Did John McCain Really Cause the USS Forrestal Fire?

Bingo!

You know i don't know if John McCain wants to go, "look at my war record route" I personally think he was an average to bad pilot technically and showed bad judgement with the wet-fire start and also getting himself shot down in a high performance jet the best we had to give him a ride in. Face it he had real time connections to cover up incompetence.

I really think he should try to keep his war story to the Hanoi Hilton and nothing else.

Bible Boy you are not helping your candidate by bringing this up , it opens up a can of worms, now if you stick to his imprisonment you have a story.

 

The official events on the Forrestal seem to be validated by a subsequent similar occurrence on the USS Enterprise on July 14, 1969.

 

I don't have any idea, but I know that losing 1 plane, 5 planes, 100 planes, or no planes does not mean he was or was not involved in this incident. That was simply a bad argument. Losing planes for whatever reason does not lead to the conclusion that a pilot was involved in some tragedy.

Think better before you post.

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That's funny!

 

You mean you don't know how many planes McCain lost, or since it makes him look bad you don't want to discuss it?

As far as the Forrestal incident is concerned, the fact that McCain lost more jets than the Navy usually allows, makes me think that he may have been involved in the incident on the Forrestal. It would fit his pattern of not being a very good pilot.

 

What did I say? (Hint: It's Post #23). Perhaps part of the communication problem here is that people simply don't read what is said.

That's a non sequitur. And it is therefore a bad argument. You should not have made it. He may or may not have been involved in this incident. I have no idea. But either way, it has nothing to do with how many planes he lost.

 

I believe you response enforces my point. You don't want to admit to anything that will make McCain look bad as a pilot, but that's alright. Maybe McCain is innocent, but his dismal record as a pilot does present reason for concern.

 

McCain was also being shot at by the best AA missiles that the Soviets had, and supplied to the North Vietnamese. And if one wants to compare the military records of McCain vs Obama or Joe Biden, well...better not to go there.

 

Then, like your previous response, you are thinking wrongly. My response does even address your point. (Read it, and you will see that.) It addresses your logic used to make the point. You used bad logic: McCain was a bad pilot so he probably was involved in this incident. That is not a good argument. There were likely many "bad pilots," none of whom you appear to be implicating. And this incident does not require a "bad pilot." So the thinking you used was bad. It perhaps indicates that you don't care what you say so long as you get a chance to attack McCain. This is worse than people saying Obama was a Muslim.

Why would you think this? I think McCain's record as a pilot is irrelevant (and being a pilot myself I think I have a little background in this area). We are not electing a pilot-in-chief. As president, he will have other pilots to fly him around. Furthermore, with respect to McCain as a candidate, I think he is a pretty bad one. The only marginally redeeming factor is that the is the third or so worst candidate in the race. If he wanted to be president, he picked a good year to get nominated. I doubt seriously that I will vote for McCain. I don't like him, and I don't think he will be a great president. But his record as a pilot has nothing to do with that.

Reason for concern about what? A 72 year old man who is probably grounded who might have been a "bad pilot" 40 years ago is a reason for concern? I am not sure what you are thinking.

But back to my point, whether or not McCain was a bad pilot, or lost 1 plane or 100 planes, your original post contained a logical fallacy.

 

I believe that's exactly what McCain has done. None of the stories I am seeing on google regarding the forestall look like reason McCain name would keep coming up in the story. If the bomb was on the other side of the carrier, weren't there people closer to it than McCain. How did his name get so attached to the issue? I smell good politics and another WMD story.

A s for the 5 planes, the fifth one he was shot down so I don't think we should count that one. The other 4 could have been saved if his dad wasn't an Admiral. He never would have made it in or through the Naval academy without his dad being who he was.

 

The one in the internet now or the real official history? As you like to say, you didn't address my question. Why is McCain name even in the story if he was on the other side of the ship. Now someone watched as the liberals cleaned up wiki. You mean the conservatives can't do the same?

First of all, he wouldn't have made the academy or been a pilot in the trainer if it wasn't for his dad. It is also a known fact that seems to be removed from the internet that McCain should have been expelled from the academy because of the amount of his demerits alone. His grades, well'', he graduated 5th from last so I guess there were 5 people with worse grades than his. The difference is those 5 people took the academy serious, studied and did their best. McCain is naturally brilliant and put forth no effort.

I know it's a liberal link but you made me do it...

http://theliberalblog.blogtownhall...._demerits_to_have_had_him_thrown_out!!!.thtml

 

Actually, one account says that it was "another vehicle," while a different account states it was a piece of equipment for warming up the engine that overheated the rocket. This would seem to substantiate that the rockets had known malfunctions, that had nothing to do with another aircraft's exhaust.

 

And somehow somewhere, people questioned the cause of McCain's wet start... Oh, but he wasn't on the ship...