Diary on McCain & being a POW. How do you guys feel about this?

[beachmom]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/30/15213/4901/936/487234

This person was a POW with John McCain. It is in no means smearing him at all; still, I am not sure I feel comfortable with this.

John's treatment as a POW:

1. Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POW's for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.

2. John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately this was often the case - new POW's arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was non-existent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John's father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW's suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.

3. John was offered, and refused, "early release." Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to "admit" that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was "lenient and humane." So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW's were released, with the sick and wounded going first.

4. John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW's in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor - 8, Service Crosses - 42, Silver Stars - 590, Bronze Stars - 958 and Purple Hearts - 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.

Look, I don't think McCain's POW experience means he should be president.
But the truth is he IS a unique hero in politics. Hillary and Obama have nothing on him in terms of war heroics. He is the only one who actually is running for president. This was an underlying attack on Kerry, btw, before the smears. Many military people did not like him "running on" his record in Vietnam. Well, he was the only one who actually had served in the race. Running for president amounts to selling yourself 24/7. Imagine if you lived your life running for president -- true, you would listen to what everyone had to say and give solutions. BUT you would also kind of have to brag about yourself so that people would think you had the
qualifications to be president. I just think military service counts a lot, as much if not more than education or other jobs held. And it's weird to me how military people NOT running for public office end up dissing someone who has served for running in part on that service. I mean how could they not?

[MH1]

1. Butler's piece seems like a fair and honest appraisal to me.

He does praise certain aspects of McCain's record. I think he is saying people shouldn't be blinded by McCain's status as an ex-POW to the extent that they ignore other crucial factors.

I also think it is fair to note that certain incorrect popular assumptions are left uncorrected by the McCain campaign. The item that jumps out at me is this assertion:

Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POW's for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.

How many times have we heard someone attack Kerry for his 1971 SFRC appearance, saying JK's testimony was given while American POW's were being tortured?

To be honest, I think JK did the right thing even if that did happen, but Butler's statement is that torture was not being done by the North Vietnamese at that time. So people who try to drum up emotional angst against JK by telling this tale, are at least mistaken if not dishonest. I am glad Butler is trying to set the record straight on that score.

[beachmom]

3. Good catch, MH1!! I did put in a comment asking him if he knew

the POWs who joined the SBVT. Maybe a few others here can ask as well.

[Mass]

4. I saw it the same thing you did,

This has nothing to do with what the SBVT did. If anything, Butler makes all efforts to say that McCain is an honorable man but that it does not qualify him to be president, and reminds people that they should not be blinded his POW status.

There would not have been anything wrong with people saying that many other people did the same thing or at least equivalent things to what Kerry did in his service in VietNam. The liars chose to say he was dishonorable, which is totally different.

[karynnj]

2. It is funny how much the treatment of John Kerry colors my reaction - both ways

I think had I read this before 2004, I would have taken it as someone wanting attention - he too had gone through what McCain did or worse and he was complaining that McCain was getting all the attention. It would have seemed odd - as the fact that he was not unique did not make McCain's accomplishment less important - and he was the one running.

I also would have thought that it said nothing of what he could or would do as President. I didn't respect Senator Dole more for his military career - he was just a Republican hatchet man to me. It really was not until hearing Kerry speak of veterans - not in his beautiful speeches, but in the more mundane comments that were in press releases or especially in his reaction to vets who came up and spoke of being vets at his rallies. That and reading his words in "Tour of Duty" and thinking of the awful reality he faced every day knowing he could easily die -at 25 - for a cause he didn't believe in and reading that he had to hide those thoughts from the guys he led because it would be worse for them.

Although Kerry was more thoughtful, brilliant and insightful than the others and the real life he would be returning to far more golden than others, it made me think that all of them who went traded the easier extended adolescent lives that those who had other priorities, whether Cheney or Clinton, enjoyed for a terrifying life where they faced death or capture. All those who served - and there were millions - deserve credit for it. I suspect that it is not just those who served who question using it as a credential - most of those in the media who are of that generation were among those with other priorities.

So, now I do see how neither could really ignore that part of their life. As they have said, it changed them - so it is part of who they are. (It does remind me that McCain was a hypocrite in saying in 2004 that Kerry shouldn't be running on his service - which he wasn't. It was a real credential that Kerry had every right to mention and it was important for what it said of his character. There were also 33 integrity filled years in the public eye.)

The other thing is that it bothers me that a liberal/Democratic blog carry these criticisms after the SBVT. What was done to Kerry was 100% wrong. Turning and saying that attacking McCain for using his service would likely be the opposite of what Senator Kerry would want. (Just as in 2004, I was uneasy as McAuliffe and Clinton kept bragging about Kerry's service and contrasting it to Bush's - itt seemed transparently hypocritical.)