Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

McCain and the POW Cover-up (How McCain left U.S. POWs and MIAs to rot in hell)
The Nation ^ | 2008-10-06 | Sydney H. Schanberg

Posted on 03/05/2010 1:05:46 PM PST by rabscuttle385

The "war hero" candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.

Research support provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute. This is an expanded version, with primary documents attached, of a story that appears in the October 6, 2008 issue of The Nation. (Watch Schanberg's appearance on Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman.)

BY SYDNEY H. SCHANBERG

John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn't return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.

Almost as striking is the manner in which the mainstream press has shied from reporting the POW story and McCain's role in it, even as the Republican Party has made McCain's military service the focus of his presidential campaign. Reporters who had covered the Vietnam War turned their heads and walked in other directions. McCain doesn't talk about the missing men, and the press never asks him about them.

The sum of the secrets McCain has sought to hide is not small. There exists a telling mass of official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos of rescue symbols that pilots were trained to use, electronic messages from the ground containing the individual code numbers given to airmen, a rescue mission by a special forces unit that was aborted twice by Washington—and even sworn testimony by two Defense secretaries that "men were left behind." This imposing body of evidence suggests that a large number—the documents indicate probably hundreds—of the US prisoners held by Vietnam were not returned when the peace treaty was signed in January 1973 and Hanoi released 591 men, among them Navy combat pilot John S. McCain.

MASS OF EVIDENCE

The Pentagon had been withholding significant information from POW families for years. What's more, the Pentagon's POW/MIA operation had been publicly shamed by internal whistleblowers and POW families for holding back documents as part of a policy of "debunking" POW intelligence even when the information was obviously credible.

The pressure from the families and Vietnam veterans finally forced the creation, in late 1991, of a Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. The chairman was John Kerry. McCain, as a former POW, was its most pivotal member. In the end, the committee became part of the debunking machine.

One of the sharpest critics of the Pentagon's performance was an insider, Air Force Lieut. Gen. Eugene Tighe, who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) during the 1970s. He openly challenged the Pentagon's position that no live prisoners existed, saying that the evidence proved otherwise. McCain was a bitter opponent of Tighe, who was eventually pushed into retirement.

Included in the evidence that McCain and his government allies suppressed or sought to discredit is a transcript of a senior North Vietnamese general's briefing of the Hanoi politburo, discovered in Soviet archives by an American scholar in 1993. The briefing took place only four months before the 1973 peace accords. The general, Tran Van Quang, told the politburo members that Hanoi was holding 1,205 American prisoners but would keep many of them at war's end as leverage to ensure getting war reparations from Washington.

Throughout the Paris negotiations, the North Vietnamese tied the prisoner issue tightly to the issue of reparations. They were adamant in refusing to deal with them separately. Finally, in a February 2, 1973, formal letter to Hanoi's premier, Pham Van Dong, Nixon pledged $3.25 billion in "postwar reconstruction" aid "without any political conditions." But he also attached to the letter a codicil that said the aid would be implemented by each party "in accordance with its own constitutional provisions." That meant Congress would have to approve the appropriation, and Nixon and Kissinger knew well that Congress was in no mood to do so. The North Vietnamese, whether or not they immediately understood the double-talk in the letter, remained skeptical about the reparations promise being honored - and it never was. Hanoi thus appears to have held back prisoners—just as it had done when the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and withdrew their forces from Vietnam. In that case, France paid ransoms for prisoners and brought them home.

In a private briefing in 1992, high-level CIA officials told me that as the years passed and the ransom never came, it became more and more difficult for either government to admit that it knew from the start about the unacknowledged prisoners. Those prisoners had not only become useless as bargaining chips but also posed a risk to Hanoi's desire to be accepted into the international community. The CIA officials said their intelligence indicated strongly that the remaining men—those who had not died from illness or hard labor or torture—were eventually executed.

My own research, detailed below, has convinced me that it is not likely that more than a few—if any—are alive in captivity today. (That CIA briefing at the agency's Langley, Virginia, headquarters was conducted "off the record," but because the evidence from my own reporting since then has brought me to the same conclusion, I felt there was no longer any point in not writing about the meeting.)

For many reasons, including the absence of a political constituency for the missing men other than their families and some veterans' groups, very few Americans are aware of the POW story and of McCain's role in keeping it out of public view and denying the existence of abandoned POWs. That is because McCain has hardly been alone in his campaign to hide the scandal.

The Arizona Senator, now the Republican candidate for President, has actually been following the lead of every White House since Richard Nixon's and thus of every CIA director, Pentagon chief and national security advisor, not to mention Dick Cheney, who was George H. W. Bush's defense secretary. Their biggest accomplice has been an indolent press, particularly in Washington.

MCCAIN'S ROLE

[PDF: The Truth Bill]

An early and critical McCain secrecy move involved 1990 legislation that started in the House of Representatives. A brief and simple document, it was called "the Truth Bill" and would have compelled complete transparency about prisoners and missing men. Its core sentence reads: "[The] head of each department or agency which holds or receives any records and information, including live-sighting reports, which have been correlated or possibly correlated to United States personnel listed as prisoner of war or missing in action from World War II, the Korean conflict and the Vietnam conflict, shall make available to the public all such records held or received by that department or agency."

[PDF: The McCain Bill]

[PDF: DOD cites the McCain Bill in denying a FOIA request]

Bitterly opposed by the Pentagon (and thus McCain), the bill went nowhere. Reintroduced the following year, it again disappeared. But a few months later, a new measure, known as "the McCain Bill," suddenly appeared. By creating a bureaucratic maze from which only a fraction of the documents could emerge—only records that revealed no POW secrets—it turned the Truth Bill on its head. (See one example, at left, when the Pentagon cited McCain's bill in rejecting a FOIA request.) The McCain bill became law in 1991 and remains so today. So crushing to transparency are its provisions that it actually spells out for the Pentagon and other agencies several rationales, scenarios and justifications for not releasing any information at all—even about prisoners discovered alive in captivity. Later that year, the Senate Select Committee was created, where Kerry and McCain ultimately worked together to bury evidence.

McCain was also instrumental in amending the Missing Service Personnel Act, which had been strengthened in 1995 by POW advocates to include criminal penalties, saying: "Any government official who knowingly and willfully withholds from the file of a missing person any information relating to the disappearance or whereabouts and status of a missing person shall be fined as provided in Title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year or both." A year later, in a closed House-Senate conference on an unrelated military bill, McCain, at the behest of the Pentagon, attached a crippling amendment to the act, stripping out its only enforcement teeth, the criminal penalties, and reducing the obligations of commanders in the field to speedily search for missing men and to report the incidents to the Pentagon.

About the relaxation of POW/MIA obligations on commanders in the field, a public McCain memo said: "This transfers the bureaucracy involved out of the [battle] field to Washington." He wrote that the original legislation, if left intact, "would accomplish nothing but create new jobs for lawyers and turn military commanders into clerks."

McCain argued that keeping the criminal penalties would have made it impossible for the Pentagon to find staffers willing to work on POW/MIA matters. That's an odd argument to make. Were staffers only "willing to work" if they were allowed to conceal POW records? By eviscerating the law, McCain gave his stamp of approval to the government policy of debunking the existence of live POWs.

McCain has insisted again and again that all the evidence—documents, witnesses, satellite photos, two Pentagon chiefs' sworn testimony, aborted rescue missions, ransom offers apparently scorned—has been woven together by unscrupulous deceivers to create an insidious and unpatriotic myth. He calls it the "bizarre rantings of the MIA hobbyists." He has regularly vilified those who keep trying to pry out classified documents as "hoaxers," charlatans," "conspiracy theorists" and "dime-store Rambos."

Some of McCain's fellow captives at Hoa Lo prison in Hanoi didn't share his views about prisoners left behind. Before he died of leukemia in 1999, retired Col. Ted Guy, a highly admired POW and one of the most dogged resisters in the camps, wrote an angry open letter to the senator in an MIA newsletter—a response to McCain's stream of insults hurled at MIA activists. Guy wrote: "John, does this [the insults] include Senator Bob Smith [a New Hampshire Republican and activist on POW issues] and other concerned elected officials? Does this include the families of the missing where there is overwhelming evidence that their loved ones were 'last known alive'? Does this include some of your fellow POWs?"

[PDF: DOD denies access to McCain's 1973 debriefing]

It's not clear whether the taped confession McCain gave to his captors to avoid further torture has played a role in his post-war behavior in the Senate. That confession was played endlessly over the prison loudspeaker system at Hoa Lo—to try to break down other prisoners—and was broadcast over Hanoi's state radio. Reportedly, he confessed to being a war criminal who had bombed civilian targets. The Pentagon has a copy of the confession but will not release it. Also, no outsider I know of has ever seen a non-redacted copy of the debriefing of McCain when he returned from captivity, which is classified but could be made public by McCain. (See the Pentagon's rejection of my attempt to obtain records of this debriefing, at left.)

All humans have breaking points. Many men undergoing torture give confessions, often telling huge lies so their fakery will be understood by their comrades and their country. Few will fault them. But it was McCain who apparently felt he had disgraced himself and his military family. His father, John S. McCain II, was a highly regarded rear admiral then serving as commander of all US forces in the Pacific. His grandfather was also a rear admiral.

In his bestselling 1999 autobiography, Faith of My Fathers, McCain says he felt bad throughout his captivity because he knew he was being treated more leniently than his fellow POWs, owing to his high-ranking father and thus his propaganda value. Other prisoners at Hoa Lo say his captors considered him a prize catch and called him the "Crown Prince," something McCain acknowledges in the book.

Also in this memoir, McCain expresses guilt at having broken under torture and given the confession. "I felt faithless and couldn't control my despair," he writes, revealing that he made two "feeble" attempts at suicide. (In later years, he said he tried to hang himself with his shirt and guards intervened.) Tellingly, he says he lived in "dread" that his father would find out about the confession. "I still wince," he writes, "when I recall wondering if my father had heard of my disgrace."

He says that when he returned home, he told his father about the confession, but "never discussed it at length"—and the Admiral, who died in 1981, didn't indicate he had heard anything about it before. But he had. In the 1999 memoir, the senator writes: "I only recently learned that the tape...had been broadcast outside the prison and had come to the attention of my father."

Is McCain haunted by these memories? Does he suppress POW information because its surfacing would rekindle his feelings of shame? On this subject, all I have are questions.

Many stories have been written about McCain's explosive temper, so volcanic that colleagues are loathe to speak openly about it. One veteran congressman who has observed him over the years asked for confidentiality and made this brief comment: "This is a man not at peace with himself."

He was certainly far from calm on the Senate POW committee. He browbeat expert witnesses who came with information about unreturned POWs. Family members who have personally faced McCain and pressed him to end the secrecy also have been treated to his legendary temper. He has screamed at them, insulted them, brought women to tears. Mostly his responses to them have been versions of: How dare you question my patriotism? In 1996, he roughly pushed aside a group of POW family members who had waited outside a hearing room to appeal to him, including a mother in a wheelchair.

But even without answers to what may be hidden in the recesses of McCain's mind, one thing about the POW story is clear: If American prisoners were dishonored by being written off and left to die, that's something the American public ought to know about.

TEN KEY PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT MEN WERE LEFT BEHIND

[PDF: New York Times, Feb. 2, 1973]

1. In Paris, where the Vietnam peace treaty was negotiated, the United States asked Hanoi for the list of American prisoners to be returned, fearing that Hanoi would hold some prisoners back. The North Vietnamese refused, saying they would produce the list only after the treaty was signed. Nixon agreed with Kissinger that they had no leverage left, and Kissinger signed the accord on January 27, 1973, without the prisoner list. When Hanoi produced its list of 591 prisoners the next day, US intelligence agencies expressed shock at the low number. Their number was hundreds higher. The New York Times published a long, page-one story on February 2, 1973, about the discrepancy, especially raising questions about the number of prisoners held in Laos, only nine of whom were being returned. The headline read, in part: "Laos POW List Shows 9 from US —Document Disappointing to Washington as 311 Were Believed Missing." And the story, by John Finney, said that other Washington officials "believe the number of prisoners [in Laos] is probably substantially higher." The paper never followed up with any serious investigative reporting—nor did any other mainstream news organization.

2. Two defense secretaries who served during the Vietnam War testified to the Senate POW committee in September 1992 that prisoners were not returned. James Schlesinger and Melvin Laird, both speaking at a public session and under oath, said they based their conclusions on strong intelligence data—letters, eyewitness reports, even direct radio contacts. Under questioning, Schlesinger chose his words carefully, understanding clearly the volatility of the issue: "I think that as of now that I can come to no other conclusion...some were left behind." This ran counter to what President Nixon told the public in a nationally televised speech on March 29, 1973, when the repatriation of the 591 was in motion: "Tonight," Nixon said, "the day we have all worked and prayed for has finally come. For the first time in twelve years, no American military forces are in Vietnam. All our American POWs are on their way home." Documents unearthed since then show that aides had already briefed Nixon about the contrary evidence.

Schlesinger was asked by the Senate committee for his explanation of why President Nixon would have made such a statement when he knew Hanoi was still holding prisoners. He replied: "One must assume that we had concluded that the bargaining position of the United States...was quite weak. We were anxious to get our troops out and we were not going to roil the waters..." This testimony struck me as a bombshell. The New York Times appropriately reported it on page one but again there was no sustained follow-up by the Times or any other major paper or national news outlet.

3. Over the years, the DIA received more than 1,600 first-hand sightings of live American prisoners and nearly 14,000 second-hand reports. Many witnesses interrogated by CIA or Pentagon intelligence agents were deemed "credible" in the agents' reports. Some of the witnesses were given lie-detector tests and passed. Sources provided me with copies of these witness reports, which are impressive in their detail. A lot of the sightings described a secondary tier of prison camps many miles from Hanoi. Yet the DIA, after reviewing all these reports, concluded that they "do not constitute evidence" that men were alive.

4. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, listening stations picked up messages in which Laotian military personnel spoke about moving American prisoners from one labor camp to another. These listening posts were manned by Thai communications officers trained by the National Security Agency (NSA), which monitors signals worldwide. The NSA teams had moved out after the fall of Saigon in 1975 and passed the job to the Thai allies. But when the Thais turned these messages over to Washington, the intelligence community ruled that since the intercepts were made by a "third party"—namely Thailand—they could not be regarded as authentic. That's some Catch-22: The US trained a third party to take over its role in monitoring signals about POWs, but because that third party did the monitoring, the messages weren't valid.

Here, from CIA files, is an example that clearly exposes the farce. On December 27, 1980, a Thai military signal team picked up a message saying that prisoners were being moved out of Attopeu (in southern Laos) by aircraft "at 1230 hours." Three days later a message was sent from the CIA station in Bangkok to the CIA director's office in Langley. It read, in part: "The prisoners...are now in the valley in permanent location (a prison camp at Nhommarath in Central Laos). They were transferred from Attopeu to work in various places...POWs were formerly kept in caves and are very thin, dark and starving." Apparently the prisoners were real. But the transmission was declared "invalid" by Washington because the information came from a "third party" and thus could not be deemed credible.

5. A series of what appeared to be distress signals from Vietnam and Laos were captured by the government's satellite system in the late 1980s and early '90s. (Before that period, no search for such signals had been put in place.) Not a single one of these markings was ever deemed credible. To the layman's eye, the satellite photos, some of which I've seen, show markings on the ground that are identical to the signals that American pilots had been specifically trained to use in their survival courses—such as certain letters, like X or K, drawn in a special way. Other markings were the secret four-digit authenticator numbers given to individual pilots. But time and again, the Pentagon, backed by the CIA, insisted that humans had not made these markings. What were they, then? "Shadows and vegetation," the government said, insisting that the markings were merely normal topographical contours like saw-grass or rice-paddy divider walls. It was the automatic response—shadows and vegetation. On one occasion, a Pentagon photo expert refused to go along. It was a missing man's name gouged into a field, he said, not trampled grass or paddy berms. His bosses responded by bringing in an outside contractor who found instead, yes, shadows and vegetation. This refrain led Bob Taylor, a highly regarded investigator on the Senate committee staff who had examined the photographic evidence, to comment to me: "If grass can spell out people's names and a secret digit codes, then I have a newfound respect for grass."

6. On November 11, 1992, Dolores Alfond, the sister of missing airman Capt. Victor Apodaca and chair of the National Alliance of Families, an organization of relatives of POW/MIAs, testified at one of the Senate committee's public hearings. She asked for information about data the government had gathered from electronic devices used in a classified program known as PAVE SPIKE.

The devices were motion sensors, dropped by air, designed to pick up enemy troop movements. Shaped on one end like a spike with an electronic pod and antenna on top, they were designed to stick in the ground as they fell. Air Force planes would drop them along the Ho Chi Minh trail and other supply routes. The devices, though primarily sensors, also had rescue capabilities. Someone on the ground—a downed airman or a prisoner on a labor gang —could manually enter data into the sensor. All data were regularly collected electronically by US planes flying overhead. Alfond stated, without any challenge or contradiction by the committee, that in 1974, a year after the supposedly complete return of prisoners, the gathered data showed that a person or people had manually entered into the sensors—as US pilots had been trained to do—"no less than 20 authenticator numbers that corresponded exactly to the classified authenticator numbers of 20 US POWs who were lost in Laos." Alfond added, according to the transcript: "This PAVE SPIKE intelligence is seamless, but the committee has not discussed it or released what it knows about PAVE SPIKE."

McCain attended that committee hearing specifically to confront Alfond because of her criticism of the panel's work. He bellowed and berated her for quite a while. His face turning anger-pink, he accused her of "denigrating" his "patriotism." The bullying had its effect—she began to cry.

After a pause Alfond recovered and tried to respond to his scorching tirade, but McCain simply turned away and stormed out of the room. The PAVE SPIKE file has never been declassified. We still don't know anything about those twenty POWs.

7. As previously mentioned, in April 1993, in a Moscow archive, a researcher from Harvard, Stephen Morris, unearthed and made public the transcript of a briefing that General Tran Van Quang gave to the Hanoi politburo four months before the signing of the Paris peace accords in 1973.

In the transcript, General Quang told the Hanoi politburo that 1,205 US prisoners were being held. Quang said that many of the prisoners would be held back from Washington after the accords as bargaining chips for war reparations. General Quang's report added: "This is a big number. Officially, until now, we published a list of only 368 prisoners of war. The rest we have not revealed. The government of the USA knows this well, but it does not know the exact number...and can only make guesses based on its losses. That is why we are keeping the number of prisoners of war secret, in accordance with the politburo's instructions." The report then went on to explain in clear and specific language that a large number would be kept back to ensure reparations.

The reaction to the document was immediate. After two decades of denying it had kept any prisoners, Hanoi responded to the revelation by calling the transcript a fabrication.

Similarly, Washington—which had over the same two decades refused to recant Nixon's declaration that all the prisoners had been returned—also shifted into denial mode. The Pentagon issued a statement saying the document "is replete with errors, omissions and propaganda that seriously damage its credibility," and that the numbers were "inconsistent with our own accounting."

Neither American nor Vietnamese officials offered any rationale for who would plant a forged document in the Soviet archives and why they would do so. Certainly neither Washington nor Moscow—closely allied with Hanoi—would have any motive, since the contents were embarrassing to all parties, and since both the United States and Vietnam had consistently denied the existence of unreturned prisoners. The Russian archivists simply said the document was "authentic."

8. In his 2002 book, Inside Delta Force, Retired Command Sgt. Major Eric Haney described how in 1981 his special forces unit, after rigorous training for a POW rescue mission, had the mission suddenly aborted, revived a year later and again abruptly aborted. Haney writes that this abandonment of captured soldiers ate at him for years and left him disillusioned about his government's vows to leave no men behind.

"Years later, I spoke at length with a former highly placed member of the North Vietnamese diplomatic corps, and this person asked me point-blank: 'Why did the Americans never attempt to recover their remaining POWs after the conclusion of the war?'" Haney writes. He continued, saying that he came to believe senior government officials had called off those missions in 1981 and 1982. (His account is on pages 314 to 321 of my paperback copy of the book.)

9. There is also evidence that in the first months of Ronald Reagan's presidency in 1981, the White House received a ransom proposal for a number of POWs being held by Hanoi in Indochina. The offer, which was passed to Washington from an official of a third country, was apparently discussed at a meeting in the Roosevelt Room attended by Reagan, Vice-President Bush, CIA director William Casey and National Security Advisor Richard Allen. Allen confirmed the offer in sworn testimony to the Senate POW committee on June 23, 1992.

Allen was allowed to testify behind closed doors and no information was released. But a San Diego Union-Tribune reporter, Robert Caldwell, obtained the portion relating to the ransom offer and reported on it. The ransom request was for $4 billion, Allen testified. He said he told Reagan that "it would be worth the president's going along and let's have the negotiation." When his testimony appeared in the Union-Tribune, Allen quickly wrote a letter to the panel, this time not under oath, recanting the ransom story and claiming his memory had played tricks on him. His new version was that some POW activists had asked him about such an offer in a meeting that took place in 1986, when he was no longer in government. "It appears," he said in the letter, "that there never was a 1981 meeting about the return of POW/MIAs for $4 billion."

But the episode didn't end there. A Treasury agent on Secret Service duty in the White House, John Syphrit, came forward to say he had overheard part of the ransom conversation in the Roosevelt Room in 1981, when the offer was discussed by Reagan, Bush, Casey, Allen and other cabinet officials.

Syphrit, a veteran of the Vietnam War, told the committee he was willing to testify but they would have to subpoena him. Treasury opposed his appearance, arguing that voluntary testimony would violate the trust between the Secret Service and those it protects. It was clear that coming in on his own could cost Syphrit his career. The committee voted 7 to 4 not to subpoena him.

In the committee's final report, dated January 13, 1993 (on page 284), the panel not only chastised Syphrit for his failure to testify without a subpoena ("The committee regrets that the Secret Service agent was unwilling..."), but noted that since Allen had recanted his testimony about the Roosevelt Room briefing, Syphrit's testimony would have been "at best, uncorroborated by the testimony of any other witness." The committee omitted any mention that it had made a decision not to ask the other two surviving witnesses, Bush and Reagan, to give testimony under oath. (Casey had died.)

10. In 1990, Colonel Millard Peck, a decorated infantry veteran of Vietnam then working at the DIA as chief of the Asia Division for Current Intelligence, asked for the job of chief of the DIA's Special Office for Prisoners of War and Missing in Action. His reason for seeking the transfer, which was not a promotion, was that he had heard from officials throughout the Pentagon that the POW/MIA office had been turned into a waste-disposal unit for getting rid of unwanted evidence about live prisoners—a "black hole," these officials called it.

[PDF: Millard A. Peck's Feb. 12, 1991, letter of resignation

Peck explained all this in his telling resignation letter of February 12, 1991, eight months after he had taken the job. He said he viewed it as "sort of a holy crusade" to restore the integrity of the office but was defeated by the Pentagon machine. The four-page, single-spaced letter was scathing, describing the putative search for missing men as "a cover-up."

Peck charged that, at its top echelons, the Pentagon had embraced a "mind-set to debunk" all evidence of prisoners left behind. "That national leaders continue to address the prisoner of war and missing in action issue as the 'highest national priority,' is a travesty," he wrote. "The entire charade does not appear to be an honest effort, and may never have been....Practically all analysis is directed to finding fault with the source. Rarely has there been any effective, active follow through on any of the sightings, nor is there a responsive 'action arm' to routinely and aggressively pursue leads."

"I became painfully aware," his letter continued, "that I was not really in charge of my own office, but was merely a figurehead or whipping boy for a larger and totally Machiavellian group of players outside of DIA...I feel strongly that this issue is being manipulated and controlled at a higher level, not with the goal of resolving it, but more to obfuscate the question of live prisoners and give the illusion of progress through hyperactivity." He named no names but said these players are "unscrupulous people in the Government or associated with the Government" who "have maintained their distance and remained hidden in the shadows, while using the [POW] Office as a 'toxic waste dump' to bury the whole 'mess' out of sight." Peck added that "military officers...who in some manner have 'rocked the boat' [have] quickly come to grief."

Peck concluded: "From what I have witnessed, it appears that any soldier left in Vietnam, even inadvertently, was, in fact, abandoned years ago, and that the farce that is being played is no more than political legerdemain done with 'smoke and mirrors' to stall the issue until it dies a natural death."

The disillusioned Colonel not only resigned but asked to be retired immediately from active military service. The press never followed up.

MY PURSUIT OF THE STORY

I covered the war in Cambodia and Vietnam, but came to the POW information only slowly afterward, when military officers I knew from that conflict began coming to me with maps and POW sightings and depositions by Vietnamese witnesses.

I was then city editor of the New York Times, no longer involved in foreign or national stories, so I took the data to the appropriate desks and suggested it was material worth pursuing. There were no takers. Some years later, in 1991, when I was an op-ed columnist at Newsday, the aforementioned special Senate committee was formed to probe the POW issue. I saw this as an opening and immersed myself in the reporting.

At Newsday, I wrote thirty-five columns over a two-year period, as well as a four-part series on a trip I took to North Vietnam to report on what happened to one missing pilot who was shot down over the Ho Chi Minh trail and captured when he parachuted down. After Newsday, I wrote thousands more words on the subject for other outlets. Some of the pieces were about McCain's key role.

Though I wrote on many subjects for Life, Vanity Fair and Washington Monthly, my POW articles appeared in Penthouse, the Village Voice and APBnews.com. Mainstream publications just weren't interested. Their disinterest was part of what motivated me, and I became one of a very short list of journalists who considered the story important.

Serving in the army in Germany during the Cold War and witnessing combat first-hand as a reporter in India and Indochina led me to have great respect for those who fight for their country. To my mind, we dishonored US troops when our government failed to bring them home from Vietnam after the 591 others were released—and then claimed they didn't exist. And politicians dishonor themselves when they pay lip service to the bravery and sacrifice of soldiers only to leave untold numbers behind, rationalizing to themselves that it's merely one of the unfortunate costs of war.

John McCain—now campaigning for the White House as a war hero, maverick and straight shooter—owes the voters some explanations. The press were long ago wooed and won by McCain's seeming openness, Lone Ranger pose and self-deprecating humor, which may partly explain their ignoring his record on POWs. In the numerous, lengthy McCain profiles that have appeared of late in papers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, I may have missed a clause or a sentence along the way, but I have not found a single mention of his role in burying information about POWs. Television and radio news programs have been similarly silent.

Reporters simply never ask him about it. They didn't when he ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination in 2000. They haven't now, despite the fact that we're in the midst of another war—a war he supports and one that has echoes of Vietnam.

The only explanation McCain has ever offered for his leadership on legislation that seals POW files is that he believes the release of such information would only stir up fresh grief for the families of those who were never accounted for in Vietnam. Of the scores of POW families I've met over the years, only a few have said they want the books closed without knowing what happened to their men. All the rest say that not knowing is exactly what grieves them.

Isn't it possible that what really worries those intent on keeping the POW documents buried is the public disgust that the contents of those files would generate?

HOW THE SENATE COMMITTEE PERPETUATED THE DEBUNKING

In its early months, the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs gave the appearance of being committed to finding out the truth about the MIAs. As time went on, however, it became clear that they were cooperating in every way with the Pentagon and CIA, who often seemed to be calling the shots, even setting the agendas for certain key hearings. Both agencies held back the most important POW files. Dick Cheney was the Pentagon chief then; Robert Gates, now the Pentagon chief, was the CIA director.

Further, the committee failed to question any living president. Reagan declined to answer questions; the committee didn't contest his refusal. Nixon was given a pass. George H.W. Bush, the sitting president, whose prints were all over this issue from his days as CIA chief in the 1970s, was never even approached.

Troubled by these signs, several committee staffers began asking why the agencies they should be probing had been turned into committee partners and decision makers. Memos to that effect were circulated. The staff made the following finding, using intelligence reports marked "credible" that covered POW sightings through 1989: "There can be no doubt that POWs were alive...as late as 1989." That finding was never released. Eventually, much of the staff was in rebellion.

[PDF: Newsday, Jan. 7, 1993]

This internecine struggle (see coverage, at left) continued right up to the committee's last official act—the issuance of its final report. The "Executive Summary," which comprised the first forty-three pages—was essentially a whitewash, saying that only "a small number" of POWs could have been left behind in 1973 and that there was little likelihood that any prisoners could still be alive. The Washington press corps, judging from its coverage, seems to have read only this air-brushed summary, which had been closely controlled.

But the rest of the 1,221-page Report on POW/MIAs was quite different. Sprinkled throughout are pieces of hard evidence that directly contradict the summary's conclusions. This documentation established that a significant number of prisoners were left behind—and that top government officials knew this from the start. These candid findings were inserted by committee staffers who had unearthed the evidence and were determined not to allow the truth to be sugar-coated.

If the Washington press corps did actually read the body of the report and then failed to report its contents, that would be a scandal of its own. The press would then have knowingly ignored the steady stream of findings in the body of the report that refuted the summary and indicated that the number of abandoned men was not small but considerable. The report gave no figures but estimates from various branches of the intelligence community ranged up to 600. The lowest estimate was 150.

Highlights of the report that undermine the benign conclusions of the Executive Summary:

[PDF: POW/MIAs Report, pp. 207-209]

[PDF: POW/MIAs Report, p. 13]

[PDF: POW/MIAs Report, p. 248]

[PDF: POW/MIAs Report, p. 91]

[PDF: Newsday, Jan. 8, 1973]

[PDF: POW/MIAs Report, pp. 85-86]

[PDF: POW/MIAs Report, p. 89]

[PDF: POW/MIAs Report, pp. 95-98]

MCCAIN'S CATCH-22

None of this compelling evidence in the committee's full report dislodged McCain from his contention that the whole POW issue was a concoction by deluded purveyors of a "conspiracy theory. But an honest review of the full report, combined with the other documentary evidence, tells the story of a frustrated and angry president, and his national security advisor, furious at being thwarted at the peace table by a small, much less powerful country that refused to bow to Washington's terms. That President seems to have swallowed hard and accepted a treaty that left probably hundreds of American prisoners in Hanoi's hands, to be used as bargaining chips for reparations.

Maybe Nixon and Kissinger told themselves that they could get the prisoners home after some time had passed. But perhaps it proved too hard to undo a lie as big as this one. Washington said no prisoners were left behind, and Hanoi swore it had returned all of them. How could either side later admit it had lied? Time went by and as neither side budged, telling the truth became even more difficult and remote. The public would realize that Washington knew of the abandoned men all along. The truth, after men had been languishing in foul prison cells, could get people impeached or thrown in jail.

Which brings us to today, when the Republican candidate for President is the contemporaneous politician most responsible for keeping the truth about his matter hidden. Yet he says he's the right man to be the Commander-in-Chief, and his credibility in making this claim is largely based on his image as a POW hero.

On page 468 of the 1,221-page report, McCain parsed his POW position oddly: "We found no compelling evidence to prove that Americans are alive in captivity today. There is some evidence—though no proof—to suggest only the possibility that a few Americans may have been kept behind after the end of America's military involvement in Vietnam."

"Evidence though no proof." Clearly, no one could meet McCain's standard of proof as long as he is leading a government crusade to keep the truth buried.

To this reporter, this sounds like a significant story and a long overdue opportunity for the press to finally dig into the archives to set the historical record straight—and even pose some direct questions to the candidate.

###

Sydney H. Schanberg, a journalist for nearly 50 years, has written extensively on foreign affairs--particularly Asia--and on domestic issues such as ethics, racial problems, government secrecy, corporate excesses and the weaknesses of the national media.

Most of his journalism career has been spent on newspapers but his award-winning work has also appeared widely in other publications and media. The 1984 movie, The Killing Fields, which won several Academy Awards, was based on his book The Death and Life of Dith Pran - a memoir of his experiences covering the war in Cambodia for the New York Times and of his relationship with his Cambodian colleague, Dith Pran.

For his accounts of the fall of Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge in 1975, Schanberg was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting "at great risk." He is also the recipient of many other awards - including two George Polk awards, two Overseas Press Club awards and the Sigma Delta Chi prize for distinguished journalism. (Watch Schanberg's appearance on Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman.)


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: kerry; mccain; mccainkerry; mccaintruthfile; mias; pows; prettylow; rino; thenation; traitormccain; treasonousbastard; trollboy; vietnam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last

1 posted on 03/05/2010 1:05:46 PM PST by rabscuttle385
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Favor Center; Arthur Wildfire! March; lmarie373; Abundy; missanne; Victoria Delsoul; 50mm; ...

2 posted on 03/05/2010 1:08:14 PM PST by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

People who read The Nation don’t care about POWs or people in uniform. So what was their point for printing this, other than as a hit piece on McCain during the election?
Where was The Nation on this very issue when Kerry (McCain’s partner in crime) was running for president?
MIA, that’s where.


3 posted on 03/05/2010 1:10:26 PM PST by counterpunch (The Emperor has no Cloture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

How can JD sum this up in an ad?


4 posted on 03/05/2010 1:10:32 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Going to The Nation for dirt now? I don't like McCain but I won't go to left-wing nutcase sites to trash him.
5 posted on 03/05/2010 1:10:35 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I don’t like McCain, but anything printed in The Nation is a commie lie, and anybody on FR who believes anything from “The Nation” is an idiot.


6 posted on 03/05/2010 1:11:15 PM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup; stephenjohnbanker

.


7 posted on 03/05/2010 1:11:25 PM PST by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Watch Schanberg's appearance on Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman.)

You ever watch Democracy Now!, Rabs? They make Olbermann look sane by comparison.

8 posted on 03/05/2010 1:11:31 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
John McCain collaborated with the North Vietnamese. See this picture?

The other POWs didn't get warm clothing and hot coffee. They shivered in shorty pajamas and ate wormy rice.

9 posted on 03/05/2010 1:11:37 PM PST by CholeraJoe ("We are as numerous as the stars in the heavens, and we are all gun-men.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

“a memoir of his experiences covering the war in Cambodia for the New York Times”

I should have known the New York Times was involved. There is no limit how low these people will go.


10 posted on 03/05/2010 1:11:39 PM PST by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Get this commie cr@p out of here, you commie.


11 posted on 03/05/2010 1:12:00 PM PST by Fido969 ("The hardest thing in the world to understand is income tax." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

This is the same crap that the Obama campaign was putting out in 2008.

Can’t JD do better than copying Obama????


12 posted on 03/05/2010 1:12:34 PM PST by PGR88 (I'm so open-minded, my brains fell out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Your hatred for McCain has no bounds does it?
Scumbags like you do not belong on FR.
Get a life you feckin' loser.
13 posted on 03/05/2010 1:13:21 PM PST by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe

Ever heard of a propaganda photo, Joe?


14 posted on 03/05/2010 1:13:33 PM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Hit piece. And The Nation? Now THERE’S a credible source (snort).


15 posted on 03/05/2010 1:14:03 PM PST by American Quilter (Really, really scared the Dems will succeed in passing Obamacare.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
You really want to be citing this maggot, Rabs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Schanberg

Following years of U.S. carpet bombing campaigns over Cambodia and Laos, Schanberg wrote in The New York Times about the departure of the Americans and the coming regime change, writing about the Cambodians that "it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." The Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia in 1975 and killed approximately two million people. A dispatch he wrote on April 13, 1975, written from Phnom Penh, ran with the headline "Indochina without Americans: for most, a better life."[1] However, in the same piece, Schanberg also wrote, "This is not to say that the Communist-backed governments which will replace the American clients can be expected to be benevolent. Already, in Cambodia, there is evidence in the areas led by the Communist-led Cambodian insurgents that life is hard and inflexible, everything that Cambodians are not." However, in the same article, Schanberg then went on to reject claims that the communist takeover of Cambodia could lead to state-sponsored genocide: "Wars nourish brutality and sadism, and sometimes certain people are executed by the victors but it would be tendentious to forecast such abnormal behavior as a national policy under a Communist government once the war is over."

16 posted on 03/05/2010 1:16:12 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

I agree and why would a left wing print this about a person that votes with them a lot of the time?


17 posted on 03/05/2010 1:16:33 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
2006
18 posted on 03/05/2010 1:17:01 PM PST by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Are we seriously citing The Nation and Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now?? Come on. You will not find a person on this planet more committed to the destruction of American values and the American military than Amy Goodman. She routinely refers to “war crimes”, the wholesale slaughter of women and children by American soldiers, and has never met an enemy of this country she couldn’t support.

When Amy Goodman takes a position, its a good idea to go the other way.

I don’t like McCain, but I will not besmirtch his service to this country in Vietnam. He is a legitimate war hero, and has my respect for that.

I held my nose and pulled the lever for him in 2008, and will not ever do so again. I sincerely hope that JD Hayworth wins in Arizona ... but a denigration of John McCain’s military service is a denigration of the service of every soldier that spent time in Vietnam or since.

SnakeDoc


19 posted on 03/05/2010 1:17:01 PM PST by SnakeDoctor (Do you know if the hotel is pager friendly? [...] I'm not getting a sig on my beeper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

“The Nation” leftists like YOU, Schanberg, did everything in your power to LOSE the war in Vietnam, cost 2 million Cambodian lives and PI$$ED all over returning soldiers. And now we’re supposed to believe you are OH SO CONCERNED about MIA’s and POW’S!!! BULLSHITE!!!


20 posted on 03/05/2010 1:17:46 PM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385; All

Hey this is from a guy who won Pulitzer’s by writing about how much better off Cambodia would be with the Americans out of the region.

I am no fan of McCain. I have never liked what happened to our POW/MIA left behind. But I doubt any leftie who relies on “...I was told personally...” as a proof of factuality


21 posted on 03/05/2010 1:20:59 PM PST by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Sydney H. Schanberg is a leftwing wacko of the worst kind. He has a major responsibility for those two million Cambodian deaths.


22 posted on 03/05/2010 1:22:17 PM PST by MARTIAL MONK (I'm waiting for the POP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Well, I always assumed what was in this article was true, but now that I see The Nation is promoting it, that makes me doubt the story is true after all. The Nation promoting someone is like Joe Isuzu saying “Trust Me”


23 posted on 03/05/2010 1:27:22 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Schanberg; isn’t he the creep who was all for the Khmer Rouge takeover of Cambodia and left Dith Pran behind to suffer the consequences of working for the Americans? Just curious.


24 posted on 03/05/2010 1:33:58 PM PST by Jean2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Sydney Schandberg knows his stuff. Also let’s not forget that Juan McCain’s friend Kerry got an exclusive for Colliers Intl Real Estate on Vietnam after normalization. Kerry’s realtives own Colliers. They are a huge commercial real estate broker.

After Vietnam - all the scum like McCain, Kerry, Kissenger, Carter wanted it to go away.


25 posted on 03/05/2010 1:34:14 PM PST by Frantzie (TV - sending Americans towards Islamic serfdom - Cancel TV service NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jean2

Yep, he’s the guy - another in a long line of NY Slimes pinko toadies.


26 posted on 03/05/2010 1:39:06 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
Sydney Schandberg knows his stuff.

Are you drinking some Democracy Now! bongwater? This guy is an apologist for commies in the grand tradition of the NY Slimes.

27 posted on 03/05/2010 1:40:14 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ozzymandus
Since the article extensively quotes other sources - both official and not I believe it.

In addition, POW’s were left behind and McCain knows it. He also has NO call to be rude to the searches of the truth about the POW/MIA situation.

I believe it because I was THERE, I know what I SAW and I know what I was ORDERED to do about it.

So screw you, I am not an idiot.

28 posted on 03/05/2010 1:42:40 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ (usff.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven
Read the article.
'Hatred for McCain" has nothing to do with the fact that a good many people don't buy the fictions that (a) everybody came out, and (b) the US government has been doing squat about POW/MIA since 1973.

RVN '68 - 69 and not far away for three more.

29 posted on 03/05/2010 1:43:59 PM PST by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

That is what I thought. No surprise there; I doubt there is any other kind at the NYSlimes.


30 posted on 03/05/2010 1:45:51 PM PST by Jean2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ozzymandus

I agree.

I for one refuse to read Louis Farakhan, or Rev. Wright CRAP.


31 posted on 03/05/2010 1:49:57 PM PST by Freddd (CNN is down to Three Hundred Thousand viewers. But they worked for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

You must not know how radically leftist The Nation is.

It isn’t just a very liberal publication that can be taken with a grain of salt, it is radically, insanely, leftist and is useless for information.

For much of my adult life I have tried to read much of the left including In These Times, The Nation, The Progressive and such, and I can tell you that the Nation is just a radical rag with no value.


32 posted on 03/05/2010 1:50:44 PM PST by ansel12 (Social liberal politicians in the GOP are easy for the left to turn, why is that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I recall a story, during the ‘08 campaign, and I think from The Nation, that McCain was a not really kept in a cell, but in a hotel and given prostitutes, in exchange for cooperating with the north. The story was an outrage - and almost made me like McCain. Does anyone else recall this? Had the election been close, this and the story that it is McCain who is not a “natural born citizen” would have been the topic of “serious” MSM discussion.


33 posted on 03/05/2010 1:54:23 PM PST by uscabjd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozzymandus

I have worked with Col. Millard “Mike” Peck and nothing that was written about him and the problems he had, is a lie.


34 posted on 03/05/2010 1:56:57 PM PST by Melchior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

THE NATION
33 Irving Place
New York, NY
10003
Phone :212-209-5400
URL: Website

The oldest and most leftwing of all popular American weekly magazines
Supported the Russian Revolution and was first U.S. magazine to publish the Soviet Constitution
Opposed America’s Cold War policies after World War II and generally supported the Communist bloc

Founded in 1865 by politically radical abolitionists, The Nation is the oldest weekly magazine in the United States and the farthest Left of all popular American magazines.

The magazine’s first major backer, who helped it launch in 1865 with $100,000, was the Boston lead pipe manufacturer who had supplied John Brown with munitions for his raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859. Its first literary editor was the son of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison.

By 1881 The Nation had shrunk to little more than a book review insert in Henry Villard’s New York Evening Post newspaper, as it wallowed through a succession of editors. In 1918 Henry’s son Oscar Garrison Villard (who helped found the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) took over The Nation and shifted it politically far to the Left, where it remains today. The Russian Revolution was underway, and the magazine was the first in America to publish the Soviet Constitution.

Villard retired in 1932. He was succeeded by Freda Kirchwey, a Stalinist who moved the magazine to the far left on issues of birth control and sexual freedom, and supported the Communists in the Spanish Civil War. She became a target of radical wrath, however, when she refused to endorse the pro-Soviet Progressive Party campaign of Henry Wallace in 1948, which was launched to oppose the Cold War.

Carey McWilliams replaced Kirchwey as The Nation’s Editor in 1955. The magazine took the Soviet side in challenging America’s Cold War policies, attacking the U.S. defense program and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). It also provided a platform for pro-Soviet Marxists like Gabriel Kolko and Howard Zinn, and for a young consumer advocate named Ralph Nader. (In 2004, however, the Editors of The Nation would ridicule Nader and his presidential campaign, favoring instead Democratic candidate John Kerry.)

Marc Cooper, the former host of the syndicated radio program RadioNation, is a Contributing Editor for The Nation.


35 posted on 03/05/2010 2:00:20 PM PST by ansel12 (Social liberal politicians in the GOP are easy for the left to turn, why is that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
I am no great fan of John McCain the Politician, though I voted for him -- as Jack Aubrey would have said with a grin, "the lesser of two weevils."

But John McCain the POW was another matter. Let's not forget that he was offered an "early out" by the North Vietnamese because of his father. He declined and did hard time until the end. I can think of no reason why he would have covered up or tried to hide any information about POWs not repatriated. I think this article is just a hateful piece of trash.

36 posted on 03/05/2010 2:04:25 PM PST by blau993 (Fight Gerbil Swarming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I’m not and never have been a resident of Arizon. But I’ve donated a lot of money to JD Hayworth’s campaign because I detest the mockery McCain has made of the Republican party, and the damage he’s been personally responsible for.

That being said, this article is vile and it’s from a vile source. It does not belong on Free Republic. We are better than this.


37 posted on 03/05/2010 2:11:30 PM PST by lonevoice (If Fox News is the only outlet reporting it, did it really happen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blau993

“I can think of no reason why he would have covered up or tried to hide any information about POWs not repatriated.”

Yet, he did so.


38 posted on 03/05/2010 2:11:47 PM PST by Favor Center (Targets Up! Hold hard and favor center!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

(How McCain left U.S. POWs and MIAs to rot in hell)”

and he’s STILL being endorsed by PALIN.


39 posted on 03/05/2010 2:13:00 PM PST by Kimberly GG ("Path to Citizenship" Amnesty candidates will NOT get my vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

He is not a commie. You can’t handle the truth. John McCain is a POS.


40 posted on 03/05/2010 2:14:04 PM PST by bmwcyle (Free the Navy Seals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

GEEZE rabs...you’re being attacked for your source! Frankly, I’m not familiar with the source, so I could care less who wrote it.... Is there anything in the content that isn’t true or have the McShamnesties just come calling?


41 posted on 03/05/2010 2:16:53 PM PST by Kimberly GG ("Path to Citizenship" Amnesty candidates will NOT get my vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The story is 100% true. Had friends in military intell who specifically told me that COng held 1200 POW and the deal was to turn over half now, and half after Congress paid reparations. The Dem Congress welched on its end of the deal.

Obviously, Nixon had no leverage by 1974, but he did not have to go along with it in 1973. The 1992 group that said we had no POWs in 1992 ignored the rescue signals that were visible in 1992 from multiple POWs in Laos who heard that the US was again looking for them.

There were four people on the group to find the POWs in 1992: Sen. John Kerry (did you know he served in Vietnam?), Sen. John McCain (I’ve heard he broke early, but I’d do far worse), Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld.

It ain’t an easy message, but was why I worked my ass off to take down Kerry in 2004 (thank you Swift Boat vets) and why I always ranked McCain dead last, after Ron Paul et. al. as a Presidential candidate. McCain *knew* we had guys left behind, because in his seven years in captivity, he met some of them. Not many; the prisoners in Laos stayed in Laos. I don’t know whether the 420 prisoners in Laos were counted as part of the 600 missing POWs, but my guess is that they were in addition to those 600. So that would leave about a 1000 POWS left.

Plus, a handful of prisoners escaped Indochina over the years. Dead prisoners don’t escape.

Vote JD in the primary. Vote your conscience in November.


42 posted on 03/05/2010 2:17:18 PM PST by bIlluminati (Don't just hope for change, work for change in 2010.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kimberly GG
Frankly, I’m not familiar with the source, so I could care less who wrote it...

Let's put it this way, if this was written by Michael Moore, would it make you question its legitmacy? Schanberg makes Michael Moore look like a Barry Goldwater Republican and has a history of bogus, leftist propaganda. If he said it was daytime, I would double check my watch.

43 posted on 03/05/2010 2:22:38 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

What he better do is leave it alone.


44 posted on 03/05/2010 2:23:25 PM PST by Gator113 (I do not want Obama IMPEACHED... I want him IMPRISONED.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blau993

“I think this article is just a hateful piece of trash. “

Not true. Do your homework. Team John F. Kerry/McCain.


45 posted on 03/05/2010 2:25:09 PM PST by Kimberly GG ("Path to Citizenship" Amnesty candidates will NOT get my vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
Yes, if it were written by Moore, I would question it's legitimacy....HOWEVER, wouldn't you be curious enough about such a viscous attack that you'd research it for yourself?
46 posted on 03/05/2010 2:30:36 PM PST by Kimberly GG ("Path to Citizenship" Amnesty candidates will NOT get my vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Kimberly GG

As I mentioned above, I already believed this, most of it is common knowledge, however, now that the Nation is pushing it, it makes me question that belief.


47 posted on 03/05/2010 2:33:39 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

What does Bud Day have to say about this?


48 posted on 03/05/2010 2:33:42 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bIlluminati
Plus, handful of prisoners escaped Indochina over the years

American POWs have been coming out of Vietnam?

49 posted on 03/05/2010 2:42:57 PM PST by ansel12 (Social liberal politicians in the GOP are easy for the left to turn, why is that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I’m not familiar with the author but, judging by the comments on the thread, he is such a talented commie he was able to invent bills, attribute their authorship to McCain and get them inserted into the Congressional record. Amazing!


50 posted on 03/05/2010 2:45:20 PM PST by TigersEye (It's the Marxism, stupid! ... And they call themselves Progressives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson