Why Vietnam Vets Split on McCain

[Frenchy]

Why Vietnam Vets Split on McCain

Kelly Patricia O'Meara

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m157..._61487324/print

Vietnam vets are divided on John McCain's status as a hero, citing incongruities in his account of his time as a POW and his actions in Congress concerning POWs/MIAs.

It's a war zone out there for GOP presidential candidate John McCain. While he has worked desperately to broaden his support among Democrats and independents, trouble has been brewing within his core constituency. Among the huge number of voting veterans there is a deep divide concerning whether McCain is the hero he is proclaimed to be or something else.

Not the least of the issues that have military groups spitting mad is the Arizona senator's voting record on veterans' issues. Thomas Burch is a Washington attorney and chairman of the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition, a federation of 102 veterans' groups. Burch tells Insight, "McCain forgot the veterans, and you don't have to search too hard to see where he's dropped the ball." For instance, "McCain would not cosponsor the 1984 Agent Orange Bill, the 1992 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, the 1996 Missing Persons Personnel Act, the 1998 Persian Gulf Health Care Act or the 1999 Bring Them Home Alive Bill. He did cosponsor the 1991 Omnibus Agent Orange Bill, but at that point there was no struggle, it was a done deal. Back in the 1980s when we really needed him he wasn't there."

But Burch says it was McCain's conduct during 1992 hearings of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs that turned many Vietnam War veterans against him. "When they held the hearings, it was McCain who handled the family members in a very rough manner, reducing one woman to tears. There are a lot of folks who compared him to Jane Fonda after he hugged Bui Tin, a former North Vietnamese army officer and interrogator/torturer of American prisoners of war, or POWs, who testified at the hearings. Symbolically, it's like seeing Fonda sitting on the antiaircraft gun. If you think that these people are still holding some of our men, as many of these families do, that's not the kind of photo that's going to endear you to him. I don't care what his reason was for doing it. It was an outrage."

Although McCain's hostile behavior toward the family members of POWs/MIAs is well-known among veterans, vet activists also have taken their share of the senator's wrath. "Whenever you cross McCain," says Burch, "he gets very ugly. One of his people, Orson Swindle, federal trade commissioner and one of the longest-held POWs, called me from his office and threatened to `destroy me' because I had come out in support of George Bush in South Carolina. That's tough treatment from a fellow Vietnam veteran."

David Hackworth, a retired Army colonel with five years' distinguished service in Vietnam who is a frequent commentator on military affairs on network television, is a longtime critic of McCain. He tells Insight that McCain's actions during the Senate Select Committee hearings were a "flash point" with a lot of veterans. "McCain should turn off his handlers," says Hackworth, "because he's presenting himself in a very poor light. I have read hundreds of letters and e-mails from members of the military and there's no question that there is a keen divide when it comes to McCain. There are many who challenge his conduct when he was a POW."

In 1991, explains Hackworth, "I interviewed Col. Bui Tin in Hanoi, who was presented to me as their authority on POW/MIA issues. In the course of the interview Tin told me that during the war he was involved in the imprisonment of American POWs. When I questioned him further he said that John McCain was a `special prisoner.' Tin later told other POWs that McCain never was tortured. So when McCain embraced Tin during the hearings it seemed to some Vietnam vets to confirm the reports they had heard, and it really angered a lot of people. It was no secret that McCain had admitted to giving information to the enemy. In fact, McCain was given the Silver Star for `conspicuous gallantry' for the time period of 27 Oct. to 8 Dec. 1967 -- one day after he was shot down and admits to having given information to the enemy. McCain is a survivor, not a hero, and I don't think anyone in the history of our nation has been awarded such high military awards for dealing with the enemy."

Charles Bates, director of Veterans for Government Accountability, a government watchdog group, tells Insight that "during a three-day seminar on the Vietnam War at the Center for Vietnam War Studies at Texas Tech University, I and another POW activist, Joe Jordan, spoke to Bui Tin about McCain's treatment in Hanoi. Tin said, `No, McCain was never tortured. He was too important. We called him the prince. He received special treatment.'"

The passion is strong among these veterans, and Bates gives no quarter: "When Tin testified at the 1992 hearings," he says, "McCain ran down to the floor and threw his arms around this guy. Everyone knew that this was the guy that had reportedly tortured him. Try and imagine someone from the Bataan death march throwing his arms around his captor. You can't. So this is why there is concern among veterans that he really may have collaborated with the enemy. I And there appears to be evidence that he did, including his own admissions in the May 14, 1973, U.S. News & World Report":

"O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital," reported the then recently returned POW in that article in U.S. News. "I guess the thing is," says Bates, "you have to think that if he's elected president and this did happen, he could be open to blackmail."

To other veterans any such interpretation is outrageous -- and remember that vets tend to split 50-50 on McCain. Joe Schlatter, who served as the chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency Special Office for Prisoners of War and Missing in Action, tells Insight that activist veteran groups have focused on three issues against the senator. "First," says Schlatter, "they argue that not all American POWs were released and McCain has refused to sign up on the `live' POW theory. They're angry because he supports President Clinton's efforts to normalize relations with the Vietnamese, and they're angry because McCain went after those people who he thought were making money off the POW/MIA issue."

Schlatter insists, "If you were alive in captivity in 1973, you came home. There is no conspiracy to cover this up. There are as many different veterans' votes as there are veterans. This is just a sideshow distracting from the real issues. If the other POWs don't care about how John McCain got his medals, why should I?"

And many of the former POWs with whom Insight spoke for this survey take great offense at the attacks on McCain. Mike McGrath, a retired Navy pilot and former POW, sees McCain's more outspoken critics as "activists who play on your emotions on an issue that no one can prove. The story should be about the cottage industry of POW/MIA activists and how John McCain got in the way of their political agenda. They don't want to give up this way of life and, if you say there aren't any more POWs over in Vietnam, it destroys what they're doing. The questions these guys bring up aren't worth answering."

Is it important for the American people to know what information a presidential hopeful may have provided to the enemy in return for medical care or under torture? Does that have any connection to the support of normalization of relations with Vietnam? "No," says McGrath. "Vietnam is just another country that we're trying to reestablish relations with. It's no different than what we have with Russia or China. Every one of the 661 POWs violated the code of conduct by giving information beyond name, rank and serial number. Does that mean that we're all traitors? If the Vietnamese said that they didn't torture John McCain, they are lying. What do you expect -- they're Communists."

Is it likely that the Communist government is lying about the treatment McCain received while he was their prisoner? This is one of the issues that so deeply have divided Vietnam veterans and leave many wondering why McCain has been so eager to reestablish ties with a government that has called him a liar. According to McGrath, "If anyone has any doubts about the treatment McCain received, they can ask his roommates -- the men who nursed him back to health and feared for his life. No one who lived with or near him has anything bad to say about him."

But not all of the POWs agree about McCain, and those who have come out against him are labeled as "crazies" by the POWs who support him.

McGrath suggests McCain could put all this ugliness to rest by requesting that the transcripts of his postcaptivity debriefing be released. Those transcripts long have been classified, but in 1996 Republican Sen. Robert Smith of New Hampshire moved legislation through Congress effectively making the portions of the debriefings that dealt with other military personnel still unaccounted for available for review. In 1999 Smith managed further to modify the legislation to make it retroactive for the Cold War, Korean and Vietnam debriefings concerning men left behind. The legislation sailed through despite attempts by those no one would name to prevent declassification. The McCain campaign has not returned Insight's calls to ask about these matters.

continued...

[Frenchy]

continued...

According to one Capitol Hill insider, "The chances of anyone actually seeing these records is a million-to-one, but if John McCain requested his records I'm sure they'd release them to him." To date that request has not been made. There also appears to be no chance of releasing any records held by the Vietnamese. According to Bill Bell, former chief of the U.S. Office for POW/MIA Affairs, "In May of 1993 I attended a meeting in Hanoi with John McCain, Pete Peterson, U.S. ambassador to Vietnam and ex-POW. McCain and Peterson were very interested in getting an agreement from the Vietnamese that the records of the former POWs would never be made public."

[eric_t12]

i think he's a rino, international socialist, and a true elitist insider who would sell out the people in a heartbeat to stay in the game.

did he get tortured? maybe.

is there a good chance he wasn't? seemingly so.

does it change the fact that he's a rino, and an international socialist? definately not.

the above is why i won't be voting for him.

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by eric_t12

i think he's a rino, international socialist, and a true elitist insider who would sell out the people in a heartbeat to stay in the game.

did he get tortured? maybe.

is there a good chance he wasn't? seemingly so.

does it change the fact that he's a rino, and an international socialist? definately not.

the above is why i won't be voting for him.

Yup!

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by eric_t12

did he get tortured? maybe.

is there a good chance he wasn't? seemingly so.

I disagree with several of McCain's positions, but what factual basis do you have to imply that it's possible he wasn't tortured and that the entire thing was made up?

I think that's a slipperly slope to start going down. It is pretty well documented that the guy was tortured. There are pictures of him in the hospital and he's got tons of scars. Ever noticed how he never raises his arms above his head? That's because he can't--his bones were repeatedly broken due to repeated beatings.

I respect the guy. He's a hero no matter what his politics are. He even refused to go home early simply because his dad was an Admiral in the Navy. He said he would only go home if every prisoner that was captured before him was released as well. This resulted in him staying for nearly 5 MORE years.

If he was such a "sell-out", he would have certainly bailed out of there ASAP without even caring.

McCain sticks to what he thinks is right. He knew damn well that his position on amnesty would alienate much of the GOP base and could cost him the nomination, but he took that position anyway because he thought it was right. He doesn't take positions to tow the party line. He does what he believes is right, regardless of the political implications. That is a pretty rare thing in DC these days. I disagree with him a lot of the time but I still respect him for thinking for himself.

Frank

[Ride the Lightning]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

McCain sticks to what he thinks is right. He knew damn well that his position on amnesty would alienate much of the GOP base and could cost him the nomination, but he took that position anyway because he thought it was right. He doesn't take positions to tow the party line. He does what he believes is right, regardless of the political implications. That is a pretty rare thing in DC these days. I disagree with him a lot of the time but I still respect him for thinking for himself.

Frank

The same could be said for GWB and look where it's gotten him and the rest of the GOP.

[Frenchy]

You skipped over a lot of the article, Frank...Want to address it? How about his lack of support for veteran legislation?

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

You skipped over a lot of the article, Frank...Want to address it? How about his lack of support for veteran legislation?

His "lack of support" has nothing to do with the fact that someone questioned whether or not he was actually tortured.

Do you think his perceived "lack of support" for this legislation is evidence that he was tortured or not?

Sorry, I'll admit my post was a little off-track, but I just don't understand why someone would question his story like that.

Frank

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Ride the Lightning

The same could be said for GWB and look where it's gotten him and the rest of the GOP.

I know--all I said is that you can still respect the guy for doing what he thinks is right and not making decisions according to the polls.

My main point is I don't understand how you can question whether or not he was actually tortured.

Frank

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

His "lack of support" has nothing to do with the fact that someone questioned whether or not he was actually tortured.

Do you think his perceived "lack of support" for this legislation is evidence that he was tortured or not?

Sorry, I'll admit my post was a little off-track, but I just don't understand why someone would question his story like that.

Frank

My belief was that he was probably tortured, but we just don't know the scope of everything that went on there.
My overriding concern however is his blind eye to Nam vets.