On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Brian Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 2008, at 7:54 AM, Mugsy Lunsford wrote: > > At 5:29 PM -0500 10/10/08, richardsan san said: > >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Michael Luscombe > > > >> Not everyone who talks to a communist or communist sympathizer > >> becomes a communist. If that were the case, wouldn't John McCain > >> want to run the country like Vietnam? Some sensible > >> characterization of those meetings is in order. Plenty of > >> Republicans worked with Bill Ayers as well. > >> > >> mccain has at least a 5 year history of communicating with > >> communists. didn't he give them more than just name,rank and serial > >> number? > > > > I was on a work crew with a Nam vet this week, and got an earful > > over lunch one afternoon when someone made a joking comment about > > the election. Seems the vet was on the Forrestal when the missile > > went off and killed 134 crewmen, and a lot of his fellow survivors > > were convinced that McCain was responsible for that incident - I > > didn't understand all of what he said since he became quite > > passionate while reliving the scene, and began speaking in military > > acronyms. Something about fooling around with afterburners and a > > flareout touching off the missile. This vet closed his rant with an > > assurance that he was also certain that McCain's plane was fragged > > out of the sky by his peers who were tired of his risky behavior. > > I'd been listening with shock probably showing on my face, and he > > turned to me and said "Fragged! Do you know what that means, to be > > fragged? It means your own side thinks you don't deserve to live!" > > The rest of us simply listened, dumb-founded. That's the first I've > > heard of any of that, but the guy was extremely serious and very > > very angry, kept referring to McCain as "Songbird." Got up and > > stormed off after he finished talking, and the rest of the crew > > agreed to avoid talking about politics around him. I keep meaning > > to ask a pilot about this, since I don't understand how the missile > > could have been set off like that in the first place. > > The A-4 aircraft that McCain was flying over Vietnam (and may others > of that period) did not have self-starting engines. A small jet engine > in a cart was used to get the turbines of the aircraft turning so the > engine could be ignited. What happened on the Forrestal is that a > starter cart was being used on an aircraft across the flight deck from > McCain's aircraft. The exhaust from the starter cart was blowing on an > air-to-air missile on another aircraft and the missile "cooked-off", > its engine ignited from the heat of the starter cart. That missile > flew across the deck and hit McCain's aircraft starting the fire and > causing it to drop its bombs into the flames which in turn cooked off > and exploded causing more fire and damage to other aircraft, etc. > > I am no fan of McCain but he was in no way responsible for what > happened on the Forrestal. > > <http://www.forrestal.org/fidfacts/page13.htm> > > that linked story doesn't jive with the ^ above paragraph. just sayin' --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
