posted by Winston Smith at
8:42 AM
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Previous Posts
- Obama Gets a Pants-On-FireUgh. Obama's not running...
- People Who Need To Get Out Of The House MoreRich L...
- "Joe Sixpack"Disrespectful to the Ordinary America...
- Worried About Magic Dolphin LadyMore reason.
- What America Was Like When Men Were FreeSome day, ...
- Palin Won! Just Ask the Wingers!AndConservapedia a...
- VP DebateWell, Palin didn't barf on herself, and d...
- The Political Disregard For TruthBiden/Palin Debat...
- Palin: Not Silent On Non-Roe CasesNo...no...not si...
- Roe and Privacy: Defending Palin (!)Some folks are...
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
6 Comments:
Thank you for the link to the Rolling Stone article, it was quite illuminating. Gave me something to send to my friend who said she might not vote, with a note that said, THIS is why you need to vote, so this "mean little fucker" (among other attributes) doesn't get elected President.
You know, ever since reading that Rolling Stone article about the alleged theft of the 2004 election and finding it to be entirely bogus upon further investigation, I've somewhat distrusted their authors. The near-complete lack of citation bothers me, too.
If you stripped that article down to that which it backs with citation, you'd have a half a page of potentially unconnected criticisms.
What is it about the article that makes you think it's trustworthy?
It's a good point and a good question, M.
I was wondering that very thing out loud to JQ about five minutes after I posted the link.
Actually, I've heard much of it in more reputable places--e.g. the story about deploying the c word on his wife, the stuff about him being mean and having a terrible temper...the Keating Five stuff is a matter of public record.
The most striking thing in the article, I thought, was the claim that offers of early release were (a) common and (b) contingent up on signing a statement that would get you a dishonorable discharge.
I've always heard that the offer was special to McCain, b/c he was the son of an admiral, and I'd never heard about the high cost of accepting. And I'd never heard that many people turned the offers down.
That's all easily checkable, and largely undermines the central fact of McCain's biography.
So we should check it out.
Yeah, I think that if that article is entirely true, or even largely true barring the falsehood of the most important claims, then it's really, really frightening.
The most striking thing about the article, to me, is that it appears to demonstrate that McCain did not, in fact, change as he says he did as a result of his stay in Hanoi. We already knew that he openly admits to things that force me to conclude that he was a pathetic excuse for a human being for basically his entire life up until his capture. Not only was he grossly unqualified for basically every single position he's held, but he pulled strings to get there, and then pulled even more to keep the positions despite his numerous colossal screw ups, doing it all out of a relentless drive to please his father. He was intensely misogynistic and commonly alienated others with his anger. We know all this, but what's always allegedly made him an acceptable person was his capture in Vietnam. If that's not true, then he's really dangerous.
That's the most striking part about the article to me. If it's right, he's possibly even worse than Bush, who appears to have had some nepotism in his life, a lot of mediocrity, and some destructive behavior, but not nearly as much destructive behavior as there has been in McCain's life (before Bush's presidency, that is). Bush was a huge loser, but McCain appears to be a downright awful person.
Sidenote: I wonder if there actually are any other Navy pilots who've ever crashed 3 planes on their own. The article said that 90% of the time, if you crash one plane due to your own error, then you're going to lose your wings. Crash two, and I've got to imagine they'd be immediately stripped. I wonder if McCain is like, one of the only, if not the only, Navy pilot(s) in history to have destroyed 3 planes due to his own ineptitude. Seems like no one else would've even gotten the chance.
The article in Rolling Stone references a man - Dr. Phillip Butler - and I found the article they took some of their material from.
IMHO - much better source, much better article.
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1,00.html.dk
Hm, maybe not a much better article. I posted that quickly and before seeing that the second page of the article was barely anything. It's a little short to be considered better than the RS article, but I do think it's a more solid article in terms of its reliability.
I have a feeling that, given the way that article was headed, Butler may agree with most, if not all, of that which was said in RS.
So, probably a better source, but definitely valuable in connection with the RS article.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home