NationStates Jolt Archive

Links to some of these blogs?

While the NYT article with no real sources is bad, it pales in comparison to some of the stuff on the Internet slamming McCain.

While no credible news source would even dare pick up the following story, many on the blogosphere (which is sadly far too influential as people don't question sources) are insinuating that McCain was responsible for the death of 134 of his shipmates in the July 1967 fire aboard the USS Forrestal.

The world of politics has seen some very malicious and outright dishonest attacks from Internet sources on both sides of the aisles. The right has done it with insinuations that Obama was educated at a Madrasa while the left has done the same with allegations that McCain was responsible for the deadliest accident in post-WWII US Navy history.

The allegations are laughable to anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the event that sailors refer to as the "Forrest Fire." The allegations range from claims that McCain "wet started" his A-4 Skyhawk to allegations that he was responsible for the dangerous Comp B bombs aboard the carrier.

The claims that McCain wet started his A-4 cannot be proven or disproven by the evidence. It is unlikely McCain wet started his aircraft as no credible witnesses have come forward and claimed that he did so. What can be proven is that a wet start could not have caused the disaster on the Forrestal. A wet start is when extra fuel is pumped into the engine before start-up so that flames shoot out of the exhaust nozzle. The Internet claim is that McCain did this and it overheated a Zuni rocket pod on an F-4 behind McCain's A-4 causing it to launch.

The claim is absurd for many reasons. The assortment of aircraft at the rear of the flight deck on Forrestal that day were A-4s and F-4s. The aircraft were all arranged on the perimeter of the flight deck. Each aircraft had its rear exhaust nozzle, or nozzles in the case of the F-4s, pointed out to sea. No aircraft had another one positioned behind it. If McCain did wet start his A-4, then the exhaust would have been directed off the port side of the flight deck and over the ocean. There was nothing behind his aircraft.

Another reason this is absurd is that the rocket came from an F-4 on the starboard quarter of the flight deck. McCain's aircraft was on the port side. The F-4 known to have launched the rocket was facing McCain's aircraft. It was about 45 degrees starboard off of McCain's nose when it was positioned on the flight deck. This placement of aircraft disproves the wet start theory from the get go, of course those in the blogosphere are too stupid to look up simple facts or can't understand a flight deck diagram.

The rocket launch is believed to have occurred as the result of the following events. The Zuni rocket was a dangerous weapon. It had two safeties to prevent an accidental launch. The first safety was a pin which would be removed when the aircraft was fastened to the catapult. The problem was that the ribbon attached to the pin allowed the wind to take the pin out easily if there was a decent wind. The second safety was a pig tail wire which would be plugged in once the aircraft was on the cat. The air wing's CAG and ordinance officers decided that the crews could attach this earlier in order to allow for quicker launches of aircraft in time critical air strikes. With the pin blown out by the wind, disaster was imminent. When the F-4 in question powered up its engines and was removed from shipboard power, an electrical surge occurred. With the rocket pod plugged in and the pin removed, the surge triggered the launch of a single rocket which struck McCain's aircraft. The resulting fire and secondary explosions killed 134 men.

The second claim is that McCain as an officer in VA-46 should not have allowed the use of deadly Composition B bombs. The Comp B bombs were something that the ship's own captain did not have control over. When the Forrestal met with an ammunition ship a few days prior, the old bombs were loaded onto the ship. Whether or not the officers of the vessel and air wings protested, they were going to be loaded onto the carrier. The officers knew the bombs were dangerous. It was for that reason that the squadron commanders elected to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Forrestal had only been on station for five days prior to the disaster. The carrier's officers wanted the bombs used quickly so that the dangerous weapons would not be a problem. This was actually smart thinking on their part.

McCain as a pilot had no say as to what bombs he carried. When he and other pilots were given a mission, his aircraft would be loaded with the appropriate armaments and that would be it.

That's a patently absurd claim. The Forrestal incident has been well investigated.

Though he was swift-boated last time around, and honestly I'm amazed no one did it this time, yet.

:confused:
(why do i use this smiley the most often?:confused:)
Whut?

yes but is he being torpedoed by democrats or republicans?

i wouldnt put it past certain republican elements to be hoping to start a "dump mccain at the convention" movement by starting these kinds of ugly rumors.

Don't forget that a Zuni rocket was also responsible for a deadly fire on the Enterprise that same year.

Oh really, so helping other Republicans are behind the motivation for the NYT?

They are a political newspaper, it's not exactly a big secret that they have even leaked classified security information before in an attempt to hurt Republicans.

That being said. Swiftboating is nonsense. It was a term used to defend Kerry from fellow veterans who disliked how he was using his war record to evade questions about military decisions. They weren't unidentified sources.

Oh really, so helping other Republicans are behind the motivation for the NYT?

They are a political newspaper, it's not exactly a big secret that they have even leaked classified security information before in an attempt to hurt Republicans.

That being said. Swiftboating is nonsense. It was a term used to defend Kerry from fellow veterans who disliked how he was using his war record to evade questions about military decisions. They weren't unidentified sources.

Oh the sources were identified, and turned out to be people who had never served with Kerry. Some of them weren't in the country at the same time as him, let alone the same unit.

Ok, if that's what you want to believe. The sky turns dark. There were veterans from his own unit that were his biggest critics and supporters on the campaign. Not that it makes any difference, the point is that the media came up with the term to discredit Kerry's fellow veterans who didn't support him. Like they were telling lies instead of giving their opinions.

I just don't think it's an accurate term. The NYT is trying to smear McCain, not "swiftboat" him.

I don't think too many people are going to be convinced, 40 years after the fact, that McCain bombed his own ship on some sort of suicide mission (his survival was pretty miraculous) and then spent years in a POW camp when he could've gone home. It doesn't add up, and like others have said, the incident was well-known at the time and never blamed on McCain.

Ok, if that's what you want to believe. The sky turns dark. There were veterans from his own unit that were his biggest critics and supporters on the campaign. Not that it makes any difference, the point is that the media came up with the term to discredit Kerry's fellow veterans who didn't support him. Like they were telling lies instead of giving their opinions.

I just don't think it's an accurate term. The NYT is trying to smear McCain, not "swiftboat" him.

I suggest you do some research on the group. You come across as naive.

I wonder whether this isn't just an attack on the Left, not McCain.
By coming up with a thoroughly ridiculous story (through anonymous blogs no less) about McCain and crying that it's the Dems trying to smear him it turns the uncommitted voters, who are no doubt sick to their eyeteeth about the nasty smear campaigns over the past few years, against the Dems. And it makes any other valid factual issues about McCain look less trustworthy (i.e."Oh, look: More crap the Dems are throwing at McCain. That last lot about the ship fire was a pack of lies, why should I believe this one?")