McCain unmasked?
If this report is true, McCain’s war heroism is about as fake as the war heroism of John Murtha and John Kerry. It may finish him as GOP candidate and hand the nomination to “flip-flop” Romney. I must say that I have always felt that McCain’s account of his wartime experiences was not very credible. The stories always sounded exaggerated, as lies often do.
The author, Jack Wheeler, is highly respected and credible but it could still all be Soviet disinformation, of course. The key paragraphs:
John McCain, flying his A-4 Skyhawk, was shot down over Hanoi on October 26, 1967. Badly injured from the ejection, he was beaten and abused by his captors. In July, 1968, his father, US Navy Admiral J. S. McCain, was made CINCPAC, Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, commander of all US military forces in the Vietnam theatre. Upon learning this, the Vietnamese offered – according to McCain – to release him.
McCain claims he refused, because he demanded all American POWs captured before him be released as well. He thus remained a prisoner when he could have gone home, and was subjected to constant brutal beatings and torture for years: that is the source of the “war-hero” saga making McCain a greater war-hero than any other American POW.
Yet the offer of release would had to have been approved by the GRU [Soviet military intelligence] overseers of the North Vietnamese – and T does not recall any such offer being made. T admits, however, that this took place before McCain was transferred to Hoa Loa prison, nicknamed the “Hanoi Hilton” by the POWs. T had only direct knowledge of what happened at Hoa Loa, and not the other prisons, where T’s father was in charge.
McCain was kept at the Hanoi Hilton from December 1969 until his release, along with all the remaining POWs, in March of 1973. During this time, T translated all the Vietnamese interrogators’ notes and reports regarding John McCain.
According to T, they reveal that McCain had made an “accommodation” with his captors, and in exchange, T’s father saw that he was provided with an apartment in Hanoi and the services of two prostitutes. Upon returning to his prison cell, he would say he had been held in solitary confinement. That may be why so many of his fellow prisoners said later they saw so little of him at Hoa Loa.
Posted by John Ray
Email This
Posted by JonJayRay on February 3, 2008 8:04 am
Trackback URL:
Comments
15 Responses to “McCain unmasked?”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Only two prostitutes? What a man McCain must be to have come through the horror of Viet-Nam.
I have no idea if these charges against McCain are true, but even if they were, I suspect that too many people have the “move on” attitude now. Also, it will be hard to verify this information firmly enough, before the primary is decided, to appear as more than just a dirty trick of unsubstantiated rumor, which has been thrown at McCain before. This might help him :/
Wow, I brought this up in the comments here a few weeks ago, and got called all sorts of names.
Thanks for coming around.
I’m ashamed that you would give any credence to this [edited].
Growing up in a Navy family, I knew men who were held with John McCain. They vouch for his story and his character, Indeed, unlike most of those who served with John Kerry, McCain’s fellow POWS have overwhelmingly lined up behind him and offered their support. That settles the matter in my book.
I urge you do retract and delete this post which constitutes a libel not just against McCain, but against every one of those men.
And I do so as a Romney supporter.
I’d rather vote for a third party candidate than McCain, but it seems to me it’s pretty low to give accusations made by some alleged Russian translator named “T” any weight at all.
(I also agree with Rhymes With Right)
RE your “unmasked” posting..
I am surely no fan of McCain. I do however find your posting very much over the top. I do not think it is responsible to post something of this nature without supporting documentation. As it stands, it is just a nasty slur and I find your blog now suspect by virtue. Very poor, my opinion.
I don’t know why everyone is beating up on JR over this post. When I read it, I immediately noted that it starts out with “if” and goes on to suggest it might be commie disinformation. It didn’t occur to me that this story was presented as fact or otherwise promoted. Someone else wrote the quoted account, scurrilous as it may be. What is to be gained by pretending such things don’t exist?
Yes,as owner of this blog, I think those saying that this is over the top are reacting over the top. First of all, you don’t put a group blog suspect because there are so many differing opinions. Second, as ptg pointed out, he never embraced the information. He simply put it out there prefaced with an “if”. It definitely isn’t libel when it was prefaced as not being embraced as truth.
If it is true that the report that you often beat your wife, then …
Respectfully, this is below STACLU. Or at least, I hope it is. “If this is true” is a weak argument, and one for the DailyKos types.
“If this is true” from “highly respected Jack Wheeler”
Wow. MDS knows no limits.
Shameful. Truly shameful.
My comment that this could be Soviet disinformation must have been very difficult to read
Your repetition of this garbage is that much worse because you acknowledge the suspect nature of the source. It amounts to willfully passing on incredibly damaging gossip because it is too juicy to pass up, without any regard for its truth, just because you dislike the target.
Who reads this blog? ACLU lawyers? What a bunch of wannabe censors. Are you afraid of ideas? Afraid of the facts?
I was not aware that anyone had made such claims about John McCain. I learned something new from this post: the fact that his war record was being smeared. Would you prefer that I and other folks remain ignorant of this unpleasant fact?
Perhaps you think regular folks can’t sort out and evaluate facts like this. That would amount to elitism worthy of the left.
BTW: McCain could sue Mr. Wheeler and the author of this blog post for libel; anyone with $100 can sue anyone else for any cause of action they can imagine. This won’t happen because McCain is a public figure. The plaintiff would have to prove actual malice to prevail. It is OK to tell lies about public figures unless its done with malice. Read the tabloids.
But the problem is that the author here just threw it out in a rather uncritical fashion — no attempt was made to either substantiate or refute it. As such, especially with the disclaimer about Soviet disinformation added, it amounts to nothing more than “I don’t know if it is true or not, but I heard a rumour that…”
And unfortunately, this very rumour is of such a scurrilous nature that its repetition damage’s the subject’s reputation — and its manner of presentation strikes me as evidence of malice aforethought.
By the way, PTG, the only censorship I suggest here is self-censorship. You know, the kind of thing that adults do when they maturely consider whether to pass on lies and determine that doing so is fundamentally immoral. Sadly, the author of this particular post — and the source from which he pulls the information — demonstrates a severe deficit in the moral compass department in posting this garbage.
The defense argument seems weak, as I’m sure that were it true Senator McCain would already have his defense lined out.
When did the GOP become the anti-Vietnam Vets party?