McCain: We Should Be ‘Embarrassed’ About Shutdown, GOP Pushed ‘False Premise’ on Obamacare

Mediaite ^ | October 8, 2013 | Josh Feldman

[cynwoody]

Moochelle had better watchit if she wants to remain dry.

RINOs aim it backwards.

[cynwoody]

McCain was set off by the news that during the shutdown, military benefits are being held up. He said Congress is so unpopular that “we’re down to blood relatives and paid staffers” at this point, asking his colleagues, “Shouldn’t we be embarrassed about this? Shouldn’t we be ashamed?”

Absolutely. We should look in the mirror and resign and live off our pension and the missus's beer fortune.

[Vendome]

Hey, Juan hole.

I’m not embarrassed parts of our government are shut down.

I am embarrassed spineless twits like you aren’t calling out out the Spite House for spending money to close things that are never closed much less have the manpower attention they currently have.

Jack wagon.

[Berlin_Freeper]

He said Congress is so unpopular that “we’re down to blood relatives and paid staffers” at this point, asking his colleagues, “Shouldn’t we be embarrassed about this? Shouldn’t we be ashamed?”

Yes you should be.

[Hostage]

A4 pilots have said even with no afterburner one can still wet start an A4.

The flight deck arrangement sketch claimed McCain’s A4 tail was pointed to sea and was on starboard across from the F4 that set off the zuni missile. But this is not ***conclusive*** evidence because it ignores that McCain could very well have been in a launch position with his tail pointed towards the F4.

I do not believe there is conclusive evidence on either side of the allegation. What I do believe is there is a preponderance of the evidence to conclude that McCain was more likely to have pulled such as antic based on well-documented and self-admitted confessions of wreckless behavior over other pilot performance incidents.

So if I am a member of a virtual jury of public opinion, I say McCain was more likely to have been a causal element in the Forrestal tragedy that not based on similar behavior and character issues on related incidents.

[Beave Meister]

Oh that’s funny. Thanks.

[cva66snipe]

That you Mike? Several big problems with your theory. One is the flightdeck video recording system showing launch and recovery or plane placement and FD activity when flight ops were not underway. In a launch position the JBD would be up. According to the diagram no plane was at the catapult. McCain it looks like was either fourth or sixth in line to launch.

When the missile launched McCain jumped out and escaped likely to a catwalk on the 03 level. About that time the General Alarm for General Quarters would have been sounded as well. Thus McCain would report to assigned station.

When fires happen on a carrier especially major ones an official investigation follows. That means crew members being questioned by what was N.I.S. at that time. About 30 persons on the Bridge at three separate spaces including flighteck OPs {Air Boss}, navigation bridge {The Captain. navigator, Officer of the Watch, Bosun of the Watch, then on the Flag Bridge the Admiral and his staff all watching. Possibly some signalmen as well. Oh yea there is also Vultures Row where a person could go up on the Island and watch flight ops without the Air Boss screaming get off the deck.

On the flight deck there would be about 50-100 men around or near the planes back aft where this happened as witnesses including plane spotters, AVORD Team, Launch control, the start up crews, likely Plane Captain who does pre-flight inspections for readiness etc. IOW this conspiracy would have to be quite large LOL.

The spotting would in fact be conclusive evidence as the spotting could easilly be verified by eye witnesses and camera footage. In other words McCain could not just say well I'm going first etc.

Footage of the fire before it happened, during the fire, and after, has been seen by hundreds of thousands of sailors and Marines. Gee you'd think one would catch it /sarcasm. So have you seen the footage shown in fire fighting training?

[Hostage]

Well obviously you have deck experience.

But experience backing hearsay is not persuasive. And the evidence is not conclusive. Again you reference a diagram and low quality film with confusing angles. I have seen it. It is not clear, it is not a case clincher.

There is no way outside of a civilian court room to prove the causal element of Forrestal. But a preponderance of evidence, both direct and circumstantial points to Ltjg. McCain as a hot head scumbag who thinks he’s entitled to provilege. And Senator NcCain is the same.

Do people in the government lie? Did military officers lie or keep silent about the Mai Lai massacre between 1968 and 1969?

Are those with a view at odds with higher ups in the chain of command told to keep silent or else?

Behghazi whistleblowers? Where are they?

Lois Lerner declaring she did nothing wrong and then taking the 5th, why?

TWA-800 was just an electric malfunction in the fuel tank.

And Ltjg. John McCain was as pure as freshly fallen snow during the Forrestal fire.

I am not buying it.

[cva66snipe]

Well obviously you have deck experience.

But experience backing hearsay is not persuasive. And the evidence is not conclusive. Again you reference a diagram and low quality film with confusing angles. I have seen it. It is not clear, it is not a case clincher.

There is no way outside of a civilian court room to prove the causal element of Forrestal. But a preponderance of evidence, both direct and circumstantial points to Ltjg. McCain as a hot head scumbag who thinks he’s entitled to provilege. And Senator NcCain is the same.

rlmorel I pinged you because you worked flight decks and maybe you can explain this better. As much as I dislike John McCain there is no way he was the cause directly or indirectly of the CV 59 fire. You may have to go back a couple of my post to understand why I'm posting this.

Hostage, I don't have flight deck experience I was a Snipe. I worked in machinery spaces. But I do know the basics about carriers and carrier fire fighting as I was a fire fighter on a carrier. I've seen the footage from that fire. BTW McCain was a LT Commander 0-4 rank not a LT Junior Grade 0-2 rank. I say that because there is a huge difference between the skills and knowledge of a LTJG and LT Commander.

Look at this picture linked here CVA-59 fire deck camera The plane #603 on the left with tail exposed is straight across from the Aft Catapults. If McCain's plane was launching it would be across from the back of that plane. No planes are there. The diagram shows no planes on the Cats. It looks like McCain was not up for launch for possibly six more launches and planes 310, 306, and 316 would launch first as they are spotted approaching the two aft Cats.

The information with the picture list plane positions of planes that were hit. How would they know? Because of before explosion footage and the Air Boss and the ABH's spotting charts. The picture I linked matches the diagram in the other one I linked previously.

The Forrestal's flightdeck is different than newer carriers. It was the first specifically designed for simultaneous jet fighter launch and recovery. The port side elevator was forward of the aft catapults instead of aft of them. Forrestal also had a different steam plant as it was the last 600 PSI boiler system rather than the newer 1200 PSI system. The island as well was further forward than others. It was the first angled flightdeck built as such. CV-59 FORRESTAL class

[rlmorel]

Hostage, cva66snipe is right on the money here with this. In this particular case.

I was trained in high power engine testing, so I understand the concept of wet starts and hot starts, how they happen and how you prevent them. Even though I worked with A-7 Corsairs, the concepts are no different than they are in a A-4 Skyhawk.

Ironically, I served in VA-46, the same squadron McCain was in when the accident happened, and McCain was actually my commanding officer for a few months in a training squadron before I went to that squadron. So I have had some closer familiarity to the events than many people...we heard jokingly for years about how our squadron was responsible for the fire on the Forrestal.

McCain had nothing to do with this. He was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was fortunate to have survived. When you mentioned a possible wet start/hot start as a reason for the fire, it is impossible. At the time of the accident, McCain had not even started the engine. He had just closed the cockpit and they were preparing to start when the rocket fired by the F-4 Phantom on the other side of the flight deck passed completely through his plane without exploding and splashed into the sea behind him.

It tore open his fuel tanks, and the JP5 gushed out of the holes onto the flight deck, where it set everything around it on fire when it caught.

It was likely ignited by the rocket exhaust as it passed through.

I Photoshopped this image of how the planes were spotted when the fire began, and the F-4 Phantom manned by LCDR Bangert likely fired the rocket due to a stray electrical current that followed the path of least resistance down to the Zuni pod. It went across the flight deck, hit LCDR White's A-4 Skyhawk (side number 405 in the image below) was slightly deflected and passed directly through LCDR McCain's A-4 Skyhawk, and the rest is history. They don't know for certain if it hit White's plane, but it certainly did hit McCain's.

The point cva66snipe makes it valid: there are plenty of reasons to dislike and discredit McCain, and we should stick to those. We have enough information to know what a tool he is on the merits of what he has done, we don't need to make anything up.

The problem with putting forth opinions like this is that it marginalizes people like us who legitimately oppose John McCain and what he stands for. It is not hard for liberals to discredit us when some of us put forth this kind of thing as fact.

[cva66snipe]

Thanks. McCain was either one of the luckiest men on ship that day or God was with him. This was back in an era when carriers went to sea on a deployment you could almost bet several shipmates would die. It amazed me some of the carriers came back from Gulf War two deployments with zero losses by combat or otherwise. I remember we'd loose several usually either pilots or plane handlers to either accidents or catastrophic failures. Technology advances would slowly improve safety and survivability as well as reduce accidents and failures.

I'm relying on 35 years after fact memory but I remember a huge issue with A-6 {can't remember variant} launching and dropping like bricks within a few miles on takeoff. This would have been maybe 1777 or so and they grounded the entire fleet of them. I can't re remember the cause.

We had some bad crashes and some lucky crashes. One night CNO, SECNAV, and others were on the bridge watching ops. A Tomcat came in low and popped the round down. He snapped the landing gear & used hard starboard engine to steer it on off the angle. He and second seater popped out after they cleared the fligh deck and were OK. A Hoover came in one night and missed 1-3 wires snagging #4 which couldn't handle it. They went over the side and while in the plane were suspended over the side. The crew had initiated jettison and it fired at that point. One went across the water like a skipping rock the other into the side of the ship. Another guy was killed in a F-14 respot. He was an ABH carrying the wheel chalks & was ran over. This wasn't combat Ops these were post Nam shipboard accidents.

BTW my shop ran the morge. It sounds gruesome but remains were taken to the Aft Walk in food coolers and remained there under watch until a fly off or off load could be done. We stationed an AC&R guy there 24/7 for duration. I can recall only one death that was natural causes and it was a chief that passed in his sleep.

Politically my former C.O. was in the Hanoi Hilton longer than McCain. He supported McCain's 2008 POTUS run. I saw his name on a list of retired Admirals and Generals supporting McCain for POTUS. That was his choice and I would not question my formers CO's loyalty or dedication to this nation because of his choice. I remember seeing the after effects of his stay at the Hilton when I first got on the ship and saw him in a passageway. I can't begin to imagine the hour by hour hell that place would have been for both of them.

That said I judge McCain solely on his post service record in elected office and that tells me all I want to know about him politically. He's a liberal RAT Oppertunist and Media Attention Addict.

As for military careers vs post military political abilities? I think the nation would run smoother with CPO's in elected office. They know the needs & what it takes to get things done, they are diplomatic enough to get their objective accomplished making both those over them and working under them feel their input and concerns mattered, and if push came to shove most have an an iron which all respected. LOL

[mojito]

John, I know you love that tawny boytoy of your dreams, Bathhouse Barry, far more than you ever loved your country or your party.

So just do yourself a favor: become a Democrat.

Deep down inside, you know it's what you want.

So just do it. And then you can spare the rest of us your inane and demented posturing.