I was thinking about how before a person is dead, it's more okay to tell the truth about the person. Right after the person dies, only those who will laud the person are typically given much of a platform to speak about the person even if the dead one was a poisonous viper. Only after the person has been dead for quite awhile is it then okay to begin to speak more of the unvarnished truth about that dead one. Naturally, it depends upon the angle of the corporate media. The enemies of the neocons are castigated immediately after death no matter the real truth.
Well, I don't like that. It should never be wrong to speak the truth when that truth-telling helps to turn people away from the evil lifestyle of the dead one. Telling that truth is by no means hypocritical if one has admitted one's own failings and has repented of them. Telling that truth is by no means evil if one always remembers and admits how difficult it is in this world to be good.
I don’t want to dwell on John McCain, too many people already do today, but I would suggest that your thoughts and prayers are with the souls of the hundreds of thousands of children that died because McCain advocated bombing them. Or, indeed, 50-odd years ago, were bombed by him personally. I wanted to leave him be altogether, don’t kick a man when he’s down, but I can’t get the image out of my head of him singing “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”.
Can you be a worse human being than John McCain was? It’s not easy. But some people are still trying. ...
Caring only about your own children while throwing the rest away with the bathwater is neither feasible nor viable. You’re bringing up children destined to fight and hate each other. For no reason that I can see at all. Do you enjoy the world of John McCain, where children were bombed for 50 years in two dozen or so countries? Or do you think that’s not such a good idea?
McCain could succeed only because his country, and the world around him, failed. Don’t set up your children, and all children, to fail in the same way he did.
Then there's this: "The Other Side of John McCain," which really does cover a great deal about McCain's public career post Vietnam.
There's plenty more to know about John McCain. I studied his personal life too to try to size him up. Suffice it to say, he was no paragon of virtue concerning his first wife or concerning where he obtained the money to run for Congress as a carpetbagger in Arizona.
It's interesting that the two linked articles didn't mention how he fought Vietnam vets concerning American MIA's and POW's those vets strongly believed were still being held.
Also, US laws about what POW's could legally say while being held were changed while John was being held because John cracked under torture and said what his captors wanted him to. I'm not saying I disagree with the change, but it matters that it was because the grandson and son of US Admirals had to crack before it was okay to do so. Thousands of US POW's before him endured everything dished out against them but didn't crack.
Considering John McCain's other positions, I wonder what his view about torture would have been had he not been captured and tortured himself. I have a strong feeling that he would have been fine with it when done by the US. That sort of thing typically goes with so-called conservative territory. They don't give a damn about something until it happens to them.