we should all be embarrassed and deeply concerned...

John McCain Position Switch On Bergdahl Deal-Is He The Most Disingenuous Member Of Senate Or Simply Unfit To Serve? - Forbes

 

[koshergrl]

Wow raverie, that made exactly no sense at all.

You should get an award for that.

 

[koshergrl]

 

[Valerie]

Wow raverie, that made exactly no sense at all.

You should get an award for that.

no thanks. i guess you don't bother reading what's posted either...


hey, why bother when you can be 'awarded' just for attacking Ravi...

 

[koshergrl]

The award was for the supreme incoherence of your post.

 

[koshergrl]

Not for attacking ravtard..I did not even get that message out of the post in question.

 

[jillian]

Yoo hoo, McCain is not longer running no need to smear another vet.

I would stack this military record against both Obama's and Clinton's combined.

I don't care what he said in captivity and I think it is disrespectful to vets for you do so.

i'm not going to comment on the supposition. but mccain is the one who keeps inserting himself into national policy. so it's not like he retired gracefully and isn't relevant to political discussion any longer.

he used to be a decent guy, imo. then he committed one of the more anti-american acts ever.... giving sawwah a national forum.

 

[Valerie]

Or that he faked a plane crash.

That one's pretty good. People so commonly *fake* plane crashes.

do you think bergdahl faked being captured, tortured, beaten and held in a cage by his Taliban captors in Afghanistan...???

You think this garbage is "thoughtful"?

You need a conspiracy theory for that one as well.

i noticed you ignored my question.

do want an award for obfuscation?

 

[koshergrl]

I missed it.

Plus it's insane. I certainly never claimed that Bergdahl faked anything. It appears to me the loon has always been quite forthright about his sad delusions.

 

[HUGGY]

John McCrazy wants to send U S troops to Nigeria to save the school girls.

How glad are you that McCrazy isn't our president?

McCain pushes for U.S. troops in Nigeria | MSNBC