Perhaps we need to wear a burka veil? It reminds me of a bad wedding day. A Hornet throws a fit. Hornet wishes to sting everybody? Then the others yells :~ Bee! Then Hornet throws the red, white, and blue flag bow-ribbon flower carnation, and the lovely wrist band bouquet, out of the limo window on the way to a honeymoon.

Things are meant for failure?

It sure was a bad ricky start?

What a bad lemon? O Cheers.

C'mon, man, you could have worked "Wet Start" into that post at least 20 more times! Google Bombs away!

Seriously tho, wasn't there a question of the unstable 1000lb. bombs on the 500lb rated mounts, or hangers, or pins or whatever the hell they hang on?

But as the brave sailors of the US Navy know ever since the devastating cruise of the "Wasp" in 1814(?) to the acrobatics of the S-5 in 1915, there is unlimited opportunity for glory at sea in an American warship!

So Clinton stated "explicitly" and "exactly" what she intended to do (i.e. "obliterate" Iran) and you criticized that as a stupid thing to say - and a stupid formulation. So in order to satisfy you Glenn, Clinton and Obama would seem to have to formulate a "semantic expression" of an "obliteration" policy that is "explicit" and "exact" but not said or formulated in a "stupid" way. That's a tall order!

No, you're missing the point completely. Obama could say: "I don't agree with Clinton's 'obliteration' policy. That's not what I would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons."

Or he could say: "I would do the same thing as Sen. Clinton, but would phrase it a little differently."

Instead, he just coyly doesn't address what he would do at all, leaving us -- and the Iranians -- to guess. You seem to think that's a superior approach. I don't.

Obviously, the issue is not just the policy, but also the "semantic expression of the policy" since both could have profound consequences on our international relations. Words matter. Clinton chose "tough talk" over a reasoned response and has furthered our slide into militarism. Such behavior should be highlighted and condemned, not minimized and obfuscated.

Then do you agree with those who, using your exact rationale, criticized Obama -- including Clinton, I believe -- when he said he'd take action against Al Qaeda elements inside Pakistan? That's what his critics said then -- exactly what you're saying now about Clinton: "Oh, you don't go around saying things like that, even if you intend to do it."

Your citing trjones1 of more accurate facts gives one explanation as to why the M$M has not picked up and used that apparently false story about McSame’s role in the carrier tragedy. If the right wing knew about such a story about a Dem candidate, I doubt if the truth would make much difference. When Hillary or Barack talk about McSame's war experience all they say is, he is a war hero. I wished the Repugs would exercise such restraint when they develop their campaign tactics. When the Repugs start dispelling a false story, the M$M use it even when they know it is wrong, because they say their job is to report what the candidates say, not properly inform the American people. They have forgotten that their main job as a member of the fourth estate, is to help all of us separate truth from falsehoods, not just act like a court recorder.

When any ends justifies any means, truth and integrity are the victims. That is where I differ so much with commenters like you HornetDriver, who criticize "liberals" like me because although we might want the same end, my means to reach it are going to consider all sides and consequences, not just that I simply have to win. HornetDriver, when your mission is either kill or be killed, I can see how you need a black and white world. When we talk about how to deal with other nations, our perspective has to be that it is a gray world and our goal is for a win-win outcome, not win-lose. Surely you have studied enough history to see how much death and destruction has resulted from those leaders who believe that to win there has to be a loser.

" I just couldn't remember the darn password I'd given first time I logged in (as two words "Hornet Driver"), so I re-signed up and used HornetDriver (one word)."

Scary. Kind of like imagining Ronnie Reagan, or John McCain for that matter, scratching his head, trying to recall the code for the nuclear football . . .

Much as I dislike John McCain, for what I believe to be compelling reasons, I'm glad you came to his defense here. I've read reports about the Forrestal incident from varied sources, and seen the deck camera footage of the incident many times. Whether the wet-start story is true or not I don't know, but I would bet against it based on what I do know about it.

Most of the detailed technical information I've read was in quasi-official military publications and was aimed at rectifying the fire-suppression and damage control deficiencies aboard large carriers which the Forrestal and Oriskany fires, and prolonged operations in the South China Sea during the Viet Nam War first exposed.

Forty years ago, I'd also talked with a sailor from the Oriskany whom I met in the course of my anti-war activities. He talked about his experiences during the Oriskany's own fire, and complained bitterly that all the measures supposedly developed to counter the vulnerabilities exploited by Kamikazes during the later battles of WWII had proven to be less effective than first thought. He was very eloquent about badly maintained equipment, poor training, and the effect of sustained operations on the mental and physical condition of his crewmates.

What all of this suggests to me is the obvious fact that carriers are dangerous, and that high-explosive weapons are difficult to design so that they're safe for long-term storage, stable during rough handling, and resistant both to temperature extremes and electrical faults of one kind or another.

When I reflect on that information, and compare it to the classic form of modern character assassinations followed by the McCain wet-start story, I have to agree with you that at very least, the burden of proof is on the folks who are circulating this story, and not on McCain himself.