Fact: John McCain is Not a War Hero

A little non-Talmudic straight talk from Tzvee.

John McCain is not a hero.

Hero: A man distinguished by exceptional courage and nobility and strength; "RAF pilots were the heroes of the Battle of Britain."

I have read the record of McCain's service in the navy. He nearly blew up an air-craft carrier, he got shot down, he confessed and collaborated with the enemy. These are not things that a hero does. They do not show a "man distinguished by exceptional courage and nobility and strength."

The facts of McCain's biography show me a man undistinguished, a man of limited courage, a man lacking nobility and a man of visible weakness.

In my book an undisputed hero dies for his country or a noble hero leads his troops to victory (not to defeat) in a noble war (not in Vietnam).

It's not disrespectful to characterize a person accurately. McCain graduated at the bottom of his class. McCain left the navy as a captain after he was told he would never make admiral.

To me McCain seems like a screw-up, not a hero, like a smart ass, not a person qualified to be the leader of the greatest country in the world.

McCain's accomplishment in the military - in my mind - is way inferior to the records of many military men who served as president. To me he is no John F. Kennedy, Dwight D. Eisenhower, no Teddy Roosevelt, no Ulysses Grant, Andrew Jackson, William H. Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Franklin Pierce, Benjamin Harrison, James Monroe, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, William McKinley, Harry S Truman, Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush or James Buchanan.

These are my views. It is not my opinion but a fact that nowhere will you find hero defined as a person who "chooses" to stay incarcerated by the enemy as a prisoner of war longer than he needs to because he wants to show solidarity with other captured soldiers. That to me is not a display of "courage, nobility or strength." That to me is the act of a fool, an idiot, a showoff, or worse.

I do agree with Wesley Clark that McCain's record does not support his qualifications to assume the mantle of leadership of our country - though Clark is muddying the waters and diluting his criticism already in an interview this evening with Dan Abrams on MSNBC.

Here is what some others are saying, via Politico, "Is McCain's War Record Fair Game?
Politico: McCain Camp Outraged After Wesley Clark, Liberal Bloggers Target Candidate's Service In Vietnam, Time As POW" -
...Sunday, a widely read liberal blog accused McCain of "disloyalty" during his captivity in Vietnam for his coerced participation in propaganda films and interviews after he’d been tortured.

"A lot of people don't know… that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity," wrote Americablog's John Aravosis. "Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain's military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief?"

"Getting shot down, tortured, and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience," Aravosis wrote in the blog post, entitled "Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?"

McCain's camp responded sharply to the Americablog posting Sunday night.

"The American people know that John McCain's record of service and sacrifice is not a matter of debate. He has written about and discussed his service as a POW extensively-often in excruciating and painful detail," said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers. "The American people will judge harshly anyone who demeans or attacks that service."...


Iyov said...

Wait a ******** minute -- you left out George Washington?

General George Washington?

You consider McCain to be a great war hero than the Hero of the Monongahela, the Liberator of Fort Duquesne, the Leader of the American Revolution, the Victor of Trenton, the Master of Saratoga, the Champion of Valley Forge, and the Crosser of the Delaware?

Tzvee said...

well duh cubed - but of course - tnx

bryce said...

"No one should devalue that service" -- Obama.

Tzvee, you just went against Obama. Big time.

The video of Obama saying this is here:

John D. Enright said...

Tzvee said "McCain left the navy as a captain after he was told he would never make admiral." What? Do you just make things up?

How about this: Taste of Senate Set Capt. McCain on a New Path published by the NYT on May 29, 2008:
At a meeting in his Pentagon office in early 1981, Secretary of the Navy John F. Lehman told Capt. John S. McCain III that he was about to attain his life ambition: becoming an admiral.

You're portrayal of other aspects of Sen. McCain's background is likewise false in other instances. I really don't have the time nor the inclination to point them out to you; I don't have to do so. Remember, "Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus" (false in one, false in all.)

Tzvee said...

wikipedia: McCain decided to leave the Navy. He was unlikely to ever make full admiral, as he had poor annual physicals and had been given no major sea command.[65] In early 1981, he was told he would be made rear admiral; he declined the prospect, as he already made plans to run for Congress and said he could "do more good there."[66]

"He was told" is not credible to me. Perhaps I have historical standards.

Oh yes, I left out all McCain's extramarital infidelity. Not something to be proud of in either party is it?

bryce said...

Tzvee, what happened? You ignored Enright's New York Times evidence, which included /who/ offered McCain the admiral status, and then quoted the usually less reliable wikipedia (people with 'historical standards' don't rely on wiki), which /backed up/ Enright's argument, but merely used the passive voice with "he was told".

Whether one uses Enright's source or your source, you've shown that you were mistaken in your original post.