John McCain rarely speaks about his experiences as a POW in Vietnam, but one of his cell mates at the Hanoi Hilton on Thursday described some of the conditions and character traits that earned McCain the commendations he received for his war service.

Col. George “Bud” Day, 83, is the most decorated service man since Gen. Douglas MacArthur, with more than 70 medals. A living legend, Day was blown out of the sky two months to the day before the North Vietnamese shot down a propaganda prize, whose father and grandfather were renowned American admirals.

Watch John McCain on “The O’Reilly Factor” on FOX News Channel tonight at 8 p.m. ET.

“They told me we were gonna get a roommate and it was gonna be the prince. The Vietnamese called him the prince so I asked my nurse what was his name? They said John McCain,” Day told FOX News.

Both he and McCain were taken captive in 1967, and held until their release in 1973.

Day said the first time he saw McCain, he believed the future senator was close to death and that the only reason for the chance encounter was part of a Vietnamese ploy to break the morale of U.S. servicemen already in captivity.

“I took one look at him, and my brain instantly said, ‘They dropped this guy off on me to claim that we let him die,’” Day said. “He was just emaciated. Very, very skinny, in this full body cast. Just filthy.”

The U.S. soldiers were held sometimes five to a cell, barely big enough for two.

“He had this gimpy knee where he’d busted his knee, this arm had been fractured in a couple places, he’d been bayoneted in the leg, this arm was out at the shoulder and, in fact, during that time it was out at the shoulder so long it wore a hole in this bone,” Day said.

During captivity, they were tortured mercilessly, Day said, describing one tactic that McCain has also recalled.

“They roped me under the arms, tied my hands behind my back, ran another rope to that, got me up on a chair, threw that rope up over a rafter and jerked the chair out from under me and your own weight just tears your body apart,” he said.

Day’s broken arm was re-broken during torture so he would never fly again. McCain played physical therapist.

“John said, ‘Well we’ll gather up some bamboo, and he was in a bandage on his leg at that time. So I got some strips of bamboo, smuggled them into the room, John put his foot in my arm pit and pulled on my wrist ’till we could get the bone forced back down … it wasn’t exactly perfect but it worked out he got it back to where it was functional,” Day said.

But nerve damage was extensive — his crushed hands were useless. Meanwhile, McCain was treated no better than the trash they were fed in the form of a soup.

“I mean you could smell him for 25 feet. Bunch of food and nasty stuff in his hair, and down his neck and inside his cast. The cast was not lined so every time he would move inside this cast, it was just eating a hole in his arm or his elbow or someplace, and he was just in — he was in pain,” Day recalled.

Yet McCain, now 71, made efforts to help Day recover from his own injuries, Day said.

Day said he had limited use of his arms, which was a result of a combination of torture and the initial plane crash that put him in the hands of his captors — an ordeal that earned Day the Congressional Medal of Honor.

“And when I finally did regain use of that, it was after months and months of dragging this hand and finger on the wall of the prison cell,” Day said, walking his fingers up the air like he did many years ago.

“John would help me. … John would pull my fingers out straight. They would just instantly recurl. And finally, one morning, I had just the slightest bit of movement in this hand — finger — and we both cried,” Day said.

McCain, whose military record was released to the Associated Press on Wednesday, received 17 commendations over his career from 1951-81. They included the Silver Star for his conduct in captivity. He also received the Legion of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross and a Bronze Star.

Day said by any humane standard, McCain would have been a good candidate for early release from the camp, but that wasn’t in his playbook.

“It also wasn’t in his playbook to die. In fact he quickly became a leader.”

Day said he asked McCain if he would be one of his preachers.

“He said sure. He had a great handle on the Episcopalian liturgy, he could just repeat it verbatim,” he said.

But repeating what he went through during his incarceration is something McCain almost never does as a presidential candidate. Day said he thinks he should.

“I’ve never seen any shortcomings or any shortfall out of him talking about that, but he just doesn’t trade on that. I think he feels that it’s wrong to trade on being a hero, but he is,” Day said

I think John McCain should be given the same amount of years as president, to prove himself loyal to the American public, as he proved himself loyal to the American public during his military prison term. What other candidate has the ability to prove themself interested in more than themselves.

Yes I have to admitt I have been impressed with McCain's soul. No one is perfect but he seems like he has real courage.

I like McCain but I am concerned he will not be able to motivate the conservative base to get out and vote. I like Obama too so I am definitely in the undecided column. It is nice to have two good candidates to choose from instead of trying to choose the better of two bad candidates.

>>It is nice to have two good candidates to choose from instead of trying to choose the better of two bad candidates.<<

ORLY?

“In 2002, President Bush signed into law a bill titled the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act” (BAIPA). This law was necessary because, believe it or not, infants were being born alive during attempted abortions and then, ancient Spartan style, left to die. Jill Stanek wrote about this last year, saying:

“As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.”

The act was so vile that even staunch abortion advocates would not oppose BAIPA. Stanek tells us that it passed the Senate by unanimous vote, garnering the support of senators Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton. She then pointed out:

“The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme.”

But the state version of BAIPA failed for years in Illinois. Any guesses as to why? Stanek goes on to explain:

I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.

Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.

If asked about this, I’m sure Obama would be a very effective interviewee; he is good with words. (Of course, one is better with words when they’re managed by a sympathetic media.) Yet, when you look beyond the rhetoric, a picture of Obama starts to emerge.” [ed] –Selwyn Duke (newwithviews.com)

Hmm - why do we have to deify 'our' guy and demonise the 'other' guy? McCain is an angel and Obama is a babykiller? Gimme a break. They're both men - good but flawed.

Obama is pro-choice and will fight any attempts to restrict abortion. So was Bill Clinton. However in Obama we see a consistency. He has always been pro-choice. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, has flip-flopped on the issue. So while we may disagree with Obama's position, at least we see a sign of character in his consistency.

During a presidential campaign, a discussion about abortion and judicial politics is healthy. I am not sure this is the best thread or forum to get into that. One might start a thread in the World Affairs or Politics forum.

I watched the first half of the McCain interview last night. It was worth while. O'Reilly is a good commentator that is fair and open about his own bias. I also watched his interview with Hillary and thought that was good. I hope to see Obama go on O'Reilly's show too.

Yes I am with you Shane. I actually like both Obama and McCain for different reasons but I think they both have good qualities.

Ok, you guys make a nice case for McCain...but you are overlooking that SINCE his imprisonment as a combatant, he has since ran for political office....and there are some improprieties that soil is reputation....for example-

The Keating Five were five United States Senators, who were accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators, Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.

After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings, while John Glenn and John McCain had been only minimally involved. The Committee recommended censure for Cranston and criticized the other four for "questionable conduct."

All five of the senators involved served out their terms, but only Glenn and McCain ran for re-election (and were subsequently re-elected).

This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

You guys want to place the man on a pedistal and ignore that he a man changes as he matures.....

Do I see a hint of bipartisanship in that story? Was McCain really the only Republican in the Keating Five? Wow! This is a guy that really does know how to reach across the aisle.

Look at it this way.

McCain will keep taxes the same or cut them. No more money out of your pocket that already is taken out.

Obama has sworn to raise taxes so that means more money in the governments pockets and less in our pockets.

A Vote for Obama is a vote for higher taxes.
A vote for McCain is a vote for no new taxes or less taxes.

...and if you were a one-issue voter that would be enough information. McCain has been extremely hawkish on Iran and almost everything else, Obama hasn't. So you could equally say 'A vote for McCain is a vote for more disastrous, expensive (in treasure and blood) foreign wars and balloning national deficits, and a vote for Obama isn't'. And so on...

What is the tax rate in Australia? All I can tel you is that most of us don't care for the American tax rate. But you make a good point.

The inoome tax here varies according to income, I think the highest rate is about 45% which is promised to be reduced.

Tax rates 2007-08
Taxable income
Tax on this income

$1 – $6,000
Nil

$6,001 – $30,000
15c for each $1 over $6,000

$30,001 – $75,000
$3,600 plus 30c for each $1 over $30,000

$75,001 – $150,000
$17,100 plus 40c for each $1 over $75,000

$150,001 and over
$47,100 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000


It gets quite complicated, there is a 10% GST on most things, and that is not the whole story.

>>Hmm - why do we have to deify 'our' guy and demonise the 'other' guy? McCain is an angel and Obama is a babykiller? Gimme a break. They're both men - good but flawed.<<

“ ‘our’/’other’ “ guy? No, no, Bravus.

In the general, I urge a write-in for jasd

You’d be surprised to find what others of McCain’s fellow POWs have to say... and as for ‘bama; well,

ummm, “infanticide”. Infanticide is still infanticide, yes? and its definition is still very narrow, yes? Kill baby...

Matt 19:17 ...[there is] none good but one, [that is], God:

You’ll note in the above that I take exception: there is “flawed” and there is “flawed” – and ne’er its excuse is met – one wishes.

It is beyond the pale to excuse such deviancy with a political expediency, “Gimme a break.” :-o

Per "one-issue voters:

I could live with the one issue of real qualification - as opposed to qualification-by-text.

>>Obama is pro-choice and will fight any attempts to restrict abortion.<<

Are you aware of procedures used to abort a child? Um, um, um..., infanticide?

>>So was Bill Clinton.<<

Bubba was pro- a whole bunch of unsavouriness. That would not, imho, justify such as the position ‘bama takes on infanticide – by whatever euphemism employed.

>>However in Obama we see a consistency.<<

Uhh, Stalin was “consistent”. It’s said that ‘bout 50,000,000 of his own could testify to that.

>>He has always been pro-choice. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, has flip-flopped on the issue.<<

At least, one might argue that Bubba was right, mebbe, half the time; whereas, ‘bama can be said to be wrong – what? 100% of the time?

>>So while we may disagree with Obama's position, at least we see a sign of character in his consistency.<<

Shane, please review what you’ve had to say ‘bout ‘bama’s character vis-à-vis his weaseling positions concerning the logorrhea of his ... mentor.

Sheesh! don’t mind me, I’m quite the cynic where a media-defined or articulateness is purported. Like we really need a POTUS who speaks numinally, “Change is good!” “Hope is good!” “Come together!” “Past is now and the future is present!” “Disburse what’s left of American assets to the world!” – well, forget the mirrors, one begins to see the smoke, yes?

>>During a presidential campaign, a discussion about abortion and judicial politics is healthy. I am not sure this is the best thread or forum to get into that. One might start a thread in the World Affairs or Politics forum.<<

Yes, you may have a point there, however, you’ll notice that your comments provided segue for mine – though, indeed, it may be that these issues might be better relegated to a censored thread.

>>I hope to see Obama go on O'Reilly's show too.<<

Indeed, providing he can gin-up a bit of substance beforehand.



>>This is a guy (McCain) that really does know how to reach across the aisle.<< [ed.jasd]

Boy-o-howdy, does he ever! even so much, as is said, to have sent out feelers exploring a change in party twice and threatened to become an Independent on another occasion. McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, and McCain-Feingold –are several incidents that come to mind of –

reeaaachhhhing...................

Good, bad, or numbingly wrong-headed?

If you're interested in consistency, you should read the May 9 interview of Arianna Huffington on how no one seems to have noticed McCain's about-faces on various issues since the year 2000. (read it at www.democracynow.org) Maybe you like the new McCain, or maybe you don't, but one thing is sure -- he is not the same McCain as he was a few years ago. I used to like and respect him, but I now find little to like or respect.

It seems in Australia you are at least able to see a clear plan, although as a retired person in America, I have nothing to complain about, thanks to some very providential answers to prayer.

"But God said to him, You fool! This very night they [the messengers of God] will demand your soul of you; and all the things that you have prepared, whose will they be?
So it is with the one who continues to lay up and hoard possessions for himself and is not rich [in his relation] to God [this is how he fares].
And [Jesus] said to His disciples, Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious and troubled [with cares] about your life, as to what you will [have to] eat; or about your body, as to what you will [have to] wear.
For life is more than food, and the body [more] than clothes"
Luke 12:20-24 AMP
Regards!

I've always wondered why when one gets further evidence, it is uncool to shift position. One politician, by those terms, who couldn't be persuaded he needed to change position was "Der Furher".(SP) As I recall that inability cost 50,000,000 lives. Thank God for those politicians who are humble enough to admit a reason is good enough to move toward change.
I'll take experience any day, over articulate maneuvering to explain away their flaws.
Just one man's vote.
Regards!

The National Enquirer (a gossip tabloid) has more credibility. Let's at least try to use sources that have a shadow of credibility.

It isn't bad to shift positions if a person can give a reasonable explanation why they held their previous position and why they changed the position. Most of the time with politicians the reason they have changed positions is simply because it was politically expedient for them to do so. That is, they had something to gain politically by changing their position. If some new evidence comes to light which causes the person to change their position, I don't think that is held against them.

Of course, you can have whatever opinion you want, but saying that a gossip tabloid has more credibility than historical facts seems a little odd to me. I don't really care who wrote or reported the information - facts are facts.

Facts are only facts when they can be substantiated. Arianna Huffington is not a reliable source of such facts. She is now saying that McCain told her that he did not vote for Bush in the 2000 election. Well, he campaigned for Bush so if he didn't vote from him it would be highly unusual and nonsensical. Why would a person go out and try to persuade other people to vote for someone and then not vote for them themselves? That would make absolutely no sense.

Arianna Huffington is in the same boat with Rush Limbaugh, David Brock, Sean Hannity, Micheal Moore and other extremists. They make some good points on occasion and give us things to think about but unless their "reports" are substantiated by credible news sources, we are foolish to trust in them to be credible themselves.

I agree that the Bush vote issue is "he said / she said." Supposedly there were others at the table who heard the conversation, but no one has stepped forward to substantiate it. Other issues such as immigration, tax cuts, and torture (of all things!) are easier to substantiate. At any rate, it appears he has become a lot more political in order to win the Presidency.

You've probably heard this before but to make a point, "Your friends require no explanation, and your enemies don't believe them anyway" If politicians spent their time giving explanations for each decision they made on which there was disagreement, they would have little time to get to the reasons they hold for why they believe they would be the best to hold office for which they're running.
Politicians have the thankless task of proving their innocence of all they are deemed guilty. We will have more honest politicians when the populace in general meet this counsel.

"Love....is ever ready to believe the best of every person..." 1 Cor 13:7 AMP

And if we are unwilling to give them the benefit of a doubt when they are in the most unenviable of positions, why should we expect any different from them when they get into office?

"....whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Gal 6:7 AMP
Regards!

McCain is a politician - no doubt. He gives and takes and knows how to compromise in order to accomplish something.

This is a political train of thought. It is better to compromise and accomplish something than stand firm and accomplish nothing.

The other train of thought is that it is better to do nothing than compromise and do something which doesn't serve the original goal.

I'm curious whom you would consider to be credible news sources.

I tend to be pretty skeptical of the mainstream U.S. media, and I try to listen to the BBC as often as I can, just to get a different perspective. I like independent news, also, and wish there were more sources for it.

I don't trust any one source of news. In my home I watch CNN, FOXNews and Al Jazeera English because that is what I get from satellite. On the internet I surf various news sources. Most of the time we can trust a story when it is reported by more than one news source. Often too, news outlets practice selective reporting - they only report part of the story. Thus when we get our news from more than one source, we tend to get more of the "facts".