I’m quite liberal, and as against this war in Iraq as much as the next left-winger… but when I see that Jane Fonda is going to go around in a van powered by vegetable oil protesting I sort of throw up in my mouth a little.
Some of these celebrities need to shut up.
Rove arranges for a Fonda supporter to “inadvertently” get a copy of a confidential memo (the same way we did the Rather thing) detailing his concern that Jane’s activism will destroy the Bush administration.
“Can you prove that it didn’t happen?”
Dugger, “We are all interested in the future, for that is where you
and I are going to spend the rest of our lives.”
Sounds like you have a bit of the battered woman syndrome, OW. That is, your first inclination is to wonder what the Repugs will think– not what is right.
Do you seriously believe Repugs will receive any criticism of Dear Leader and his Excellent Iraqi Adventure kindly, regardless of where it comes from? Remember these are the same folks who branded someone with a Silver and Bronze Star and 3 PHs a coward, a liar, and a traitor.
There are thousands of anti-war protestors and activists who have much more to contribute to this national dialog than a celebrity like Fonda.
Let them contribute. From what I understand, military vets and families of vets will be participating with Fonda.
While there are many activists and protestors who’ve done fine work, you and I both know celebrity gets media coverage.
The point is well taken. Left or right wing, celebrities need to shut up and stop acting like their celebrity status is somehow an entitlement to be taken seriously and that we should all bow down before their almighty wisdom. While I recognize that celebrity status can be a positive force to raise awareness of certain issues or raise money, too often the various celebrities overdo it. I’m sure many don’t want to hear this but there were polls showing that the in-your-face, shove-it-down-your-throat celebrity activism for Kerry was a factor (I’m not saying it was a big factor) in turning off some people who otherwise might have voted for him. I for one am a big Springsteen fan, but wish he would just shut up and sing. Anyone who needs Bruce Springsteen to tell them who to vote for, probably shouldn’t be going to the polls.
Besides, if there is anyone who should not be protesting anything, it is Fonda. You can talk about Rove and treason all you want, but to me, that picture of her on top of the North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun, laughing it up with the enemy, well if that isn’t giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy, I don’t know what is.
And in a vegetable oil bus? She’s getting every bit as strange as her ex-Ted Turner in her old age. I would love to see veterans protest her bus everywhere it goes. Now that would be worth watching.
Well, now I know what Hannity will talk about for a week.
Conservative logic.
Jane Fonda is against the war therefore the war must be fought.
I don’t care what the Republicans think. There are thousands of anti-war protestors and activists who have much more to contribute to this national dialog than a celebrity like Fonda.
1. Nice implied dig at alternative fuels there, Oliver. Ever stop to think that the alternative fuel vehicle is a smart strategic move as well as an interesting experiment. No doubt wingnuts such as dugger will have their hypocrisy detectors on high for whatever event Fonda shows up to and I’m sure they’d be salivating to hear her decry a war for oil while driving around the country in a diesel or unleaded burning bus.
2. Thousands of anti-war protestors still couldn’t get the publicity one celebrity such as Fonda could. She’s lightning rod of the highest order, afterall, she’s been bashed by everyone from Jean-Luc Godard to Rush Limbaugh. Way to pile on.
She deserves every bit of bashing that she gets.
frameone’s bigoted attempt at redneck humor aside, frameone misses the point. Yes she has a right to protest, as does any celebrity. And yes, her status as a traitor to this country (in the eyes of many) will draw loads of attention to her cause — i.e., anti-Iraq War. The attention will not be positive, however, as I am sure that there are loads of veterans and non-veterans for whom she is the last person on earth that they want to see protesting another war.
I’m sure that there are plenty of celebrities who are more current and every bit as popular, if not more so, than Hanoi Jane, who could be protesting effectively without the negativity that her Anti-War II Tour, sponsored by Mazola will bring.
All the publicity Fonda will get for this will be negative. She will drown out many who are much more capable.
Why, Hedley?
One may have disapproved of her tactics but she was right about the war.
“Jane Fonda is against the war therefore the war must be fought.”
No doubt Hannity will be all over Fonda’s announcement to make this exact point whether explicitly or implicitly. I’m sure Heddy Lamaar, er, Hedley Lamaar would agree: If Fonda’s a ‘gin it, I’m all the more fer it.
But does that mean Fonda can actually hurt the anti-war movement as Oliver seems to think? Others have said this before and better but the anti-war movement has been all but non-existent as a mainstream presence since the election and yet support for the war has dropped dramatically. Why? Because nothing makes the case against the war better than the war itself and the almost daily headlines of massive bombings and the almost daily, droinginly repetative responses of the administration that everything’s a-okay.
I’m sure the right would love nothing more than to shift people’s attention from the realities of the war to the spectacle of Fonda but we’ll see. She’s no doubt learned a few lessons about these things over the years and she could contribute a lot if she handles herself well. Certainly she has the right to try.
They weren t whooping it up with the enemy, however, causing direct harm to our troops while sitting on top of an anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down our planes.
It seems to me our troops would rather have Fonda or some other actress sitting atop an AA gun than someone who was actually trained to use it. I’m sorry I can’t buy this “causing direct harm to our troops” nonsense. Seems to me the Pentagon, using outdated tactics, in support of a corrupt regime caused way more “direct harm” to our troops.
Frameone’s right; Audie Murphy could rise from the grave and speak out against AWOL George’s Excellent Iraqi Adventure and the rightwing Wurlitzer would accuse him of having engaged in threesomes with Hitler and Eva Braun.
OW is wrong as he can be on this one; the Repugs want to create an element of fear of speaking out.
And I’m sure no one needs to point out that every celebrity who has ever spoken out publicly against this war and this administration — from the Dixie Chicks to Sean Penn — has been mercilessly trashed by right wing reactionaries who just can’t whip that “librul elite” horse enough. Fonda’s already been through it all. What more can the right do to her? Zero. She may be the perfect spokesperson.
Yes, call me out on my “redneck humor” but then completely miss my Blazing Saddles reference. I’m dissapointed.
Lots of people were right about the war. They weren’t whooping it up with the enemy, however, causing direct harm to our troops while sitting on top of an anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down our planes.
It’s not about being right or wrong, for or against, the war or any war. Anyone has a right to protest. She crossed the line with her recklessness.
And to be clear, I am talking about what she did in North Vietnam, not at home. Protest all you want at home, and while I believe there are limits during war time (which we surely won’t agree upon) when you are on enemy soil, it is a different situation entirely — regardless of whether the war was right or wrong.
So then use Fonda as your anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War, anti-U.S. troop poster child since you think she is an American hero. I hope that during her Crisco tour she gets to pose with Hillary, Kerry, Gore, et al. You guys never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
So then use Lyndie England as your pro-AWOL George, pro-Iraq War, pro-US pinup queen, Hedley.
Better still, why not use all those pro-war Repugs who refuse to serve in this war they demand others fight?
I can see the recruitment posters now: “Lyndie England Wants You”
and of course Jadegold makes a great point.
For the Right it’s better to bleat loudly in support of a war that you refuse to actually fight in than it is to protest against a war to minimize the number of Americans who will die for nothing more than a President’s vanity.
Damn Hedley. At least you can give Fonda credit for the consistency of her convictions. She was opposed to the war in Vietnam and she put her career and reputation on the line to draw attention to what she believed. In her naivete she got played by the North Vietnamese and I beleive she’s paid a price for that accepted responsibility for it.
Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Gingrich et. al. never risked a damn thing in their support for the war. If Fonda was stupid, these guys are hypocrites of the worst order.
Do you consider these guys traitors? http://www.vvaw.org/
Hedley’s a troll, but while the Dixie Chicks and other celebs (Michael Moore, Martin Sheen, etc.) brought something useful to the table for demonstrating/protesting/speaking out about the war, Fonda does none of that.
Absolutely amazing that it is acceptable to “out” covert CIA agents for political gain….
Absolutely amazing that it is acceptable to pretend Iraq was 6 months away from a nuclear weapon or had UAVs capable of attacking the US….
Absolutely amazing that sitting on top of an enemy’s anti-aircraft gun is perfectly acceptable to the rabid Bush-hating crowd. And you wonder why you lose elections.
It isn’t like the Dixies, Moore, Sheen, etc. made a damn bit of difference in terms of swaying popular opinion about the war. Indeed, when they were the most active and out there, support for Bush and the war were at their highest. As I mentioned above, it’s been argued better elsewhere that maybe the best strategy for the Left should be to just, as you put it, “shut up” and let the carnage of the war and the administration’s increasingly moon-eyed responses speak for itself. Obviously, to the extent that Fonda gives the wingnuts a target to attack she could distract attention from the war itself and hurt the cause she wants to support. We’ll see. But she no doubt knows better than anyone what she’s walking into. I would argue that the already much scoffed at “vegetable oil bus” is a sign that she’s being smart about her approach: not giving the right any ammunition she doesn’t have to.
frameone, I didn’t say that the “left” should shut up. I specifically said this is not a left-right issue, that there are better choices, I am sure than Hanoi Jane. Now that I see, however, how little disdain there is on the left for her North Vietnamese behavior, maybe I was wrong and this clearly is a left-right issue.
Jadegold, I don’t need a pinup. I am not the one supporting a traitor in her efforts to redeem herself. Don’t worry your Barbarella poster is still safe.
What about these other washed up celebrities preaching the Democratic agenda and message? What makes Fonda less capiable than the rest?
It’s weird. The more Republicans can talk about Vietnam they win. The more they talk about Iraq they loose. Fascinating that. Hey Dugger maybe Rove is paying for her tour.
frameone, I do not consider the vvaw to be traitors. I think some of their activity has been inappropriate, but not traitorous. Fonda is different, because her actions occurred on enemy soil and were far more eggregious then anything that happened at home.
To think that this is about Viet Nam is smoke and mirrors. It isn’t. The point is that Fonda’s actions are so intertwined with Viet Nam that any possible positive message she could promote would be overwhelmingly drowned out by by chorus against her past actions.
Simply callling her stupid and naive is in and of itself naive. She knew what she was doing and has only apologized when in her own self-interests required it (i.e., movie promotion).
Damn it. On second thought, I think Oliver is right. Suddenly this post became about Vietnam. It’s like the election all over again: A war rages in Iraq and the country is talking about Vietnam because of the Swill Boar losers. I don;t think Fonda shoudl “shut up” but if she goes through with this she better be smart about how she goes about it.
She is truly a hero:
“The most prominent example of a clash between private citizen protest and governmental military policy in recent history occurred in July 1972, when actress Jane Fonda arrived in Hanoi, North Vietnam, and began a two-week tour of the country conducted by uniformed military hosts. Aside from visiting villages, hospitals, schools, and factories, Fonda also posed for pictures in which she was shown applauding North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners, was photographed peering into the sights of an NVA anti-aircraft artillery launcher, and made ten propagandistic Tokyo Rose-like radio broadcasts in which she denounced American political and military leaders as “war criminals.” She also spoke with eight American POWs at a carefully arranged “press conference,” POWs who had been tortured by their North Vietnamese captors to force them to meet with Fonda, deny they had been tortured, and decry the American war effort. Fonda apparently didn’t notice (or care) that the POWs were delivering their lines under duress or find it unusual the she was not allowed to visit the prisoner-of-war camp (commonly known as the “Hanoi Hilton”) itself. She merely went home and told the world that “[the POWs] assured me they were in good health. When I asked them if they were brainwashed, they all laughed. Without exception, they expressed shame at what they had done.” She did, however, charge that North Vietnamese POWs were systematically tortured in American prison-of-war camps.
To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should “not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars.” Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was “laughable,” claiming: “These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed.” The POWs who said they had been tortured were “exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest,” she asserted. She told audiences that “Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They’re military careerists and professional killers” who are “trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law.”
Fonda is the shiny metal that distracts Republicans from the issues at hand. They don’t need any assistance with that.
“she denounced American political and military leaders as war criminals. ‘
Which I might add, they were.
I apologize in advance, but OW, your attitudes are the reason why we lose elections. I was around when Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam &, at least for me, she was a brave example of what public figures could be. Your shortsightedness, plus your support for the racist-named Redskins, actually show that you are more like sugar for stupid, & of course, the kind of “liberal” the ReThugs really like to “dialog” with. Sorry, but true.
I’m convinced now more than ever that the Right would rather re-fight the home front struggle over Vietnam again and again than face the facts of their current debacle.
You see, I’m the kind of Democrat who stands up for what I believe in, and I think Jane Fonda praising the North Vietnamese while we were fighting them in a bad war was a horrible thing and anyone who defends that is off their rocker. Hell, even Fonda admits she shouldn’t have done it.
Again, frameone you miss the point. While her bus tour should be about Iraq, it won’t be. Whether you think she is a hero or a traitor, the baggage she carries (which is naive to believe is a left-right, Democrat-Republican issue) will far outweigh any “sincere” message she may be trying to make.
If she wants to protest, she can knock herself out. It’s fanciful to think that anyone with her self-inflicted baggage can suddenly be forgiven for past actions and embraced as some wise anti-war hero. Someone without her history would make for a more effective message.
The last time I checked, we still lived in a free country (Patriot Act 3 hasn’t passed yet, has it?) so why should anyone who wants to speak their mind be forced to shut up? If someone feels passionately about a subject, then more power to them.
Quite frankly, I admire her for have the courage to stand up for what she believes in after being viciously smeared by the chicken hawk cowards of the GOP – besides, she’s being accompanied by several Iraq war veterans and their families, so if the Republicans want to protest her they’d just be protesting the right of soldiers to speak out (not that it’s stopped them before).
Oh darn, that’s right – I forgot – we should all just shut up, pin a yellow ribbon to our cars, and blindly support our country when we’re at war because that’s what any red-blooded, patriotic Amerikan would do. I’d much rather stand up for what I believe in rather then worry about what the Republicans would think or worry about how it will affect the polls.
“Someone without her history would make for a more effective message.”
I believe acknowledged that as soon you dusted off and dragged out “Hanoi Jane.” It’s a shame because as I also said, she certainly knows how to get a country’s attention.
Since were talking that was then, this is now.
Abu Ghraib is now. Gitmo is now. Our government is torturing prisoners and holding people around the world indefinitely without charge or any semblance of due process. To get us into Iraq, this administration lied about Hussein seeking uranium, listened only to the intelligence it wanted to hear, distorted and ignored the rest. They outed a CIA agent to destroy a critic of their deceit. They lied to get us into this war and they’re lying to keep it going, withholding information about Iraqi troop readiness while banding around numbers that reports from people on the ground suggest are widly inflated. They can’t account for billions of dollars in reconstruction aid while Baghdad has power for only a half dozen hours a day. I mean only people as incompetent as the Bush administration could create gas lines in the Middle East. In two years we have yet secure the road from Baghdad to the airport. Two years.
Let’s put it all in perspective Hedley. Cuz you’re right, this is not about Vietnam, it is about Iraq. The war criminals are back Hedley and nothing Fonda did almost forty years ago can even compare to what Bush and company are doing right now.
Naw, PSU, we’re just baiting Hedley so that he can start insulting us and calling us names. That what usually happens when conservatives lose the argument. Now shuffle off to Drum’s site and cut/paste your talking points there.
“Jadegold, I don t need a pinup. I am not the one supporting a traitor in her efforts to redeem herself. ”
Ironic coming from someone who makes up every excuse in the book for Rove outing a CIA agent, and someone who will apologize for the Bush administration no matter what they do. Unbelievable.
The real difference, of course, is that while Rove actually has power, Fonda does not and never had any power. I think that makes Karl more dangerous, don’t you?
Hedley,
I give you major credit for trying to debate these mental-midgets, but facts hurt their little heads.
You should just go over to Drum’s site. At least there are a few liberals with functioning brains mixed in with the Kool-Aid drinkers over there.
I completely agree with Oliver. That was my first reaction when I heard a news snippet this morning. Fonda’s anti-war protests in the 60s became a debacle. That’s all anyone will remember. I’d much rather it was someone other than her.
I’m sorry but my mind will forever counterpose the image of the POWs returning home to the US, those skinny-shaky skeletons, guys like Ed Mechenbier in Dayton, with that of the smirking million dollar actress Jane Fonda perched atop a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun – possibly the weapon that brought many of the POWs down. I can think of nothing that would mobilize political opposition to the left any more than Jane Fonda coming out again. If you think the swift boat vets were a big deal, make Hanoi Jane part of your program.
Dugger, Grrrr
PSU, it’s entertainment. Usually the ones who name-call and sling insults the most are the first ones to call others out. Tell them it’s day time and they’ll tell you it’s night time. It’s their training. Life is so much easier to comprehend when you can make sweeping generalizations over and over and over. They are so consumed with their hatred for Bush and so used to being the opposition party that they would support Hanoi Jane and her Mazola tour simply because they know plenty of convservatives won’t.
They will justify her treason by touting Rove and shrilling “Your traitor is worse than my traitor.” Well, so we are clear, if the facts are such that Rove committed a crime, he should pay the price for his actions. The jury is still out as to what if anything he did. Not so with Hanoi Jane.
There are some things that are wrong simply because they are wrong, not because they are a left or right issue. That is a lesson that many are unable to learn.
Ok, now flame on.
I see we are breaking out “chickenhawk” this week. Too funny. Nevertheless, if you think it is in your interest to have Fonda as opposed to some other credible activist) touring the country, essentially on your behalf, go for it. It will make 2008 that much easier for the Republicans.
When rightwing chickenhawks like Dugger, PSU, Hedley, et al. are telling us it is against Dem interests to have Jane Fonda speak out against the war–I really question whose interests they’re really protecting.
Personally, I’m not protecting anyone’s interests. I am agreeing with Oliver. She will take heat, and it will be deserved and correct regardless of who it comes from. Her actions are a matter of historical record. The publicity she is going to bring to the anti-war cause will not be good. The “talking points” will write themselves (thats for you neoconsrloopy).
nawoods, your post hit it on the head. I’m sure they will check out that site and then try to rip it, but it makes for an incredible read as to the things she did.
Jadegold, neoconsrloopy, et al. Go read this:
http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp
Olliver is right, and you should be listening to him. Fonda is a despicable person. You may agree with her about the war. And yes, she does have a right to say whatever she wants. No one here disagrees with that. But the heat she is going to take will be well deserved and correct, even though its going to come from some people who you obviously hate. Because you hate them, or they are republicans does not make them wrong. Read a little history with an open mind. What Fonda did in 1972 was wrong, regardless of whether the war was “bad” or “good”.
Having a hard time finding out where I advocated for Jane Fonda, can someone point it out? Nawoods, please build your strawman somewhere else.
I see the apologists are out in full force, as I predicted, the right wing polemicists and their parrots on this board are getting all huffed up in a “patriotic” haze about Jane Fonda.
Meanwhile, in Iraq, today, July 26, soldiers and Iraqis are dying for no good reason other than to make Bush a “war president”. Let’s talk about that rather than an aging actress who made some mistakes in another war.
“Fonda does not and never had any power.”
Did you read the snopes article? “Power” can be excersised in many different ways. Her actions had quite a bit of influence within the mass media, and she handed the North Veitnamese gold-plated propaganda. She had the power to cause the suffering and quite possibly the death of American POWS. Your argument is absurd, and your allusion to Karl Rove is a classic non-sequiter and ad hominem rolled into one.
JadeGold,
I’m not telling you cr*p. I think it is to your liking and in MY interest to have Fonda play a prominent roll in left wing/Democratic politics. I encourage you to encourage her. Make her your centerpiece. Reviving over-the-top activist memories of Vietnam worked so well for Kerry. I expect it would look just great to the American public to see candidate (say) Edwards raising his and Hanoi Janes arms together at the convention. Maybe the candidate could pose with her on anti-aircraft gun. Traitor nostalgia? I always wondered if Jane could ever hear the POWs being tortured while she was over there helping our nation’s enemies. I guess her Communist handlers probably kept her away, but if she wanted to sit on that gun that killed our soldiers, would it be so surprising that she might want to also listen to them being tortured or maybe even witness it. You know her better than me, Jade, whattaya think?
Dugger
I built no strawmen, and I question whether you really know what one is. I refuted a statement you made that was false, and I pointed out your attempt to change the subject one, and throw in a “you guys do it too” argument. You said she excercised no power. I say read that article, and listen to the stories of the men affected by her visit to Hanoi and think again. Her actions had grave consequences for the POW’s. Her celebrity, which gave her a voice through the American mass media, was used to spread lies. Her message caused American POW’s to suffer and possibly die. She was used as a “useful fool” by her handlers in the North. No power, huh?
I never said you were advocating for her. If anything, I am advocating for YOU. You obviously are against the war. And if you want that message to be spread, and you want to change people’s minds to feel as you do, Oliver is spot on. This is not the person you want.
I’m with OW on this.
Jane Fonda has been a lightning rod for criticism of the anti-war left for 30 years. She’s given the right an easy target and a caricature of the loony, left-coast, Hollywood liberal.
She’s a divisive figure in so many ways. To the far right, she’s a symbol of anti-Americanism. To some on the left, she’s a dilettante who has “found” her calling again now that she’s peddling a book.
Opposition to the war is welcome from any quarter. However, I think we’d be better served if Ms. Fonda kept a lower profile.
Again, we have the usual cast of chickenhawks who will attack anyone criticzing AWOL George’s Excellent Iraqi Adventure.
These are the same pieces of garbage who would attack military service simply because a candidate is a Dem.
Fear of criticism from Repugs is what Repugs want; they want you to be afraid of speaking out and dong the right thing.
“Her message caused American POW s to suffer and possibly die.”
Hey, Nawood, how far down did you read in the Snopes article? Much of it is spent debunking the kind of bs rumors you’ve been alluding to in comments like the one above. Personally, I don’t think anyone should be told to “shut up” for speaking their mind just because they don’t meet someone’s criteria for “good spokesperson.” Fonda has every right to protest the war in Iraq and she may well do some good.
What I find so fascinating is how quickly the Right springs into action whenever it gets the chance to re-fight the culture wars of 1960s/70s. Does Fonda have a point about Iraq? Who cares she visited North Vietnam.
And as to Dugger: I wonder if you would care to spend some time contemplating the sights and sounds of Abu Ghraib where men, women and children have been beaten, raped and murdered in your name.
I wonder why it hasn’t occurred to Fonda that she is enabling Fox and Limbaugh to focus on her personally, instead of trying to defend Bush’s faltering administration. Already more than half the country agrees that Iraq is a colossal blunder. What does she add to that?
She would do better driving around in a bus that reads ‘It’s the Rovegate, stupid. And the corruption too.’
By the way, your strawman was implying that people here support her, and then going on to attack what she did. Noone here supports her. We do support her right to speak out.
I somehow doubt that anyone was tortured because of Jane Fonda, we have very vague references here, no proof. If a soldier’s morale was damaged by what Jane Fonda thinks of them, they weren’t worthy of fighting for this country anyway.
What I meant, nawoods, is that she had no power to send them there in the first place, and she had no power to send them home. They wouldn’t be in harms way, no matter what Jane Fonda or Sean Penn does, if a corrupt leader like LBJ or Nixon, or Bush, sent them there in the first place. THEY have the power that I am speaking of. THEY have blood on their hands. Jane Fonda may have had some power to affect the well-being of troops. But she didn’t send them there, and she didn’t have the power to send them home, where they really could be safe. Please pardon me for not making this point clear.
I think I’ll follow my own advice and not discuss Jane Fonda. Jane Fonda, Terri Schiavo, Lacey Peterson, Natalee Holloway, are all smokescreens to keep the heat away from the real questions, which are What can America do to keep us safe, and how do we stop this war, which is stealing life daily, for no constructive reason.
Whatever Jane Fonda does or doesn’t do isn’t going to change any of that.
Let’s do a simple decision tree on this issue.
1. Is the war in Iraq a bad idea, incompetently executed?
2. Do all or just some American citizens have the right or duty to protest bad policy?
3. What does Vietnam have to do with Iraq?
Now, try a simple thought experiment; suppose Jane Fonda decided to come out in favor of the war in Iraq and organized a bus tour to show support for Dear Leader. Do you thnk our chickenhawk buddies would hesitate to laud Fonda for ’seeing the light?’
I’ll bite.
1. No and poorly executed.
2. All Americans have the right, not the duty, to protest any policy, good or bad.
3. Nothing, unless it involves Jane Fonda whose baggage over Vietnam far outweighs anything she could possibly bring to the table on Iraq, even if she were for the war.
Frame,
Here’s my take. I don’t support any real torture that happened at Abu to legit POWs. I support the services prosecuting as appropriate those who violated regs and/or broke the law. And that, in fact, Frame, is what has happened. Prosecutions/punishments for bad behaviour. Within our own house, soldiers who did the wrong thing were prosecuted.
Now shift to Vietnam. Soldiers are fighting there as part of our democratic society. Whether the war is right or wrong, they honor their duty. They are captured as POWs. Many were mistreated, tortured. Now, while they were being tortured, across the ocean comes millionaire pampered actress Jane Fonda, escorted by communist thugs, to provide a huge morale boost to those torturing our soldiers. She even mounts an aircraft gun , a weapon used against our soldiers. She goes home a hero and makes more millions, getting plum acting assignments and doing a workout tape – to help lose weight (POWs didn’t need that, did they). Later, those forgotten skeletons limp home with ruined health and no movie star contracts, while your poster girl stays in Hollywood, remaining oh so pouplar and fashionable – her conscience apparently not troubled at all.
Dugger, H*ll Yeah, I’m Bitter Aginst that B*tch
.
jadegold
“Now, try a simple thought experiment; suppose Jane Fonda decided to come out in favor of the war in Iraq and organized a bus tour to show support for Dear Leader. Do you thnk our chickenhawk buddies would hesitate to laud Fonda for seeing the light? ”
Actually, I got to thinking about that- there is a prominent anti-Vietnam activist that, by their own admission, committed treason by publishing classified information, even know he knew it to be truthful.
He is now the leader of the anti-academic freedom movement, none other than David Horowitz. Noone on the right has hesitated embracing him for a minute, in fact the think tanks give him a very lavish lifestyle.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=David_Horowitz_(ex-Marxist)
Dugger,
Let’s not shift to Vietnam because there are still so many unanswered questions left by the tragedy of Abu Ghraib. Does it not bother you that the same kinds of “interogration” tactics that were exposed at Abu Ghraib also occurred at Gitmo and in prisons in Afghanistan? Does not it not bother you the Bush administration recently threatened to veto a defense bill if it included “moves to regulate the Pentagon’s treatment of detainees or sets up a commission to investigate operations at Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere.” The White House responded to the bill by saying it would reject anything that “interferes with the protection of Americans from terrorism by diverting resources from the war.”
How in the hell would regulating the treatment of prisoners and conducting an investigation into Gitmo in anyway restrict the President’s ability to protect Americans? Doesn’t this bother you?
It’s absolutely classic that the Right would love to shift the debate to rehashing disproven bullshit stories about how Fonda got American POWs tortured and murdered while our own government, right now, is refusing moves that would protect prisoners in its own custody.
I say Fonda’s involvement in the anti-war movement may be a good thing precisely for the way her presence will throw in stark relief the Right’s unwillingnes to face reality in the present.
frame, (sigh)
“Let s not shift to Vietnam” – The thread is about Jane Fonda – you know “Hanoi” Jane. Hanoi is in Vietnam. And, no, I’m not aware that what happened at Abu happened at Gitmo. Abu was much worse than Gitmo. Nothing all that bad has been revealed about Gitmo – at all. And no I’m not worried about Bush, our democratically elected president (twice). He’s busy fighting the war on terror as best he can while the left is fighting him – and not the war on terror.
And if the left doesn’t want Hanoi Jane in the debate – we’ll be able to tell by her reception on the road. I sense a split in the left on her – certainly here. With the more rigidly doctrinaire types like JadeGold seemingly all for her and the more practical types like O, recognizing she might be poison. I think she fits right in with the Deaniacs but not the DLCers.
Dugger
THE POWER OF SCAPEGOATS IS STILL AMAZINGLY POTENT
Am I the only one who finds a discussion of the atrocity of Vietnam just a little incomplete without a discussion of its architects and prime movers?
Really now; Jane Fonda didn’t send those pilots to carpet-bomb the ’strategic targets’ and population centers of North Vietnam. Jane Fonda didn’t order the secret bombing of Cambodia, which devastated the fragile Cambodian gov’t, assisting the rise of Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge. “Hanoi Jane” wasn’t responsible for backing despicably corrupt puppet regimes in South Vietnam. Most importantly, Jane Fonda wasn’t responsible for sending millions of U.S. soldiers into a bloody quagmire that had no good purpose (stick your “dominoes” back up your ignorant arse, if you were thinking of handing them to me). Whatever patriotic style points Fonda may have transgressed, I think it is very telling that people can so easily demonize her without seeing fit to spare so much as a “harumph” for the likes of JFK, LBJ, McNamara, Westmoreland, Nixon, and that smirking demon Kissinger.
I reckon I shouldn’t be surprised, then, that we can be mired in a bloody war for domination in Iraq, and people can still find the time to throw more mud at Ms. Fonda for daring to suggest that the we might have let ourselves get snookered into yet another stupid war. Anyone care to toss a little barb at Rumsfeld and Co. for their lousy post-invasion planning at least? Not a sniff at Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Co. for their bald-faced lies? Anyone? Different war, same dim-witted electorate.
And the whole biodiesel van thing: will you honestly poking fun at someone who would publicly demonstrate a practical way that we might begin to wean ourselves off the substance that we are killing and dying for at this moment? If this is what passes for critical thinking in the World’s Freest Nation ™, then we truly are doomed.
Dugger (gag)
This thread is about Jane Fonda speaking out agains the war in Iraq. Almost immediately is became a discussion about freaking Vietnam because some people just can’t get over it and move on. Seemingly every week I hear and read somewhere about a Republican arguing that it no longer matter why or how we got involved in Iraq. Questions about WMD and fixed intelligence are moot now that were in. Let’s just forget about it and move on. Low and behold someone mentions Jane Fonda and the Right is ready to drag us all back 30 years to once more rehash the same tire crap. Give it up and move on. We’ve got new atrocities to deal with that are going on today. Right now.
I’m also glad to hear you’ve taken your daily Kool Aid so you don’t have to think about the fact that our country has tortured and killed prisoners in its custody. Let me ask you a question. Who said the following and where did the events described occur:
“On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold….On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.”
Jane Fonda is a traitor pure and simple. My Father is a vet of the Vieatnam war. He didn’t necessarlily agree with that war, however he did not agree with Jane Fonda either. His feelings were that he signed up to do a job and he was going to do it to the best of his abilities. He was there during the TET officensive and thank God he came home alive.
What she did caused thousand of deaths of not only the people of Vietnam as well as American Soliders and blamed it on Richard Nixon. But lets look at this logically, it was JFK and LBJ that got us in to this whole mess and because of political pressure we cut and ran. Thousands of people died because of that.
So I stand by my initial impression that she is a traitor to our country and she is going to insult another generation of Veterans!
Get me a tissue. So playing rap music too loud for a bunch of terrorists who want to kill us is, to the leftwingnuts, a worse transgression then traveling to enemy soil and laughing it up with those who would seek to kill us? That was priceless.
Frameone,
Who cares! These people are out to kill us pure and simple. If this is the worst that we are doing? They have been treated to well. They are the enemy.
Guaranteed that if they were caught in their own countries they would have been tortured more severly and or else where they would be killed. Make no mistake we have world war III on our hands.
And yes there has been WMD found in Iraq just look at any of the reports coming out of Iraq. Not only that there is a connection between Al Queqda and Iraq based on the 911 reports.
Are you Crazy?
Great guys, just great. You spend the whole thread calling Jane Fonda a traitor and yet you’re willing to sell the soul of this country and every ideal it was founded on down the drain because of your stark raving fear of being killed by a terrorist. Fan-fucking-tastic.
Clearly gfchicago needs to come up out of the bunker. WMD in Iraq?
First, gfchicago, are you really that dense or are you just being provocative? WMDs? Christ, even Bush finally stopped whipping that dead pony. Iraq and Al Qaeda had no connection. The 9/11 report barely touched on it but even it concluded there wasn’t any link. Hussein was a rabid secularist and al Queda reviled him for it.
Jane Fonda caused thousands of deaths? You really think the Vietcong were waiting for the okay from Jane Fonda to start offing enemy soldiers? You think Jane Fonda undermined the Paris Peace Accords and illegally bombed Cambodia and Laos, effectively doubling the length of the war? For all you Vietnam “experts,” the war effectively began covertly in the 1950’s when the CIA sabotaged legitimate elections out of fear that the new government would be communist and aligned with Russia. So once again we have the U.S. undermining democratic elections to save democracy, just as we did in Chile, Iran, Venezuela, Haiti, and so on.
Fun Vietnam facts:
* Approximately 20 million gallons of chemical toxins were used. If you want to see the continuing after effects of this spraying, just Google “birth defects +Vietnam +agent orange.” My advice, don’t eat first.
* 35 million landmines left over from the war along with 300,000 tons of unexploded ordnance. An estimated 40,000 people have been killed since 1975 by these “leftovers.” Put another way, that means that
every day 4 or 5 Vietnamese are killed by a war that ended 30 years ago. Soon, more Vietnamese will have died after the war than U.S. soldiers died during it.
*As many as 5 million people from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were killed.
*About 59,000 americans were killed with some 2,000
missing. That means that 85 Vietnamese died for every 1 american soldier. Fortunately they were all enemies whose every waking moment was consumed by the desire to kill us.
I am simply stunned that no one has pointed out to me before that this is all the sinister work of 1 actress.
A career in the military is a responsibility to defend the country and uphold the Constitution, not to mindlessly shoot anyone you are told to. It’s not simply “a job.”
Hedley, produce the convincing evidence that the detainees in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are all terrorists and “want to kill us.” Feel free to put aside Red Cross estimates that more than 90% are innocent. I think everyone knows that the Red Cross is clearly a commie outfit and can’t be trusted. “Better dead then Red (Cross)” I always say.
Yeah, the torture was the work of a small group of rotten apples. That’s why the Pentagon won’t release all the new photos and videos of prisoner abuse. That certainly explains Gonzales’ description of the Geneva Conventions as “quaint” and that Bush could effectively avoid them by arguing that since the detainees didn’t wear the uniform of a recognized foreign army, they could be effectively tortured without any legal ramifications. Hey, at least we aren’t abusing extraordinary rendition to send people to Syria or Uzbekistan where they seal you in a box no bigger than a coffin or boil prisoners alive… when they aren’t slaughtering hundreds of peacful protestors, of course. Good thing we would never stoop to that.
As for the rap music, if no one thought it was effective, why would they use it? So much for all that research on the effects of sensory over stimulation and its effects on the mind. What are you saying, that the interrogators are too stupid to effectively torture their prisoners. Oh Hedley, why do you hate our troops?
The ultimate irony in all this is that before the election, wingnuts were arguing that Bush’s record in the guard didn’t matter because Vietnam ended 30 years ago. Then they went on to argue that he served honorably by doing a fraction of his enlisted time in the champagne unit of the National Guard. Finally, they capped the whole thing off by arguing that Kerry may have, you know, seen actual combat, but he didn’t really do anything and he really shot himself. So Vietnam isn’t important…except when it is.
As for Fonda, frankly I just don’t get what she thinks she is going to accomplish by leveraging her virtually intangible celebrity to campaign against an administration that seems to be doing a bang up job of shooting itself in the foot lately. You know all the media attention will only focus on the “Hanoi Jane” history(as it is here). No attention at all will go to the cause. As for the vegetable oil powered bus, I get the idea that it is symbolic of the need to ween the country off oil, but it screams “hippie” to so many that I doubt it will have any effect other than to fuel (that’s pun-tastic) yet more of the “look, it’s more of the same old hippie Hanoi Jane” crap.
frameone, funny you should mention that because they were talking about that on the radio today.
Warner Wolf, one of the hosts, said that ANY means of torture is acceptable for terrorists. He justifies this by saying that that info obtained by torture could save thousands or millions of lives. He said it’s also ok to torture or kill family members of “terror suspects” if it has potential to get info.
What gets me about the wingnuts is what you said, that they are willing to sell out the country to save their hides. On the theoretical premise that info obtained from torture would save lives, I am more than willing to die to protect the ideals of America.
When you advocate torture, detention without a trial, and other abuse you are making the US no more free than who we are fighting.
Our country was founded on being better than the enemy, to respect a basic level of human rights, regardless how despicable the human. Our founders believed that if one persons human rights are disrespected, everybody’s rights are disrespected.
And the right would give that all away because they fear brown people.
neo nails it. When you can argue that torture saves lives or that these terrorists “deserve” to be tortured because they are monsters you have thrown rationality to the wind and are operating one hundred percent on fear and fear alone. You believe in nothing, you stand for nothing because you’re afraid.
“And yes there has been WMD found in Iraq just look at any of the reports coming out of Iraq. Not only that there is a connection between Al Queqda and Iraq based on the 911 reports.
Are you Crazy? ”
Wow. Just wow. This is what happens when all you listen to and watch are hard right wing news sources. Patti Hearst wasn’t so brainwashed as this person.
Frame,
You made no point except that detainees at Gitmo were treated roughly. Yes. I agree. Would do it myself. Except they might not gain weight under the cruel regime of El Commandante Dugger. And lets see, Hanoi Jane, the North Vietnamese communists favorite millionaire actress, is universally recognized for her outrageous, traitorous conduct opposing the US in the Vietnam war and now she’s is opposing the US in another war and you think there should be no discussion of her track record, no reflection on her credibility.
And within certain bounds, h*ll yeah. I would torture known terrorists to gain vital information that would save the lives of my countrymen. And before you get all morally outraged, keep in mind the corporate left’s hands here are much dirtier, overall, than the corporate right’s.
Dugger
Well, Dugger, good thing you’re not in the military anymore, because the enemy will use the same arguments that you are making to justify torturing Americans and American serviceman.
To many Iraqis, we are terrorists. We’ve killed more of them than they’ve killed of us, by many multiples. And if they capture one of ours, they will simply look at our standards and do whatever it takes to “save the lives of my countrymen”.
This country decided to not torture as a policy because it is a moral nation, and also because it protects our soldiers. The next time a contractor or serviceman gets bbqued at the hands of “insurgents”, save your faux outrage.
Neo,
Nope. Read my posts. Known terrorists. Not uniformed soldiers. Not civilians or contractors – terrosists -illegal combatants. Geneva recognizes the distinction – so do I. I then may assume that say you have terrorist Boris Badenough in front of you. His group has murdered many innocent women and children and, heck, men too. We know he has bought tons of new explosives and has active cells in this country. He has pledged to to make war on and kill all unbelievers of Badenoughism. So I would torture his butt to save lives, with certain limitations as I said. You would not. Thats OK. I might be wrong, might not, but if my job is to protect this country and prevent the slaughter of innocents, I would do it.
As regards the enemy using this as justification for murder. Was that why 9/11 happened? Danny Pearl? Mr Klinghoffer?
Dugger the Terrible
See, you have a problem with the “known terrorists” thing. These “known terrorists” who have been beaten in Iraq and Gitmo often times are rubes who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. So, we torture someone who is a so-called “known terrorist” and oops, sorry, you were just a falaffel salesman, too bad, so sad, you’re released.
This is happening EVERY DAY in our camps. If these people are “known terrorists” as you call them, then either one of two things are true:
1. The Pentagon is releasing “known terrorists” onto the street OR
2. The Pentagon is releasing innocent civilians once suspected of crimes.
Something tells me that just maybe someone innocent was tortured.
This reminds me of the argument some make that says that “I am for the death penalty if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person is a murderer.
Problem is, Death Row inmates are released frequently as new info comes to light. We’ve executed a few who were eventually exonerated posthumously.
So therein lies the problem with your theory, to torture anybody is to take a serious risk that you are torturing an innocent- America’s pre-Bush policy is not to take that risk. Because, remember, the next innocent to be tortured could be you.
Neo,
Well I may sound flip but it would never be an easy decison to do as I blithely say. And I say known terorists because thats what I mean. “Known terrorists”. Not suspect, not likely, known. Hence my example. Yes, I would play dirty with known terrorists.
And if you are saying I can’t be 100% absolutely sure all the time, you are right. So, as President, my consciences confronts: “You prevented five more 9/11s and saved 15,000 innocent American lives, but you mistakenly tortured one out of six non terrorists in the process. You OK with that?”
The answer would be yes. Now of course the real world would never be so clean cut, but thats the principle I’m talking about. Using my admittedly self-serving example, you would allow the deaths of 15,000 so as not to torture one semi-innocent and five guilty men.
BTW, You lump Gitmo and Abu together. Different critters.
And actually some of the released persons from Gitmo have been found dead in Iraq operations.
Dugger, A Really Bad, Bad Man
Sorry, Dugger, we aren’t going to agree. The principles of fair play and human rights that America was known for are more valuable than corporal lives. You were in the military. You swore to uphold and defend the constitution, at the possible expense of your life. Too many of your fellow citizens and military died to defend democratic principles to throw them away.
Turn it around, would it be ok in your book for an Iraqi to torture, let’s say Donald Rumsfeld, knowing that he has information about military operations that could save thousands of innocent Iraqi lives?
Are Iraqi lives worth less than American lives to you?
Dugger -
Now that we know that you condone torture would you torture an American citizen to get information about a potential crime?
Holy jumpin’ Jeebus Dugger you make some ridiculous arguments.
How often do you think people give accurate information when subjected to torture. Ever think that people may be inclined to say what they know interrogators want to hear just to get a moment’s respite from the abuse? Think any time is wasted chasing down spurious intel? Can you point to any successful operations that have prevented anything close to a 9-11 thanks to the use of torture? Any? I can’t say I feel too badly about doling out the rough stuff to “known terrorists,” but that’s the trick, isn’t it, getting the actual terrorists and not some scared slob who happens to worship the wrong God and forgot to be white at birth. That’s why solid investigative work by the CIA, FBI, and the police are more effective tools to fight terror than torture and occupation. Maybe reducing our dependence on oil and ending support for autocratic regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia who would help too. While we’re at it, maybe we could stop turing a bling eye to Pakistan’s illegal trade in nuclear technology to countries like Iran and Libya. Whle we’re at it, we should pour money into building a time machine and prevent our glorious leaders from undermining democratic elections in Iran and financing Bin Laden and other extremists just to hurt the Soviets. Maybe someday we’ll understand that after centuries (yes, centuries) of near constant occupation, manipulation, and deprevation the U.S. and Europe should have seen some “blowback” coming. Somehow people can look at the situation and say, “A few Crusades, a handful of forced occupations, a few thousand radical fundamentalists bankrolled and armed, and now a few brutal liberties at the expense of the Geneva Conventions and basic decency…Clearly they hate us for our freedom! Who wants to flush a Koran or two!?!?!?”
Let’s have some fun with arbitrary numbers! It’s been established that Bush’s tactics in Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and elsewhere are swelling terrorist ranks. That could result in a dozen new 9-11’s. Congradulations on the magical ability to prevent 5. The “15,000″ you heroically saved will provide enormous comfort to the 21,000 you got killed. See, I can make up numbers too. Let’s take the assertion that Gitmo detainees released go on to be terrorists in Iraq. First, where’s the proof? I know Rumsfeld made the claim, but it’s not like he never plays fast and loose with the facts. Let’s assume for the moment he is being honest, however. He claimed 12 of the over 200 freed detainees were caught in Iraq. That’s a whopping 12 terrorists, or about 6%, out of 200. Now that’s efficient! Let’s keep taking Rumsfeld at his word. When the war started, he estimated the insurgency to be only about 5,000 strong. Now there are over 25,000! That’s 500% growth! That means the “Gitmo Dozen(tm)” account for about .00048% of the terrorism in Iraq. We need to stem the tide before things get really out of hand and that number climbs to .0005%! I have to give the troops credit, though. To be able to pick out that .0048% of the insurgency in what amounts to near random engagements is staggeringly accurate. Of course, that means we could release everyone from Gitmo and feel safe and secure in the knowledge that our troops have the superhuman ability to target anyone whose done time in a U.S. holding cell.
Do I need to point out that terrorist incidents worldwide have escalated every year Bush has been in office? Incidents are up from just over 100 in 2001 to over 655 in 2004. Wanna get into how the Bush administration’s outing of a British double agent may very well have played a role in the recent London bombings? If only they had your skills, Dugger. If only.
frame,
No to torturing of criminals. No to torturing POWs. No to torturing small potato terrorists. Yes to torturing known big-guy terrorists who very, very likely have knowledge that may save lots of innocent lives. Say we we had captured T McVeigh after the attack and we had good intel, good intel mind you but not enough, that a sister cell was planning a similar horrific attack, very soon – maybe with nukes though – then within certain constraints, I would “torture” ol’ Tim (unless we can get the info by non torture means – in which case I take everything back) or ol’ Osama or the jackal.
neo,
Who’s throwing away democratic principles. If it were illegal or I were ordered not to – I wouldn’t. And no, it wouldn’t be OK (in my book) to torture Rummy or even Saddam. Saddam was a a head of state and Rummy is a member of our armed forces. Though Saddam could be and probably is guilty of crimes against humanity. There is a distinction here.
Bill,
You wrote too much and what you wrote is too full of leftist cant to respond. And of course I have never said only use torture – I gave very limiting specific pre-conditions.
This:
“Maybe someday we ll understand that after centuries (yes, centuries) of near constant occupation, manipulation, and deprevation the U.S. and Europe should have seen some blowback coming”
seems to be dangerously close to Ward Churchill yahoo-land. Maybe you didn’t mean it the way it comes off.
Dugger
Whole books have been written on the belief that U.S. interference in foreign affairs, both covert and overt, is a large part of the reason for growth of extremism in the Middle East. The term “blowback” comes from the CIA, not Ward Churchill. Bin Laden is an evil fundamentalist jackal who got his start thanks to the CIA during the Soviet/Afghan. The CIA funded and trained him and his cohorts to specifically leverage their radical ideology against Soviet forces. Later Bin Laden formed al Qaeda and the rest is history. I’d say that alone pretty well sums up the concept of “blowback.”
In a nutshell, this is the concept Ward Churchill spoke of when he wrote his 2001 essay on the attacks on the twin towers. His most notorius statement, that the technocrats in the towers were “little Eichmanns” has been consistently distorted by wingnuts to mean that he advocates the killing of U.S. civilians. The “Eichmann” comparison was, it seems, meant to mean that it should be expected that those who help keep the military industrial complex running, even if they aren’t traditional army, will be tempting targets for attacks by extremists. He never advocated the killing of children or any other innocents for that matter. Churchill’s writing can often be very provocative and incendiary, and I disagree with a number of his positions. It’s often hard to tell whether he is being literal or simply trying to force the reader to consider an opposing viewpoint, knock them out of their comfort zone, so to speak.
Ultimately, I can’t help but notice that you refuted nothing I wrote, just complained that it was too long to be read between blinks and that the heavy reliance on facts and reality made it very “leftist.” My mistake.
For a fun look at how the righteous U.S. government deals with massive civilian casualties abroad, look up the term “collateral damage.”
‘within certain constraints, I would torture ol Tim ‘
I take it one of those contraints wouldn’t be the Bill of Rights?
I take it one of those contraints wouldn t be the Bill of Rights?
I guess thats how you take it alright. If it were illegal, I wouldn’t do it.
Dugger