> Marvin asks:
>
>> As an aside, have McCain's claims of being tortured ever fully been
>> investigated?
>
> I think this is an odd question to ask; John McCain's capture and
> imprisonment was a widely reported event at the time, seeing as how his
> father was the commander of all US forces in the Vietnam theatre, which
> made him a prime propaganda target. His story was widely documented and
> told long before he left the service (1981); implying that it might be a
> political move is pretty low.
==========================================
Yes, I need to learn to have more confidence in the integrity of the US
media and it's careful interrogation of information released to it by the
Pentagon.
Actually, my question wasn't a rhetorical one. I know McCain was injured when he was shot down, but where is it independently "documented" that his arm and other injuries were the result of systematic "torture" by the Vietnamese? I could look at Google, but since you've obviously been persuaded by the sources you've already consulted, why not just refer me to them.
Military high commands have been known before to fabricate or embellish the truth about "torture" and "atrocities" in order to rally the home front and enoble their own war aims and actions, and well-connected and ambitious junior officers like McCain, and Kerry befre him, could well have been considering a political career before leaving the service, burnishing their record afterwards. Or maybe not. That's why I asked.
I asked it as an "aside" in a post devoted almost entirely to the US aggression in Vietnam. McCain was an agent of that aggression - a proud and unrepentent one, as we know. Yet you choose to express your dismay about my "odd" and "pretty low" slight to McCain's reputation. Readers can their draw their own conclusions.