Any thoughts on Jane Fonda's appearance at the anti-war rally?

[Virginia Dare]

props to her for speaking out about the war, but does it "help"?

[katmondoo]

1. I'm Afraid she won't help

The media will focus on her supposed anti troop rhetoric and not the anti Iraq war

[Jeffersons Ghost]

19. you could be correct katmondo... still ANY media "focus" will help...

[Virginia Dare]

57. Since she will be there, I hope they do focus on her...

and I hope she says some really smart, inspiring and inciteful things, and I hope she will totally blow all of those stupid repuke anti-war/anti-troop memes right out of the water. I'm pulling for her, her heart and her mind are in the right place.

[Bandit]

2. Apparently she is still very much against war and killing

She was an idealistic child during the Vietnam Conflict and did not use what some would call basic "common sense". She did not do it to harm either her country or the troops. She did it solely for the purpose of saving young Americans lives from what she viewed as an atrocity that needed to be stopped.I respect her for her desires and her gumption but not for her thinking process.

[bdamomma]

3. our media will chew her up and spit her out, but can't we just move on

please. There will be hopefully thousands and thousands of people there, who have a purpose and job to do when they get there. Let's give them our support for being there.

[Tom Joad]

4. The question is, why aren't more Congressional dems there? Cowards

or worse.

Props to the few who are there.

[Virginia Dare]

6. I guess you hit my point...

I'm just speculating that by having people like Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon there, it scares away the politicians, and others who would be afraid to be publicly linked with them. The ugly truth, but there it is.

[bdamomma]

8. doesn't scare Dennis away though.

the speakers planned look great though.

[Virginia Dare]

10. Dennis has nothing to lose...

since the MSM has already deemed him a "nonviable" candidate.

[Tom Joad]

13. I think the ugly truth is that most congressfools want this war to continue, one way or another.

Not new in our history:

Frederick Douglass, former slave, extraordinary speaker and writer, wrote in his Rochester newspaper the North Star, January 21, 1848, of "the present disgraceful, cruel, and iniquitous war with our sister republic. Mexico seems a doomed victim to Anglo Saxon cupidity and love of dominion." Douglass was scornful of the unwillingness of opponents of the war to take real action (even the abolitionists kept paying their taxes):

The determination of our slaveholding President to prosecute the war, and the probability of his success in wringing from the people men and money to carry it on, is made evident, rather than doubtful, by the puny opposition arrayed against him. No politician of any considerable distinction or eminence seems willing to hazard his popularity with his party ... by an open and unqualified disapprobation of the war. None seem willing to take their stand for peace at all risks; and all seem willing that the war should be carried on, in some form or other.

[Lowell]

5. Jane Fonda is so hated

by an entire generation of veterans that her presence will only detract from the purpose of the rally. She should just stay home.

[TahitiNut]

7. Agreed.

She's self-promoting. She didn't lift a finger to aid the boat people.

[Tom Joad]

12. Many Vietnam Vets love her. She spoke for thousands.

don't rewrite history.

See the trailer
http://www.sirnosir.com/

[Lowell]

20. Not this one, in fact I don't know of any

I think some of us have come to realize that what she was saying had some truth, but her timing was pretty screwed.
I am totally indifferent to her. She is irrelevant and she could do more by contributing money and keeping her face out of it all.
For years I had a irrational hatred for her. Now I know she was just a stupid kid who suffered poor judgement. She can do no good by showing up at the rally.

[TahitiNut]

I share that perspective.

I've alway been a liberal but, for years, I wouldn't stay in the same room (or house!) if Jane was on TV. I compare her to Joan Baez ... and Joan Baez walked the walk. Jane was totally self-promoting. Her so-called 'apologies' have been completely driven by the P/R of some movie she was doing. She didn't do shit for the boat people while Joan Baez worked tirelessly and personally.

[sandnsea]

79. What about Peter Arnett?

How do you feel about his interview that caused him to be fired and ostracized?

[TahitiNut]

85. Peter Arnett has done both some great and not-so-great work.

The interview with Iraqi TV was, imho, truthful and portrayed some of the corruption of the 'war' on Iraq. Nonetheless, he came off half-cocked. He did not take the time to do a better job of composing his remarks.

It's like his (in)famous "reporting" of a (supposedly) quoted Army officer: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

For many of us there who are aware of the context and operations, it comes off as sensationalist and questionable. Indeed, the village was actually destroyed by the NVA/VC and not US aritllery. But that doesn't ever catch up to the purported quote.

[sandnsea]

91. sticking with Iraq

Was the interview so treasonous that he deserve to be pilloried for the rest of his life? I don't see his interview as any different than Jane Fonda's attempt to bring a different point of view on Vietnam. What's so wrong with that?

[TahitiNut]

95. I don't see any kind of rational equivalence. .

Quite frankly, it frustrates me to discuss this with people who didn't serve, who are often not even old enough to remember those days, or whose 'world' in those days was one of ideological zeal instead of the insanity of a war zone. It's really impossible to convey how outright fucking insane that 'world' was and why most (I believe) Viet Nam vets feel as I do. What compounds the frustration is the embedded inference (judgment) that somehow I'm (again) 'wrong' for regarding Jane that way. I guess it's akin to how an abused wife might feel when the husband's bowling buddies tell her how nice a guy he is. I mean, what the fuck do THEY know?

Bottom line: I'm a liberal. I opposed the Viet Nam War. I served in it. I detest her.
I've protested the Iraq War. I will again, and again. If, however, Jane were a 'leader' of such a protest, I would not participate.
I just don't need anyone else's comprehension or agreement to exercise that right. I've fucking earned it!

[Lowell]

Exactly my feelings.

I served also and remember well what happened. I also know that it had to do with honor. I discovered that as a young soldier I could serve honorably in a dishonorable war. Many of us did. What Hanoi Jane was dishonorable. I still think she should be tried for treason. And yeah TahitiNut, I agree, you had to be there.

[TahitiNut]

112. Funny thing is ... there's no "cookie cutter."

There's nothing that says all Viet Nam vets have the same opinions or attitudes. Indeed, there are vast differences between the experiences we had ... but still have one thing in common: It was trying to stay sane in a world gone insane. I've never had to pretend that I knew what another bet went through and no other one pretended he knew what I went through - and, in that, there's something in common. I guess that's what's maddening about it. A collection of individual experiences, all of which felt very lonely and very scary ... except for the ridiculous times and the sublime times and the incredibly boring times. All of which were "on the edge" - stretched tight like a piano wire about to break for days, and weeks, and months. Maybe that's why I'm a 'Nut.' Dunno.

:silly:

[sandnsea]

102. I'm 50 years old

I've held Vietnam Vets while they cried over that war. I've tried to find the words to heal a guilt they don't deserve and I can't begin to understand. And now I stand in front of naive young men who are proud of this war, and try to find words for them so as not to create pain they don't deserve either. Don't fucking tell me I have no right to speak to it.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?p=29

[TahitiNut]

107. Did you ever have someone try to kill you that you didn't even know?

Have you ever tried to kill someone you didn't hate and weren't angry at? Have you ever wondered if the guy giving you a shave would slit your throat? Have you ever looked at a child or a woman carrying some package and wonder whether you were going to be blown to bits in the next minute? Have you ever pissed your pants because you were getting shot at by people you didn't have anything against?

Now... try imagining living that for a year. Every day. You can't! Nobody can. It's not something one can imagine.

This is NOT an experience you can get SECOND-HAND!!!

You can't get it by holding one veteran or 1,000 veterans. You can't get it by having a father who did it. You can't get it by having a husband who did it.

One of the things that really chaps my ass are the people who pretend they understand because "my father did it" or "my neighbor did it." That's bullshit.

If, in order to offer service to such people, one must PRETEND to understand, then that's a problem. Performing such service, imho, can only be done with ACCEPTANCE. There's a vast gulf between acceptance and comprehension.

This is NOT an experience you can get SECOND-HAND!!!


You say, "Don't fucking tell me I have no right to speak to it."

I didn't. But you seem not to have noticed that.

I never said you didn't have a right. Neither have I said that Jane Fonda didn't have a right to do as she did.
Don't ever infer that I, who have served for those rights, would ever deny them.
At the same time, I have the right to disagree. Vigorously!!

[sandnsea]

108. Your words and attitude is clear

You don't want to hear from anybody who wasn't there. Fine. I imagine the ones who continue to believe we lost the war because we weren't allowed to fight it use the same line to avoid hearing different opinions too.

[TahitiNut]

109. Must you resort to smears? Must you allege things CONTRARY to what I've said?

Why must you claim that I have motives and desires other than what I've expressed? Why must you then try to lump me in with "the ones who continue to believe we lost the war because we weren't allowed to fight" ... clearly implying that I share such a superficial opinion?

Rather than read what I've said about my attitudes, you substitute YOUR OWN inventions. That's arrogant and insulting.

[sandnsea]

111. What smear??

NO, I did not lump you in with anybody. I simply showed you how shutting down conversation, based on who fought, plays itself out with varying groups of people. YOU made that presumption about what I wrote, and then dumped it on me, and then accused me of smearing you on top of it. YOU are the one who substituted YOUR OWN inventions for what I actually said.

It IS clear you don't want to hear from anybody who didn't serve and aren't going to respect the opinion of anybody who didn't serve. Fine. But know that it means very few people will ever become engaged in discussing that war, with that kind of attitude.

[sandnsea]

115. You know what else

Since when do I try to hide either my anger or sarcasm?? If I wanted to lump you in with somebody, I'd just friggin' do it outright. I am sick of people nitpicking every damned thing I say, twisting it around, and then dumping it back on me as if I were attacking them. If I want to attack someone, they'll damn well know it, straight up front.

[TahitiNut]

117. I'll spell it out.

You say "You don't want to hear from anybody who wasn't there."

Just WHO are you to tell me what I want or don't want?

When YOU ask ME what I think ... and I say how frustrating it is for me to convey those thoughts, you then FLIP the thing on it's head and talk about what I want to HEAR instead of what I'm SAYING.

Which is it?

When you asked what I had to SAY ... were you actually telling me to LISTEN?

When someone starts a sentence with "You want ..." I call that a smear. I don't need or want an interpreter. I say what I mean (the best I know how) and mean what I say.

You don't have to tell me what I want. Got it?

Furthermore, if I didn't want to SAY and HEAR ... then why the fuck am I posting?? Why do I even read your posts? It SHOULD be clear that I'm listening .. and that's where the frustration even comes from. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be frustrated trying to convey it.



Next ...

I harbor a deep-seated impression that a large number of the folks who applaud Jane Fonda's actions do so ESPECIALLY BECAUSE so many Viet Nam veterans were insulted and appalled by her behavior. Many/most of us felt yet another betrayal. She was a pin-up!

Jane didn't just protest the war and the political 'leadership' that misled us into it. Jane attacked US troops ... at least figuratively by sitting on the anti-aircraft gun wearing a helmet (she - who never saw combat - wannabe Rambette! - actress!) and verbally by addressing the troops and encouraging them to (in effect) mutiny. That's NOT the behavior of a pacifist. That's the behavior of a combatant.

If her sympathies were for the Vietnamese people, she NEVER showed it. She never assisted the boat people and she never rolled up her sleeves and pitched in. If her sympathies were with the servicemen, she never showed it. Every time she supposedly 'apologized' it was under the pressure of some current movie production.

Purely self-serving. Narcissism akin to George W. Bush's narcissism on the aircraft carrier!

Now ... about "betrayal" - it's NOT the troops who wage war. It's the people! If the People of the nation can't or won't keep the political 'leadership' in line, it's NOT the fault of the troops. People in service are in service to the NATION, not some politician. Servicemen are at the BOTTOM of democracy's totem pole.

After Viet Nam, we were called "baby killers" and blamed for the COWARDICE of We The People. If the people want the war to stop it's OUR job to do it. If we have to leave 100-200 of our dead bodies on the streets of Washington DC in protest ... why not??? If We The People aren't willing to risk our lives to save lives ... then why the fuck should the troops take the blame for being in harm's way?

Blaming the troops is the absolute WORST perversion of a democracy. That what Jane did. People who take pleasure in that are (at best) sorely misguided ... if not malicious and cowardly.

[sandnsea]

120. "what the fuck do THEY know"

Along with your condescension about my age, followed by condescension because I didn't serve. If you are open to discussion, you've got a funny way of showing it.

As to Jane Fonda, I was attempting to focus in on the anti-aircraft picture and separate that from her intentions. The comparison to Peter Arnett, in my mind, is because he was doing his best to present the whole picture. I believe that, was wondering if you did. Because he didn't do it perfectly, for whatever reasons, does that mean it wasn't potentially beneficial that it was done. Same with Jane Fonda. Was there ANY benefit in what she did. Did humanizing villagers, whether she had any deep compassion for them or not, help anything?

I apologize if I over-reacted to what you said. I'm having one of the worst weeks I've had in quite some time, which has nothing to do with politics or this board, but perhaps am just a bit sensitive to being told to shut up and go away and die. Not that you said that specifically, but you get the gist.

[TahitiNut]

121. As I've said, Joan Baez did good.

Jane Fonda did far, far more damage than any good she might have intended (but which I seriously doubt). I do not detect the kind of behavior from her that would indicate sincerity. I see exploitation - and it's possibly a mutual exploitation, but it has nothing to do with anything I can detect in her 'sincere' intentions.

She was a pin-up. She became a symbol for the "girl back home" who turned against 'her guy' in Viet Nam. She became iconic of a "Dear John" letter. The politics of 'betrayal' was a BIG DEAL for a lot of us. Especially me.

There was absolutely nothing "pacifist" about posing on the anti-aircraft gun. I can't even imagine a 'peacenik' doing that - wearing a helmet. It's not just callow youth ... it's something that'd make a real pacifist retch.

I recognize that others (for whatever reasons) have different opinions. I find it very difficult to respect those opinions even though I respect the rights people have to them. What I don't respect is any implication that I'm a right-winger or baby-killer or pro-war person ... as some 'explanation' for my aversion to Jane. Somehow, someway, maybe magically, it ALWAYS seems to get included in the discussion when Jane is the topic.


I've had a bad week (or three), as well. My uncle died 2 months ago. I just got sent some of his ashes. Without warning. He was, in a sense, a supplemental father. As in many families, long-hidden fractures appear when a central figure dies. Not fun.

Namaste. :hi:

[Swamp Rat]

122. Thanks for your perspective.

I have taken a different position in this matter only because I am interested in messages of peace.

I have friends who fought in Vietnam who dislike Fonda very much for what she did. My father served during Korea and after, and seems to have forgiven her. From my limited perspective, I try to understand what this means to him, my friends, and to you. That's the best I can do.

Namasté

[Freddie Stubbs]

64. My father is a Vietnam veteran and opposed the war

He HATES Jane Fonda.

[tabasco]

9. She's right about the Iraq war and she was right about Vietnam.

She is correct again to be opposing an unjust war.

From a former infantry officer and combat vet, here's to Jane:

:patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot:

[LiberalEsto]

11. Can't they GET OVER her

like they want us to GET OVER the 2000 and 2004 election thefts?

Didn't Scalia just say something in a speech yesterday about GETTING OVER the 2000 election?

Maybe I'll make up a poster saying "Jane's with us. GET OVER IT."

[underpants]

14. I could have sworn that she said she was going to stay out of this

for reasons of supporting the anti-war movement. No this won't help and the MSM will lump the whole movement (BTW WE WERE RIGHT THE WHOLE FUCKIG TIME) in with her.

Even though they were right back then.

Gee two wars and the people who pointed out how bad of an idea it was just happened to be right both times...hmm go figure.

[blonndee]

26. I was about to post the same thing. I thought she made it clear

she was going to avoid actively protesting in this way so that she wouldn't provide opponents unnecessary "fuel" to smear war protesters.

[Virginia Dare]

40. She will apparently be there...

and she has been on Capitol Hill lobbying for peace this week as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012401957.html

[blogslut]

15. I think everyone than can go should go

I wish I could go.

[Blue_In_AK]

31. I agree with you on that...

old, young, military, civilian, black, white or other, male, female, famous, infamous. If you're for peace, and you can possible make it to DC, you should be there. Jane Fonda has admitted and apologized for her lapse of judgment during the Vietnam days many times. She should be forgiven and welcomed back into the fold.

[uppityperson]

106. I think everyone who can go should go.

I wish I could go. Thank you Jane Fonda and everyone who is able to go.

[ThomWV]

16. As A Viet Nam Vet I Say Hell Yes She Should Be There If She Chooses To Be

Jesus, that's what it was all about isn't it?

Somehow I suspect that's how you feel too. It seems you and I agree on just about everything - I've noticed that over the last year or so.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. No Way Does It Help. It Only Can Hurt.

It doesn't matter that some believe she was not wrong years ago or others that believe she has made acceptable amends for it. What matters is the overwhelming majority of the public who still detest her actions (whether some feel their resentment is justified or not) and will perceive the rally as condoning those actions, thereby undermining its true spirit and message.

Whether their anger is justified or not is not the issue (and I'm not saying they are or aren't justified). It is the perception that will be gleamed from her association that is of issue, and that association in no way could possibly be helpful.

[FredScuttle]

21. Which "overwhelming majority"?

The one at Fox Noise Channel or the real majority who either don't remember what she did or forgot who the hell she is in the first place?

[burythehatchet]

24. The majority of the brain dead 28%

big loss.

[FredScuttle]

27. But of course

some here think it's still 1978 and Ms. Fonda is still a popular movie star.

[burythehatchet]

30. Hey, I'd rent Barbarella again

:)

[Swamp Rat]

72. I bought it for my dad, a Cold War veteran.

He loves Barbarella! :D

And, like many veterans I know, he long ago forgave her for her mistakes in Vietnam.

[Swamp Rat]

67. It does not exist.

It is a right wing, fascist fiction.

I am truly surprised that some people still fall for it. :crazy:

Most people remember her for her movies and aerobics videos.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

110. You And The Other Poster Could Use Some Brushing Up On Your Accuracy In Reading Posts.

There was quite an important part of that statement left off in both yours and the other's interpretation.

Here's the quote: "the overwhelming majority of the public who still detest her actions". Please take note of the part that says "who still detest her actions". That would mean the statement applies to only those who still detest her actions, not those who don't. I mean, it was plainly written enough but I guess you and the other missed that part somehow? :shrug:

The fact is there are plenty of people who still remember her actions from back then and still associate some negative connotation with her when seeing her in a war context. And no matter how narrow-minded some want to be in declaring that only freepers would feel that way, that simply is not true.

So because those that do not remember her actions or do not resent them couldn't care less about if she's at the rally or not (thereby not yielding anything we'd consider helpful, just neutral), but those that do will now associate the rally with her in negative connotation, it is reasonably logical to conclude that there is only negative impression that can come out of her being there. Therefore, I stand by my original statement.

[Blue_In_AK]

33. Why should peace activists care what everybody else thinks?

We chastise our politicians for playing to the media, and then we turn around and do it ourselves.

[Raskolnik]

38. Because public opinion matters. n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

41. Public opinion is firmly on our side at this point

I think, and whether or not Jane Fonda is there isn't going to convince people hungry for peace to suddenly start supporting ** and the war.

[Virginia Dare]

44. No, but it may keep them from actively opposing it...

I'm not saying it WILL, I'm saying it MAY. And I'm not talking about the active anti-war groups, I'm talking about mainstream America.

[Raskolnik]

46. I don't think anyone is arguing that she would make THE difference

But I do think she carries too much baggage to be a net positive gain.

[Blue_In_AK]

48. We'll agree to disagree.

I got in too many arguments yesterday, so I'll hold my peace. :)

[libnnc]

37. OMC, I'd like to suggest a documentary

"Sir No Sir" about the Vietnam GI anti-war movement. It may answer any lingering questions about Fonda and the others who protested--AND it will dispel many ongoing myths about the anti-war movement in the '60s.

If you're interested...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=6719&mesg_id=6719

[T Wolf]

18. From the reaction of some here, maybe only repukes should be allowed

to attend. That way, there could be no criticism of the protest(ers).

[BoneDaddy]

22. Yep...It totally helps the other side

retire Jane.

[Puregonzo1188]

23. I have mixed feelings--

I wasn't alive when she went to over to North Viet Nam and what not, but I am fully aware of it. Whereas, based on her explanation I feel her intentions have been misrepresented by the media and others. Also, if anybody wants to speak out against the war or what not I have no problem with that, not matter who they are.

However, on the question on does her presence help or hurt, I have to say hurt. At the last September rally most the Freeper people's signs seemed to mention her name (50 Million People Did Not Vote For Jane Fonda, Dumb Jane Fonda Dumb You). Not that I care what Freepers think I just think a lot of people still to this day harbor very negative feelings about her and what she did/was perceived to have done and thus her appearance won't help anything. At the same time I respect her for being willing to speak at antiwar rally and using her fame to speak out against this war and certainly defend her right to do so.

[Virginia Dare]

25. I share in your confliction..

there is no question that she is symbolic of the pain and bitterness that was experienced in this country during and after Vietnam. I think the collective memory of the divisiveness and hurt that was experienced keeps many people from more vocally opposing the Iraq War. The evil repukes keep this going by endlessly repeating the meme "if you're against the war, you're against the troops" (I was glad to see Chuck Hagel calling bullshit on it yesterday).

On the other hand, she is one gutsy lady to put herself out like this, and I admire her for having that kind of conviction. She's got to know what all of these old skeletons will be dragged out once again.

[FredScuttle]

35. A lot of Freepers harbor negative feelings...

because they've been conditioned and trained to repeat ad nauseum "Never Forget What Jane Fonda Did...She's a Traitor"

Nearly 60 million Americans cast their vote for President for John Kerry, who carries equal "Traitor" status as Ms. Fonda in the reptillian Freeper brain. I couldn't tell you how many of them have positive or negative views of Jane Fonda, or even know/remember who she is.

[KatieW]

36. I also have mixed feelings. Of course she has ever right to be there at the march,

but you have to realize that she still is a lightning rod to many. I have no problem with her anti war views back during the days of Viet Nam. And I think for some it's not so much her views they had a problem with, but it was how she went about expressing them at times that they find troublesome. She was IMHO used by the North View Nam government as a PR tool. Many can not forgive her for posing with the anti-aircraft gun while in North Viet Nam. I think she did come to realize that she was young and maybe a bit naive at the time, and had she had it do over again, she may have done a few things differently. And posing with the anti-aircraft gun would have been one thing she would not have done.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Bravo for her! A great lady and a great citizen.

Doing her duty for peace.

[Raskolnik]

29. But does "doing her duty" result in a net gain or loss for peace?

I certainly applaud her sentiment, but you've got to admit she carries some pretty heavy baggage to this type of event, no?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. The baggage she carries is the media's invention.

And, I doubt that it will effect anyone who is already against the war. And, of course, the half-assed politicians who will use it as an excuse to not show where they stand as they protect their precious seats.

[Raskolnik]

43. I'm sorry, but a large portion of her baggage is of her own making.

The decision to pose for a picture with a North Vietnamese antiaircraft gun was an amazingly stupid thing to do, as Ms. Fonda herself has admitted to some degree. When you do something like that, I'm not sure you retain the ability to appear at any anti-war protest without it becoming an issue.

Just because her role has been exaggerated by some does not mean that her past actions are irrelevant.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. Look at the bright side. It lets the tepid anti-warriors say they "aren't as bad".

[Raskolnik]

84. I don't follow.

To whom are you referring?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. The timid politicians mostly.

But, anyone who feel uncomfortable with being labeled a "radical leftist", "peacenik", "traitor", or any of the other labels handily applied by the right-wing to anyone who speaks clearly.

[Raskolnik]

89. Ok, but again: none of that means that at least some of Ms. Fonda's baggage isn't legitimate

and of her own making. We can rail against the injustice of throwing labels around, but it really doesn't change the fact that the messenger does have some effect on the message.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

96. You could say the same about the GI's who volunteered.

For Vietnam, or Iraq.

Or, how about politicians who served in Vietnam? Unlike, Jane, they killed people carrying out the policies that led to the slaughter. Could we then say, "They have heavy baggage that they were responsible for when they signed up."?

Actually, I don't give a rip what the right-wing warmongers have to say about Jane Fonda. Nor, do I think that she should base her message on the possible response of anyone.

I'm old enough to remember supposedly liberal politicians shying away from Martin Luther King because he was "too radical" and hung around with Communists like Bayard Rustin. And, I also remember being called "traitor" at the veteran's marches against Vietnam I took part in.

And, I remember the "moderates" complaining that we protesters who disrupted classes, got involved in civil disobedience, etc, as "harming" the anti-war movement because we were "too radical".

[Raskolnik]

101. Aside from mixing apples and oranges, your point is not really relevant

We're talking about whether someone who has taken a nearly indefensible action (as I consider the photo to be) in the name of anti-war activism can now take part in current anti-war activities without bringing some level of harm to the message.

Who is asking you to care what "right-wing warmongers" think about Ms. Fonda? There are a great many people who harbor ill feelings towards Ms. Fonda that are neither right-wing nor warmongers, and I do care about what they think.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

104. I don't.

I didn't care what the "moderates" thought in 1968 and I still don't care. If they are so weak in their beliefs that they are going to be swayed into support of the war so as not to be seen in the company of "radicals", then they have no beliefs worthy of note.

[Raskolnik]

123. Check. You don't care about people "weak in their beliefs"

That's the kind cut your nose off to spite your face attitude that pretty much loses a political fight before its begun.

[mitchtv]

81. You give her too much power

No one will stop the avalanche against the war

[Raskolnik]

88. I don't believe I argued that Ms. Fonda's presence or absence would be the most important factor

But I also don't think its unreasonable to take public opinion into account.

[spanone]

32. Yes. She's a force. She got swiftboated long before it was standard proceedure.

[sandnsea]

77. They've been at it a long time

This thread shows how effective they are at what they do.

[Lilith Velkor]

39. Perhaps it would help if the Pope shat in the woods for peace

Jesus Christ people, she goes to antiwar rallies every year, and those clowns who have tantrums about it are gonna have tantrums no matter what happens, so fuck 'em.

[Virginia Dare]

42. Actually, yes, it probably would...

where is the Pope on this war issue by the way, strangely silent isn't he, other than the occasional obligatory general appeals for peace?

[Lilith Velkor]

62. Y'know, now that I think about it

...that sounds like something St. Francis would do. :rofl:

I'm not a fan of Catholicism or any other Abrahamic faith, but it was pretty cool when the old Pope told Bush, "You go (into Iraq) without God." I wouldn't expect anything like that from the new guy.

[mitchtv]

97. He's got other fish to fry,

Gays to bash etc

[Missy M]

45. Jane Fonda has every right to go and I applaud her for being there...

she was against the Viet Nam War and she is against the Iraq War, that's what matters. This is one hell of an unforgiving country, even when someone apologizes.

[devilgrrl]

47. Jane Fonda is the only reason the US lost Vietnam!

It had nothing to do with flawed foreign policy or the will of the Vietnamese people - the utter failure of US intervention in Southeast asia falls squarely on the shoulders of Jane Fonda!!!!

:eyes::sarcasm::eyes::sarcasm:

Talk about the need to "get over" something!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. IMHO...

the only people that give a shit are the nutty 28% who would be whining about war protests anyway, but are too chickenshit to enlist.

[Swamp Rat]

50. As a fellow American I support her right to free speech.

Even if she was not a U.S. citizen, I would support her right to free speech on our soil.

[Virginia Dare]

51. Absolutely Swamp Rat,

but do you think she helps or hinders the movement in general, or no difference? :shrug:

I ask, because I respect your opinion..:patriot:

[Swamp Rat]

58. Thank you

:hi:

Does she help or hinder? I cannot answer that because I do not know. I do expect, however, that she will be attacked by war mongers, and the most vile and/or ignorant among us.

If she speaks of peace, then I support her endeavor.

[Virginia Dare]

60. You're correct there,

we know who her biggest detractors will be..I agree, I respect her for publicly speaking out, when so many are not brave enough to do so.

[Raskolnik]

52. Is anyone arguing that she should not be *allowed* to say anything?

I think the real question is whether her taking a visible role in the current anti-war movement is helpful to that cause given her past history.

[Swamp Rat]

56. "Judge not lest ye be judged."

Who are we to impugn her desire to speak of world peace?

[Raskolnik]

59. I'm not impugning her desire, I'm questioning her efficacy

Those are two wholly separate issues. In my opinion, the baggage she carries from her actions in Vietnam (some of which is fair, much of which is unfair) makes undercuts any legitimate message she wishes to convey to such a degree that she does not help the anti-war effort by being visibly involved.

It may not be fair, and it may be frustrating, but that doesn't mean its not the way things are.

[Swamp Rat]

63. Why should we waste our time worring about her baggage?

There will be plenty of assholes who will do this. I suggest we ignore them as much as possible.

Let's focus on the message of peace - it transcends the imperfections of its ambassadors.

[Raskolnik]

75. Because messengers do matter to some degree.

I want to be clear that I'm not taking the position that Ms. Fonda's involvement would somehow be determinative to the outcome in Iraq.

I'm merely suggesting that Ms. Fonda becoming visible in the anti-war movement does not produce positive benefits that outweigh the negatives. It would be wonderful if it wasn't the case, but I don't think shutting our eyes to reality is going to be productive in the end.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

113. According To The Poster You're Replying To, You Are Either A War Monger Or One Of The Most Vile And

ignorant posters amongst us.

:rofl:

Don't you just love blanket narrow-minded statements that scream out "if you don't agree with me, I'm just gonna label you horrible things because that's easier than opening my mind!" LOL

For the record, I agree with you. Several in this thread, including the poster you are replying to, have already stated that many people don't even care about her anymore. Therefore, those that don't hate her couldn't care less if she's at the rally or not, thereby yielding no real net positive. But those that do remember and will have old resentments rise to the surface at the thought of her at a war memorial, will most definitely be turned off to the rally if they may not have been otherwise, thereby yielding a net negative. The conclusion would then be that all that can come out of it would most likely be a negative outcome or connotation. Pretty straight forward really.

[Swamp Rat]

119. point well taken

:hi:

[FredScuttle]

69. Here's a small clue to the way things are:

Nearly 60 million Americans cast their vote for President in 2004 for a man who, in the Freepers' reptillian minds, is second only to "Hanoi Jane" in treasonous acts.

Baggage is relative...the people screaming the loudest over Jane Fonda are probably the only ones who can name a movie she was in before Monster-In-Law.

I, for one, wouldn't stand in anyone's way if they wish to speak for peace in the world. Volume counts...not what someone did 35 years ago.

[Raskolnik]

82. Thank you for the small clue. I appreciate it.

But once again, we're not talking about preventing Ms. Fonda from doing anything. We're talking about the repercussions of her choosing to become visibly involved in the anti-war movement.

Perhaps "volume" is the only thing that matters to you, but I must respectfully disagree that a person's past is irrelevant.

And if you're going to use Kerry as an example, I've got to ask: how did that work out for him?

[Virginia Dare]

83. Your point about Kerry is cogent...

and it still hurts me deeply.

This is a battle for the hearts and minds of the American people. Right now, as far as the polls are indicating they are against this war.

I don't think for a minute that the corporate war machine won't try to win them back over, sadly, they can be very effective.

[FredScuttle]

100. You claim you're not preventing her from speaking out

but you are promoting this doomsday scenario if, God forbid, she's allowed near a microphone at an anti-war rally.

Tell you what...we'll split the difference by having Brent Scowcroft follow her at the rally.

My point about Kerry was this....if almost 60 million politically involved citizens (the ones who actually register and vote) trusted this "traitor" with their vote for president, how many people could get exercised over a woman who hasn't been in the public eye in almost 20 years?

Don't listen to the Freepers....they'll make you believe they speak for everyone when they only speak for 28% of the most drooling, brain-dead zombies in the country.

[Raskolnik]

103. No doomsday scenario, but willfully ignoring real-world consequenses is foolish IMO

And no, I'm certainly not preventing her from doing anything. I'm discussing whether her taking part in the anti-war movement results in a net positive or negative. In my opinion, its a negative.

Caring about public perception is not the same as listening to Freepers.

[FredScuttle]

105. Real-world consequences...LOL

The evil Jane Fonda and her 35 year old photo op will kill our GIs in the field, shoot down our helicopters in the desert and help build the bomb for Iran! :sarcasm:

Oh, someone's being willfully ignorant of reality here, but it ain't me.

[Raskolnik]

124. I believe you're using several straw-man positions.

I certainly do not think Ms. Fonda is "evil", I do not think the photo in question will kill anyone or shoot down anything, and I have no idea why you even bring up the subject of Iran. If all you have to offer in this discussion is this kind of nonsense, it would probably save us both time if we said goodnight.

I am taking the position that Ms. Fonda's past actions in the anti-war movement make her current participation unproductive. Do you disagree?

[FredScuttle]

126. Yes I do disagree

and my apologies for not being clearer, but I was being facetious....you know, exaggerating for comic effect.

How do you define productive? The people who are predisposed to hate Jane Fonda, no matter how many times she's apologized, will most likely not dig an anti-war rally anyway and will remain nice and comfortable in their 28% cocoon of ignorant bliss.

If you think an appearance by a septugenarian who did an insanely stupid thing 35 years ago will all of a sudden turn 67% of Americans in favor of the Iraq debacle, by all means please protest her appearance. That seems like a productive expenditure of time and effort.

Once again, being facetious. Cheers!

[Raskolnik]

128. No, you're actually using straw-men to avoid the actual issue.

No one, least of all me, is suggesting anything resembling "all of a sudden turn 67% of Americans in favor of the Iraq debacle" because of Ms. Fonda's involvement. Suggesting that I am, facetiously or not, adds nothing to the discussion.

The people who are predisposed to hate Jane Fonda, no matter how many times she's apologized, will most likely not dig an anti-war rally anyway and will remain nice and comfortable in their 28% cocoon of ignorant bliss.

Therin lies your faulty premise, I believe. You assume that the only people that would be turned off by Ms. Fonda's presence at an anti-war rally are already members of the shrinking 28% and therefore may have their opinions discounted. However, the fact that most of the members of a group (the 28%) share a trait (dislike of Ms. Fonda), does not logically necessitate that all people that dislike Ms. Fonda are members of the 28%. I believe there are several examples on this thread that demonstrate that fact.

Once again, no is suggesting that the tide will turn one way or another based on Ms. Fonda's actions, or attempting to silence her, but her actions do have some consequences. I my estimation, those consequences are more negative than positive for the anti-war movement.

[onenote]

53. Cindy Sheehan turns off a lot of people, too. Should she stay away?

Yep, Jane Fonda makes a lot of folks see red. And maybe it would be better if she stayed away. But then again, others have ticked off people too -- like the Dixie Chicks and CIndy Sheehan. I don't know how you start drawing lines based on who people like or dislike.

[Beaverhausen]

54. NEWSFLASH: a majority of americans are also anti-war

so they agree with her. What is the problem?

[Raskolnik]

93. The (at least potential) problem lies in her past actions

and the public perception of what it means to be "anti-war".

[Vidar]

55. She's been right all along. My hats off to her.

[brettdale]

61. no it hurts bigtime

That gives the rigtt wing media a story.

[Lord Byron]

65. Stay home Jane!

Your behavior during the Vietnam War was shameful and almost treasonous. Go away.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lord Byron]

71. It's you

[devilgrrl]

73. Enjoy your stay...

please do make more ignorant statements - it's only a matter time

[Lord Byron]

76. It's not ignorant

When your fellow Americans are being killed in a war, justly or unjustly, it is wrong to visit the enemy, pose with their weaponry, and openly sympathize with their cause. I would not have supported the Vietnam War. I never supported the Iraq War. But if an American actress were to pose with spokesmen for the Monotheism and Jihad Group (or al Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers), then I would be embarrassed and view this individual as engaging in treasonous behavior. I don't need you to question my credentials or threaten me.

[devilgrrl]

80. Oh please. A 21 year old actress??????????? Give it up!!!!

Talk about mountains out of molehills.

[Raskolnik]

99. Not to throw fuel on the fire, but I don't think its ridiculous to consider her past actions

as very serious. Being opposed to a war is one thing. Posing for a photograph with a weapon aimed at U.S. troops is quite another.

Sure she was a dumb kid, sure she's expressed regret, and sure its ridiculous to blame her for losing the war, but I can understand why people (particularly those that lost family members) would harbor animosity towards her.

If Jessica Simpson went to Iraq and was photographed smiling next to a group of men planting an IED, I suspect a large portion of people would take offense, whether they were against the war or not. For those who have borne the cost of the war more directly, I suspect those feelings may last for quite some time.

[Virginia Dare]

87. Meanwhile the behavior of our President and V.P. IS

treasonous, and beyond shameful no ALMOST about it.

Hmmm, a young actress shooting off her mouth, or the self-acknowledged leaders of the world, which should we be more outraged about?

[devilgrrl]

90. Oh, I know...

isn't it ridiculous?

[GumboYaYa]

66. I love Jane Fonda!

She has been right on the war issue for decades and she hasn't been scared to speak her mind about it. She suffered greatly for being right.

She also is a stunningly beautiful woman.

[butterfly77]

70. I think she has every right to go...

she is a citizen. These people never give up, they are still fighting the vietnam war, who is in their so called party that needs to be scrutinized...

[Skidmore]

74. She is a citizen of this nation and has just as much right to speak her

mind as the person standing next to her agreeing with her or the person standing across from her trying to shout her down.

[Raskolnik]

92. Who is telling her she can't participate? Who is trying to shout her down?

Who is taking a position contrary to your own?

[Skidmore]

98. She also has the right to stand in the public square and speak

her mind, as does everyone else. I was responding to the original poster. Just because Fonda has been criticized by a group of people so they could demagogue for a generation doesn't mean that a question like the OP put up should be asked by us also. If we stand for peace, anyone who wishes to stand with us should be allowed to.

[Virginia Dare]

116. In my defense..

I wasn't suggesting that she shouldn't, I was wondering if it would help or hurt, or make no difference at all whether she attends or not, just asking people's opinions. I fully support her right to be there, and to speak.

[theboss]

94. What can she possibly bring to the table?

She is a 100-year-old gazillionaire who is hated by half the country.

What does she add to the discussion?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

114. Uh Oh. Now You've Done It. You Are Now At Risk Of Being Called

a warmonger or one of the most vile and ignorant amongst us, according to a comment above.

:sarcasm:

Sorry, I just can't control myself. That comment totally cracked me up! :rofl:

In all seriousness though, I agree with your concise point and I think it is made from a mindset of rational thinking, not in fact from the mind of a warmongering vile ignoramus. :)

[Lord Byron]

118. I agree. Someone threatened to have me banned up there

Just because I find Jane Fonda's past behavior loathsome.

[Hidden Stillness]

125. I Love Jane Fonda

I started thinking about Jane Fonda again when her (#1 best-selling) autobiography was published, and she was on several talk shows. I have always liked her for her intelligence and honesty, and really recommend the book to anybody. She describes things very well, from working in Hollywood with the greats like Katherine Hepburn, to her Viet Nam protests, her marriage to Ted Turner, and her current life. It is very well written. She remains as popular as ever--her #1 selling book, the highest-selling video of all time, "Jane Fonda's Workout Video," etc. I will not refer to the usual groups of hateful pricks on this thread--as always--but to those who have mixed feelings.

I actually remember when the Hanoi incident happened. I was a kid, and read about it in Life Magazine, one of the great magazines. I remember how shocked and outraged people were, and had to have several things explained to me, like, that is the ENEMY she is posing with? Why? Why don't they kill her? Why is she there? I remember the awful, laughing picture, with the North Vietnamese, and how angry people were. You have to remember that she was Henry Fonda's daughter, an American institution, laughing with the enemy, during war, and making statements against the U.S. It was hugely offensive, and inexplicable, and many people thought she should be charged with treason. Others supported her, and thought her extremely brave, and I remember many very tense times even in my own household, between the generations, etc. I also remember about that time, when she was on the Phil Donahue program, still from Dayton, Ohio, giving a very thoughtful and respectful explanation of the importance of the Pentagon Papers to the audience, proving that Nixon was guilty of war crimes by going over the border with attacks. It was a different era; just contrast the shameful abuse of returning veterans, with the respectful way even anti-war protesters talk about them now.

She has apologized many, many times over the years, and I think regrets that it ever happened. She was not the most politically educated person in the world at that time, and has grown to become a wonderful person since; she has also worked with veterans' groups all these years. My main interest lately is that she has become a Christian, and a real feminist, which she only partly was before, and I love reading about her religious progress in the modern world. She has a hugely attractive self-analytical modesty, and a real understanding of the consequences of her actions. They were shocking, but she has changed. One of the greatest proponents of peace ever, John Lennon, started life as a woman-beater, who cheated on the first wife Cynthia, and abandoned her and Julian for Yoko Ono. Despicable...but then John began to change, and learn, and developed a conscience. If we were all morally and judgmentally perfect, then who would all the sermons be for? Who would need them? These things are for us flawed people in the real world, to learn from.

[porphyrian]

127. I think everyone against the war should go.

I think it's obnoxious to see people so obsessed with appearances and what the enemy thinks that they're willing to chuck one of their number under the bus so easily. Maybe Senator Clinton shouldn't attend because so many people hate her. Maybe Jesse Jackson shouldn't go because people hate him. Or, maybe, we should show that Iraq is more important than any of this. End the fucking war.