war.mon.ger n. (1590) one who urges or attempts to stir up warNow I have no particular use for John's politics, but then I have no use for the politics of the administration he intends to perpetuate, but calling names is considered childish. There is, however, a difference between accurately naming something and just being rude. John McSame was one of the most vocal boosters of going to war with Iraq and he is today one of the most enthusiastic supporters of that war. He also is one of the most vehement advocates of making military threats against Iran. Now if Iraq qualifies as a war, then being Mr Booster for for its prosecution and continuation directly qualifies as urging war.
So let's be exactly accurate in our language, Iraq was invaded by the USA under false assertions, those assertions were debunked and the reasons for continued warfare were modified - repeatedly. John McSame claims the Democratic nomination candidates are guilty of failure of leadership for suggesting we leave Iraq. John McSame repeated the false assertions of BushCo, enthusiastically stoking the war fever.
Speaking in absolutely accurate language, John McCain is a warmonger. Nobody need apologize or retract or modify or denounce or in any manner deny accurate usage of the English language. That is absolutely nonsensical, I don't care what John McCain did in Vietnam, he is a warmonger, by definition. If you want to call him a hawk, that's fine, it means the same thing, you just think it's politer. It isn't, politics is a strange business, lying is called spinning or mis-speaking, all that amounts to is remaking the language, not changing facts. The English language doesn't need the politico's help, it is one of the most expressive and accurate languages in the world. Warmonger means what it means and the fact that Webster neglected to put picture of John with the definition doesn't mean you can't put the word under his picture with no fear of being inaccurate.