On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:46:00 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The Times reports today that T. Boone Pickens, the Texas
billionaire who bankrolled the Swiftboaters has welshed
on his offer to pay anyone a million dollars if they could
prove the Swiftboaters were liars. John Kerry signed a
SF-180 which allowed the release of all his military records
and a group of veterans who served with Kerry used those
records and sworn affidavits to document ten lies. But
Pickens refuses to pay. No surprise there, if there's one
thing we know about the Swiftboaters it's that they're liars.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-says-no-deal/

So OK, that's history, fast forward to the present. I have
two related questions.

If John McCain's superior officers did not see him as qualified
to serve as a flag officer (Rear Admiral) why should the voters
see him as qualified to be Commander in Chief ? What did his
fellow officers know about this screwup of a cadet who finished
near the bottom of his class ? (As an aside, how does a screwup
like that get a plum assignment like flying planes off a carrier ?
Son and grandson of Admirals perhaps ?)

There is only one way to know why John McCain was never going to
be an Admiral and that is for John McCain to submit, as John Kerry
did, a SF-180 releasing all his military records in full. Why
won't he do that ?

And question number three, why isn't the media all over this like
stink on **** ?

Um, "the media" ought to "get involved" because one blog has alleged
that someone is not living up to what another blog (alleged by the first
blog to be merely "sympathetic" to the someone in question) claimed he
said he'd do? ...

I'm not talking about the media investigating T. Boone Pickens
and you know it. I'm wondering out loud why there's not been
any mention of McCain being a failure as a career naval officer.
I mean the guy had everything going for him, pedigree, war hero,
yadda yadda yadda, but when it came time to go from captain to
admiral his fellow officers made it clear that he didn't measure
up. Why ? Was it temperament, judgment, intellect ? Why wasn't
John McCain, in the opinion of his fellow officers, fit to be an
admiral in the US Navy ? I think the voters are entitled to know
but McCain won't release his military records. Why ? The wingers
on the right were quick to criticize Kerry when he wouldn't release
his military records but McCain gets a pass. Why ?

Hmmm...you'd think John Kerry would be among the first and loudest in
making demands rather than actively preventing at least a large portion
of the records from being released.

Anyway, what do you allege is there to "investigate?" Most of his
records HAVE been released, some by McCain, some via FOI requests. Even
without the releases thus far, his record is generally well-known. IAC,
I don't recall any widespread claims that McCain was the best officer
ever, nor has McCain actively claimed such (or passively or tacitly,
either). Moreover, I'd offer that about the only things involving
McCain and the military of which much is made by _anyone_, all
undisputedly true, are that: a) he voluntarily served for 20-plus years,
c) he voluntarily served in combat, and, c) he was a POW as a result of
that service (some, including Obama, call him a "hero" because of this -
I've no real opinion either way specifically as to McCain solely with
regard to his former POW status other than being captured doesn't
automatically make someone a "hero.") I'd further offer that if McCain
hadn't met Cindy AFTER having been appointed Senate liaison, you'd not
know or care who John McCain is. Sorta like if Obama hadn't made a
single speech, damned few would know or care who Obama is...

OTOH, a little research into his military career might educate you a
bit. Suffice to say that it appears he did show extreme "heroism" on a
number of occasions, such as on the Forrestal and as POW by refusing the
offered "propaganda" release (try to find fault with THAT...) unless all
were. As to being a flag officer, he was on-track for that (and in was
clearly in his future had he chosen to remain), but not a full admiral,
and certainly not a 4-star as his father and grandfather. His last
command, IIRC, was exemplary, but his personal conduct, ala, um, getting
his prop waxed, was less so. FWIW, I suspect his records would be at
worst a wash as far as "the voters" and their opinion as to his fitness
for POTUS - his early years would be net-negative, his later years
net-positive. I'd further offer that this may be a classic case of be
careful of that for which you ask, lest you get it...

TC,
R