Home|Login|Register  |    
McCain's Navy record and medals chronicle the career, heroism of a pilot and POW

The Navy recently released McCain's military record — most of it citations for medals during his Navy career — after a Freedom of Information Act request by The Associated Press.

McCain was awarded a Silver Star Medal for resisting "extreme mental and physical cruelties" inflicted upon him by his captors from late October to early December 1967, the early months of his captivity, according to the citation. The North Vietnamese, according to the Navy, ignored international agreements and tortured McCain "in an attempt to obtain military information and false confessions for propaganda purposes."

McCain, now the Republican Party's likely presidential nominee, was taken prisoner in October 1967 after he was shot down while on a mission over Hanoi. He wasn't freed until March 1973, after the United States signed peace agreements with the North Vietnamese. His captors tortured him and held him in solitary confinement. Still, he declined an offer of early release until those who had been at the prison longer than him were let go.

That decision earned McCain a Navy Commendation Medal. Although McCain was "crippled from serious and ill-treated injuries," he steadfastly refused offers of freedom from those holding him prisoner. "His selfless action served as an example to others and his forthright refusal, by giving emphasis to the insidious nature of such releases, may have prevented a possibly chaotic deterioration in prisoner discipline," the citation says.

Several citations mention his achievements either as a prisoner or as a lieutenant commander flying bombing runs off the deck of the USS Oriskany. Some are signed by then-Secretary of the Navy John Warner, who would become a colleague of McCain's in the Senate.

The citations refer to his "accurate ordnance delivery" and his "aggressive and skillful airmanship." He earned his Bronze Star the day before he was shot down, for participating in a mission over an airfield in Phuc Yen, 11 miles north of Hanoi.

The citation for his Distinguished Flying Cross sums up McCain's misfortune the following day:

"Although his aircraft was severely damaged, he continued his bomb delivery pass and released his bombs on the target. When the aircraft would not recover from the dive, Commander McCain was forced to eject over the target."

Newsweek
5/8/8

Posted May 8, 2008 - 7:25 am
42 Comments:

Well, that’s all well and good, but Obama pulled a hammy one time playing basketball.  That hurts.

Posted by Two Dogs on 05-08-2008 at 09:03 AM [link]

Ask yourself one question, who do you want leading the country should something like 9-11 happen again?  I really don’t like either candidate… but my answer is McCain!  The other question you have to ask is who do you want appointing judges to the supreme court......

Posted by msbroker on 05-08-2008 at 10:06 AM [link]

McCain acts like he’s got brain damage or is going senile—IMHO.

Posted by aspen on 05-08-2008 at 10:59 AM [link]

Aspen, I would rather have a brain damaged McCain than a socialist like Obama.  With his choice of preacher (GD America), his friends (Weathermen) and his record as the most liberal Senator the choice of a brain damaged McCain would be far superior to Obama.

Posted by msbroker on 05-08-2008 at 11:29 AM [link]

msbroker, if you like what George W. has done to this nation, then go ahead and vote for McCain.  It’s your vote.

Posted by aspen on 05-08-2008 at 11:55 AM [link]

Run, logic, run.

Posted by JDBerry on 05-08-2008 at 12:47 PM [link]

Aspen, I remember what Jimmy Carter did to this country.... the only thing good that came from his administration was the election of Ronald Regan!

Posted by msbroker on 05-08-2008 at 01:07 PM [link]

This “debate” is ridiculous.

“My rusty nail is the greatest toy ever!”
“No way!  My glass shards are the greatest toy ever!”

Please take off your Party blinders and admit that both of these candidates suck horribly.

Posted by sweetdaddyjones on 05-08-2008 at 01:12 PM [link]

What SDJ said.

Posted by Two Dogs on 05-08-2008 at 05:39 PM [link]

That’s why I’ll hold my nose and vote for McCain.  He may not be a good choice but he’s the better choice of the two,,, whoever the dimmies nominate.

Posted by CDavidS on 05-08-2008 at 06:39 PM [link]

Bush was an oil man. Oil went up during his presidency. McCain is a beer man. If beer goes up like the oil during his presidency like oil did in Bush’s, I will be totally screwed. I might have to switch to Nasty Light.

Posted by ElPabloPolitico on 05-08-2008 at 07:30 PM [link]

finally, something el pablo and i can and will agree on!!!

Posted by HernandoMan on 05-08-2008 at 07:44 PM [link]

"Beer, helping people be friends since 1846.”

Posted by ElPabloPolitico on 05-08-2008 at 08:02 PM [link]

How about this idea:  don’t help elect a pitiful Republican candidate.  With your vote (or lack of), tell the Republican Party that you don’t like the direction it’s heading, and that you demand a return to limited government. 

Remember what happened in 1976.  A terrible Democratic candidate won the election, forcing the Republican Party to get its act together.  The result was the election of one of the worst Presidents in the history of the nation in Carter followed by possibly the best Republican President since the party was formed.  I say you hold your nose for the next 4 years rather than during the 30 seconds in the voting booth.  Otherwise, your party is going to continue to go south.

Posted by sweetdaddyjones on 05-08-2008 at 08:13 PM [link]

SDJ is right. The only way to get the GOP turned around is a democrat screw up.

Posted by ElPabloPolitico on 05-08-2008 at 08:21 PM [link]

The only way to get the GOP turned around is a democrat screw up.

In other words, a socialist like Obama.

Posted by sweetdaddyjones on 05-08-2008 at 08:22 PM [link]

I have never said I was for him. You may be right.

Posted by ElPabloPolitico on 05-08-2008 at 08:29 PM [link]

Out of curiosity, who are you supporting then?  It’s looking like I will be forced to write in Ron Paul.

Posted by sweetdaddyjones on 05-08-2008 at 08:44 PM [link]

none of them

Posted by ElPabloPolitico on 05-08-2008 at 09:04 PM [link]
Posted by sweetdaddyjones on 05-08-2008 at 09:32 PM [link]

You’re right, SDJ.  If Ford had beaten Carter in ‘76, it would have been harder for Reagan to get elected in ‘80.  For one thing, Vice President Bob Dole would have had the party insiders behind him for the ‘80 GOP nomination.

One good thing was that there were no Supreme Court vacancies while Carter was president.  There may be, in contrast, 2-4 SC vacancies in the next 4 years.  Can you imagine the kind of wild-eyed radicals that Obamanation would appoint?  We could certainly forget about overturning Roe v. Wade.

Dick Morris says that Obamanation has a shot at carrying a number of Southern states, including Mississippi.  If he does win Mississippi, he’ll be the first Democrat to do so since Carter barely did in ‘76, and Carter was the first since Stevenson in 1956.

Instead of voting for “None of the Above,” you fellows might want to consider the Libertarians or the Constitution Party.

Posted by Steve on 05-09-2008 at 03:25 AM [link]

Steve, no thanks on the Libertarian and Constitution Party.  The Constitution Party is all about its namesake when it comes to fiscal policy, but is completely disregards it on everything else.  The LP is just against everything.

Posted by sweetdaddyjones on 05-09-2008 at 06:44 AM [link]

It is all about the judges that are appointed by the president.  I can live with the Legislature being Democratic and the White House being Republican which leads to stagnation or the government not coming up with additional ways to screw the citizens.  Just can’t have Judges creating laws from the bench which seems to happen more with the liberal courts.

Posted by msbroker on 05-09-2008 at 07:17 AM [link]

What makes all of you think McCain will appoint strict Constitutionalists to the bench?  Look at some examples of appointments by Republicans who aren’t committed to limited government:  John Paul Stevens (nominated by Ford) and David Souter (nominated by G. H. W. Bush).

Posted by sweetdaddyjones on 05-09-2008 at 07:35 AM [link]

But we HAVE, HAVE, HAVE to assume that McCain will be head and shoulders above Obama.  Obama might appoint Bill Ayers or Otis Moss III.  And with a Democrat Congress they would probably try to rewrite our laws to force the older Supremes to retire anyway.

I am just hoping that my deductions are right about how stupid Obama is and that he will get his head stuck in a bucket within the first two weeks of taking office and be too ashamed to be seen in public after that because his entire cabinet will be even dumber than he is and can’t get the bucket off his head either.

Posted by Two Dogs on 05-09-2008 at 08:05 AM [link]

Republicans vote against Mother’s Day.

On Wednesday, the House took up the seemingly uncontroversial H. Res. 1113, “Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother’s Day.” The resolution initially passed 412 to 0, until Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) rose in protest:

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recorded vote because I’m sure every member wants their mother to know that they have supported the goals of Mother’s Day.

Tiahrt’s mother, however, may be disappointed to know that her son did not support Mother’s Day. He and 177 other Republicans decided to cast their vote against mothers.

When asked why the GOP switched their votes, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said, “Oh, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on record in support of Mother’s Day.” (Even though he also was actually on record against Mother’s Day.) The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank reports that this move was a procedural tactic to “bring the House to a standstill.”

Republicans sold their mothers’ souls just to make sure the democrats don’t pass anything.

Posted by aspen on 05-09-2008 at 09:47 AM [link]

Yes, the Congress passing a resolution about Mother’s Day is exactly why they are in Washington.  Is there a single person with a brain that thinks this is why they are elected?

Posted by Two Dogs on 05-09-2008 at 09:55 AM [link]

Hooray for the Republicans.  I’d much rather they bring Congress to a standstill than pass bills such as McCain-Feingold, the Patriot Act… I’m not going to waste time making a laundry list.  I’d rather they bring Congress to a standstill than pass pretty much anything they’ve passed in a long time.

Posted by sweetdaddyjones on 05-09-2008 at 09:56 AM [link]

This is what I mean about a brain-damaged senile man McCain:

<blockquote>McCain’s 10-second flip on whether he voted for Bush: ‘Of course not,’ ‘Of course.’»

This week, Arianna Huffington said that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and his wife, Cindy, told her at a Los Angeles dinner party not long after the 2000 election that neither of them voted for George Bush. A McCain spokesman insisted “it’s not true,” and told reporters to “consider the source.” Appearing on Fox News’s O’Reilly Factor last night, McCain tried to clarify:

O’REILLY: Did you vote for President Bush?

MCCAIN: Of course not. I campaigned all over this country for him.

O’REILLY: So you voted for President Bush.

MCCAIN: Of course. I mean, that’s a ridiculous question.

Posted by aspen on 05-09-2008 at 10:32 AM [link]

Yes, brain damage and quotes from “Think Progress” go hand-in-hand.

Posted by Two Dogs on 05-09-2008 at 10:33 AM [link]

aspen says:  “... Arianna Huffington said that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and his wife, Cindy, told her… that neither of them voted for George Bush.”

“Zsa Zsa” Huffington… now there’s a real reliable source.  Zsa Zsa was a conservative Republican until her husband left her for a MAN.  Such an experience is enough to turn most any woman into a left-wing nutjob.

Posted by Steve on 05-09-2008 at 01:02 PM [link]

McCain has pretty much locked himself into position on SCUSA nominees with his repeated assurance that he will send up candidates “like John Roberts and Sam Alito.” It would be hard to mistake Stevens or Souter for Roberts or Alito. On this basis alone, I will support McCain. I grant that he has some unattractive characteristics, as I pointed out in a column soon after it became apparent that he would be the nominee.

Posted by David Sanders on 05-09-2008 at 01:31 PM [link]

You can go watch the tape at ThinkProgress.  When he was asked Did you vote for Bush, he said of course not.  Then O’Reilly said so, you voted for Bush?  He said Of Course.  The guy doesn’t even know what he is saying half of the time—do you really want someone like that running the country?  I mean really.  Have y’all listened to the man?  He often times says two different things within minutes and then will deny it.  He’s crazy.

Posted by aspen on 05-09-2008 at 03:06 PM [link]

You lefties ought to love McCain, since he cut all those deals with Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, etc.  But I guess now that McCain stands in the way of electing a REAL far leftist like Obamanation, you’ve got to disparage McC as much as possible.

You have a garden-variety, run-of-the-mill leftist who makes a good speech.  And who served eight years in the state legislature and less than four years in the U. S. Senate, where he has the MOST LIBERAL voting record of the 100 members.

We will be, in my view, shafted either way-- but somewhat less so with McCain.

Posted by Steve on 05-09-2008 at 04:03 PM [link]

The dumbing down of America is complete, Steve, if anyone thinks that Obama is a rousing speaker.  Watch the race speech and see if he rouses the crowd there.  The only time they even clap is when he talks about abandoning the poor folks in Iraq.

Don’t believe me?  Then watch it HERE. Video is at the very bottom.  I read that grown men cried over this video.  That is a blatant out and out lie.  It was supposed to be the best speech that anyone had ever heard.  Right up there with the King “Dream” speech.  It isn’t even on the same plane as the Nixon “I am not a crook” speech.

Whoever says that this guy is even remotely interesting is not very smart.

Posted by Two Dogs on 05-09-2008 at 04:11 PM [link]

Yes, I heard Chris Matthews on MSDNC say that it was the best speech on race in 40 years.  Nobody seems to have fainted over any of Obamanation’s speeches lately, however.

When he’s without his teleprompter, he stutters and stammers quite a bit.

He’s interesting enough to win the Democratic nomination, but what will happen this fall remains to be seen.

Nixon, BTW, said “I’m not a crook” at a press conference.

My favorite Nixon press conference was on the morning after he lost for governor of California in ‘62.  He blamed the media for his defeat and said, “This is my last press conference… you won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore!”

Posted by Steve on 05-09-2008 at 04:32 PM [link]

Seriously, my son did better doing the Gettyburg Address when he was in the third grade.  Oh, he goes to private school, that’s why he was learning about the Civil War.....and Lincoln.

Posted by Two Dogs on 05-09-2008 at 05:24 PM [link]

And if we are talking about nutcases, here’s Barry Obama talking about how many states that he has visited.  Is this a senior moment because he’s only 46, you know.  Glad that they got the bucket off of his head in time for this speech.

How many states, Barry?

Posted by Two Dogs on 05-09-2008 at 06:24 PM [link]

He must have plans to get some more states admitted to the union-- DC, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, American Samoa, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, etc.

Posted by Steve on 05-09-2008 at 06:35 PM [link]

He damn sure screwed up on that one.

Posted by ElPabloPolitico on 05-09-2008 at 06:35 PM [link]

Chris Matthews said he felt a tingle run up his leg when Obama spoke.

Posted by mccainsinsane on 05-10-2008 at 12:01 PM [link]

I felt a tinkle run down mine.

Posted by Two Dogs on 05-10-2008 at 01:03 PM [link]
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. And yes, you can still keep your identity anonymous. See the instructions on the registration page.
recent comments


©2005-2008 Jackson New Media, Inc. All rights reserved.