Member's Blog > Wwww12345's blogs > John McCain, Prisoner of War: A First-Person Account
John McCain, Prisoner of War: A First-Person Account Sort by:
Members Only
Posted on Feb 24, 2008 at 12:37 PM

If you search on the following: John McCain, Prisoner of War: A First-Person Account, you should be able to fine a reprint online of a interview with him that originally appeared in the May 14, 1973, issue of U.S.News & World Report. I recommend reading the entire article to get a measure of his character. Here is the introduction "John McCain spent 5? years in captivity as a POW in North Vietnam. His first-person account of that harrowing ordeal was published in U.S. News in May 1973. Shot down in his Skyhawk dive bomber on Oct. 26, 1967, Navy flier McCain was taken prisoner with fractures in his right leg and both arms. He received minimal care and was kept in wretched conditions that he describes vividly in the U.S. News special report: This story originally appeared in the May 14, 1973, issue of U.S.News & World Report. It was posted online on January 28, 2008. Of the many personal accounts coming to light about the almost unbelievably cruel treatment accorded American prisoners of war in Vietnam, none is more dramatic than that of Lieut. Commander John S. McCain III, Navy flier, son of the admiral who commanded the war in the Pacific, and a prisoner who came in "for special attention" during 5? years of captivity in North Vietnam. Now that all acknowledged prisoners are back and a self-imposed seal of silence is off, Commander McCain is free to answer the questions many Americans have asked: What was it really like? How prolonged were the tortures and brutality? How did the captured U.S. airmen bear up under the mistreatment?and years spent in solitary? How did they preserve their sanity? Did visiting "peace groups" really add to their troubles? How can this country's military men be conditioned to face such treatment in the future without crumbling? Here, in his own words, based on almost total recall, is Commander McCain's narrative of 5? years in the hands of the North Vietnamese.

Like Reply / add comments Quote | Report Bookmark and Share
Follow - email me when people comment
Members Only
Posted on Feb 28, 2008 at 10:28 PM

The McCains are a prominent military family. His father and grandfather were the first father-son admiral pair in U.S. naval history. John McCain Jr. commanded Pacific forces during the Vietnam War, while John McCain Sr. was commander of aircraft carriers during World War II. The guided missile destroyer John S. McCain is named in their honor. Today, two of McCain's sons are continuing the tradition?his youngest son, Jimmy, is a marine, while another son, Jack, is a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy.

Like Reply / add comments Quote | Report Bookmark and Share
Members Only
Posted on Feb 28, 2008 at 06:38 PM

iwanttobehugged It is apparent that you haven't read the referenced article. There are plenty of real people mentioned in the article that were POW's with McCain that you could get in touch with. If you get some negative interviews that can be verified by a second source, I will get it published. It general, your sources or information are either awful, made up, or non existent. We do not use plutonium in any weapons except atomic bombs. We use something safer than lead. The correct word is depleted uranium. And, please let me inform you of this. A GI had rather have a weapon that is as effective as he can get, that he knows will knock the sh*it out of his target NOW, so he can survive and live NOW. He will worry about dying a 1000 years from now from radiation - if he lives that long. All weapons are a risk. Just being in the military is a risk - they do dangerous things, even their training. Our military has determined that DU is an acceptable risk or they would not be using it. It certainly will save more lives in combat by making our weapons more effective than any other alternative. You are not doing anyone a favor by misinforming the public. Her is what the experts say about depleted uranium, U238. After you read it, maybe you will quit trying to misinform everyone. You might also want to read the complete article on Wikipedia, from which this was taken. I would guess that the radiation danger from depleted uranium is probably less (safer) than the soil under your house. *********************** Studies indicating negligible effects Many studies have concluded that DU ammunition has no measurable detrimental health effects, either in the short or long term. The International Atomic Energy Agency, for example, reported in 2003 that, "based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts," although "Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage".[46] RAND has also studied the health effects on Depleted Uranium and has concluded that the debate around the issue is more political than technical. The study commented that "the full and unbiased presentation of the facts to governments around the world has resulted in the continued use of DU , even in the face of concerted actions by some to distort the facts and media often more interested in shock value than in presenting the truth".[47] The IAEA concluded that while depleted uranium is a potential carcinogen, there is no evidence that either natural uranium or DU is carcinogenic,[48] and other studies have concluded that "the present scientific consensus is that DU exposure to humans, in locations where DU ammunition was deployed, is very unlikely to give rise to cancer induction".[49] Pier Roberto Danesi, then-director of the IAEA Seibersdorf Laboratory, stated in 2002 that "There is a consensus now that DU does not represent a health threat".[50] Former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson has stated that "the existing medical consensus is clear. The hazard from depleted uranium is both very limited, and limited to very specific circumstances".[51] A 1999 study conducted by the Rand Corporation stated: "No evidence is documented in the literature of cancer or any other negative health effect related to the radiation received from exposure to depleted or natural uranium, whether inhaled or ingested, even at very high doses",[52] and another RAND report considered the debate to be more political than scientific.[53] [edit] Radiological hazards External exposure to radiation from depleted uranium has generally not been considered a major concern because the alpha particle emitted by its isotopes travel only a few centimeters in air or can be stopped by a sheet of paper. Also, the uranium-235 that remains in depleted uranium emits only a small amount of low-energy gamma radiation. According to the World Health Organization, a radiation dose from it would be about 60 percent from purified natural uranium with the same mass. Approximately 90 micrograms of natural uranium, on average, exist in the human body as a result of normal intakes of water, food and air. The majority of this is found in the skeleton, with the rest in various organs and tissues. The radiological dangers of pure depleted uranium are lower (60 percent) than those of naturally-occurring uranium due to the removal of the more radioactive isotopes, as well as due to its long half-life (4.46 billion years). Depleted uranium differs from natural uranium in its isotopic composition, but its biochemistry is for the most part the same. For further details see Actinides in the environment.

Like Reply / add comments Quote | Report Bookmark and Share
Members Only
Posted on Feb 26, 2008 at 10:10 PM

Quoting author: 4 W's. I read the entire 17 page story. The torture and constant threat of being beat simple had to be unimaginable. How all of these men survived both emotionally and physically is totally unbelievable. I was very young during Vietnam and have minimal recollection. But I do recall anti war movements which I never thought twice about...again i was like 10 years old. However, after reading how the Vietnamese would gauge U.S. citizens and politicians support or lack of support and then determine the amount of torture and conditions provided to the men based on his info should be a WAKE UP CALL for those who publically critisize war efforts. Yes it is our right. Yes it is freedom of speech. But before any of us open our big mouths we should think how it is going to directly affect our soldiers. It burns my back side when I hear people say I support our troops but not the war. By making this statement gives the enemy ammunition to use against our soldiers...Thanks for the blog...George

Thanks, glad you enjoyed the article. And yes, the more war protesters we have, the more vocal they are, the more they are in the news, the more encouraged the radical terrorist become. They plan to be in the war for the long haul, say a 1000 years or so, - or until they win. Just like the North Vietnamese.

Like Reply / add comments Quote | Report Bookmark and Share
Members Only
Posted on Feb 26, 2008 at 08:07 AM

iwanttobehugged Sorry about deleting your post. I would life for you to please read the article mentioned before you post to this blog again. The subject is a POW's experience,and from that, you might gain some insight into McCain and his character. If you read the article, then hopefully you may not be so prone to quote trash talk that does not match the facts, or look for a snake under every rock around him. The subject is not Ron Paul.

Like Reply / add comments Quote | Report Bookmark and Share
Members Only
Posted on Feb 24, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Now, I would like for you to compare he and his family, their family traditions, and what they have done for the US to all of the other candidates. Then tell me who you trust the most to do the best they can do for the people in the world and for the people in the US.

Like Reply / add comments Quote | Report Bookmark and Share
Follow - email me when people comment