McCain: A worse war criminal than I thought
I've written before (and I think I'm actually the primary source on the web) how John McCain was shot down over Vietnam while bombing a civilian target, a lightbulb factory. And I've also written, and commented, how there were of course more serious war criminals than pilots obeying illegal orders, from the colonels and generals who gave the orders to the Presidents and Secretaries of State and Congresses who sent them there in the first place.
Today I was browsing in a bookstore and picked up a copy of Micheael Moore's Guide to the Elections, and, I swear I am not making this up, the book opened to the page where McCain's wartime history was being recounted, and specifically the larger context of that lightbulb factory bombing:
John McCain flew 23 bombing missions over North Vietnam in a campaign called Operation Rolling Thunder. During the bombing campaign, which lasted for almost 44 months, U.S. forces flew 307,000 attack sorties, dropping 643,000 tons of bombs on North Vietnam. Though the stated targets were factories, bridges, and power plants, thousands of bombs also fell on homes, schools, and hospitals [Left I note: Moore writes as if factories and power plants are not also civilian targets]. In the midst of the campaign, Defense [sic] Secretary Robert McNamara estimated that we [sic] were killing 1,000 civilians a week. That's more than one 9/11 every single month - for 44 months.
Ah, but McCain was still just a pilot following orders, right? Well, not quite:
In his book, Faith of Our Fathers, McCain writes that he had been upset that he had been limited to bombing military installations, roads, and power plants. He said such restrictions were "illogical" and "senseless."
"I do believe," McCain wrote, "that had we taken the war to the North and made full, consistent use of air power in the North, we ultimately would have prevailed."
So McCain was not just a war criminal. He was, and is, a vocal proponent of war crimes.
By the way, I don't know if it's significant, but Moore's book claims McCain was shot down bombing a power plant. I've seen that claim before, but I don't know where it comes from. If you take a look at the link above, which is a 2000 newspaper article based on an interview with the man who rescued McCain from the lake in which he landed, it is clear the target was a lightbulb factory, not a power plant. Has the power plant story been invented to make the target seem slightly more legitimate? I don't know, but I'm sticking with the original source material and the claim of a lightbulb factory unless someone can provide another, equally definitive, source.
http://lefti.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html#5685889500551685069
I've written before (and I think I'm actually the primary source on the web) how John McCain was shot down over Vietnam while bombing a civilian target, a lightbulb factory. And I've also written, and commented, how there were of course more serious war criminals than pilots obeying illegal orders, from the colonels and generals who gave the orders to the Presidents and Secretaries of State and Congresses who sent them there in the first place.
Today I was browsing in a bookstore and picked up a copy of Micheael Moore's Guide to the Elections, and, I swear I am not making this up, the book opened to the page where McCain's wartime history was being recounted, and specifically the larger context of that lightbulb factory bombing:
John McCain flew 23 bombing missions over North Vietnam in a campaign called Operation Rolling Thunder. During the bombing campaign, which lasted for almost 44 months, U.S. forces flew 307,000 attack sorties, dropping 643,000 tons of bombs on North Vietnam. Though the stated targets were factories, bridges, and power plants, thousands of bombs also fell on homes, schools, and hospitals [Left I note: Moore writes as if factories and power plants are not also civilian targets]. In the midst of the campaign, Defense [sic] Secretary Robert McNamara estimated that we [sic] were killing 1,000 civilians a week. That's more than one 9/11 every single month - for 44 months.
Ah, but McCain was still just a pilot following orders, right? Well, not quite:
In his book, Faith of Our Fathers, McCain writes that he had been upset that he had been limited to bombing military installations, roads, and power plants. He said such restrictions were "illogical" and "senseless."
"I do believe," McCain wrote, "that had we taken the war to the North and made full, consistent use of air power in the North, we ultimately would have prevailed."
So McCain was not just a war criminal. He was, and is, a vocal proponent of war crimes.
By the way, I don't know if it's significant, but Moore's book claims McCain was shot down bombing a power plant. I've seen that claim before, but I don't know where it comes from. If you take a look at the link above, which is a 2000 newspaper article based on an interview with the man who rescued McCain from the lake in which he landed, it is clear the target was a lightbulb factory, not a power plant. Has the power plant story been invented to make the target seem slightly more legitimate? I don't know, but I'm sticking with the original source material and the claim of a lightbulb factory unless someone can provide another, equally definitive, source.
http://lefti.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html#5685889500551685069
e-mail:
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
58,000 U.S. casualties....
07.10.2008 08:34
Around Four Million Vietnamese civillian casualties.
These figures alone show the cowardly tactics of the U.S. political and military elite.
And for what?
Mousey Tongue
Remember the one million South Vietnamese refugees!
07.10.2008 09:30
Historian
Lack of geopolitical understanding?
07.10.2008 12:23
So McCain was not just a war criminal. He was, and is, a vocal proponent of war crimes. "
Forget the second conclusion for a moment (North Vietnam WAS at war with the US -- using disproportionate force is NOT a "war crime")
Instead try to understand the geopolitics of the conflict. On whose behalf was the war fought and would the objectives been achieved had the US crushed Vietnam or would that have allowed the Chinese to have doublecrossed on the deal -- and left the US with the burden of now having to provide the buffer to southward Han influence that the Vietnamese no longer strong enough to play that traditional role.
Sorry -- back in the 60's when my mum upset at my anti-war activity sent me to have a talk with one of her boyfriends from before she marriede dad, somebody in "State" -- well to say the least I was rather shocked to learn the byzantine reasoning behind the war in the first place. Don't believe me if you dont' want to but do note that immediately after there WAS a publicly announced peace treaty with China and trade deals.
Mike
e-mail:
stepbystepfarm@mtdata.com
macain bush both as bad that is why they get elected not for peace
07.10.2008 21:23
peter ambler
e-mail:
tigger1946@fsmail.net
I think Historian..
08.10.2008 09:13
Ho Chi Minh had been fighting the french since 1946 , defeating them in 1954 , and again fought the new foreign invaders (U.S) after this date.
Similar to anywhere the U.S sticks its paws they split a country in half, declare one half evil the other side good and proceed to do Gods work.
If it suits a country to use socialist/communist means of progression , then what right has the U.S to dictate otherwise.
Their system is corrupt , selfish , and needs foreign invasions and war to survive yet no one ever invades or even criticises it.
The U.S has never been democratic , never will be , and yet is held up as the beacon and example of democracy for the rest of the world to follow.
In my opinion , people like Ho Chi Minh , who take on these foreign invaders have every right to , and is usually for reasons other than personal gain or capitalist profits.
Bush , Mcain , Obama and the rest are merely prostitutes.
Oh Mi Chin