RE: Republican debate

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Republican debate

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Republican debate

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Republican debate - 7/4/2007 8:15:19 PM

uwinceismile

Posts: 365
Joined: 5/29/2007
Status: offline

hmmm,
must be a selective thing?
anywayz, the debates this early hold so lil meaning for me. both parties will push forward the person they want to see win the nomination.
it doesnt get interesting till early next year

(in reply to Sinergy)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: Republican debate - 7/5/2007 9:09:40 AM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

quote:

Since official navy records show that he was a lieutenant both at the time the incident on the Forrestal and at the time of his of his final mission and the official record shows that his date of rank for lieutenant commander is 1 January 67 the only possible conclusion is that his promotion was back dated, which is not an uncommon practice.

Such things have happened, Jimmy Carter's rank of Admiral and his allegedly being CO of a nuclear carrier/sub/starship while still in his 20s come to mind.
Ollie North has been accused of medal inflation as part of a ticket punching campaign.
Mike Boorda also comes to mind, as well as the aforementioned Silver Star claimants.

Career politicians, IMHO are almost always frauds, and I haven't seen anything from McCain that would absolve him of that label. Doesn't mean that I won't subject claims for, or agin' him to critical analysis.

All I'm asking for, under the heading of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' is to see those official records you cite...without waiting weeks or months for a FOIA request as you no doubt did, and without a trip to a military periodical library.
The records I linked directly to say one thing, and the only reason I would have for lending credence to them would be the skeptic's tendency to resolve competing claims against those with an absence of examinable evidence.

(in reply to uwinceismile)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: Republican debate - 7/5/2007 10:32:35 AM

thornhappy

Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
I must however retract my comment about someone trying to frag him being the cause of the fire on the Forrestal, CVA 59. In the course of my research on him I found an interesting piece of video that shows an F4 phantom landing on the Forrestal with "hung ordinance" that was accidentally triggered as the F4 was "painted" with a radar sweep. The "hung ordinance" left the F4 and went bouncing down the carrier deck and struck the aircraft in front of Lt. McCains, parked and waiting to launch, A4. The ensuing fire killed 134 men and nearly sunk the Forrestal.
thompson

Hi thompson--

The initial cause of the fire on deck was due to a Zuni rocket from Jim Bangert's aircraft indavertently firing (due to the removal of 2 safety devices in what had become a common practise) and striking the fuel tank of McCain's plane. The disaster was further exacerbated by the use of aged, unstable WWII-era ordinance on some of the neighboring planes. They prematurely detonated, killing the on-deck firefighters (Rescue 8). Things went drastically downhill from there. This was all captured on film by deck cameras.

The details of this event may be found in "Sailors To The End: The Deadly Fire On The USS Forrestal And The Heroes Who Fought It" by Gregory A. Freeman. Or you could see the Discovery Channel production "Situation Critical: USS Forrestal".

Lessons learned from the Forrestal disaster are used to this day.

thornhappy
(whose hobby is reading up on engineering disasters)

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 43