Navy Releases John McCain's Military Record

Colleges and Universities A-Z Service Academy Parents
1

<p>My</a> Way News - Navy releases McCain's military record</p>

<p>May 7, 9:54 PM (ET)</p>

<p>By JIM KUHNHENN</p>

<p>WASHINGTON (AP) - From his five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp to his tenure as the Navy's liaison to the Senate, John McCain's Navy record boils down to a series of unadorned paragraphs that bestow upon him some of the nation's top military honors.</p>

<p>The Navy recently released McCain's military record - most of it citations for medals during his Navy career - after a Freedom of Information Act request by The Associated Press.</p>

<p>McCain was awarded a Silver Star Medal for resisting "extreme mental and physical cruelties" inflicted upon him by his captors from late October to early December 1967, the early months of his captivity, according to the citation. The North Vietnamese, according to the Navy, ignored international agreements and tortured McCain "in an attempt to obtain military information and false confessions for propaganda purposes."</p>

<p>McCain, now the Republican Party's likely presidential nominee, was taken prisoner in October 1967 after he was shot down while on a mission over Hanoi. He wasn't freed until March 1973, after the United States signed peace agreements with the North Vietnamese. His captors tortured him and held him in solitary confinement. Still, he declined an offer of early release until those who had been at the prison longer than him were let go.</p>

<p>That decision earned McCain a Navy Commendation Medal. Although McCain was "crippled from serious and ill-treated injuries," he steadfastly refused offers of freedom from those holding him prisoner. "His selfless action served as an example to others and his forthright refusal, by giving emphasis to the insidious nature of such releases, may have prevented a possibly chaotic deterioration in prisoner discipline," the citation says.</p>

<p>McCain attended the U.S. Naval Academy from 1954 to 1958, and was commissioned as an ensign in June of that year. He retired in April 1981 with the rank of captain. In that time he received 17 awards and decorations. Besides the Silver Star Medal, McCain also received the Legion of Merit with a combat "V" and one gold star, a Distinguished Flying Cross and a Bronze Star Medal with a combat "V" and two gold stars.</p>

<p>Several citations mention his achievements either as a prisoner or as a lieutenant commander flying bombing runs off the deck of the USS Oriskany. Some are signed by then-Secretary of the Navy John Warner, who would become a colleague of McCain's in the Senate.</p>

<p>The citations refer to his "accurate ordnance delivery" and his "aggressive and skillful airmanship." He earned his Bronze Star the day before he was shot down, for participating in a mission over an airfield in Phuc Yen, 11 miles north of Hanoi.</p>

<p>The citation for his Distinguished Flying Cross sums up McCain's misfortune the following day:</p>

<p>"Although his aircraft was severely damaged, he continued his bomb delivery pass and released his bombs on the target. When the aircraft would not recover from the dive, Commander McCain was forced to eject over the target."</p>

<p>Years later, as his Navy career approached its end, McCain received the Legion of Merit Medal. By then, his missions were in the halls of Congress as a liaison to the Senate from the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs.</p>

<p>He was praised for providing Navy leaders "with sage advice and sound judgment for enacting critical legislation during a period of severe fiscal constraint."</p>

<p>The following year, he ran for Congress from Arizona, and won.</p>

2

<p>We should all be grateful for Senator McCain's service to our country and we should honor these citations for the heroism they represent. </p>

<p>It is really too bad that Carl Rove and his "swift boat" friends chose to teach the american people to mistrust military citations. I will never understand why the Bush administration has never been held accountable for questioning the validity of many of these same awards earned during this same war. The disservice Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush did our war heros during the 2004 presidential election can never be forgiven.</p>

<p>My guess is that you can safely run for president as a war hero only if you don't have to run against Carl Rove and the Republican party.</p>

<p>Although I could never support Senator McCain for the presidency, I would never question his service record or the motivations of the naval officers who rightfully bestowed these honors on the Senator. I hope that anyone who would dare "investigate" the circumstances surrounding these awards, for political gain, would be held accountable. </p>

<p>Thanks you for posting John McCain's record. It is time we all agree that Military honors should respected regardless of our politics.</p>

3

<p>The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is/was a 527 organization and therefore it would have been illegal to coordinate activities with a political campaign even if headed by that devious Carl (Karl) Rove fellow.</p>

4

<p>We all know how absurd it would be to even condsider that Rove or Bush would have done anything illegal.</p>

5

<p>Not to mention the "swift boat vetrans for truth," Even their name crosses the line of moral responsibility.</p>

6

<p>Regardless, we should salute Senator McCain and be certain that the "swift boat" questioning of a man's service is never repeated.</p>

7

<p>I find several things ironic:</p>

<p>1) There is a belief that there was illegal collusion between the Swift Boat veterans and the Bush campaign with no proof what-so-ever. However, there is a doubt about the veracity of claims from first hand accounts of Swift Boat Veterans and POWs not to mention video evidence of Senator Kerry accusing U.S. servicemen of war crimes.</p>

<p>2) I haven't heard similar squeals about Moveon.org's "General BetrayUs" ad. There is a distinct diffference between the effort by the Swift Boat veterans and MoveOn.org. The Swift Boat effort tried to influence a Presidential election using events and video from 30 years ago. The Moveon.org ad attempted to undercut a General with soldiers/sailors/marines actively engaging the enemy in-the-field. What do you find more odious?</p>

<p>3) Two years ago Rep. Murtha (D-Pa) stated several Marines killed innocent civilians in cold-blood in Haditha, Iraq. The Marines in question had not been charged with any crimes and yet Rep. Murtha convicted them of murder on national TV. The murder charges have been dropped against all the Marines and one one has yet to stand trial for a lesser charge. What was Rep. Murtha's motivation for falsely convicting these Marines of murder?</p>

8

<p>The irony is indeed a false irony. For those that think that the Swiftboat folks were not talking to George Bush's presidential campaign, I have some bad news for you. There is no Easter bunny. What happened to Kerry was an absolute travesty. There was a coordinated, systematic and well financed attack on a man that served his country that didn't just appear out of nowhere. While Kerry was going up river in the heat of war, George Bush was successfully defending the State of Texas from an impending and horrific invasion by the State of Oklahoma. How Kerry could have been trashed in such a way is an American tragedy, regardless of whether he protested the war after serving in it. </p>

<p>While I personally will not vote for John McCain, I will be outraged if he is "swiftboated" like Kerry. No one deserves to be treated like that and I respect John McCain for his military service. America is better than swiftboating. Enough said.</p>

9

<p>I don't want to get into a big argument about moveon.org or anything else. I think we should be able to agree that is is wrong to question the validity of any honor, citation or medal issued by the United States Armed Forces.</p>

<p>Murtha was wrong. Move-on was wrong. Rove and the Swift boat gang were wrong. The only difference seems to be that people are unwilling to hold the swift boaters responsible for the wrong of questioning a man's military honors. </p>

<p>I also find it ironic that the people most likely to deny any cooperation between the Bush campaign and the swift boat group are the first people to suggest that moveon.org is a part of the democratic party.</p>

<p>I'm not sure why you can't agree with me that Senator McCain and every other honored war veteran should not have to justify their citations and medals. It is ALWAYS wrong to question a bronze star or a silver star or any other award if that award is lawful. To question one is to question all, regardless of how you might feel about any particular person. </p>

<p>I support any man's right to disagree with any politician. However, for Carl Rove and George Bush to give thes guys their "15 minutes of fame" questioning medals issued during the Vietnam war brings question to every medal earned during that war. </p>

<p>It shouldn't be hard to agree that it is wrong to question these medals?</p>

10

<p>


</p>

<p>What exactly did Karl Rove do that you can prove? :confused:</p>

<p>Is this something you have evidence of, or is it just the latest talking points from dailykos or democraticunderground? </p>

<p>Gratuitous allegations and assertions can be equally gratuitously denied. ;)</p>

11

<p>I find these internet discussions time consuming and of little benefit, so this is my last post on the subject.</p>

<p>I can respect anyone's conclusion the Swift Boat Veteran's were wrong to attack the medal's awarded to John Kerry but that was only a portion of their argument. They would never have attacked John Kerry had he not indicted Vietnam servicemen with unsubstantiated claims of war crimes during Congressional hearings. If he did not see the war crimes himself, his acusations are hearsay. If he saw the war crimes, then he had a duty to report them to his superiors. </p>

<p>The Swift Boat Veteran's 527 was financed by Republican donors just as MoveOn.org, America Coming Together, People for the American Way, the Media Fund, etc. are financed by Democratic donors. Frankly, this is one of my biggest faults with Sen. John McCain. Before McCain-Feingold, the presidential campaigns and parties raised the money and purchased the advertisements, and thus, they were directly responsible for the accuracy of the ads. Now, millions of dollars are raised and spent by unaccountable third parties and when the ad goes "over-the-top", the campaign and party deny responsiblity.</p>

12

<p>


</p>

<p>An individual's chain of command, both through close observation and recommendations, has deemed that individual worthy of an award. What are the credentials of those who deem that the award warrant's questioning?</p>

13

<p>I agree with both Luigi and coachjohn.</p>

<p>IMO all coachjohn is saying that these people served and have docs to prove their heroism.</p>

<p>Also Luigi is correct that it should be questioned in certain circumstances. </p>

<p>In todays service I personally know someone who received the bronze star Gulf I with the Army, why b/c he did his job properly (he was no where the action and never in harms way)...did it warrant a meritorious, yes, but a bronze NO.</p>

<p>During the exact same time the EF-111's were in action, one was shot down, another stayed to defend off the enemy until they could be rescued (the crew that got hit died and they knew it, but still stayed in case they might have survived) The pilot got a silver star the EWO got a bronze. How can you give one out for a desk job(working stateside 8-4/5 days a week) and not being shot at and another who put their life on the line?</p>

<p>Lets realize we now give out medals like candy, every AD is proud to receive them, but many realize some of the medals have lost their original prestige.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The medal is awarded to a member of the military who, while serving in or with the military of the United States after 6 December 1941, distinguished him- or herself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
... Superior performance of normal duties does not, in itself, constitute automatic justification for the Meritorious Service Award. Awards should be restricted to the recognition of achievements and services which are clearly outstanding and unmistakably exceptional when compared to similar achievements and accomplishments of personnel of like rank and responsibilities. In instances where many individuals are affiliated with an exceptionally successful program, project, or mission, the Meritorious Service Award should be awarded to the relatively few individuals whose contributions clearly stand out from the others and who have contributed most to the success of the program.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>IMO the AD member who received a Bronze Star that was not in harms way should have been reviewed more thoroughly and given a Meritorious and did not warrant a Bronze compared to the crew member. </p>

<p>The value of these medals is to show outstanding work and sacrifice in horrific times. The Meritorious was meant for that, the Bronze Star is for surpassing even the benchmarks of a Meirtorious. Today the Meriorious Award for an 0-4 is the same as a PCS medal...in other words it has lost its original allure, thus it does need to be questioned whether they really deserved it for just doing their job during war time or they showed exceptional aspects.</p>

<p>During Vietnam we as a society did not have the demand to make everyone feel good, we only recognized those who went past the bar, which was set much higher.</p>

14

<p>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^There are basically two separate Bronze Star awards, one for an individual act of valor, and awarded with the Combat 'V' and the other for meritorious service over an extended period of time, in a combat zone, very much akin to a MSM in a combat zone. Meritorious service in a combat zone-Bronze Star; act of valor-Bronze Star with Combat 'V'; meritorious service outside of a combat theatre-MSM. All perfectly legal.</p>

<p>My point very well illustrated. You have no credentials, based on the paritial third hand information which you possess, to second guess the proper awarding of medals.</p>

15

<p>Thank you FWDAD for expressing the sentiments of many Americans. I sometimes reflect on how different our world would be today if Senators Kerry and Edwards had won the last presidential election, or Senator Gore in 2000 for that matter. Makes me sick to my stomach to consider the damage the current administration has wrought throughout the globe.</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
An individual's chain of command, both through close observation and recommendations, has deemed that individual worthy of an award. What are the credentials of those who deem that the award warrant's questioning?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
You have no credentials, based on the paritial third hand information which you possess, to second guess the proper awarding of medals.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>69, you have made it very clear numerous times, to ALL OF US, that you are quite a strong advocate of the "Stolen Valor Act". You even referenced it to to me concerning the Admiral Boorda situation. Can it be that perhaps some of these guys who wear medals they didn't earn might have "official records" of their medals, making it seem like the were legitimately awarded by their Chain of Command? Shouldn't we question them when the facts just don't add up or are under "suspicious circumstances"? </p>

<p>Some of these cases have been discovered by those who "hadn't served" (again, the Boorda situation, where it was a reporter who noticed the discrepency and was about to epxose him for it). It was someone without the "credentials" you feel are required who brought the situation to light.</p>

<p>So, which is it? Ask the questions that might expose those who dare to wear medals they didn't earn legitimately, or just let it slide everytime because "what do we know, we're just civilians" or "we weren't there, so he gets a pass everytime"?</p>

17

<p>Bulletandpima - you are mixing apples and oranges here.</p>

<p>It is absolutely proper to expose someone who has "Stolen Valor". These folks claim to have earned medals for which there is no military record. Some claim to be veterans when they never served. These folks are imposters in the truest sense of the word.</p>

<p>What USNA69 is rightfully opposed to - is for people to scrutinize military records and attempt to revisit history (in some cases rewrite history) of military personnel who earned medals and awards while they served.
Once someone has earned a medal or award and that citation is on their military record it is improper for anyone (especially those who weren't there) to scrutinize that honor and make the claim it was not deserved. Those who are awarded medals are not imposters.</p>

18

<p>


</p>

<p>Some were. </p>

<p>And thus some need to be questioned. </p>

<p>ANY candidate who leans on his military record in a run for public office deserves to have that military record scrutinized.</p>

<p>Politics is rough. Those wishing to play in that arena better put on their big-boy pants, it's not a place for the squeamish.</p>

19

<p>And what signal do you think it is sending to those who have honorably served and earned similar awards to see their fellow service members dragged through the mud by those who don't have a clue what they are doing, except playing by the "politics is rough, put on their big-boy pants" game. Truly despicable.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
ANY candidate who leans on his military record in a run for public office deserves to have that military record scrutinized.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Especially a candidate who, upon his return from service, goes in front of Congress and lied to them about what he saw and the actions of his fellow service members in theater. Thank you, John Kerry, for adding to the American public's misconception of the Vietnam Vet: a brute, liar, and murderer with no morality, a deranged outcast just a spilt cup of coffee from "snapping" and eating the neighbors kids. Exactly what kind of signal was Kerry (someone who was there and knew exactly waht he was doing) sending to the servicemen who honorably served in Vietnam when he lableled them the way he did, dragging the entire generation of men who served there through the worst kind of mud?
I salute Kerry's choice to go and serve his country, and I respect his actions while he was there. I will not go down the path of questioning his time there; in my eyes he get a pass for that short period in his life. But he loses all credit with me (and a lot of other servicemen I know) for the actions he took upon his return. Don't renounce your service by theatrically and symbollically throwing away your medals, don't throw your brother servicemen under the bus with deceitful and disengenous testimony to the civilian leaders of this country, and then expect your fellow servicemen to accept you as a geniune "war hero" when everything you stood for upon your return was a slap to the face of your fellow servicemen.</p>

<p>The true story here was the Democratic Party's attempt to hold Kerry up as their "war hero" as part of his run for the Presidency (something they thought, IMO correctly, that the American public thought they were weak on). In my opinion (emphasis on opinion), he gets a pass from me for his service, and I really don't need to scrutinize his war achievements. There is no need because his actions*AFTER* the war erased all the good he did over there in my book (and in the same book of most of the veterans, from numerous conflicts, I know).<br>
The actions by the Swift Boat Veterans were an attempt on their part to ensure he didn't get away for HIS truly despicable attempts to pass himself off as someone honored by his service, rather than the someone he became who DISHONORED it. </p>

<p>69, as a Vietnam vet yourself, I'd be surprised if you don't have similar feelings about what Kerry did afterwards. Can you at least understand that the Swifties held such disgust for him that they would question everything? Maybe wrong, I'll grant you, to question his achievements, but I hope you can understand their motives.</p>