ps

That's fine SS.
But you should be fully aware, your camaraderie, your esprit de corps may obscure the following:

The fact remains, the criterion of truth is not popular agreement among a small, fanatical sub-group.

Confirmation bias

That's why I choose to be progressive, but not liberal or conservative

So despite the 'UTTER LIES' by the man who never knew John McCain - and has been researched IN DEPTH by NON-BIASED FACT CHECKING PUBLICATIONS...you and YOURS would rather perpetrate a 'school yard ugly rumor' then look at the FACTS...just because you can smear a real war veteran in this manner!

Sad - really SAD; but empathy only runs so deep in matters of morality and honor!

Indeed. Concisely stated sir.

Political & fiscal conservatism are fine.
But fanaticism can exact a hefty price.

I honor our heritage.
I often quote our 18th Century Founders.
But I don't gallivant off to the store on horseback the way they did.

I prefer my Chevy coup� or my Yamaha.

Adopt a radical ideology, and heads fall from shoulders.

“on March 25, 1999, two of his fellow POWs, Ted Guy and Gordon “Swede” Larson told the Phoenix New Times that, while they could not guarantee that McCain was not physically harmed, they doubted it. As Larson said, “My only contention with the McCain deal is that while he was at The Plantation, to the best of my knowledge and Ted’s knowledge, he was not physically abused in any way. No one was in that camp. It was the camp that people were released from.”Guy and Larson’s claims are given credence by McCain’s vehement opposition to releasing the government’s debriefings of Vietnam War POWs. McCain gave Michael Isikoff a peek at his debriefs, and Isikoff declared there was “nothing incriminating” in them, apart from the redactions.

McCain had a unique POW experience. Initially, he was taken to the infamous Hanoi Hilton prison camp, where he was interrogated. By McCain’s own account, after three or four days, he cracked. He promised his Vietnamese captors, “I’ll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital.”His Vietnamese capturers soon realized their POW, John Sidney McCain III, came from a well-bred line of American military elites. McCain’s father, John Jr., and grandfather, John Sr., were both full Admirals. A destroyer, the USS John S. McCain, is named after both of them. While his son was held captive in Hanoi, John McCain Jr., from 1968 to 1972, was the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Pacific Command; Admiral McCain was in charge of all US forces in the Pacific including those fighting in Vietnam. ..The Admiral’s bad boy was used to special treatment and his captors knew that. They were working him.For his part, McCain acknowledges that the Vietnamese rushed him to a hospital, but denies he was given any “special medical treatment.” However….two weeks into his stay at the Vietnamese hospital, the Hanoi press began quoting him. It was not “name rank and serial number, or kill me,” as specified by the military code of conduct. McCain divulged specific military information: he gave the name of the aircraft carrier on which he was based, the number of US pilots that had been lost, the number of aircraft in his flight formation, as well as information about the location of rescue ships…

On the other hand, according to one source, McCain’s collaboration may have had very real consequences. Retired Army Colonel Earl Hopper, a veteran of World War II, Korea and Vietnam, contends that the information that McCain divulged classified information North Vietnam used to hone their air defense system…McCain told his North Vietnamese captors, “highly classified information, the most important of which was the package routes, which were routes used to bomb North Vietnam. He gave in detail the altitude they were flying, the direction, if they made a turn… he gave them what primary targets the United States was interested in.” Hopper contends that the information McCain provided allowed the North Vietnamese to adjust their air-defenses. As result, Hopper claims, the US lost sixty percent more aircraft and in 1968, “called off the bombing of North Vietnam, because of the information McCain had given to them.”

EXCERPT: from 1992 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA’s:

“When two U.S. Army enlisted men were captured by the Viet Cong in 1963, they were plunged into an ordeal that would prove to be a relentless trial of body and spirit by torture. Once they were finally freed, however, their trials began all over again, when their statements critical of the U. S. Vietnam policy landed them in a military court facing a capital offense for violating the military Code of Conduct by “aiding the enemy.”

But, if your name is John McCain and your father and grandfather were famous admirals, violating the Code of Conduct by “aiding the enemy” translates into fodder for a political career, book deals, and adulation bordering on sainthood. Even though news reports of McCain collaborating with the enemy continued from the time he was captured in 1967 through 1970, the Navy never considered prosecution as an option.

Instead, Pentagon pencil pushers chose a political spin that lifted McCain, the former POW turned U.S. Senator, up to a glorified pedestal where he sprouted a halo and wings and became America’s “POW-hero” and today a presidential candidate.

No such luck for the two lowly “grunts.”

SANTOLI: But on the Senate side, we had one person standing in the way of getting in positions that would have been very tough on government bureaucrats who didn’t tell the truth. And that one person was Sen. John McCain.

Cpl. BOB DUMAS, U.S. Army (Ret.): He didn’t want nobody to check his background because a lot of the POWs that was in the camps said he was a collaborator of the enemy. He gave the enemy the information they wanted.

Dr. JAMES LUCIER, former U.S. Senate Chief of Staff: But We do know that when he was there [in the Vietnamese prison], he cooperated with the communist news services in giving interviews there, ah, not flattering to the United States.

USRY: Information shows that he made over 32 tapes of propaganda for the Vietnamese government. Certainly, you do what you need to do to stay alive. Nobody would fault anybody for that. But there comes a point in time when enough is enough.

REP: DORNAN: They made those transcriptions, and in the transcriptions, I heard a POW who heard them comin’ into his cell and said, “Oh, my God, is that Admiral McCain’s son? Is that the admiral’s son? Is that Johnny — telling us that our principal targets are schools, orphanages, hospitals, temples, churches?” That was Jane Fonda’s line. Where are those transcriptions? Believe me — they’re in the archives of the museum, the bragging military phony museum in Hanoi. McCain could not have wanted those [to] turn up in the middle of a presidential race. He knows that. I know that, and a few other people know that, and that’s why he went against Bob Dole’s legislation.

DUMAS: And he didn’t want nobody looking into his background in that camp, what went on in that camp. That stuff is still classified so nobody can see it. And he just had it classified forever, so nobody’ll ever look at it.

LUCIER: That he was given special treatment and was put in a room with two other defectors who were later given special treatment. Although I will say to his credit he refused to be repatriated as a result.

REP: DORNAN: This sounds so good at first. McCain was offered the chance to come home. They called him the “Prince.” And he could have. But nobody ever takes that one step beyond that. If John … Admiral John McCain II … “Junior” … if his son, a lieutenant senior grade, had accepted this princely status and come home in 1967 while the others would sit there for five years, what would the Navy have done, with the son of an admiral who opted to get special treatment and come home? No Navy career. No House seat. No Senate seat. It would have been the end of his career. [Edit.] And they were offering him this chance to go home in one of three groups that came home in ‘68.

SANTOLI: They were all collaborators.

REP. DORNAN: And McCain called them this — except for Bill Kagill [phonetic] — the “slipperies,” the “slimies” and the “sleazies.” I once forgot one of those names — and he refreshed my memory. The slipperies, the slimies and the sleazies. So that meant that he would have become a slimy, a sleazy and a slippery, ruining his career and the admiral’s son goes home. What I’m saying is, yes — he chose to stay. But did he have an alternative if he ever wanted to have a life? And what would it have done to his father?

DOUGLASS: And his activities were sufficiently consistent and widespread in opposing efforts to learn the truth that he was written up in a number of articles as a Manchurian candidate in this issue.

REP. DORNAN: In Hanoi, he saw McCain turn red in the face. He even used the term “Rumblestiltskin” [sic], jumping up and down in place in a rage: “If you release any of these records that you have here in Hanoi on me or the other POWs, you will NEVER get diplomatic recognition.”

USRY: McCain may have been an expert on being a prisoner of war but he was by no means an expert on the POW issue.”

http://hope2012.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/songbird-mccain-the-evidence-in-his-own-words-his-fellow-veterans-and-his-captors/

OMG...I could do as well in LATIN too and what exactly would the point be; that it would appease your sensitive eyes --- LMAO
This is an adult forum - we are all uniquely individually different and post thusly - if we had to do so as a uniformed / typed / worded format how utterly boring that would be

Get used to it because my verbiage is tame compared to the _______ that has been flung by others so either sit down & buckle up or put some blinders on - either way - you are in for a very bumpy ride!

TO REFUTE THE consistent regurgitated smear campaign perpetrated by those that just DO NOT CARE >>>

FACT CHECKED and reprinted since 2002:



Notice --- mine has a link and validity therein!!!

Mine was simply an: EXCERPT: from 1992 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA's:

Guess your link trumps the official record of the US Senate somehow?

You may take me for a fool; but only to your own detriment sir.

Not only that sir, it is a current events forum at a date site named "mingle2".
Just what sort of woman do you hope to attract w/ potty-mouth? Bulldozer operators?

A word to the wise sir.

The following is a brief reprise of the rules YOU HAVE ALREADY AGREED TO ABIDE BY:

If potty-mouth is more important than your membership here, you're on your own.
But posting like that, at a date site is enormously self-defeating. And demonstrating yourself not true to your word is a sure way to scare off what few women might have otherwise considered you.

Thank you.
I was cyber-headed for Snopes on it. You've saved me the trouble.

There's a standing invitation to ANYone willing to post proof of the character-assassinating allegations against Senator McCain.

Perhaps McCain's character assassins are simply envious; that McCain acted heroically, and perhaps they did not.

McCain and the POW Cover-up
The "war hero" candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam

McCain's Catch-22

None of this compelling evidence in the committee's full report dislodged McCain from his contention that the whole POW issue was a concoction by deluded purveyors of a "conspiracy theory. But an honest review of the full report, combined with the other documentary evidence, tells the story of a frustrated and angry president, and his national security advisor, furious at being thwarted at the peace table by a small, much less powerful country that refused to bow to Washington's terms. That President seems to have swallowed hard and accepted a treaty that left probably hundreds of American prisoners in Hanoi's hands, to be used as bargaining chips for reparations.

Maybe Nixon and Kissinger told themselves that they could get the prisoners home after some time had passed. But perhaps it proved too hard to undo a lie as big as this one. Washington said no prisoners were left behind, and Hanoi swore it had returned all of them. How could either side later admit it had lied? Time went by and as neither side budged, telling the truth became even more difficult and remote. The public would realize that Washington knew of the abandoned men all along. The truth, after men had been languishing in foul prison cells, could get people impeached or thrown in jail.

Which brings us to today, when the Republican candidate for President is the contemporaneous politician most responsible for keeping the truth about his matter hidden. Yet he says he's the right man to be the Commander-in-Chief, and his credibility in making this claim is largely based on his image as a POW hero.

On page 468 of the 1,221-page report, McCain parsed his POW position oddly: "We found no compelling evidence to prove that Americans are alive in captivity today. There is some evidence -though no proof -to suggest only the possibility that a few Americans may have been kept behind after the end of America's military involvement in Vietnam."

"Evidence though no proof." Clearly, no one could meet McCain's standard of proof as long as he is leading a government crusade to keep the truth buried.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20835.htm

People that jumped into the water before the Titanic sank probably thought they had improved their lives as well..

yep,right up to when they felt the icy-cold water!

SWEET JESUS --- obtuse be your forte!

Not only did you screw up my abbreviation for my 2old2messaround --- you've neglected to look at the identity/gender/profile before going off on your diatribe that your brief time on here clearly has now anointed you with a proven lack of foundation for FACT!
If the 'MODS' had nothing better to do then run hither an yon among the 'ADULTS' and smack our collective hands/key boards for our choice of words when there is a censor already established for the way vulgar words will be 'ALLOWED' to be typed --- then you clearly haven't EVER POSTED ON A POLITICAL FORUM BEFORE!

It is not for the 'Faint Of Hearts' and I haven't ever asked any one that I've butted heads with to alter their choice wording - EVER! SUCK IT UP BUTTER CUP!

SS,
I don't know what McCain's standard of proof is.
I know what mine is.

There's more to it than that.
McCain REALLY wanted to be president.
And all he had to do to get the job was to expose Obama as Nigerian born.
Yet I saw video of McCain, during the heat of the campaign, with a campaign audience present, one one in the audience accused Obama of being foreign born.
McCain interrupted her, and denied it. "No M'am" he said.
That is the conduct of an honorable man.
And thus the unproved dishonor attributed to him here would if true be the exception, not the rule.
And in my experience, honorable people don't do that.

We know McCain was tortured, and permanently injured.
What proof is there that this torture and injury occurred AFTER this alleged misconduct?

C7,
On your Titanic point,
it's perilous to attribute to a group tens of millions in size, a single motive.
The U.S. electorate may be many things; but being an ideological monolith is surely not one of them.

But I for one am tired of Democrats being labeled as profligate spenders, and Republicans being labeled good on defense.
The most recent U.S. president to have consecutive years of ostensibly (1) balanced budgets was Clinton (D-AR).
And as far as Republicans being good on defense, the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in all history took place during a Republican presidency.
Making that worse; Bush (younger) then started an unnecessary War.

And you know what the worst of it is?
During the 8 years of that Bush administration, UBL killed about 3,000 innocent Americans. Not just a very bad man indeed, but number one on the FBI's ten most wanted list.
But during those same 8 years, President Bush killed ~4,500 innocent Americans. Bush killed ~50% more Americans than the most wanted criminal on Earth.

* Excerpted from The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition � 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

(1) albeit with fudging Social Security revenues
Bush fudged Social Security revenues too; but ran consecutive deficits adding $Trillions to our $federal $debt

: )
For many years, as member, as moderator, and as administrator.

Evidently my standard of integrity is higher than yours.
If I make a commitment, I abide by it.

Profanity filters can be evaded, as you have already demonstrated.

DITTO...like wise and some where in there was there an acknowledgment about your ASSumption and error about my profile and your diatribe???
An apology - something? Hmmmmm

WOW...how strong your stance for morality and yet when you are WRONG --- you do so in such a GLORIOUS PROFOUND WAY! KUDO's to you!
Now that you've allowed your own topic to go far afield how do you plan on reining it back to the subject matter or did you care?

So far I'll "Stand with Rand". The reason being that none of the other a$$hats in DC can be trusted to uphold the Constitution and the peoples rights under it.

Many spew the rhetoric of caring but their votes do just the opposite.

I don't care what their religious principles are, the color of their skin, or whether they claim one party affiliation or the other.

What I do care about is whether they uphold their oath of office by actions as well as words, and so far Rand is about the only 2016 contender that falls into that category! Most take the lobbyist money or fall in line with the party to better their position or retain their peer support of the old guard lifers who just don't care any more what the people think as long as the lobbyists keep throwing money at them for their vote on a policy issue or bill.

We've had more than enough corruption, lies, and rhetoric coming out of DC, and look what it has gotten us!

On this we squarely and totally AGREE; on the Sen. John McCain reputation and his military service you don't buy what I post and I'm not about to swallow what you're selling as 'kool-aide' either!

Fair enough!!!

everyone that obarry has run against would have been worse, IMO... Kerry, by far, the worst of all of them...