The anniversary of John McCain's salvation

Yesterday was the 41st anniversary of the day John McCain's bomber was shot down.  Now, I imagine he sees that as one of the worst days of his life, but that's taking the short view.  I'm sure when he gets to Heaven, Jesus will tell him it was actually the best day of his life: the day he was prevented from murdering any more Vietnamese.  At which point McCain will probably go ballistic and tell Jesus to go to Hell.  There'll be an awkward moment, but then they'll both burst into laughter—because Jesus can't go to Hell, right?  Even though his dad created it.  And if McCain takes time to reflect, I'm sure he'll see that Jesus has a point.  Which isn't surprising, because c'mon, it's Jesus.

Of course, if the Norse had it right it'll be a whole different story.

Comments

[KDelphi]

I rather agree--I worked at a Vietnam Vet Center for awhile. I wanted to see it from the other viewpoint. (My sister was a 60s radical, and I followed suit, although too young to have much effect).

I DID see the other view--especially for draftees. McCain was not one, of course..

I just think that this is a bad issue (as far as elections go) for "progressives". The current "troops" are largely with us, right? Are we going to question their character? They ARE all volunteers--except for "stop-loss".There are so many things to criticize about Mccain--policy issues. I think that that is more productive. I realize that McCain has "used" the issue--so did Kerry. It does not appear to work.However, he has refrained from "using" his son in Iraq, and, notably, I think , his African American daughter, Bridget (the one Bush used so cruelly in 2000)(Which makes his support of Bush all the more incredibly stupid)

I have talked to several vets--they see now that every Viet vet who runs for President will fail--and they feel cheated--they sould.. BUT, although, all the ones I know are fervently peace activists--they DO take the "McCain was a coward" stuff personally. Maybe I woudl too, I've never been placed in their situation. So, holding off judgement--I have heard more than a few say they wil support McCain IF people keep questioning his character, under durress. It may not be rational , but war never is.

Just think its a loser issue for us.

[John Caruso]

Possibly, but I'm not writing from a strategic viewpoint. Though you seem to be going beyond what I wrote; I didn't call McCain a coward or question the character of people in the military generally (or even McCain in particular).

I just find it interesting that an observation that seems like it should be pretty obvious and unremarkable to a genuine Christian looks so incendiary in print, and would no doubt cause howls of outrage if it were ever said in a public forum (as Dennis Perrin discovered a while back).

[KDelphi]

I meant no offense! I am not a Christian. I did mean strategically, and, I just think that , in situations that we have not experienced ourselves, it serves us better to focus on the people that created the hell. I am not just anti-war--if I were "queen" there would be no guns!

It is one reason the Dems lost my support--Bush & Co. (and some Dems) should be prosecuted for war crimes. Also, any indicidual soldiers who commitee crimes (althuogh, it would be admittedly difficult, given that it is a n illegal occupation)If I gave the impression I was "jumping on you"--I certainly didnt intend to.

Maybe it is because I saw what the govt (and alot of the population) did to Vietnam vets (and are still doing to most vets today)Since the poor and working classes, both fight AND pay for this "war", we need to take care of them--I'm sure you agree.

Is there something about the manner in which I state positions? I really would like to know. I seem to "offend" when I do not intend.I just feel strongly--that is all.

[John Caruso]

No no, I didn't feel jumped on at all...and in the second paragraph up there I was speaking generally, not about you in particular.

Still speaking generally though, I don't excuse the people who are carrying out the crimes. There are plenty of different stories for how people end up in the military, but without a draft it comes down to a choice—and even setting that aside, they certainly have a choice about how they act once they're in. I'd agree that vets are often victims, though I'd say that applies to Vietnam vets much more than Iraq vets.

I don't see anything wrong with how you're stating your positions so far, and strong feelings are always welcome here as long as they're presented in a civil way (as you've been doing). I appreciate the contributions, actually; I'm always curious to hear what other people think.

[KDelphi]

On the whole--I agree. Thanks for comments. I often wonder...

I think that , having watched my sister and her friends rail against 'baby killers" (and some people did--they simply assumed most draftees couldve gone to Canada--but they were a "different class" of people, who were not as fortunate as those in college--in general--does that sound elitist?), and then, working at a Vet Center, made me feel crappy about how we often treat our veterans. I know they volunteer--but , it was for the Guard, etc. , there is "stop loss", they are YOUNG (most of them). Maybe I am rationalizing. I guess , when you sit and talk to 100s of them--even when they tel you this horrible stuff--they are stil just people.

Jakcson Browne put it well, I think.."From the comfort of a dreamer's bed, and the safety of my own head...I went off seeking of the future, while other people fought and bled".

My sister and her friends were fortunate. Well, used to be..lol. (Anyone else never going to be middle class again?)

But, being generally , a pacifist, myself, I have to agree.

[Duncan]

I agree that McCain's not a coward. Anyone who crashes five planes is not a coward. Reckless, stupid, irresponsible are more apposite words that come to mind. There are worse things than being a coward. A pacifist, as KDelphi claims to be, should know that, if only because pacifists, people who refuse to kill others, are so often denounced as cowards. I think the term "coward" better applies to those who loudly supported the war, but managed to get draft deferments so that other people could be drafted in their place. But as I say, there are worse things than being a coward.

It's true that a lot of draftees were put into positions where they had to be baby-killers. (McCain wasn't a draftee, however.) And like most Americans, they were subjected to a massive propaganda campaign to persuade them that there were all these Communist babies who deserved to be killed. One can recognize their dilemma without pretending that they didn't do horrible things. The Winter Soldiers tribunal, if I recall correctly, did just that. The soldiers themselves testified to the things they'd done. But in general the anti-war movement focused on the architects of the war, the people who sent those kids off to kill.

And the antiwar movement did not simply lie in "the comfort of a dreamer's bed ... while other people fought and bled." A significant part of the movement worked with the troops. A significant part of the movement was Vietnam veterans. They were, of course, sneered at by the architects of the war and by its lay supporters, and are derogated or simply ignored to this day. And when the veterans came back, supporters of the war mostly avoided or demonized them. There's still a propaganda campaign here and now to distort every aspect of the history of the war and its aftermath.

[KDelphi]

I agree ,for the most part...another thing I am concerned about, is the duopoly's "war on the poor". My Gawd, you wouold think that they have such power! "Theyre are so stupid they vote for...blah, blah" Well, offer them something besides a $1000 bribe, Dems! (If they make enough to even get it! I never even got a "stimulus check"!) "They created this mortgage mess". Yeah. Sure. All y their lonesome, they took out equity loansto pay for medical bils food etc. in what was advertised as a govt badked program (Well, come to think of it, it WAS!)

War is largely a rich man's game fought by poor men. It is now being PAID FOR by the poor, also. I watched a pbs show on LB last night--It brought back memories of just how horrible it all was. My sister was in Chicago--she was lucky! And I know that there wera alot of Winter Soldiers there. Not everyone scorned teh vets--but I sure did until I worked with them.

I gues I should state bias--I met my domestic partner (what a strange way to refer to a person!! but--I'll never get marriedagain!), while he was working at the Center. I am typing "very quietly" ( I have one of those old typewriter-loud keyboards), because, he was up al night, and, if he is awakened suddenly, he is "no longer presenr" for a few minutes. So maybe I am too close to the issue. (He was up fixing the ceiling/roof that a tree fell thropugh, largely due to the Ohio 80MPH wind storm in Sept.--only two counties were not declared disaster areas by Voinovich adn Bush--we just happen to be urban counties--right)

The architects re surely to blame, as was McNamara, Westmoreland, yes, even LBJ (who, I think, got a bad rap on some other issues, because he had such huge "shoes to fil"--in many people's minds anyway)

The architects of this "war" (Iraq) should NOT go unpunished, not the architects of the Wall St fiasco,nor the architects of FEMA--and the Dems just keep buying into it. "Where else are progressives going to go?"

I'm registered Third Party--but I will probaly vote Obama. Sadly, it wil mostly be the "leser of two evils" thing. Surely after these 8 yrs of BUSH--if teh Dems were going to comeup with a "progressive" candiate, they would have by now. We nee to break the dopoly. I would do "whatever it takes" , as teh govt we are living under now, just may be not WORTH living under. And, many wil die.(Homelessness, lack of health care, scarcity, etc.) But, the Dems "wont be able to afford their social programs" becuase, they "had to bail out the banks, for Main St. sake"--bullshit. They never intended do any of it anyway, and, most of the ideas are lame and "market tailored".

[cemmcs]

Jesus' Dad would no more have let Jesus go to hell than George H.W. Bush would have let GWB go to Vietnam. Hey, these guys may do some stuff you don't like but that doesn't mean they're not good fathers.

[John Caruso]

Duncan: One can recognize their dilemma without pretending that they didn't do horrible things.

Yes, exactly. And although this posting was intended to be jarring (to most people), I also meant it quite sincerely: the day you're prevented from murdering other human beings, regardless of how willingly you've been doing it, is surely a good day.

[Duncan]

cemmcs: Jesus' Dad would no more have let Jesus go to hell ...

But Jesus did go to hell, according to Christian mythology, just on a day trip between the crucifixion and the resurrection, to "harrow" it and remove the virtuous non-Christians. And Jesus' dad did kill Jesus -- again according to Christian mythology, Jesus was on a suicide mission that had been planned before the creation of the world.