Col. Bud Day: McCain told me the cross story in 1970 or 1971
posted at 11:45 am on August 21, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
No need to lend this much credence. Sure, he’s a MOH winner and possibly the most decorated serviceman since Douglas MacArthur, but he’s said some controversial things in the past and therefore can’t be trusted. Unlike, say, McCain’s nutroots detractors.
So I asked: When was the first time you heard McCain tell this story? His response: “I heard that story in 1970, 1971—back in that time frame. Anybody who says it’s not true is full of…” Here he used some salty language.
That makes two POWs who claim to have heard McCain tell the story during or shortly after his captivity. Are we done with this now or is the next move to find a POW who never heard him mention it and use that to try to prove the negative? There are, after all, more fruitful smears to pursue. If you’re hungry for more, here’s an interesting snippet from the new Bloggingheads in which Althouse and Robert Wright speculate as to why McCain didn’t mention the story publicly sooner. Maybe because he didn’t realize how affecting people found it? Or maybe, as Althouse says, because his view on witnessing changed over time?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
It’s also possible that McCain felt that revealing the story in the 70’s could have put the guard’s life in danger.
Nowaday’s the new leadership of Vietnam is more likely to find the guard so that they could make him a tourist attraction.
MarkTheGreat on August 21, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Time to move on to the next wild, completely unsubstantiated smear, Democrats.
NoDonkey on August 21, 2008 at 11:50 AM
With all the very important issues we have to deal with in our country, the story about the cross or how many homes John has, are dead last.
L
letget on August 21, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Yes letget. It’s really amusing to see the reversal of the democrats from 4 years ago. The same points they used to defend a vietnam veteran who divorced and then married a wealthy wife that they share multiple homes – yet their positions are the opposite when that person is a “D” or an “R”.
I hope to GOD that McCain doesn’t visit NASA or get a fake orange tan in the next month or so. My weak heart can’t sustain the irony strain that would result.
wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Althouse raises an interesting point. I’ve never really been outspoken about my faith as a Lutheran either.
Can anyone else think of examples on the right of such blatently dishonest hatchet work (cross story, 100 years, draft…)? It seems like a purely leftist trait, for which I’m thankful.
BadgerHawk on August 21, 2008 at 12:06 PM
These guys prefer MOH recipient.
baldilocks on August 21, 2008 at 12:07 PM
The bar of proof for faith-based stories is pretty low, is it?
Of course, it has to be…
alphie on August 21, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Well its ok if it keeps the cross story in the press for another day. I have to say that the fact that JSM doesn’t know how many homes he owns is stupid and unnecessary and gives the Dims an easy campaign argument.
HawaiiLwyr on August 21, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Mind fleshing that thought out? One of the hallmarks of trolls is that they’re contrarian on every single point, really just for the sake of being contrarian. That seems to be where you’re at lately, and while lefties are permitted on the site, trolls are not. So explain to me why you’re the former and not the latter.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Much of the Bible is made up of tales with as much proof as McCain’s cross in the sand story, Allah.
Honest! The Red Sea parted! I was there…it’s all true.
Funny coincidence.
alphie on August 21, 2008 at 12:21 PM
What’s that smell?
Think_b4_speaking on August 21, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Yes, I’m familiar with and sympathetic to that line of argument. Except I’ve given you two living, breathing witnesses here and the other side has given you precisely nothing, on a charge which is absolutely unprovable anyway.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Ironic irony: they’re trying to Swiftboat McCain. But they’re doing it all wrong – they’re picking on something that a) doesn’t much matter in the first place, and b) actually happened.
Shorter version: golly them libs are dumb sometimes.
Professor Blather on August 21, 2008 at 12:30 PM
I don’t recall McCain discussing his faith all too often throughout his time in the Senate (1986-1999). When you run for President, definitely in the Republican party, you’re going to have to bring up your Christianity (given there is a segment that represents social conservatism).
In 1999, McCain decided to run for President, so he needed to bring up his faith in some way or another. This story is a part of that. Again though, it is not common for McCain to discuss his faith, I mean, that’s already a well known thing about him (which I probably attribute to a generational difference). You still see some reluctance on McCain’s part too, he hasn’t even mentioned that he played a role as chaplain to POWs. Why doesn’t he bring that up? Because he probably feels it’s not his place to do it.
DanStark on August 21, 2008 at 12:33 PM
The Toilet Bug isnothing but a Troll…
Ask anyone….Take a poll…
BigWyo on August 21, 2008 at 12:35 PM
davidk on August 21, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Never heard that before. Thanks.
Professor Blather on August 21, 2008 at 12:39 PM
What irritates me is how successful the Democrats have been at distracting from Obama’s abysmal performance at Saddleback. First it was the claim that McCain was cheating. Then it was that McCain stole the cross story. Now he didn’t steal the story, but he made it up. What isn’t being talked about is that McCain kicked Obama’s rear-end, and that’s a shame.
Side comment:
Yep. You earn the MOH. I frankly wish that they gave that medal out more frequently. I don’t think any MOHs have been given to servicemembers who actually survived the incidents for which they were cited. That should change as that award is intended as a celebration and honor of heroism, and I think there’s a lot of heroism going on over in Iraq and Afghanistan that should qualify for MOH but is only being rewarded with lesser medals. Just a nit.
Outlander on August 21, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Well, people like Bud Day can’t be trusted, as they are obviously Republicans wanting to protect their guy.
/nutroots
It's Vintage, Duh on August 21, 2008 at 1:40 PM
“I frankly wish that they gave that medal out more frequently.”
The MOH is the highest military decoration the US military awards, so you really want to keep the numbers small.
BTW, when a MOH recipient is wearing his MOH in uniform, every military member, up to General Petreus himself, has to initiate the salute. Neat fact.
NoDonkey on August 21, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Q: Is this all that the left can come up with?
A: Yep.
Q: Does the left have a prayer in the election?
A: Nope.
cannonball on August 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Outlander, regarding the numbers of Medals of Honor awarded out of all the post-9/11 combat, there was a fascinating analysis done about that some months back. I wish I could remember the site where I read it, but can’t. Maybe a Google search would find it.
.
In the analysis, the statistician who did the study compared the statistics of past numbers of MoH awards from WW1 to the present…numbers of US combatants, length of the conflicts, numbers of MoH awarded, etc. His conclusion was that since 9/11, there should be six more Medals of Honor awarded than have been awarded.
.
(As far as I can recall, the approx. half dozen awarded have all been posthumous. We’ve seen moving articles and videos about some of them here at Hot Air.
.
The statistics at the official MoH Society site indicate about 60% of all MoH awarded have been posthumous. In other words, the degree of bravery above and beyond the call of duty needed to win a MoH will usually get you killed.)
DavePa on August 21, 2008 at 3:10 PM
DavePa,
It may take longer for the MoH to be awarded if the recipient is alive.
I attended a sunlight parade at the Iwo Jima Memorial a couple of years back and saw a Vietnam Veteran receive his MoH.
So maybe there will be more MoH’s to be distributed for Iraq/Afghanistan at a later date. I believe they have to interview literally hundreds of individuals and it’s a very slow process. They don’t ever want to get one of these wrong.
NoDonkey on August 21, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Comment pages: