N.Y. Times Magazine Publishes Charge That McCain's a Phony POW

Photo of Tim Graham.

Liberals were outraged in 2004 when they nominated Sen. John Kerry, who by the way, served in Vietnam, and some veterans who served with him on Swift Boats had the audacity to challenge his war heroism. So how will they greet cranky old leftist author Gore Vidal who does some "swift boating" of his own in the Sunday New York Times Magazine? Interviewer Deborah Solomon talked to the "literary lion" about John McCain, and Vidal suggested the "rumor" of McCain’s heroism should be so questioned, we might even doubt he actually served time as a POW:

And what about Mr. McCain? Disaster. Who started this rumor that he was a war hero? Where does that come from, aside from himself? About his suffering in the prison war camp?

Everyone knows he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. That’s what he tells us.

Why would you doubt him? He’s a graduate of Annapolis. I know a lot of the Annapolis breed. Remember, I’m West Point, where I was born. My father went there.

So what does that have to do with the U.S. Naval Academy down in Annapolis? The service universities keep track of each other, that’s all. They have views about each other. And they are very aware of social class and eventually money, since they usually marry it.

So Vidal is suggesting that McCain is so favored by the service-academy elite that they made up a story about him being imprisoned for five-plus years? Why would the New York Times choose to publish this bizarre charge? Do they consider it "fair game"? Please remember pages like this when the New York Times tries to argue that some commercial a conservative 527 makes is completely beyond the pale. They have taken a charge that most television stations would refuse to air in an advertisement and splashed it across their own Sunday paper. 

But then, Vidal was just getting warmed up. Then he suggested William F. Buckley was roasting in Hell:

In 1968, during the Nixon-Humphrey race, you became the voice of liberalism in a series of televised debates with William Buckley. Any plans to be a pundit at the coming presidential conventions? No.

How did you feel when you heard that Buckley died this year? I thought hell is bound to be a livelier place, as he joins forever those whom he served in life, applauding their prejudices and fanning their hatred.

When Buckley died, many liberal media outlets less than generously recalled the TV clip of how Buckley promised to pound Vidal's face when he suggested Buckley was a fascist. This reminds us that Deborah Solomon interviewed Buckley a few years back, with less deference than Vidal received (even as he spun wild tales about how McCain was only a POW in our minds). She won the Damn Those Conservatives Award on our 2004 Best of Notable Quotables ballot. Buckley must have regretted accepting this interview:

"You have made so many offensive comments over the years. Do you regret any of them?"

"You seem indifferent to suffering. Have you ever suffered yourself?"

Imagine how these could have been tossed at Vidal, with more effect.

(HT: Dan Gainor)

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The NYT is just another

The NYT is just another branch of the Democrat Attack Machine, using lies, smears and innuendo to get their candidate elected. Will McCain speak out against this? Yes. Will he be heard? No.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

This is beyond despicable

Here Mr. Vidal and Ms. Solomon. 

Let me do your work for you.

Noli habere bovis, vir!

Don't Use the Democrat Term "Swift Boat"

Tim,

Please done sign on to the despicable use of the word "swift boated" Kerry's tales of his Vietnam service was questioned by honorable men who served with him.  The left wing media concluded these men attacked Kerry unfairly. The public did not.

It is funny how Democrats never look to themselves when they lose an election. Perhaps they had the wrong position on issues?

Instead these left winger blame their loss on the ignorance and stupidity of the public. Some bogeyman fooled the public with an unfair advertisement. We've seen the same left wing angst with the Willie Horton advertisement (an issue first raised by Al Gore) in the Dukakis-Bush campaign and the distortion of the Saxbe Chambliss advertisement used against Max Cleland.

 

 

Totally agree,

Totally agree, Allan.

“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)

McCain and Swift Boating

Allant is quite right in pointing out that the membership of the Swift Baot veterans were, in fact, honorable men who served with Kerry in Vietnam. And it should be noted that the vast majority of those men served in Vietnam three to four times longer than Senator Kerry did. And while "Swift Boating" is often used to suggest a dishonest attack, there can no longer be ANY DOUBT that much of Kerry's Vietnam war "story" was little more than a self-aggrandising fairy tale.

The issue of John McCain is somewhat similar. There is no doubt, whatever, that McCain was a POW. Where the McCain story runs into trouble is when the Senator and his minions try to promote the idea that the Senator from Arizona is some kind of POW "hero." Much of the conventional wisdom surrounding McCain is obviously false, And the fact that McCain allows and encourages these misconceptions only illustrates how dishonest an individual he really is. Perhaps the most despicable aspect of the McCain story relates to his deplorable behavior while serving on the Seante Committee for POW/MIA's. Had John McCain not been the son and grandson of Navy Admirals we would never have heard of him.

@allanf:

You state "Kerry's tales of his Vietnam service was [sic] questioned by honorable men who served with him."

Leaving aside for a moment that Sen. Kerry's military service is well documented, when you said "men who served with him" do you mean (1.) Men who served on his boat, under his command? (2.) Men who served on some other boat, somewhere in Viet Nam? or (3.) Men who served somewhere in Viet Nam some time during the war?

All three of those cases would be "men who served with him."  However, the statements from two out of those three ("honorable" aside and that's open to some question, as well) would obviously have considerably less weight. 

Leaving aside for a moment

Leaving aside for a moment that Sen. Kerry's military service is well documented, when you said "men who served with him" do you mean (1.) Men who served on his boat, under his command? (2.) Men who served on some other boat, somewhere in Viet Nam? or (3.) Men who served somewhere in Viet Nam some time during the war?

You will be happy to note that the Swiftboats for Freedom group consisted of all three groups you list above.

The term "Swiftboated" has been fashioned (unfairly) to refer to supposedly unfair and unfounded attacks.  This is not the case in the Swiftboats for Freedom case. In this case, most simply gave their own opinion of Kerry from his Vietnam service and post Vietnam protesting in which he obviously did condemn his former comrades unfairly for THIER service.

@BD:

I believe the record shows only one man who actually served under Sen. Kerry was part of the group that Swiftboated him.  Many of the others who attacked his record had previously supported him - perhaps not changing their position as often as Sen. McCain has altered his on a wide variety of issues, but enough inconsistencies to make one wonder.

Sen. Kerry has been critisized for his "Winter Soldier" testimony - however, he was very clear that he was quoting what others said.  Some people may not believe there was a massacre at My Lai or there never was a Tiger Force.  I'm not one of them. 

There you go again.

J Frank -- please don't use that silly left-wing term.    The public made a decision on who to believe in this, and Kerry was found lacking.

In evaluating the credibilty of what J Frank relates, readers may want to take a look at the photo of John Kerry and fellow officers he served with in Vietman

I also want to leave you J Frank with this quote from John Kerry on June 6th 1971. It is not hard to see from it why fellow offices would have been outraged.

We established an American presence in most cases by showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our instructions, but they seemed so out of line that we finally began to go ashore, against our orders, and investigate the villages that were supposed to be our targets. We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent people, and morale became so low among the officers on those 'swift boats' that we were called back to Saigon for special instructions from Gen. Abrams. He told us we were doing the right thing. He said our efforts would help win the war in the long run. That's when I realized I could never remain silent about the realities of the war in Vietnam."

Quoting others

BD, I am a two tour combat, Marine veteran of the war in Vietnam. I KNOW full well that My Lai occurred. I am also well aware of the Tiger Force atrocities. What I do NOT subscribe to and what has NEVER been shown, by ANY internationally recognized, independant study to have validity, is the wide spread, conventional wisdom that such incidents were common. The oft stated excuse you put forth, that Kerry was "quoting what others said", is both dishonest and irrelevent. The fact is that Kerry decided, for his own self-serving reasons, to repeat wholly unsubstantiated rumors and myths without making ANY attempt to determine if they has any basis in fact. Kerry's steadfast refusal to acknowledge that his testimony was both inflamatory and inaccurate, is graphic proof of his astounding arrogance and blatant disregard for the feelings of a generation of American servicemen he slandered.

I think your beef is with J

I think your beef is with J Frank Wilson, not with me as I agree with you.

So only those who "Served

So only those who "Served Under" a leader are allowed to criticize him?  In that case, there are only twelve people in the entire world who can criticize his record militarily. 

Personnally, I think anyone who has ever been a mechanized Infantryman, enlisted or officer is allowed to criticise me in my role of a Platoon leader (Equivalent position to what Kerry was doing.)

Therefore, I also believa nyone who ever served on a Swift boat is allowed to criticize his operations aboard.

I also believe all of us who served are equally able to criticize his actions upon returning from Vietnam.

Sen. Kerry has been critisized for his "Winter Soldier" testimony - however, he was very clear that he was quoting what others said.

Regarding the Winter Soldier event, Kerry openly sided with a group that later turned out to be largely "non-veteran' as most never either served in Vietnam, or in many cases never were in the military - all were simply activists who served the cause he believed in. 

So if I were to simply say an inflamatory comment regarding Barack O, and source it to someone else.  And i were to endlessly repeat that comment, I would be equally absolved of all wrong?  Nope.

Some people may not believe there was a massacre at My Lai or there never was a Tiger Force.  I'm not one of them. 

Most of us realize the two cases you refer to were aberrations and not common.  Sort of like Abu Ghraib.  But you will not believe that no matter how long the truth trickles out.

L

.

Served with Kerry

Usually, when someone says they "served" with another person in the military, it is meant to convey that the people in question served within the same unit, during the same time frame. In the case of the SBVFT, it often meant that the men served in the same unit, at the same location, at the same time and within VERY close proximity and on the same operations. It is not usual to say you served "with" someone simply because you may have been in the same country at one time or, that you were in the same branch of the service. As for your suggestion that "honorable" be put aside, I don't think that there has ever been ANY information, from anyone that the members of the SBVFT did not serve honorably.

The suggestion that only the men who served under Kerry or served on his boat have the right or, knowledge to question his accounts of various actions is utterly absurd. It's a bit like saying a platoon member cannot know what a squad within that platoon is doing.

for all to see

Here you have an illuminating example of a communist sympathizer creating propaganda inspired by the precept that the bigger the lie the more likely the proles are to believe it.  Vidal, to further his cause and to draw attention to himself, makes these outlandish remarks because he knows there's a sympathetic propaganda organ like the NYTimes that will propagate and spread the lie.  Vidal should move to Moscow or Paris where his twisted ideas would find a receptive audience.  Even better why don't we send a few Marines over to his house to say hello.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

The good thing about being conservative ... I don't have the need for a shrink.

I've often wondered what it is about liberals that they seem to get kookier as they get on in years? The answer has been there all along; only it gets compounded over time. Conservatism doesn't need to be pitched, it sells itself. Whereas liberalism needs to be packaged and repacked "new & improved" every time they change their mind. "Change" isn't an action, it's a slogan for them and the only consistency they have is their lack of it. 

A story like this leads me

A story like this leads me to believe readers of the NY Times Magazine are stupid, or at least the editors think the readers are of minimal intelligence.

Doesn't this Vidal crap just

Doesn't this Vidal crap just make them all seem so shrill? Gore Vidal is no literary lion...he puts his pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us...His greatness is all in his head.

In light of what happened this weekend, stop and think of comparing Gore Vidal with Tim Russert. You can't even make up similarities.

An unbelievably vile worm

"He’s a graduate of Annapolis. I know a lot of the Annapolis breed. Remember, I’m West Point, where I was born. My father went there."

 "Annapolis Breed"? Nice choice of words, there Gore. The Academy: 163 years of churning out lowlife nair-do wells.

And if you're "West Point", so is every insect that was hatched on the property by your definition.

McCain showbiz news

Those phony films of McCain in a POW camp were shot next door to the soundstage where they faked the moon landings.  <sarcasm off> 

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

(Snicker)

I thought hell is bound to be a livelier place, as he joins forever those whom he served in life, applauding their prejudices and fanning their hatred.

Does anybody see the irony in this statement? 

  MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.

Why bother hiding the lie?

Gore Vidal lied openly, where others hide the lie behind some intellectual camouflage. Both lies assume that the general public won't know that this is a lie; but Vidal's version disdains the public so much that he doesn't bother hiding it. Vidal just says anything, since some percentage of the public will fall for anything. In a tight election, that slight percentage may make the difference.

This is where, normally, Vidal would be held to account for these manipulations by a competent media. The slight gain of fooling a few fools would be lost by the overwhelming backlash against Vidal by the general public. But Vidal knows that the media isn't going to call him on anything. They love him, mostly because he insults them like a bad waiter in a trendy restaurant. Having set Vidal up as a superior, they hope to elevate themselves by toadying up to him. It's pathetic that "journalists" would be so eager to curry favor with this snob that they'd help him belittle five years of tortured imprisonment of a genuine hero.

Vidal knows it, and these clowns willingly cooperate. They can report the lie as news simply because a prominent person said it, and on that basis, they don't have to fact-check the actual statement. They only need to document that he said it. It's a cheap game played by unserious people.

Gore Vidal

60 years of sodomy affects one's ability to reason clearly.

What did Gore Vidal do

What did Gore Vidal do during the Vietnam war?

Bugger all, as far as I know.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

I thought I had read it all

You know...I thought I had read it all. I understand that people don't always agree with McCain on politics...that's fine..neither do I. To attack McCain as Mikeusmc has done and claim that the man is not a hero is despicable. My father, a fellow Marine who served in Vietnam, who does not agree with McCain on many issues, thinks that world of McCain's service and thinks he is a true hero for his service and what he sacrificed for his country. When people like Mikeusmc make those kind of comments it not only shows his and other ignorance it can be used as an example for those who look down on the military as uneducated. If McCain is not a hero for his actions while a POW I would certainly like to know what constitutes a hero to Mikeusmc!!!!

dane -- I think you speak

dane -- I think you speak for many.

Gore Vidal is a snotty nosed little shit. An effete narcissist, and all-round creep.

A pity Buckley didn't smack him right on his hooter back then.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

I thought I had read it all

Daie, I served two combat tours with the 5th Marines in Vietnam. I do NOT consider McCain a "hero" and untill just a few years ago, neither did McCain. Perhaps you should take the time to read a bit. You would find that McCain, himself, acknowledged that he had dishonored himself and his country by making anti-war broadcasts and signing anti-war statements during his captivity. Further investigation might lead you to learn that none of McCain's medals for valor (awarded for his "resistance" during captivity) meet the most basic criteria for such awards, which is to say, TWO EYEWITNESSES. Not only are your comments hysterical, they are symptomatic of a gross ignorance. I DO NOT look down on the military. Quite the opposite. I hold the military in very high regard. What I do NOT take to, is the notion that being a POW is somehow "heroic". Perhaps you would be surprised to know that, until Operation Home Coming, there was no such thing as a POW "hero" in this nation's military history. You obviously are wholly unaware of the wide spread resistance, within the military establishment, to the very concept. In fact, the very creation of a POW medal was viewed with a jaundiced eye by many in the armed forces. It is YOUR lack of education which is showing.

As for what I feel constitutes a "hero", that would be one who stays in the fight. One who CHOOSES to continue to fight. I do NOT consider basic survival, with no other recourse, to be "heroic". And until just recently, neither did our own military establishment.