The Official 2012 Presidential Election Obama v. Romney Thread

[dbucfan]

Google McCain and Forrestal - you get factcheck - which states bullspit - http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/mccain-and-the-1967-forrestal-fire/

[wreck ship]

Except none of the above is true. The only thing behind McCains plane was the ocean, the plane that fired the missile was FACING his plane and technically you can't wet start an A4 because it is a subsonic plane and doesn't have an after burner.

Amazing what 5 minutes of Google can do.

lol, here comes the right winger apologist.
On july 29 1967, 134 sailors were killed and 161 injured after an "unusual electrical anomaly discharged a Zuni rocket on the flight deck". These are facts supported by McCain himself. Where it gets weird is McCain saying it wasn't him but in fact the plane next to him. The only two planes to be completely destroyed were LCDR White's and LCDR McCain's. White was killed. Spin it how you will but there were eye witnesses that confirm McCains aircraft was the reason for the explosion and fire.

[dbucfan]

Home • The FactCheck Wire • McCain and the 1967 Forrestal Fire
McCain and the 1967 Forrestal Fire
Posted on September 19, 2008

There is a nasty claim making the rounds in virulently anti-McCain circles, accusing him of responsibility for the terrible 1967 disaster aboard the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal. That claim is bunk, and we said so in our Sept. 5 Ask FactCheck item, “Did McCain crash five planes?” Now we are saying so again – even more emphatically – based on additional research.

Among the new details: We question McCain’s widely accepted story that it was his own A-4 Skyhawk that was first hit by the errant missile that touched off the disaster. We find that the exhaustive investigation that the Navy conducted afterward concluded that it was instead the A-4 immediately to McCain’s right on the carrier deck. McCain himself was not certain which plane was hit when he testified to investigators a week after the disaster. It was 32 years later that he published a memoir stating with certainty that his plane was the one struck. This is no big deal. Either way, McCain was not in any way at fault for the fire, and he barely escaped with his life. But his memory does seem to have shifted about this often-repeated detail from his past.

Read the updated “Ask FactCheck” item for the details.

[wreck ship]

Google McCain and Forrestal - you get factcheck - which states bullspit - http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/mccain-and-the-1967-forrestal-fire/

of course it does...

On January 14, 1969, the USS Enterprise, steaming 75 miles southwest of Pearl Harbor, suffered a major fire. In that episode, similar unstable 1000-pound bombs detonated, killing 27 sailors and injuring more than 100. At the time of the Enterprise disaster, the Commander-in- Chief of US Pacific Forces was Adm. John S. McCain, Jr.,Sen. McCain's father.
At the time of the Forrestal disaster, Admiral McCain was Commander-in-Chief of US Naval Forces Europe (CINCUSNAVEUR) and was busy covering up the details of the deadly and pre-meditated Israeli attack on the NSA spy ship, the USS Liberty, on June 8, 1967. The fact that both McCains were involved in two incidents just weeks apart that resulted in a total death count of 168 on the Forrestal and the Liberty, with an additional injury count of 234 on both ships (with a number of them later dying from their wounds) with an accompanying classified paper trail inside the Pentagon, may be all that was needed to hold a Sword of Damocles over the head of the "family honor"-oriented (McCain's persona is supported by his book about his father and grandfather, both Navy admirals, titled "Faith of My Fathers") and the "straight talking" McCain.

[wreck ship]

Home • The FactCheck Wire • McCain and the 1967 Forrestal Fire
McCain and the 1967 Forrestal Fire
Posted on September 19, 2008

There is a nasty claim making the rounds in virulently anti-McCain circles, accusing him of responsibility for the terrible 1967 disaster aboard the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal. That claim is bunk, and we said so in our Sept. 5 Ask FactCheck item, “Did McCain crash five planes?” Now we are saying so again – even more emphatically – based on additional research.

Among the new details: We question McCain’s widely accepted story that it was his own A-4 Skyhawk that was first hit by the errant missile that touched off the disaster. We find that the exhaustive investigation that the Navy conducted afterward concluded that it was instead the A-4 immediately to McCain’s right on the carrier deck. McCain himself was not certain which plane was hit when he testified to investigators a week after the disaster. It was 32 years later that he published a memoir stating with certainty that his plane was the one struck. This is no big deal. Either way, McCain was not in any way at fault for the fire, and he barely escaped with his life. But his memory does seem to have shifted about this often-repeated detail from his past.

Read the updated “Ask FactCheck” item for the details.

haha, I don't want the updated 2008 version.

[spartan]

Except none of the above is true. The only thing behind McCains plane was the ocean, the plane that fired the missile was FACING his plane and technically you can't wet start an A4 because it is a subsonic plane and doesn't have an after burner.

Amazing what 5 minutes of Google can do.

lol, here comes the right winger apologist.
On july 29 1967, 134 sailors were killed and 161 injured after an "unusual electrical anomaly discharged a Zuni rocket on the flight deck". These are facts supported by McCain himself. Where it gets weird is McCain saying it wasn't him but in fact the plane next to him. The only two planes to be completely destroyed were LCDR White's and LCDR McCain's. White was killed. Spin it how you will but there were eye witnesses that confirm McCains aircraft was the reason for the explosion and fire.

Yes, I am a huge apologist. Look at this diagram:



McCain's plane was 416, the missile was fired from 410. Even though there is some doubt that the A-4, powered by a "Single, Pratt & Whitney, J-52-P-408A non-afterburning, turbojet engine can wet start,  'splain to me how McCain was physically able to do it.

[dbucfan]

Did some more checking - it is all the same wreck - well save for a couple of links that appeared to be interested in making an issue out of something that had already been resolved.  And of course - I could be wrong.

[wreck ship]

Except none of the above is true. The only thing behind McCains plane was the ocean, the plane that fired the missile was FACING his plane and technically you can't wet start an A4 because it is a subsonic plane and doesn't have an after burner.

Amazing what 5 minutes of Google can do.

lol, here comes the right winger apologist.
On july 29 1967, 134 sailors were killed and 161 injured after an "unusual electrical anomaly discharged a Zuni rocket on the flight deck". These are facts supported by McCain himself. Where it gets weird is McCain saying it wasn't him but in fact the plane next to him. The only two planes to be completely destroyed were LCDR White's and LCDR McCain's. White was killed. Spin it how you will but there were eye witnesses that confirm McCains aircraft was the reason for the explosion and fire.

Yes, I am a huge apologist. Look at this diagram:



McCain's plane was 416, the missile was fired from 410. Even though there is some doubt that the A-4, powered by a "Single, Pratt & Whitney, J-52-P-408A non-afterburning, turbojet engine can wet start,  'splain to me how McCain was physically able to do it.

Any information you or I have access to will prove you and the McCains claim that he wasn't responsible. The controversy stems from eye witness accounts and the unbelievable incompetence of the McCains.

[wreck ship]

Did some more checking - it is all the same wreck - well save for a couple of links that appeared to be interested in making an issue out of something that had already been resolved.  And of course - I could be wrong.

All good. I'm just enjoying the irony of McCain being the lead dog in the witch hunt of Susan Rice.

[VinBucFan]

Except none of the above is true. The only thing behind McCains plane was the ocean, the plane that fired the missile was FACING his plane and technically you can't wet start an A4 because it is a subsonic plane and doesn't have an after burner.

Amazing what 5 minutes of Google can do.

lol, here comes the right winger apologist.
On july 29 1967, 134 sailors were killed and 161 injured after an "unusual electrical anomaly discharged a Zuni rocket on the flight deck". These are facts supported by McCain himself. Where it gets weird is McCain saying it wasn't him but in fact the plane next to him. The only two planes to be completely destroyed were LCDR White's and LCDR McCain's. White was killed. Spin it how you will but there were eye witnesses that confirm McCains aircraft was the reason for the explosion and fire.

Yes, I am a huge apologist. Look at this diagram:



McCain's plane was 416, the missile was fired from 410. Even though there is some doubt that the A-4, powered by a "Single, Pratt & Whitney, J-52-P-408A non-afterburning, turbojet engine can wet start,  'splain to me how McCain was physically able to do it.

Any information you or I have access to will prove you and the McCains claim that he wasn't responsible. The controversy stems from eye witness accounts and the unbelievable incompetence of the McCains.

translated: I have nothing to back up my claim.  Next up:  McCain didnt actually spend time at the HH.   

[spartan]

Any information you or I have access to will prove you and the McCains claim that he wasn't responsible. The controversy stems from eye witness accounts and the unbelievable incompetence of the McCains.

I would like to read those eye witness accounts. Could you share them with us please?

[spartan]

Ah screw this ponsing around. The event was actually caught on video.



It clearly shows Mccains plane and others on fire, backed up to the side of the ship with their tails towards the ocean. Splain that one.

[Biggs3535]

Wreck Ship = Pwned.

Again.

[ONEBIGDADDY]

Google McCain and Forrestal - you get factcheck - which states bullspit - http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/mccain-and-the-1967-forrestal-fire/

Dave...I was in the Navy in the late late 70's thru 1983 and that was a mandatory film. Who ever has said it was McCain's fault is full of crap. It was the huffer driven by Enlisted and not the officer in the Aircraft (motor vehicle that helps spin the apu to power up the Aircraft).The Huffer backed up to the nose of the missile and the heat off of the exhaust set off the missile that was mounted to the side of the Aircraft being prepared to take off. I have seen the physical footage as well as many others of my time. We we're to watch the film for a training film about Damage Control and Fire Fighting on Ship. What do you think was the best training film...Of course the USS Forrestal...anyone who disputes these facts are far reaching and don't want to know the truth...OBD

[wreck ship]

Sen. McCain Backs Away From Benghazi Conspiracies
By Hamed Aleaziz on Nov 20, 2012 at 5:49 pm

John McCain (R-AZ) today issued a statement essentially conceding that he was wrong in accusing the White House of changing U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points on Benghazi for political purposes.
Former CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers last week that the CIA’s assessment that al Qaeda was responsible for the Sept. 11 attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi was taken out of Rice’s talking points after an interagency review. McCain and his allies then claimed the White House took out the talking points because it supposedly undercut the Obama administration’s narrative that it had severely weakened al Qaeda.
But Intelligence officials told CNN yesterday that the intelligence community was responsible for the changes made to Rice’s talking points. The Director of National Intelligence spokesperson said that the White House did not make any “substantive changes.”
McCain responded today and instead of taking issue with the substance of the report, the Arizona Republican wondered why administration and intelligence officials didn’t offer this information in closed door sessions:
“I participated in hours of hearings in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence last week regarding the events in Benghazi, where senior intelligence officials were asked this very question, and all of them – including the Director of National Intelligence himself – told us that they did not know who made the changes. Now we have to read the answers to our questions in the media. There are many other questions that remain unanswered. But this latest episode is another reason why many of us are so frustrated with, and su**CENSORED**ious of, the actions of this Administration when it comes to the Benghazi attack.”
Of course, it’s possible that the officials did not know who changed the talking points when McCain and other lawmakers asked last week, and later made inquires into the matter.
But McCain, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Republicans, has lead a proverbial witch hunt against the Obama administration and Rice, claiming that the administration deliberately misled the public about the nature of the attacks. Today’s news comes just a week after McCain went on national television and claimed that Rice’s “talking points came from the White House, not from the DNI.” He added on Fox that “I think it’s patently obvious that the talking points that Ambassador Rice had didn’t come from the CIA. It came from the White House.” For weeks, McCain has lambasted the administration for engaging in “either a cover-up or the worst kind of incompetence” on the Benghazi attack. McCain also said last week that “[e]verybody knew that it was an al Qaeda attack and she continued to tell the world through all of the talk shows [on Sept. 16] that it was a ‘spontaneous demonstration’ sparked by a video.”
McCain has also said he would block the nomination of Rice for Secretary of State, should the President choose her, saying he would “do everything in my power to block her,” that Rice is “not qualified” for the position and that “she should have known better.” He subsequently said he would bock any nominee Obama put forward.
But now that every angle of McCain’s attacks have been completely debunked, all he has left is to complain about not being told that intelligence officials didn’t give him this information sooner.