None of them ever came home.
May 28, 2010 10:33 AM Subscribe
In 2008, The Nation Institute published a lengthy expose (single page) by Sydney H. Schanberg about the role of John McCain in supressing evidence of American prisoners of war who never left Vietnam.
Despite the fact that John McCain based a significant part of his campaign on his military service, the story never attracted any significant media attention.
But this week, The American Conservative is reprinting it, and is devoting the July 2010 issue to the subject, including additional commentary by Schanberg himself.
Despite the fact that John McCain based a significant part of his campaign on his military service, the story never attracted any significant media attention.
But this week, The American Conservative is reprinting it, and is devoting the July 2010 issue to the subject, including additional commentary by Schanberg himself.
There are a lot of very scurrilous people -- mostly not veterans themselves, oddly -- who spend a lot of time flogging the missing MIAs in Vietnam issue. (This was more true in the 1980s; they've burned out most of their audience.)
And McCain has always been their main target because he was about the only person in Congress with the history and guts to stand up to their manipulation.
Count me dubious. I'm no fan of John McCain but I think he was right on this issue. These guys were the birthers of the 1980s, except there is no way to prove a negative so the issue couldn't be dismissed as easily.
posted by msalt at 10:42 AM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
And McCain has always been their main target because he was about the only person in Congress with the history and guts to stand up to their manipulation.
Count me dubious. I'm no fan of John McCain but I think he was right on this issue. These guys were the birthers of the 1980s, except there is no way to prove a negative so the issue couldn't be dismissed as easily.
posted by msalt at 10:42 AM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
This old topic on Mefi goes into the issue in some more depth.
posted by msalt at 10:44 AM on May 28, 2010
posted by msalt at 10:44 AM on May 28, 2010
Am I the only one who finds the idea that the Vietnamese held American PoWs for 10 years or more after the war ended intuitively implausible? To what end? Just for the pleasure of torturing people? What kind of viciously racist idea is this that the Vietnamese were so evil that they'd keep PoWs around after the war just for the hell of it?
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:44 AM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:44 AM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
Derailish: learned yesterday that McCain's aircraft was likely responsible for the USS Forrestal disaster. McCain == trouble magnet.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 10:44 AM on May 28, 2010
posted by Ogre Lawless at 10:44 AM on May 28, 2010
OK, so "partly responsible"
posted by Ogre Lawless at 10:44 AM on May 28, 2010
posted by Ogre Lawless at 10:44 AM on May 28, 2010
Anyone who's interested should MeMail me for access to the Cambodia reports. I'm happy to help.
posted by yiftach at 10:46 AM on May 28, 2010
posted by yiftach at 10:46 AM on May 28, 2010
Pope Guilty, I would go with viciously humanist. People don't need reasons to lock other people up in cages for ridiculously long times, or to set them on fire with burning tires around their neck, or perform medical experiments, they just need excuses.
posted by adipocere at 10:46 AM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by adipocere at 10:46 AM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
There are a lot of very scurrilous people -- mostly not veterans themselves, oddly -- who spend a lot of time flogging the missing MIAs in Vietnam issue.
My DMV has two flags up: The US flag and a MIA flag. I've always wondered about the legality/legitimacy of that.
posted by DU at 10:47 AM on May 28, 2010
My DMV has two flags up: The US flag and a MIA flag. I've always wondered about the legality/legitimacy of that.
posted by DU at 10:47 AM on May 28, 2010
If a forum as wingnutty as one that asks "Is Sestak Obama's Watergate?" is turning on Johnny "Walnuts" McCain, then he is dead meat. Of course, the semi-remote chance that this may ultimately result in him being replaced in the Senate by a Democrat makes me giggle like a schoolgirl (and I'm on record predicting that the GOP destroying its own from within will prevent it from making major gains in Congress this year).
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:48 AM on May 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:48 AM on May 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
This old topic on Mefi goes into the issue in some more depth.
What a remarkably vicious and one-sided thread.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:48 AM on May 28, 2010
What a remarkably vicious and one-sided thread.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:48 AM on May 28, 2010
What a remarkably vicious and one-sided thread.
Kind of why I didn't link to it...
posted by valkyryn at 10:50 AM on May 28, 2010
Kind of why I didn't link to it...
posted by valkyryn at 10:50 AM on May 28, 2010
Didn't Rambo get them all out?
sorry.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 10:51 AM on May 28, 2010 [7 favorites]
sorry.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 10:51 AM on May 28, 2010 [7 favorites]
"Is McCain haunted by these memories? Does he suppress POW information because its surfacing would rekindle his feelings of shame?"
Does the author of this article expect us to take him seriously?
posted by MarshallPoe at 10:53 AM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
Does the author of this article expect us to take him seriously?
posted by MarshallPoe at 10:53 AM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
Derailish: learned yesterday that McCain's aircraft was likely responsible for the USS Forrestal disaster.
I've never heard any credible reports blaming McCain. The only reports I've seen blaming McCain looked to be about as credible as your typical forwarded hysterical political chain e-mail.
posted by gyc at 10:55 AM on May 28, 2010
I've never heard any credible reports blaming McCain. The only reports I've seen blaming McCain looked to be about as credible as your typical forwarded hysterical political chain e-mail.
posted by gyc at 10:55 AM on May 28, 2010
Erm...that's a bit disingenuous Ogre - I wouldn't even say that McCain's aircraft (much less imply McCain himself) was "responsible" - it may have been struck by a missile from another plane.
Pope Guilty: I too find it pretty crazy, but not entirely ridiculous. According to Schanberg's evidence, the Vietnamese government didn't want the prisoners any more either. They were trying to enter the world community as a legitimate entity, and would be happy to get rid of them:
posted by Salvor Hardin at 10:56 AM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
Pope Guilty: I too find it pretty crazy, but not entirely ridiculous. According to Schanberg's evidence, the Vietnamese government didn't want the prisoners any more either. They were trying to enter the world community as a legitimate entity, and would be happy to get rid of them:
9. There is also evidence that in the first months of Ronald Reagan's presidency in 1981, the White House received a ransom proposal for a number of POWs being held by Hanoi in Indochina. The offer, which was passed to Washington from an official of a third country, was apparently discussed at a meeting in the Roosevelt Room attended by Reagan, Vice-President Bush, CIA director William Casey and National Security Advisor Richard Allen. Allen confirmed the offer in sworn testimony to the Senate POW committee on June 23, 1992.This story is pretty insane, but if you believe Schanberg and his sources, the evidence is there.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 10:56 AM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
guys, disagree with mccain's politics all you want but the guy served his country and payed a hell of a personal price. don't tie yourself in knots attempting to turn his political strength into a weakness... it's tacky and it makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist.
posted by nathancaswell at 11:00 AM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by nathancaswell at 11:00 AM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
Surely this will bring down the McCain administration that never got a chance to happen.
just doesn't pack the same punch, does it?
posted by Afroblanco at 11:01 AM on May 28, 2010
just doesn't pack the same punch, does it?
posted by Afroblanco at 11:01 AM on May 28, 2010
don't tie yourself in knots attempting to turn his political strength into a weakness... it's tacky and it makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist.
Or, you know, every Republican politician who's had their campaign advised by Karl Rove.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:03 AM on May 28, 2010 [5 favorites]
Or, you know, every Republican politician who's had their campaign advised by Karl Rove.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:03 AM on May 28, 2010 [5 favorites]
Or, you know, every Republican politician who's had their campaign advised by Karl Rove.
Or James Carville. Politics is politics.
posted by nathancaswell at 11:04 AM on May 28, 2010
Or James Carville. Politics is politics.
posted by nathancaswell at 11:04 AM on May 28, 2010
See, nathancaswell, what makes this story interesting to me is that it's been picked up by a media entity which is about as Republican as they come. The Nation Institute can generally be assumed to have an axe to grind where GOP politicians are concerned, but not so The American Conservative.
posted by valkyryn at 11:04 AM on May 28, 2010
posted by valkyryn at 11:04 AM on May 28, 2010
AGGGHH!! I've fallen through a time warp to August 2008.
I have to stop my parents before they... continue to be middle-aged and divorced.
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:05 AM on May 28, 2010 [6 favorites]
I have to stop my parents before they... continue to be middle-aged and divorced.
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:05 AM on May 28, 2010 [6 favorites]
what makes this story interesting to me is that it's been picked up by a media entity which is about as Republican as they come.
And the Republicans have roundly, repeatedly proven themselves to be the Sarah Palin party, not the John McCain party. The fact that they're turning on him doesn't inspire any reaction from me other than "gee, that took about six months longer than I figured."
posted by Shepherd at 11:10 AM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
And the Republicans have roundly, repeatedly proven themselves to be the Sarah Palin party, not the John McCain party. The fact that they're turning on him doesn't inspire any reaction from me other than "gee, that took about six months longer than I figured."
posted by Shepherd at 11:10 AM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
See, nathancaswell, what makes this story interesting to me is that it's been picked up by a media entity which is about as Republican as they come.
Right, because they want to see McCain lose in the primary to even more conservative candidate.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 11:11 AM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
Right, because they want to see McCain lose in the primary to even more conservative candidate.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 11:11 AM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
Most of the MIAs were shot down in places we weren't supposed to have troops, meaning not Vietnam in the first place (Laos, Cambodia.) It's not shocking that no one could find the bodies in the jungle, hundreds of miles behind enemy lines, decades later when they had a chance to look for them.
McCain efforts to stop the endless thrash over the MIAs were about as conspiratorial as the Hawaii's rule that they don't have to keep answering repeated queries about Obama's birth certificate from the same people. I mean, yes, in both cases they are shutting down public discussion of a controversial issue, but...
posted by msalt at 11:14 AM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
McCain efforts to stop the endless thrash over the MIAs were about as conspiratorial as the Hawaii's rule that they don't have to keep answering repeated queries about Obama's birth certificate from the same people. I mean, yes, in both cases they are shutting down public discussion of a controversial issue, but...
posted by msalt at 11:14 AM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
And the MIA issue to me was always totally bogus, cynical and inhumanly heartless on the part of the MIA 'crusaders'. Over 20,000 American soldiers were killed during the time Nixon kept on warring to force North Vietnam to return 800 POWs. I think they're committed to the "there are more POWs BIG LIE*" to make that ratio a little less heinous. And that 2003 thread was all about y2karl at his most annoying, yet most factual and truthful, getting flamed by BIG LIARS and apologists. I grew up Republican and the more I have learned about Vietnam (among other things) the more I regret it.
nathancaswell, politics is NOT politics. People who declare a false equivalency between America's two parties are only keeping the one that is SO MUCH WORSE from ever getting better.
*I'm going to make it my policy to refer to all significant Republican and Conservative untruths of the past 40 years as BIG LIES. I hope you all do not find it too obnoxious, but, obnoxious is better than showing any hint of acceptance of this kind of shit.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:19 AM on May 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
nathancaswell, politics is NOT politics. People who declare a false equivalency between America's two parties are only keeping the one that is SO MUCH WORSE from ever getting better.
*I'm going to make it my policy to refer to all significant Republican and Conservative untruths of the past 40 years as BIG LIES. I hope you all do not find it too obnoxious, but, obnoxious is better than showing any hint of acceptance of this kind of shit.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:19 AM on May 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
oneswellfoop, that's one of the least coherent analyses I've had the misfortune to come across. I can't for the life of me think of one reason that a conservatives would stand to gain anything by emphasizing a shameful side of a war... which conservatives supported and liberals didn't. The mind just boggles.
Look, people: Schanberg is himself quite liberal, and the original publisher of his 2008 piece was The Nation Institute for crying out loud. They're a self-conscious left-liberal entity. The only conclusion I've been able to reach, almost thirty comments into this, is that almost none of you have actually RTFA.
So, uh, RTFA.
posted by valkyryn at 11:28 AM on May 28, 2010
Look, people: Schanberg is himself quite liberal, and the original publisher of his 2008 piece was The Nation Institute for crying out loud. They're a self-conscious left-liberal entity. The only conclusion I've been able to reach, almost thirty comments into this, is that almost none of you have actually RTFA.
So, uh, RTFA.
posted by valkyryn at 11:28 AM on May 28, 2010
nathancaswell, politics is NOT politics.
I think we can probably agree that attempting to paint a man who was a military POW kept in solitary confinement for 2 years and tortured continuously for refusing to make anti-American propaganda statements as "against the troops" is despicable no matter who is doing it.
posted by nathancaswell at 11:28 AM on May 28, 2010
I think we can probably agree that attempting to paint a man who was a military POW kept in solitary confinement for 2 years and tortured continuously for refusing to make anti-American propaganda statements as "against the troops" is despicable no matter who is doing it.
posted by nathancaswell at 11:28 AM on May 28, 2010
Wait, does this mean John McCain was in cahoots with Lynn Hirschberg all along?
posted by Len at 11:39 AM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by Len at 11:39 AM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
But yeah, more seriously: this is much more about Republican infighting than anything else, from what I can see; going by the past, ooh, 40 years, Republicans only really care about this sort of stuff if it can be used against their opponents, or indeed members of their own party who are not in ideological lock-step with whatever their crazy notion du jour is. As Shepherd mentioned upthread, McCain is no longer the great Mavericky McMaverick*, but some sort of baby-eating soft touch liberal who deserves to be vanquished under the righteous boot of someone more in line with Joe Arpaio come election time.
*not that he ever actually was
posted by Len at 11:47 AM on May 28, 2010
*not that he ever actually was
posted by Len at 11:47 AM on May 28, 2010
I think we can probably agree that attempting to paint a man who was a military POW kept in solitary confinement for 2 years and tortured continuously for refusing to make anti-American propaganda statements as "against the troops" is despicable no matter who is doing it.
Actually 5 years.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:58 AM on May 28, 2010
Actually 5 years.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:58 AM on May 28, 2010
Actually 5 years.
Yeah, 5 years total, 2 in solitary. I realized after I posted it that it actually made it sound shorter than it was.
posted by nathancaswell at 12:00 PM on May 28, 2010
Yeah, 5 years total, 2 in solitary. I realized after I posted it that it actually made it sound shorter than it was.
posted by nathancaswell at 12:00 PM on May 28, 2010
I give McCain his props for surviving the horrors of being a POW. But because I'm not limited to binary thinking, I place McCain's POW experience in context with the rest of his life.
So I also consider that, before he was a POW, he crashed more than one plane in what evidently indicates either incompetence or serial recklessness.
He cheated on his first wife - who had waited faithfully for him and took care of their children while he was a POW - with a young, pretty heiress and eventually left his wife for the other woman.
He's spent 30 years ping-ponging between positions based on whatever political expediency dictated at the time, sometimes lying so egregiously about his past positions that it makes it quite clear that he has no principles, whatsoever. The biggest things he's fought for - campaign finance reform and immigration reform - have been undermined later by efforts that he, himself, assisted becaue it was more politically expedient.
McCain's been resting on those POW laurels for decades. His local radio announcements fairly drip with evoking this heroic military record, despite his repeated assertions that he doesn't consider it heroic and doesn't like to exploit that past.
The simple fact is that McCain is in office only because we have a fairly conservative, military-loving, senior citizen voter base, not because McCain has accomplished anything great and lasting for the state or country. After working hard to get JD Hayworth defeated by Harry Mitchell, my fondest wish right now for AZ politics is for Foghorn Hayworth to beat McCain in the Nutbag primary.
posted by darkstar at 12:12 PM on May 28, 2010 [9 favorites]
So I also consider that, before he was a POW, he crashed more than one plane in what evidently indicates either incompetence or serial recklessness.
He cheated on his first wife - who had waited faithfully for him and took care of their children while he was a POW - with a young, pretty heiress and eventually left his wife for the other woman.
He's spent 30 years ping-ponging between positions based on whatever political expediency dictated at the time, sometimes lying so egregiously about his past positions that it makes it quite clear that he has no principles, whatsoever. The biggest things he's fought for - campaign finance reform and immigration reform - have been undermined later by efforts that he, himself, assisted becaue it was more politically expedient.
McCain's been resting on those POW laurels for decades. His local radio announcements fairly drip with evoking this heroic military record, despite his repeated assertions that he doesn't consider it heroic and doesn't like to exploit that past.
The simple fact is that McCain is in office only because we have a fairly conservative, military-loving, senior citizen voter base, not because McCain has accomplished anything great and lasting for the state or country. After working hard to get JD Hayworth defeated by Harry Mitchell, my fondest wish right now for AZ politics is for Foghorn Hayworth to beat McCain in the Nutbag primary.
posted by darkstar at 12:12 PM on May 28, 2010 [9 favorites]
and I'm on record predicting that the GOP destroying its own from within will prevent it from making major gains in Congress this year
I'm with onefellswoop.
posted by kanewai at 12:21 PM on May 28, 2010
I'm with onefellswoop.
posted by kanewai at 12:21 PM on May 28, 2010
what makes this story interesting to me is that it's been picked up by a media entity which is about as Republican as they come
Fooey. The right has never really trusted McCain, no matter how true blue conservative his voting record.
What kind of viciously racist idea is this that the Vietnamese were so evil that they'd keep PoWs around after the war just for the hell of it?
The part about the myth that always gets me is the popular image (you can often see it in veterans parades) of POWs being held in tiger cages. The tiger cages, in fact, were a legacy of the CIA and VNA island prison where captured Viet Cong were interrogated.
The supposed leverage held by Vietnam on this issue is useless in secret. (What were we going to do, invade again?) I can trust little else about this account.
posted by dhartung at 12:21 PM on May 28, 2010
Fooey. The right has never really trusted McCain, no matter how true blue conservative his voting record.
What kind of viciously racist idea is this that the Vietnamese were so evil that they'd keep PoWs around after the war just for the hell of it?
The part about the myth that always gets me is the popular image (you can often see it in veterans parades) of POWs being held in tiger cages. The tiger cages, in fact, were a legacy of the CIA and VNA island prison where captured Viet Cong were interrogated.
The supposed leverage held by Vietnam on this issue is useless in secret. (What were we going to do, invade again?) I can trust little else about this account.
posted by dhartung at 12:21 PM on May 28, 2010
a war... which conservatives supported and liberals didn't.
What I'm about to say is not controversial: The Vietnam war was started by liberals. John Kennedy. Lyndon Johnson. And their friends, counselors and cabinets. These are the candidates decent people like you and I would have voted for in 1960 and 64, and the people who gave us the Great Society, Civil Rights legislation, etc. The Republicans were pretty much not involved ... until Nixon. Like Iraq and Afghanistan, Vietnam left blood on both liberal and conservative, Republican and Democratic hands. What I'm about to say now, may be controversial: Don't think of one party (conservatives) as the war party and one party (the liberals) as the peace party. Their both the war party. No matter who's in power, they regress to the mean set for them by what I'm sorry I don't have a better phrase for than the military-industrial-public relations-lobbyist complex. Obama seems as happy as Bush was to sit back and laugh while American soliders die like chumps in Iraq and Afghanistan, and condemn themselves to waking up screaming for the rest of their lives by gunning down innocent civillians at checkpoints.
posted by Faze at 12:23 PM on May 28, 2010 [6 favorites]
What I'm about to say is not controversial: The Vietnam war was started by liberals. John Kennedy. Lyndon Johnson. And their friends, counselors and cabinets. These are the candidates decent people like you and I would have voted for in 1960 and 64, and the people who gave us the Great Society, Civil Rights legislation, etc. The Republicans were pretty much not involved ... until Nixon. Like Iraq and Afghanistan, Vietnam left blood on both liberal and conservative, Republican and Democratic hands. What I'm about to say now, may be controversial: Don't think of one party (conservatives) as the war party and one party (the liberals) as the peace party. Their both the war party. No matter who's in power, they regress to the mean set for them by what I'm sorry I don't have a better phrase for than the military-industrial-public relations-lobbyist complex. Obama seems as happy as Bush was to sit back and laugh while American soliders die like chumps in Iraq and Afghanistan, and condemn themselves to waking up screaming for the rest of their lives by gunning down innocent civillians at checkpoints.
posted by Faze at 12:23 PM on May 28, 2010 [6 favorites]
I think we can probably agree that attempting to paint a man who was a military POW kept in solitary confinement for 2 years and tortured continuously for refusing to make anti-American propaganda statements as "against the troops" is despicable no matter who is doing it.
John McCain is a truly tragic story. Years ago, he was the rare Republican whom I respected - I disagreed, strongly with many of his views, but I respected him as a person. My respect was based on his conduct as a POW.
And then, he started running for the presidency.
Power corrupts. Even the desire for power corrupts some people. With utmost reluctance, I have to say, John McCain was corrupted by his desire to become president.
To me, the crossing point, the point at which I lost my respect for him as a person, is when he in effect repudiated his own experiences as a POW. When he first vacillated, and finally sided with Bush on the very issue of torture. His signature issue. He first opposed it - how could he not, having experienced what he had? Then he vacillated. Finally, he endorsed it. He who had experienced the evil of torture - buckles under, and endorses this very evil.
This was pretty painful to me. I watched a man who was unbroken by torture, be broken by his desire for power. The corrupting power of ambition is for some people more difficult to withstand than physical torture.
posted by VikingSword at 12:25 PM on May 28, 2010 [16 favorites]
John McCain is a truly tragic story. Years ago, he was the rare Republican whom I respected - I disagreed, strongly with many of his views, but I respected him as a person. My respect was based on his conduct as a POW.
And then, he started running for the presidency.
Power corrupts. Even the desire for power corrupts some people. With utmost reluctance, I have to say, John McCain was corrupted by his desire to become president.
To me, the crossing point, the point at which I lost my respect for him as a person, is when he in effect repudiated his own experiences as a POW. When he first vacillated, and finally sided with Bush on the very issue of torture. His signature issue. He first opposed it - how could he not, having experienced what he had? Then he vacillated. Finally, he endorsed it. He who had experienced the evil of torture - buckles under, and endorses this very evil.
This was pretty painful to me. I watched a man who was unbroken by torture, be broken by his desire for power. The corrupting power of ambition is for some people more difficult to withstand than physical torture.
posted by VikingSword at 12:25 PM on May 28, 2010 [16 favorites]
VikingSword, I pretty much agree with you on all your points. Hell even my grandfather (a vet/former Marine who campaigned heavily for McCain his first time around running for president) thinks he sold his soul this last election.
The torture / Gitmo / Abu Ghraib point is valid.
I just think people should leave the POW stuff alone. There are plenty of holes to poke in McCain the candidate nowadays without resorting to trying to spin what happened to him in Vietnam into some kind of negative. It's tacky, especially this weekend.
posted by nathancaswell at 12:41 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
The torture / Gitmo / Abu Ghraib point is valid.
I just think people should leave the POW stuff alone. There are plenty of holes to poke in McCain the candidate nowadays without resorting to trying to spin what happened to him in Vietnam into some kind of negative. It's tacky, especially this weekend.
posted by nathancaswell at 12:41 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
Don't think of one party (conservatives) as the war party and one party (the liberals) as the peace party.
To the extent that anyone thinks of the GOP as the "war party" and the Dems as the "peace party," it is the result of 60+ years of the Republicans bashing the Democrats as weak on national defense ever since we "lost" China to the Communists and Truman failed to heed MacArthur's plea to start World War III in Korea.
posted by Rangeboy at 12:47 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
To the extent that anyone thinks of the GOP as the "war party" and the Dems as the "peace party," it is the result of 60+ years of the Republicans bashing the Democrats as weak on national defense ever since we "lost" China to the Communists and Truman failed to heed MacArthur's plea to start World War III in Korea.
posted by Rangeboy at 12:47 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
Actually Faze, our involvement with Viet Nam goes back a little further than Kennedy and Johnson. Try Truman and Eisenhower. Of course, Kennedy probably should have got us out of it, and certainly shouldn't have supported Ngo Dihn Diem and then had him killed.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 12:49 PM on May 28, 2010
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 12:49 PM on May 28, 2010
@nathancaswell:
I think we can probably agree that attempting to paint a man who was a military POW kept in solitary confinement for 2 years and tortured continuously for refusing to make anti-American propaganda statements as "against the troops" is despicable no matter who is doing it.
Nonsense. If he is, as the evidence suggests, acting against the interests of "the troops", then it doesn't matter what he might have endured. Military service is not some sort of get-out-of-disrepute card, and it clearly has no purifying effect on the souls of those that perform it.
It's not at all difficult to respect folks that serve for their commitment, without necessarily extending that respect into other areas.
posted by nonlocal at 12:52 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
I think we can probably agree that attempting to paint a man who was a military POW kept in solitary confinement for 2 years and tortured continuously for refusing to make anti-American propaganda statements as "against the troops" is despicable no matter who is doing it.
Nonsense. If he is, as the evidence suggests, acting against the interests of "the troops", then it doesn't matter what he might have endured. Military service is not some sort of get-out-of-disrepute card, and it clearly has no purifying effect on the souls of those that perform it.
It's not at all difficult to respect folks that serve for their commitment, without necessarily extending that respect into other areas.
posted by nonlocal at 12:52 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
If he is, as the evidence suggests, acting against the interests of "the troops"
He was just following orders from his Reptilian Zionist Satanist International Banking Cartel New World Order Bilderburg Freemason Bohemian Grove Overlords.
posted by nathancaswell at 12:56 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
He was just following orders from his Reptilian Zionist Satanist International Banking Cartel New World Order Bilderburg Freemason Bohemian Grove Overlords.
posted by nathancaswell at 12:56 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
First, Faze, don't assume you know who I'd vote for.
Second, regardless of the party of the presidents involved,* it wasn't exactly dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who were manning the barricades of anti-war protest.
The only completely uncontroversial part about the war, as far as I can tell, is that it's been beaten to death by both political parties for their own gain.
But that isn't why I posted this. I don't care at all about the politics of the Vietnam War as such, and I should have known that they'd derail this thread immediately. I posted this because regardless of the nature of the war, the article I linked to (which no one seems to be reading) contains what seems to be to be pretty credible evidence that we left men behind, knew about it, and then hushed it up.
McCain wasn't the only one involved either. Ironically enough, John Kerry also had a pretty big role in the legislation discussed in the article. There seems to be more than enough blame to go around.
But seriously, can we please talk about the merits of the article as such and not turn this into some referendum on the ongoing political viability of the GOP in general and John McCain in particular?
*Actually being in office does weird things to your policies, as both McCain as a senator and Obama as a president seem to demonstrate quite well
posted by valkyryn at 1:05 PM on May 28, 2010
Second, regardless of the party of the presidents involved,* it wasn't exactly dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who were manning the barricades of anti-war protest.
The only completely uncontroversial part about the war, as far as I can tell, is that it's been beaten to death by both political parties for their own gain.
But that isn't why I posted this. I don't care at all about the politics of the Vietnam War as such, and I should have known that they'd derail this thread immediately. I posted this because regardless of the nature of the war, the article I linked to (which no one seems to be reading) contains what seems to be to be pretty credible evidence that we left men behind, knew about it, and then hushed it up.
McCain wasn't the only one involved either. Ironically enough, John Kerry also had a pretty big role in the legislation discussed in the article. There seems to be more than enough blame to go around.
But seriously, can we please talk about the merits of the article as such and not turn this into some referendum on the ongoing political viability of the GOP in general and John McCain in particular?
*Actually being in office does weird things to your policies, as both McCain as a senator and Obama as a president seem to demonstrate quite well
posted by valkyryn at 1:05 PM on May 28, 2010
There's a good rebuttal to Schanberg's article here.
Schanberg has an illustrious 50-year career (he wrote the book that The Killing Fields was based on and won a pulitzer) but by his own account this issue is a personal obsession for him:
I was then city editor of the New York Times [when I got info about POWs], no longer involved in foreign or national stories, so I took the data to the appropriate desks and suggested it was material worth pursuing. There were no takers. Some years later... at Newsday, I wrote 36 columns over a two-year period, as well as a four-part series on a trip I took to North Vietnam to report on what happened to one missing pilot who was shot down over the Ho Chi Minh trail and captured when he parachuted down. After Newsday, I wrote thousands more words on the subject for other outlets. Some of the pieces were about McCain’s key role.
Though I wrote on many subjects for Life, Vanity Fair, and Washington Monthly, my POW articles appeared in Penthouse, the Village Voice, and APBnews.com. Mainstream publications just weren’t interested. Their disinterest was part of what motivated me, and I became one of a very short list of journalists who considered the story important.
posted by msalt at 1:14 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
Schanberg has an illustrious 50-year career (he wrote the book that The Killing Fields was based on and won a pulitzer) but by his own account this issue is a personal obsession for him:
I was then city editor of the New York Times [when I got info about POWs], no longer involved in foreign or national stories, so I took the data to the appropriate desks and suggested it was material worth pursuing. There were no takers. Some years later... at Newsday, I wrote 36 columns over a two-year period, as well as a four-part series on a trip I took to North Vietnam to report on what happened to one missing pilot who was shot down over the Ho Chi Minh trail and captured when he parachuted down. After Newsday, I wrote thousands more words on the subject for other outlets. Some of the pieces were about McCain’s key role.
Though I wrote on many subjects for Life, Vanity Fair, and Washington Monthly, my POW articles appeared in Penthouse, the Village Voice, and APBnews.com. Mainstream publications just weren’t interested. Their disinterest was part of what motivated me, and I became one of a very short list of journalists who considered the story important.
posted by msalt at 1:14 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
my fondest wish right now for AZ politics is for Foghorn Hayworth to beat McCain in the Nutbag primary.
posted by darkstar at 2:12 PM on May 28
I initially read this as Foghorn Leghorn and was pleased but puzzled.
posted by joannemerriam at 1:15 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by darkstar at 2:12 PM on May 28
I initially read this as Foghorn Leghorn and was pleased but puzzled.
posted by joannemerriam at 1:15 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
There's a good rebuttal to Schanberg's article here
See, now that's what I'm talking about. I should have linked to that in the FPP.
posted by valkyryn at 1:25 PM on May 28, 2010
See, now that's what I'm talking about. I should have linked to that in the FPP.
posted by valkyryn at 1:25 PM on May 28, 2010
And that 2003 thread was all about y2karl at his most annoying...
Oh, I would beg to differ...
But, otherwise, I find I have no complaint about the rest of that particular sentence.
posted by y2karl at 1:42 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
Oh, I would beg to differ...
But, otherwise, I find I have no complaint about the rest of that particular sentence.
posted by y2karl at 1:42 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
The MIA numbers are inflated for the following reason. Most of them were pilots shot down over land the N.Viets controlled. Pilots are a close knit group they live and play together in war and peace. They know their fellow pilots and their families.
The classification of MIA usually is supported by their wing mates in the action where they are lost. If a man is MIA his pay and allowances are continued and he is eligible for promotions for a long period of time. When a man is KIA his pay and promotions stop and his wife gets the insurance and certain benefits that do not compare in size to the MIA case. So many MIA classifications were a humanitarian act by a loyal wingmate.
posted by shnarg at 4:01 PM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
The classification of MIA usually is supported by their wing mates in the action where they are lost. If a man is MIA his pay and allowances are continued and he is eligible for promotions for a long period of time. When a man is KIA his pay and promotions stop and his wife gets the insurance and certain benefits that do not compare in size to the MIA case. So many MIA classifications were a humanitarian act by a loyal wingmate.
posted by shnarg at 4:01 PM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
gyc: "Derailish: learned yesterday that McCain's aircraft was likely responsible for the USS Forrestal disaster.
I've never heard any credible reports blaming McCain. The only reports I've seen blaming McCain looked to be about as credible as your typical forwarded hysterical political chain e-mail."
Here's some e-mail for you:
Make-Believe Maverick -- RollingStone.com
CQ Politics | McCain Camp Ignores Questions About Candidate’s Military Record
posted by psyche7 at 4:03 PM on May 28, 2010
I've never heard any credible reports blaming McCain. The only reports I've seen blaming McCain looked to be about as credible as your typical forwarded hysterical political chain e-mail."
Here's some e-mail for you:
Make-Believe Maverick -- RollingStone.com
CQ Politics | McCain Camp Ignores Questions About Candidate’s Military Record
posted by psyche7 at 4:03 PM on May 28, 2010
that makes a lot of sense shnarg, thanks for the info
posted by nathancaswell at 4:35 PM on May 28, 2010
posted by nathancaswell at 4:35 PM on May 28, 2010
what makes this story interesting to me is that it's been picked up by a media entity which is about as Republican as they come.
The American Conservative is many things, but "about as Republican as they come" it's not.
In 2006, they advised voting for Democratic candidates for Congress under the headline "GOP Must Go".
This is a paleoconservative publication that has long opposed McCain. See 2/2008's "The Madness of John McCain" for instance. They called him a "warmonger", Jacobin, and demagogue.
Opposition to the war in Iraq is a signature issue of The American Conservative and support for it was a signature McCain issue. Their dislike for him probably is fundamentally rooted in the McCain-Kennedy bill of 2005. Strong opposition to immigration (both illegal and legal) has been a cornerstone of the editorial program of the magazine.
posted by Jahaza at 10:37 PM on May 28, 2010
The American Conservative is many things, but "about as Republican as they come" it's not.
In 2006, they advised voting for Democratic candidates for Congress under the headline "GOP Must Go".
This is a paleoconservative publication that has long opposed McCain. See 2/2008's "The Madness of John McCain" for instance. They called him a "warmonger", Jacobin, and demagogue.
Opposition to the war in Iraq is a signature issue of The American Conservative and support for it was a signature McCain issue. Their dislike for him probably is fundamentally rooted in the McCain-Kennedy bill of 2005. Strong opposition to immigration (both illegal and legal) has been a cornerstone of the editorial program of the magazine.
posted by Jahaza at 10:37 PM on May 28, 2010
Hell even my grandfather (a vet/former Marine who campaigned heavily for McCain his first time around running for president) thinks he sold his soul this last election.
Yeah, my dad is a Vietnam vet who was briefly a POW, and he was flummoxed and deeply hurt by McCain's naked power grab. His pet theory is that the torture damaged McCain's mind so deeply that he is not fit for office. I think that's a pretty far reach, but it's the only way my dad can reconcile such a turnabout.
posted by desuetude at 10:55 PM on May 28, 2010
Yeah, my dad is a Vietnam vet who was briefly a POW, and he was flummoxed and deeply hurt by McCain's naked power grab. His pet theory is that the torture damaged McCain's mind so deeply that he is not fit for office. I think that's a pretty far reach, but it's the only way my dad can reconcile such a turnabout.
posted by desuetude at 10:55 PM on May 28, 2010
this is a paleoconservative publication that has long opposed McCain.
I don't know much about the publication but it's interesting you use the term paleoconservative. A lot of my comments here have been dancing around the connection between New World order conspiracy theorists (many of whom fall under / identify as paleoconservative) and the missing POW theory. It is very much embraced in that community. Probably has something to do with Kissinger.
posted by nathancaswell at 11:47 PM on May 28, 2010
I don't know much about the publication but it's interesting you use the term paleoconservative. A lot of my comments here have been dancing around the connection between New World order conspiracy theorists (many of whom fall under / identify as paleoconservative) and the missing POW theory. It is very much embraced in that community. Probably has something to do with Kissinger.
posted by nathancaswell at 11:47 PM on May 28, 2010
I think that's a pretty far reach, but it's the only way my dad can reconcile such a turnabout.
It's not hard for me to imagine a situation where, surrounded by handlers and advisors urging you to make the "prudent" political decision, you capitulate and compromise your beliefs. And they can't be un-compromised. Once you lose it it's gone. I'm not trying to assuage blame. I'm just saying after seeing McCain's poorly suppressed horror at the bitterness and racism he'd unleashed during that one town hall debate last election, it's not hard for me to imagine at all.
posted by nathancaswell at 11:57 PM on May 28, 2010
It's not hard for me to imagine a situation where, surrounded by handlers and advisors urging you to make the "prudent" political decision, you capitulate and compromise your beliefs. And they can't be un-compromised. Once you lose it it's gone. I'm not trying to assuage blame. I'm just saying after seeing McCain's poorly suppressed horror at the bitterness and racism he'd unleashed during that one town hall debate last election, it's not hard for me to imagine at all.
posted by nathancaswell at 11:57 PM on May 28, 2010
Perhaps they all work in the Nike factory, by which I mean the idea that in 2010 Vietnam is still some sort of closed country in which live MIAs could be hidden is risible.
posted by A189Nut at 7:36 AM on May 29, 2010
posted by A189Nut at 7:36 AM on May 29, 2010
It's not hard for me to imagine a situation where, surrounded by handlers and advisors urging you to make the "prudent" political decision, you capitulate and compromise your beliefs. And they can't be un-compromised. Once you lose it it's gone. I'm not trying to assuage blame. I'm just saying after seeing McCain's poorly suppressed horror at the bitterness and racism he'd unleashed during that one town hall debate last election, it's not hard for me to imagine at all.
If you know any career military, the culture is that a specific type of integrity is etched into you. Yes, that's very very idealized. But it makes McCain's two-facedness unfathomable to some vets.
posted by desuetude at 11:25 AM on May 29, 2010
If you know any career military, the culture is that a specific type of integrity is etched into you. Yes, that's very very idealized. But it makes McCain's two-facedness unfathomable to some vets.
posted by desuetude at 11:25 AM on May 29, 2010
the idea that in 2010 Vietnam is still some sort of closed country in which live MIAs could be hidden is risible
True. But the article suggests that most of whatever vets were left behind were executed years ago.
posted by valkyryn at 3:07 PM on May 29, 2010
True. But the article suggests that most of whatever vets were left behind were executed years ago.
posted by valkyryn at 3:07 PM on May 29, 2010
In which case the people pushing this issue are even bigger assholes for manipulating the hopes of the servicemen's family members.
posted by msalt at 3:25 PM on May 29, 2010
posted by msalt at 3:25 PM on May 29, 2010
« Older A Ring and a Promise Given | The First Decoration Day Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by valkyryn at 10:33 AM on May 28, 2010