As the political campaign intensifies, we're beginning to see a lot of very harsh accusations directed at the candidates from radical groups acting as surrogates for the two presidential candidates. Typically, these accusations originate in a blog post or an article on one of the more politically radical activist websites, or even as a viral email sent from person to person and reposted on newsgroups and in online discussions. It's often hard to track down their origins or who is specifically responsible for them, but the ultimate result is that their largely unsubstantiated claims eventually get picked up and widely repeated in some form on more legitimate news-oriented websites or even in the mainstream media.
Perhaps at least partially in retaliation for the Swift Boat Veterans' attacks on John Kerry's military record, the attacks from the political left include many alarming allegations about John McCain's war record. One of these is that while John McCain was a prisoner of war he became a 'songbird' and violated the military code of conduct by informing on other prisoners, providing the enemy with information about US troop deployments, participating in enemy propaganda campaigns and even engaging in 30 or more radio broadcasts favorable to the North Vietnamese and designed to demoralize US troops. These accusations have become increasingly widespread and have appeared on relatively legitimate sites like Politico.com as well as on left-leaning talk radio.
As was the case with the Swift Boat Veterans' attacks on John Kerry, these allegations about McCain contain elements of truth, plus a great deal of misinformation and pure misrepresentation and distortion of his actions and their significance.
McCain was a prisoner of war for over five years and during that time he was subjected to successive rounds of just about every kind of torture imaginable, made worse by the injuries he sustained when he crashed his plane, and which never properly healed. The North Vietnamese violated every rule of the Geneva Convention in their treatment of prisoners and put a very high emphasis on getting what they could out of prisoners for propaganda purposes, such as confessions of war crimes or statements opposing the war. McCain was a particular target for these efforts because he father was commanding Admiral of the Pacific Fleet at the time. Under those conditions many prisoners cooperated to some extent with their captors. Some engaged in propaganda, most notably the eight prisoners famous for their meetings with US war protesters at the Hanoi Hilton. Others were less cooperative, and were punished for it. Some tried to escape and in many cases were killed for it as object lessons to the other prisoners.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Joanne Huspek
Interesting article, and I hadn't thought of the possibility before.
2 - bliffle
No citations.
I don't have any citations, either. At least none at hand. But in years past I have seen reports from POWs that had no tinge of political animus, that described quite bitterly McCains cooperation with his captors. Affidavits of POWs and transcripts of radio broadcasts, etc. Allegations of Very Special treatment, including a special apartment which was alleged to be his real habitat when he was supposed to be in solitary. Complete with comfort women, according to some POWs. Allegations that he gave detailed personal information about other pilots on his carrier that was used to threaten pilots and their families in back channels.
I don't know how much, if any, is true. I discarded it since I don't like such stuff, true or not. I disregarded the pro and con in 2000 when I supported McCain.
But since Dave brought it up, perhaps as a preemptive assertion, the contrary ought to be mentioned. I suspect that this will get more attention in October.
I recommend that people ignore it all, just as they should discount McCains war record and stop boasting about assumed heroism. Pride goes before a fall. Or as another sage warrior said "things go wrong in time of war". That was John McCain.
3 - Dave Nalle
Bliffle, there are multiple links in the article to relevant source material, including a link to McCain's personal account, to a scholarly article on the military code of conduct and treatment of prisoners in Vietnam, and to a neutral source assessment of McCain's actions.
I looked for the reports from other POWs which you mentioned and couldn't find anyone who had gone on the record publicly to make those accusations. All I could find was unsupported assertions coming from politically opposed sources, none of it first-hand.
Plus, you miss two of the main points of the article. First, that McCain can effectively account for his time in Vietnam with references to others who can corroborate where he was - and it wasn't in some luxury apartment. Second, that the military took the conditions prisoners faced into account and effectively absolved them of any wrong they may have done on that basis.
Dave
4 - Baritone
Dave,
As we have seen in the past 2 or 3 elections, and now the current campaign, these kinds of things have and will likely continue to make their way through the internet.
I haven't personally seen anything put out there about McCain. I did receive the email recounting all of the crap about Obama - his being a muslim, his having attended a medrasa, etc.
I figure, that as we go along, these kinds of things will continue to pop up. There will always be those who buy into them hook, line and sinker. Hopefully, the majority of people will at least take all that kind of crap with a grain of salt.
Sadly, though, sometimes, especially in a close election, all it takes is something like these postings to push the vote just enough to make the difference.
Looking back to the 2000 election, and discounting the Florida fiasco, look at the effect of Clinton's sexual and other escapades that likely caused Gore to lose both Arkansas and his own home state, Tennessee. Florida was just the icing on the cake.
As we saw, the Swift Boat accusations took a toll on Kerry's campaign. I think Bush would have won without that, but it would probably have been a much tighter race.
In the coming years, perhaps the voting public will become at least somewhat more circumspect regarding these kinds of accusations on the internet. Probably not, though.
B
5 - Dave Nalle
I suspect it will only get worse, Baritone. You should see some of the ridiculous crap that's out there. One article on McCain which I didn't even bother to reference claimed that he was a sado-masochistic cross-dresser who stayed in Vietnam for 5+ years because he enjoyed the gay sex and abuse.
Dave
6 - Baritone
I guess it amounts to a trade off. The internet is a fabulous, and totally unprededented source of information and means of communication on a global scale.
The down side is that the bottom dwellers have the same access. It is up to most of us to separate the wheat from the chaff.
B
7 - Baronius
Funny, Baritone, I remember the 2000 election as being adversely affected by the last-minute release of information about Bush's drunk driving arrest.
8 - Arch Conservative
God I can't waint until November when the Osama Obama travelling freak show is finally over.
9 - Baritone
That will be when it settles into the WH for the better part of the next decade.
B
10 - Dave Nalle
Part of the problem is that the internet has powered the crazies and the bottom-dwellers and given them a wider audience than they ever had when they were mimeographing their leaflets in their mothers' basements.
Dave
11 - Dr Dreadful
I remember the 2000 election as being adversely affected by the last-minute release of information about Bush's drunk driving arrest.
That would explain the polls that said Bush was the candidate most people would feel comfortable having a beer with... but not getting a ride home with afterwards.
12 - Arch Conservative
Keep dreaming Baritone. It's not happeneing.
America is not going to an elect a sociliast as it's president.
13 - Dr Dreadful
What's a sociliast? Someone who likes to screw Sicilians?
14 - Clavos
One of the earliest and funniest political smear stories involves Florida Democratic Senator George Smathers who, in his first campaign for the Semate against Claude Pepper, was reported by one reporter to have given the following speech to rural Crackers in the Florida Panhandle, fondly known to this day as the Redneck Riviera:
""Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper before his marriage habitually practiced celibacy."
The story, unfortunately, is apocryphal. Smathers went on to serve 18 years in the Senate.
15 - El Bicho
#10 - "Part of the problem..."
Don't be so hard on yourself, Dave.
16 - Baritone
No, voters will not put a socialist in the WH. They will vote for Obama.
B
17 - Dave Nalle
And by doing so he will lose and we'll be spared somehow? I don't follow...
Dave
18 - Arch Conservative
Obama's latest capaign promise is to take away profits from the oil companies and give that money to people he thinks should have it.
The guy's a socialist.
You gonna tell me the sky's not blue as your encore Baritone?
19 - Condor
There ain't nothin' better'n a Florida Cracker....
Someone ought to take offense to that statement, along with redneck... I mean, just to be equal and balanced.
And perhaps we should now re-visit windfall distribution. It didn't work for Carter, and it won't work now. Corporations have buildings full of lawyers, and MBA's along with a myriad of other capable suits.... with lots of experience in business. After all, America's business IS business.
So, windfall distributions get enacted by B.O. and guess what happens. The oil stays put, in the ground, not pumped, at least enough oil to not subject the companies to the windfall tax... That oil ain't going nowhere, and prices (not just oil) go through the roof. Oh yeah!!!
Same thing happened to Carter; great idea? I think not.
Now back to McCain, I need to see all these reports of McCain, this or that. I'm not a McCain supporter, nor do I play chess with my vote... B.O.seems like a great guy, and he probably is a real likeable fellow, but I get the impression he's a feather in the wind and unless he takes a good sweat bath and passes a sun vow, I don't think we'll ever get to the meat of B.O., I just don't get the sense of a completed or finished candidate in either of these two. America has been hyped again.
I believe that we should start paying Chief executives a much higher wage that is currently offered and get some REAL talent in the running. This is ridiculous... hey... we should use the windfall tax to accomplish that!
All that said and I still have to admit, that a bumbling president stays out of the citizens knickers.... they're two busy fending off or trying to demonstrate their value. In that sense, perhaps we should elect more bumbling idiots or more fools lacking common sense... like the last two.
20 - Clavos
Someone ought to take offense to that statement, along with redneck... I mean, just to be equal and balanced.
Neither are smart enough...
21 - bliffle
Archie is confused again: "Obama's latest capaign promise is to take away profits from the oil companies and give that money to people he thinks should have it."
But a large part of the profits are from the 1998-99 oil leases in which an "oversight" (read: corruption) resulted in US taxpayers not getting royalties they are entitled to get. To the tune of $1.3billion this year and a projected overall cost (according to the GAO) of some $60billion.
So it's thieving from the thieves, as near as I can see.
What does Archie think: that it's OK for an oil company to steal from the USA but it's not OK for the USA to steal back?
Oh yeah, the guy who promoted that "oversight was Newt Gingrich.
Rather like the famous "Enron loophole" that is largely responsible for the Enron fiasco as well as the subprime fiasco.
Anyone smell corruption? If you do you better tell Archie because his smeller isn't working.
22 - Arch Conservative
Entitled to....that phrase is a red flag and too casually bandied about by people claiming to be traditional Americans harboring the most nasty un-American ulterior motives. I don't recall the constitution, declaration of independence or any of the other documents created by our founding fathers saying that we are "entitled to" most of the things modern day liberals say we are "entitled to."
First of all Barry said nothing of such an oversight in his explanation of how he was going to seize profits from private business. He merely pointed out that it was unacceptable that the oil companies are making record profits and he is going to take that profit and give it to others. Now I know it's a feel good Robin Hood type concept for a politician to demonize a business that's doing well and saying he's going to take from them to give to American citizens. That sentiment is especially appealing at a time like this when so many are experiencing economic hardship. But is it right. What's the difference between taking profits from big oil or a small business? it's the same concept...the government arbitrarily cherry picking private businesses and saying hey you you're making too much and we're gonna take some of that. The logical extrapolation from that is that one day the government that does that may also decide to do that to the income of private citizens. Again Obama said absolutely nothing about any oversight.
Second...can you please explain how the American public is "entitled to" royalties that are generated by the profit of oil companies or any other private business for that matter?
Third.....The federal government, which does not spend one red cent bringing the oil/gas we consume to the marketplace, makes more of a profit through taxes on each gallon of gas purchased than the oil companies do. Yeah the oil companies are making record profits in the billions but they're also spending billions each year in r & d, exploration, processing and all the other processes to get the product to market. The billions that oil companies are investing in their operations is something that people like you conveintly ignore when demonizing the oil companies. The average profit margin for an oil company is 9.7%. While this is decent I can point out countless examples of businesses in other industries not currently being demonized by the left which have much better profit margins.
Given that all businesses pass any higher taxes that they must pay onto the customer in the price of their product.service I don't understand the left's obsession with raising taxes on oil companies. The effect would be that the oil companies would just gradually increase the price at the pump. Who is that helping?
Until the anti-business fanatics on the left actually develop a rudimentary understanding of how businesses operate there can be no rational discussion of the situation. I won't be holding my breath though.
I guess I'll just have to ignore the "11 billion dollars!!!!!....let's get those corrupt oil companies....they're stealing form us dude!"
23 - Lee Richards
"...a rudimentary understanding of how businesses operate...":
Some businesses innovate, R&D, share profits, produce quality products at reasonable prices, value employees, compete fairly for markets, are environment-friendly, practice corporate oversight, and look to the future responsibly.
Some businesses lie, cheat, and steal, gouge customers, pay off politicians, screw employees, pollute, corrupt the marketplace, destroy communities, and will do anything to anybody for a dollar right now.
Sometimes it seems the pro-business fanatics on the right don't have a rudimentary grasp of any differences in business models.
24 - Dan Miller
Lee,
We agree. However, I wonder whether you might consider amending your last paragraph to include those on the left as well. I really think you should consider it.
Dan
25 - Lee Richards
Dan, thanks.
I was writing in response to the claim by an earlier commenter that "anti-business fanatics on the left" don't have a rudimentary understanding of how businesses operate, without any differentiation or discernment on his part.
So, I really don't understand what you're suggesting I do to amend my comments.
I'm certainly to the left of Arch, but am no anti-business fanatic as he seems to feel such as I must be, because I perceive some things to be true that he conveniently sweeps away by applying labels such as "fanatic" and "irrational" to those who differ.
A large percentage of my annual income is from stock investments in businesses; I'm a confirmed capitalist who nevertheless doesn't think all business is sainted, and all who examine and question it, ignorant fanatics.