Mary Hershberger: Investigating John McCain’s Tragedy at SeaRoundup: Historians' Take
John McCain’s personal account of his life has shaped a powerful political narrative that accords him deference on the full range of policy issues. His first effort at shaping that narrative received a remarkable boost when the May 14, 1973, edition of U.S. News & World Report gave him space for what is perhaps the longest article the magazine had ever run, a 12,000-word piece composed entirely of his unedited and often rambling account of his prisoner-of-war experience. Ever since, McCain has added compelling details at key points in his political career. When his stories are placed beside documented evidence from other sources, significant contradictions often emerge. One such case involves McCain’s experience in the devastating fire and explosions that killed 134 sailors on the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal during the Vietnam War three months before he was shot down over North Vietnam. McCain has made claims about this accident that differ dramatically from parts of the official Navy report and accounts of reliable eyewitnesses.
In considering the 1967 catastrophe, it is important to note that the official report concluded that no individual bore responsibility for the fire or its spread. There are a number of conflicting accounts of the Forrestal accident, but here is the story as based on the strongest sources. The fire started at 10:51 a.m. Saturday, July 29, 1967, as 30-year-old Lt. Cmdr. John McCain sat on the port side of the Forrestal in his A-4 Skyhawk going through preflight checks. To his right was Lt. Cmdr. Fred White, also in an A-4 Skyhawk attack aircraft. A Zuni rocket on another airplane accidentally fired and flew across the flight deck, passing through White’s auxiliary fuel tank and falling into the ocean. Fuel spilled onto the deck from White’s craft and ignited. McCain told his biographer, Robert Timberg, and repeats in his own book, “Faith of My Fathers,” that the rocket hit his own plane and knocked two bombs from it into the burning fuel as he scrambled out of his cockpit and raced to safety across the deck.1
There was, in fact, a single bomb—not two—that dropped to the deck. It exploded 90 seconds after the fire broke out, intensifying the blaze until it raged out of control. White and Thomas Ott, McCain’s parachute rigger, were among the first to be killed instantly or mortally injured, along with most of the firefighting crew. McCain’s plane captain, Robert Zwerlein, was one of those who suffered fatal wounds at this point.
A camera on the deck recorded images showing that the Zuni rocket struck White’s plane. The Navy report later attributed the dropped bomb to White’s plane, although the film footage does not seem to establish this definitively. However, McCain has said many times that the Zuni rocket caused the bomb (two bombs in McCain’s version) to fall from his own craft.
Some of those who were on the Forrestal and other persons familiar with the ordnance told me that because the rocket did not hit McCain’s craft, only actions by the pilot could have caused any bomb to fall from McCain’s Skyhawk. These sources—who spoke under the condition that they not be publicly identified—agree with each other that, if any bomb fell from the McCain airplane, it was because of actions that he took either in error or panic upon seeing the fire on the deck or in his hasty exit from the plane. Two switches in the cockpit of a Skyhawk need to be thrown to drop such a bomb, according to the sources.
Whatever the circumstances of the fire’s origins, McCain did not stay on deck to help fight the blaze as the men around him did. With the firefighting crew virtually wiped out, men untrained in fighting fires had to pick up the fire hoses, rescue the wounded or frantically throw bombs and even planes over the ship’s side to prevent further tragedy. McCain left them behind and went down to the hangar-bay level, where he briefly helped crew members heave some bombs overboard. After that, he went to the pilot’s ready room and watched the fire on a television monitor hooked to a camera trained on the deck.
McCain has never been asked to explain why he claims that the Zuni rocket struck his plane. If a bomb or bombs subsequently fell from McCain’s plane as he has said, it seems to strongly suggests pilot error, and if a bomb or bombs did not fall from his plane, it suggests rash disregard for important facts in his accounts of the accident.
There is plenty more about this story that raises questions about McCain’s truthfulness and judgment. In the first hours after the fire, he apparently did not claim to have been injured. New York Times reporter R.W. Apple, who helicoptered out to the ship the day after the tragedy and sought out McCain as the “son and grandson of two noted admirals,” never mentioned him being wounded, although he reported on him more than on any other crew member. This would be an odd omission on Apple’s part if McCain indeed had been wounded, given that service wounds are usually highlighted in such reports during wartime. McCain’s own father, after seeing his son several weeks later, sent a letter to relatives and friends about the fire saying, “Happily for all of us, he [John] came through without a scratch.”2
A week after the fire, McCain made a statement in which he said that when he was on the hangar deck he noticed that he had a wound on his knee and small shrapnel cuts in his thigh and shoulder. He was not treated in sick bay, however, and he tells a story in “Faith of My Fathers” that seems to be at variance with the facts. He writes that he went to sick bay to have his wounds treated but when he got there, a “kid” who was “anonymous to me because the fire had burned off all of his identifying features” asked him if another pilot in the squadron was OK. When McCain replied that he was, the “kid” said “Thank God” and died before McCain’s eyes. McCain said that experience left him “unable to keep my composure,” and that is why he left sick bay without being treated.
Lt. j.g. Dave Dollarhide witnessed that encounter because he was in sick bay, having broken his hip escaping from his plane, which had been immediately to the left of McCain’s when the blaze started. Dollarhide knew McCain and also the “kid,” a young man whom McCain knew well because he was his own plane captain, Robert Zwerlein, who was terribly burned when the first bomb exploded on the ship. Notwithstanding McCain’s dramatic account of witnessing someone die before his eyes, Zwerlein did not die then but instead was evacuated to the hospital ship USS Repose, where he expired three days later. On the basis of Dollarhide’s account, if McCain left sick bay without being treated it was not because someone died before his eyes.3
McCain’s actions after the fire show a determination to exit the ship as quickly as possible. When New York Times reporter Apple finished gathering his notes on the fire, McCain boarded a helicopter with him and flew to Saigon. Given that fires still burned on the ship and some of his fellow airmen were gravely wounded and dying, McCain’s assertion that he left the carrier for “some welcome R&R” in Saigon has a surreal air. Apple, now dead, said nothing in his news reports about inviting McCain to leave the ship, although he did report talking to him in Saigon later that day. McCain does not mention receiving permission to leave the still-burning ship. Merv Rowland, a commander and chief engineering officer of the Forrestal at the time of the fire, told me that he had not known that McCain left the ship within 30 hours of the fire and that he found this “extraordinary.” Rowland added that only the severely wounded were allowed to leave the ship and that no one, as far as he knew, would have been given permission to fly to Saigon for R&R. McCain’s quick flight off the Forrestal meant that he missed the memorial service for his dead comrades held the following day in the South China Sea.
Not long after McCain left, the Forrestal set off without him on its somber voyage to Subic Bay in the Philippines, where it would undergo initial repairs. He rejoined the ship a week later when it was docked at Subic Bay. There he gave an official statement and asked for a transfer to the aircraft carrier Oriskany.
Apple filed two stories about McCain’s time in Saigon. Apple’s first story said: “Today, hours after the fire that ravaged the flight deck and killed so many of his fellow crewmen, commander McCain sat in Saigon and shook his head. ‘It was such a great ship,’ he said.”4 Apple’s second story was filed three months later, just after McCain was shot down over Hanoi. In that story Apple wrote: “It was almost three months ago that the young, prematurely gray Navy pilot was sitting in a villa in Saigon, sipping a Scotch with friends and recalling the holocaust that he had managed to live through. He was John Sydney [sic—spelling is Sidney] McCain, 3rd, a lieutenant commander. The day before, he had watched from the cockpit of his Skyhawk attack plane as flames suddenly engulfed the flight deck of the Forrestal, on which his squadron was based. ‘It’s a difficult thing to say,’ he remarked after a long time. ‘But now that I’ve seen what the bombs and the napalm did to the people on our ship, I’m not so sure that I want to drop any more of that stuff on North Vietnam.’ ”5
The record suggests that after McCain left the burning Forrestal for the greater ease of Saigon, he saw his Navy career as being in jeopardy. Soon, he went to London, where his father, Adm. John S. McCain Jr., was stationed as commander in chief of the United States Naval Forces in Europe. Sen. McCain has written little about the fire, and his book does not mention any conversations with his father about bombs dropping from his plane on the Forrestal or his leaving the ship. However, it is difficult to imagine that he did not discuss the tragedy and his own personal difficulties because, by McCain’s own account, his father had intervened on his behalf before. After seeing the admiral in London, McCain went to the French Riviera, where he spent his nights gambling at the Palm Beach Casino.6
McCain’s book skips over the weeks after the Forrestal fire, but Timberg says that the young naval officer spent the months of August and September 1967 “unsure of his status.” Following McCain’s application for a transfer to the Oriskany, his orders were delayed, and in September he returned to his home in Jacksonville, Fla. There, an old friend, Chuck Larson, saw a change in McCain: The pilot was discouraged about his future. McCain confided to Larson that he might have to get out of the Navy because, in the words of the Timberg biography, “his past had become a burden” and “whenever he joined a new outfit he was dismayed that his reputation for mayhem had preceded him.”7 Aside from any questions about his Forrestal actions, McCain had, in his short Navy career, crashed two planes and flown a third into power lines in Spain because of, as he put it, “daredevil clowning.”8
The investigation into the Forrestal fire was in the hands of Adm. Thomas Moorer, chief of naval operations and a close friend of McCain’s father. (Their friendship was why Moorer would personally convey the news to Adm. Jack McCain three months later that his son had been shot down in Vietnam.) Moorer gave the investigation to Rear Adm. Forsyth Massey, who handed in his report on Sept. 19, 1967. McCain received orders to report to the Oriskany on Sept. 30.9
During the period when John McCain was shot down over Hanoi on Oct. 26, 1967, less than a month after being assigned to the Oriskany, recent events—the Forrestal fire and his possible role in its growth, misgivings about “dropping more of that stuff” on Vietnam, his decision to leave the stricken ship for some “R&R” in Saigon, anxiety about his naval career—were fresh in his mind. What had been going on in McCain’s life may cast light on some of the decisions he made later as a prisoner of war. While he was a POW, he famously refused to be released early, electing not to leave his comrades behind.
After McCain made his first run for the presidency, in 2000, Gregory Freeman wrote a book on the fire, “Sailors to the End.” Freeman’s 2002 book appears to be mostly reliable, but it ignores key parts of the official report and hews closely to McCain’s claim that the Zuni rocket struck his plane, not Fred White’s, causing the two thousand-pound bombs to drop into the burning fuel.
In addition to following McCain’s misleading narrative of the Zuni rocket accident to the letter, Freeman published an uncredited hand-drawn sketch purporting to show the Forrestal deck just before the fire. In that sketch, the plane in which White died is stripped of White’s name, even though Freeman printed the names of the other pilots near McCain’s plane and told their stories. The only place that White’s name appears is at the back of the book in a list of those who died. In the narrative of “Sailors to the End,” Fred White’s name is conspicuous by its absence.
After erasing White, Freeman’s sketch presents an incorrect line between the original position of the Zuni rocket and McCain’s plane, instead of showing the actual line that the rocket took in striking White’s plane. This sketch alone will cause the unwary reader to believe there is visual evidence to support the claim that the Zuni rocket hit McCain’s plane, not that of White, the pilot lost on the Forrestal and now airbrushed out of history, at least in Freeman’s book.
McCain wrote a glowing blurb for Freeman’s book, drawing and all, calling it a “riveting account.” The presence of his enthusiastic blurb on the book cover raises another issue: Freeman relied heavily on interviews of survivors who were close to the Forrestal events but he never quotes McCain directly or mentions having requested an interview with him. Because his book pushes McCain’s misleading and unsubstantiated account, Freeman should make public whether McCain, or people around him, played a role in the genesis of “Sailors to the End.”
“I’m an old Navy pilot. I know when a crisis calls for all hands on deck,”10 Sen. McCain said recently in explaining why he was temporarily suspending his presidential campaign and calling for postponement of the first debate between himself and Democratic candidate Barack Obama, which eventually occurred as scheduled. At the one time in his life when he was faced with a real crisis on deck, we now know, McCain left the crisis to others and descended to safety below. As to the question of whether the first bomb to explode on the Forrestal dropped from his plane through pilot error, it is not reassuring to hear him describe his attitude as a Navy pilot toward safety procedures. He told reporters during his 2000 presidential campaign that his motto in those days was: “Kick the tires and light the fires [jet engines]. To hell with the checklist. Anybody can be slow.”11
McCain has gone much further than most veterans in using his military experiences for political purposes, but he has not allowed his military records to be released, save for the list of his awards and medals, all of which were given only after he became a prisoner of war. It is appropriate that he release those records before the election. If his actions contributed to the magnitude of the Forrestal disaster and if he left the burning ship under less than honorable circumstances, that information should be available to voters as they choose their next president. At the very least, John McCain should be asked to explain his actions in the summer of 1967 and tell American voters why he has repeatedly given a false account of Robert Zwerlein’s death.
1 John McCain with Mark Salter, “Faith of My Fathers,” 177-181; Robert Timberg, “John McCain: An American Odyssey,” 71-74.
2 R.W. Apple Jr., “Start of Tragedy: Pilot Hears a Blast As He Checks Plane” (New York Times, July 31, 1967) 1; McCain, 181.
3 James Caiella, “Hell 1051,” Foundation Magazine (fall 2003) 52.
4 Apple, ibid.
5 R.W. Apple Jr., “McCain’s Son, Forrestal Survivor, Is Missing in Raid” (New York Times, Oct. 28, 1967) 1.
6 Timberg, 75-76.
8 McCain, 155-156, 159, 172.
9 Ibid., 192, 182.
10“Prepared Remarks by John McCain to the Clinton Global Initiative,” Boston Globe, Sept. 25, 2008, online.
11Roger Simon, “Honest John, on the Loose: With McCain, you get the good, the bad, and the angry,” U.S. News & World Report, posted Sept. 19, 1999.
comments powered by Disqus
J. M. Caiella - 10/25/2008
I find this piece somewhat less than honest.
Ms. Hershberger's discussion with unnamed sources who describe McCain as releasing his bomb/s in a panic reveals an apparentl ignorance of the bomb release sequence for an A4. It is severely more complicated than just throwing a switch of two. It would take time and thought, which was not at a premium at that instant.
Ms. Hershberger was less than forthright in her communications with one of the pilots.
While she does cite my work as published in The Foundation, she does not give me credit for virtually all of her comments regarding Freeman's book. Some of it is virtually verbatim from my critique of the book.
There are two things she doesn't know about Freeman's book.
First, it is definitely not "mostly reliable."
Ignoring the myriad technical and language errors, I interviewed a number of the people Freeman quoted. Most said they had never been contacted by Freeman. Several who had said they were misquoted.
Among those I questioned was Sen. John McCain. He said he was not familiar with Freeman's name or the book. I read McCain quotes from the book attributed to him. He said, "I never said that. I don't know where he got that. I never spoke with him."
Further, I interviewed Freeman not once, but twice. He refused to account for the quotes from McCain or a couple of other Forrestal men he quoted.
Before Freeman slammed the phone down on our second conversation, he did answer my question about why Fred White appeared no where in his book.
"When you write your book, you choose your characters and put whoever you want to in it."
What were McCain's and Freeman's responses when Ms. Hershberger questioned them about the points she makes in her piece?
In doing my research, I had no axe to grind. I was looking to understand what happened on the deck that day. In the absence of any other intensive and especially contemporary investigation, one must rely on the
Massey report as a primary source. The trier of published work so far has ignored that document leading to the plethora of fanciful conspiracy theories bouncing around cyberspace. History should be objective. Save the commentary for Fox and MSNBC.
Robert Lee Gaston - 10/15/2008
Let us not forget George HW Bush who as a varsity college athlete and the youngest combat aviator in Navy history was deemed a “Wimp” by the mavens of N.O.W. as the usual media suspects looked on with glee. These same people later accused him of war crimes for killing Japanese sailors in the last war we fought to win.
Jon Marte - 10/15/2008
In my experience, it is very uncommon for official reports and eye witness reports to agree with each other.
This difference is only made greater by time and memory.
One cannot reasonably expect a man to remember exactly what happened during a violent and traumatic experience 30some years later. He probably couldn't even piece it all together immediately after.
When interviewing my father and grandfather on their experiences in Vietnam and World War Two, respectively, I often could not reconcile the details they gave me with what I could find in what official documents I had access to and what limited details secondary sources gave into the same events.
Andrew D. Todd - 10/15/2008
I don't think Mary Hershberger has any case for John McCain being the cause of the Forrestal Fire.
I know a little bit about bomb and artillery shell fuses. A bomb fuse has a little propeller, or rather, a little turbine. Releasing the bomb from the airplane causes a little cotter pin to be pulled out, so that the propeller can spin around in the airstream. It has to spin a certain number of turns before the fuse becomes armed. The idea is for the bomb to go a safe distance from the airplane before it becomes "hot." Just dropping the bomb a couple of feet onto the deck would not have been enough to arm the fuse. Arming the fuse can take two forms, and I do not know which would have been used in McCain's bomb. In one form, the striker is merely unlocked, and is free to hit the primer. There is a more advanced design, in which the primer is rotated from a special storage pocket into the line of the striker. I believe this system is used in artillery shells, which are subject to greater stresses than bombs. If the primer exploded in its pocket, it might or might not touch off the main charge. It depends on how tightly built the storage pocket is. Primers are generally sensitive to heat as well as to impact.
The main explosive filling of bombs and shells (TNT, Amatol, RDX, etc) will burn if it gets hot, but will probably not explode unless there is a shock wave from detonation (there are no guarantees, of course). I doubt it would have mattered whether the bomb was actually in the fire, or held a couple of feet above the fire. The latter location would have been just about as hot. In a fire, lower is usually cooler. For obvious safety reasons, it is normal to store fuses separately from bombs and shells, but of course that no longer applies once the ordnance is loaded up. The extreme case of precaution which I am aware of is the Hiroshima Atomic bomb. An ordnance officer flew along in the Enola Gay, and only finished assembling the bomb in the bomb bay once they were in the air and at a safe distance from their base.
In the Forrestal fire, the heat of the fire must have caused the bomb primer to "cook off," and it is extremely doubtful whether McCain's actions could have changed that. My understanding is that multiple bombs, nine of them, in fact, "cooked off," along a row of aircraft. This was not a particularly surprising thing to happen. It is a commonplace that fuel and ordnance burn, "interchangeably," as John Keegan puts it. Nothing which happened after the rocket initially fired and struck another airplane was particularly surprising. Something similar happened on the Enterprise a couple of years later, so we are talking about a recurrent accident. The experience of the Second World War was that aircraft carriers were routinely sunk by chain reactions of fire and explosions similar to what happened on the Forrestal and Enterprise. A second point is that the bomb release mechanism would have had its own safety lock. A rather more nuanced view is found in the Stewart thesis, cited below. As Stewart notes, the investigators were lobbying for massive automatic sprinklers, and systems of drains to dump thousands of gallons of spilled fuel overboard withing thirty seconds or so, before a fire could spread.
Stewart, Henry P. LCDR USN (2004). "The Impact of the USS Forrestal's 1967 Fire on United States Navy Shipboard Damage Control" (.pdf). Master's Thesis, Master of Military Art & Science, Military History. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS., http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA429103
George E. Rennar - 10/13/2008
People can start taking the ethics of HNN seriously when they deconstruct -- before the election -- the lies of Obambi regarding Bill Ayers and ACORN.
Craig Michael Loftin - 10/13/2008
Don't forget John Kerry and the "Swiftboat attacks" four years ago.
Donald Wolberg - 10/13/2008
It is interesting that those who dislike heroism, and enjoy what can only be described as political posturing lower the bar of documentation even to the muck of their need to disparage. I am reminded of the urgency with which some ideologues, such as Victor Laski as I recall, attacked John Kennedy and accused him of placing his PT boat and crew in harm's way, and disparaging his undoubted heroism after the boat was sunk. And so it is Mr. McCain's turn to be denigrated. One doubts that Ms Hershberger would not know an A-4 or a Zuni, or for that matter the heroic life, they landed on her ideologue's table. It is sad when those who have no understanding or appreciation of duty or sacrifice, and the terror of war, or the thousand ways mishaps with the very dangerous tools of war can occur, find it politically expedient to raise the false clouds of doubt of others' heroism. Mr. Kennedy sufferred terribly for his his heroism. Mr. McCain once said of himself,"I am as old as dirt and have more scars than Frankenstein." One can only look at the remains of those injuries and wonder at the courage of the man. Fortunately, few will remember the attacks on JFK's heroism, and the same will be true of Ms Hershberger's efforts to diminish Mr. McCain.
Michael Burke - 10/13/2008
Glad to see this incident being looked into again. My dad commanded USS Rupertus, the destroyer that came alongside and helped fight the fire. I've read Freeman's book and agree that it varies from the Navy investigation in places. But who knows where truth lies. I wonder, too, about John McCain's leaving his unit and apparently wandering around for two months (!) in wartime. That seems very odd to me.
- The six-day war: why Israel is still divided over its legacy 50 years on
- "Space archaeology" transforms how ancient sites are discovered
- A military cemetery whose African American history is hidden in plain sight in Philadelphia
- Texas Senate increases education board's textbook veto power
- The Secret Transcripts of the Six-Day War
- AHA joins protest of Trump’s plan for drastic cuts to the NEH
- Mark Moyar explains why he came to believe the Vietnam War was winnable
- How should Texas high schoolers learn history?
- What's the 'greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history’?