Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Robert Greenwald has a video interview with Dr. Philip Butler, a former POW who was imprisoned in the Hanoi Hilton with McCain, in fact he was there 2 1/2 years longer than McCain. He also went to the Naval Academy with McCain. He blasts McCain for exploiting his POW status for political gain and for other things as well:
Having lived across the hall from John McCain at the U.S. Naval Academy prior to combat, Butler was a close witness to McCain's famously volatile temperament. "He was very sensitive and touchy and just easy to anger," says Dr. Butler. "John McCain is not somebody I would like to see with his finger near the red button." Butler continues, "John McCain's temperament makes it clear that he is not cut out to be President of the United States."...Other military veterans agree with Butler's criticism of McCain's exploitation of his P.O.W. story. Writes Brandon Friedman, a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan and author of 'The War I Always Wanted': "To see McCain resort to playing the POW card when answering legitimate questions, in my mind, cheapens that experience. And by cheapening his own experience in war, he degrades all of our experiences in war. He turns the horrific incidents we've all seen, touched, smelled, and felt into a lame excuse to earn political points. And it dishonors us all."
I could not agree more with that. Watching him try to use his POW experience as a "get out of uncomfortable questions free" card, as when he tried to get out of answering questions about his gaffe about how many houses he owns, just made me cringe. If you were one of the 600 men who were POWs along with him, wouldn't you be irritated by that?
Politics
Comments
While I greatly respect Phil Butler's service, he is dead wrong on his policy stance, which is his clear motivation for his position on John McCain. I work with another of John McCain's fellow POWs, who couldn't feel more at odds with Phil Butler. One only has to look at the other former POWs in the audience for McCain's acceptance speech to know that Phil Butler is the odd man out here.
Mr. Butler's motives are clear, and they have nothing to do with his or John McCain's POW experience.
Posted by: johne37179 | September 6, 2008 10:14 AM
johne37179: What policy stance are you referring to?
I didn't notice RNC audience members labelled as ex-POWs, but I was listening more than watching.
Posted by: Bruce | September 6, 2008 11:38 AM
Who in their right mind actually believes that being a POW makes you more fit to be president than anyone else?
I'm sorry, but I fail to see why a guy that finished 5th from the bottom of his class, was clearly granted special favors because of who he is, and was at best a mediocre pilot is a "hero" just because he got shot down and captured.
Of course, his service was honorable (far more so than Bush or the multitude of Neocon draft dodgers), but military service, even in wartime, should not excuse the actions that he has taken since then as a career politician and elitist.
Posted by: slpage | September 6, 2008 12:20 PM
I have no idea what "policy stance" is being referred to, but I really don't care. I don't care how many POWs support McCain vs how many don't, I care about the logic of the arguments they make. And Butler certainly makes sense in what he says here. How about a substantive response?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 6, 2008 12:32 PM
Noun, verb & 'POW' = John McCain. -DJ
Posted by: Dingojack | September 6, 2008 2:36 PM
This obviously begs the question given the 2004 Kerry swift boating. Will Faux News run this continuously like they did the swift boat attacks? Uh, No. Will the "liberal news media" run this continuously? I highly doubt it. Olberman might run it a few times and will most likely occassionally refer to it as one of many talking points.
What is is ironic is that in the swift boat attack, only one of Kerry's soldiers was critical of him and he was a discipline problem, the rest of his accusers didn't even directly serve with him; Kerry's soldiers were extremely complimentary. I predict the same observation made here by johne will be the argument used by Fox on why they refuse to cover it (can you say hypocrisy?).
I would argue this event lends itself well to comparison to how liberals report and digest news versus conservatives. To a liberal, it's an observational point worth brief consideration which somewhat validates a perception; to a conservative - if it hurts you opponent, it's worth pervasive coverage regardless of how representative it is relative to reality and becomes the defining label of the opponent (in Kerry's sake, he was "Unfit for command").
Another enlightening example is Fox running Jeremiah Wright continuously at the top of each prime time hour for several weeks a couple of months back. I highly doubt Palin's crazy church and beliefs will get any coverage at all by any TV media outlet.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 6, 2008 3:04 PM
That's what we should have all been saying since he called his wife a cunt...
Posted by: Aerik | September 6, 2008 3:29 PM
This is the second example I've seen today of someone who actually knows the candidate personally coming out to question their competence for the job. Anyone see the email that Snopes confirmed as being from a resident of Palin's village?
And yet I HAVEN'T seen anything like that from Obama's old friends. Did I simply miss it?
Posted by: BobApril | September 6, 2008 4:13 PM
Michael Heath:
You and I have disagreed before and, undoubtedly, will in future. However, in this thread I'm pretty much in agreement. I didn't like McCain the very first time I saw him on television, shortly after his release from Hanoi. I thought, at the time, that he would use the experience, cynicially. McCain is not a war hero, I don't feel as if his service was anymore honorable than that of any soldier who put his life on the line. If he was the exceptional individual that his campaign would have us believe he should have retired an Admiral. I think he was sent to D.C. towards the end of his career in the Navy as a sop, or as a way to get him out the way.
I know nothing about the Dr. that is featured in the video. I will assume he's telling the truth until I learn otherwise. He seems to be proud of his service and his brother's-in-arms. His manner seems to be matter of fact.
Posted by: democommie | September 6, 2008 6:11 PM
Well, it's the same reason that Jessica Lynch is considered a hero. But our standards of heroism have been rather lax of late.
Posted by: Turcano | September 6, 2008 7:26 PM
The stories about Jessica Lynch shooting until her ammo ran out were put out as lies, which she confirmed. She was put forth as a hero by the people who wanted to continue the war and needed the country behind it. 1984 anyone?
Posted by: iRobot | September 6, 2008 11:39 PM
John McCain was a POW and you weren't. How's that for "substantive" Mr. Elitist writer-person?
Posted by: Shygetz | September 7, 2008 1:29 AM
Anecdotal evidence of someone who "lived across the hall" is not evidence.
Posted by: Legal Eagle | September 7, 2008 2:23 AM
Evidence of what? It's common knowledge that McCain has a volatile temper -- I seem to recall McCain himself acknowledging this trait. What in Butler's statement, beyond that claim, requires evidence?
Posted by: Davis | September 7, 2008 4:27 AM
Legal Eagle:
"Anecdotal evidence of someone who "lived across the hall" is not evidence."
I dint go to no lawyerin' skul, but I don't think there's no such thing as "anecdotal" evidence, is there
McCain's temprament IS well known and IS a legitimate cauase for concern. He has over the course of his career made a habit of belittling, disparaging and threatening those with whom he disagrees. That's not a man I want in charge of anything.
Posted by: democommie | September 7, 2008 6:28 AM
"Anecdotal evidence of someone who "lived across the hall" is not evidence."
Perhaps not. What then IS evidence? The post-facto hyperbole of the man in question and/or hius sycophants?
Posted by: slpage | September 7, 2008 10:36 AM
Anecdotal evidence of "making nuclear weapons" is not evidence.
There...fixed it for you.
I know, low blow and not addressing your point, but I couldn't resist.
Posted by: JYB | September 7, 2008 10:56 AM
Phiilip Butler had an excellent article at Military.com which made the points, and others, much more powerfully. It is at
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859,00.html
(and if your browser has a problem with the specific article -- as mine did -- go to Military.com and do a search for Phillip Butler.)
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | September 8, 2008 6:54 PM
Philip Butler is a former chairman of the board of Veterans for Peace, an organization that has called for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, opposes the Iraq war, supports Cindy Sheehan, etc.. They demostrated against the Republican National Convention.
Here's their website.
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/
In other words, it's a highly partisan organization and frankly rather nutty organization. I suspect Dr. Butler's politics have somewhat colored his memory and judgement.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | September 9, 2008 7:05 PM
Gerard-
You didn't really say anything in your comment other than "he's a liberal." You didn't address anything substantive that he said. Can you really deny that McCain is using his POW status as a cheap way to get out of uncomfortable questions? Just look at how he answered the questions about him not knowing how many houses he owned, he answered it by saying that while he was a POW he didn't have a dinner table.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 9, 2008 8:32 PM
Let's not forget that when Hannity started crucifying Edward's sexual indiscretions, Colmes asked him whether he really wanted to go there given that McCain's behavior was way worse and he was actually nominated by his party. Hannity's excuse was that McCain was POW, so he had an excuse for dumping his first wife for the trophy sugar gal.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 9, 2008 10:23 PM
He's hardly just a liberal, Ed; the Congressional Dems., except for a few moonbats, want no part of impeaching Bush. He's lunatic fringe. Therefore, his opinion, whether or not he was a Vietnam POW, is pretty dereft of value.
By the way, he co-authored a letter in 2005 congratulating McCain on his stand against torture of detainees. You didn't mention that either.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | September 10, 2008 12:33 AM
He's hardly just a liberal, Ed; the Congressional Dems., except for a few moonbats, want no part of impeaching Bush. He's lunatic fringe. Therefore, his opinion, whether or not he was a Vietnam POW, is pretty bereft of value.
By the way, he co-authored a letter in 2005 congratulating McCain on his stand against torture of detainees. You didn't mention that either.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | September 10, 2008 12:34 AM
Gerard Harbison wrote:
Again, what does this have to do with anything substantive he said? And by the way, I think Bush should have been impeached long ago. Does that put me on the lunatic fringe? I think it puts me on the side of reason and good sense. Democrats, like Republicans, make decisions based on political expediency rather than principle. If they thought it was good for them politically, they would have tried to impeach Bush. I, on the other hand, think that Bush has clearly violated his oath to preserve and defend the Constitution and should have been impeached years ago and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with electoral politics.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 10, 2008 12:42 AM
And by the way, I think Bush should have been impeached long ago. Does that put me on the lunatic fringe?
Pretty much. But I'd be more inclined to say it confirms your status out there.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | September 10, 2008 12:45 AM
Once again you have opted for a label rather than a substantive argument. Applying the label "lunatic fringe" doesn't even engage my argument, much less defeat it. Are you seriously going to deny that Bush has pursued one unconstitutional policy after another during his time in office? Even conservative stalwarts like Bruce Fein and David Keene have recognized that. Warrantless wiretaps, signing statements claiming the authority not to execute laws he has signed, trying to suspend habeas corpus in individual cases to give him the authority to hold American citizens as long as he wants with no charges ever filed or even access to an attorney - seriously, what is to defend here?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 10, 2008 11:05 AM