Okay, apparently, Jane Fonda was signing her new book in Kansas City, Missouri, yesterday when a Vietnam veteran spat tobacco juice at her as a way of letting her know he didn't so much agree with her stance against the war and felt the need to let her know it over 30 years after her anti-war actions.
It set off a bit of a media storm, especially at Fox News, and I use the word, news, loosely. Naturally, they began running footage of her Vietnam-era trip, and it seems to me that it was almost like they wanted to say,"Look, this is still so recent, look, there she is..," when the man was at fault here.
If you want to speak out against someone like an intelligent person, then do so. Spitting disgusting tobacco juice at someone at a crowded book signing really only serves to make you look like an inbred hayseed, rather than an intelligent man with a thought-out point.
I was trying to imagine the thought process behind it. Did he tell his children, "Hey, kids, Daddy's gonna go spit tobacky juice at that ther liberal Hollywood lady. Aren't you proud?"
I'm sure they'll treasure the news stories generated by their redneck father causing a scene when, if he wanted to protest her visit, he could've created a sign and stood outside, or even voiced his objections in the arena.
An excerpt from a news article:
"She is responsible for a lot of my friends, a lot of my buddies, a lot of my brothers being listed on 'the wall'," he said, referring to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, which lists 58,000 casualties from the war.
I think that's a bit strong. Since when are anti-war protesters responsible for the death of soldiers in battle? That mantle would be squarely placed on those who made the decisions to go to war, in fact the very same people that individuals like Fonda are objecting to.
We had no damn business being in Vietnam, which reminds me of something now...I wonder what that could be (maybe it'll come to me)...and maybe the vets should be pissed off at the government that sent them there rather than certain people who were trying to get them home.
She was photographed in an anti-aircraft carrier and claims she didn't mean to be, that she was merely touring the facilities with the Vietnamese. Now, I agree that this was a stupid thing to do. When we're at war, whether you agree or don't, you shouldn't try to do things that could affect troop morale or put yourself in a position in which it seems like you support the enemy, but I really do think it was a case of a ditzy actress trying to make a name for herself and was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It also happened over 30 years ago. Do we want to hold people accountable for those actions? I think if that's the case, our fearless President better start damage control over the things delving into his past can and have brought out.
I don't agree with the war in Iraq; does that mean someone who has served in the Middle East should hate me? Hardly. I fully and wholeheartedly support every single soldier that is fighting in our military today. That doesn't mean that I agree with the governmental policies that put them there, and no one can tell me that I can't think that.
That's the absolutely brilliant thing about this country. It affords the freedom to say and express yourself however you choose, except for assaulting someone, including spitting on them. It protects me; it protects Michael A. Smith of Kansas City, Missouri, should he ever decide to voice his opinions without behaving like Boss Hog; and it protects Jane Fonda.
God Bless America.
3 comments:
oh my, where to begin...i suppose that starting at the begining would be a good spot. in an effort to avoid a long history lesson, which clearly are no longer given in school anymore, let's start with why we were in vietnam. we were in vietnem to prevent a democratic government from being overrun by communist forces. boiled down to it's bare bones that is why. as to if we had a right to be there i ask you this, did we have a right to intervene in cuba in 1898? or the banana republics in the 20's and 30's? where was the protest then? to address the point about anti-war protesters not causing more combat deaths, it is laughable. any person with a rimedial understanding of how the elected government interacts with a military fighting in the field knows that the military is always restrained from doing it's most important mission, winning the war while costing as few of OUR lives as possible. because of the strong anti-war movement in this country it was politically impossible to do the things necessary for us to completely win the war in a short time. in the mid to late 1960's the US military had plans for a massive air mobile invasion of north vietnam that would have countered the insurgancy in the south and deprived the north of all it's safe havens. this operation was never put into action because of the protests against "widening" the war. the anti-war movement was caused by malcontents in this country who were part of a growing sub culture that was acting solely for the purpose of doing so. the protests and violence that erupted during operations "linebacker 1" and "linebacker 2" put the final nails in the coffin of doing what was needed to win the war. when our military is limiting it's actions because of civil unrest back home wouldn't it be an easy conclusion that our death rates would clime? the only way to win a war is to go where the enemy lives and kill them. kill as many of them as you can and ensure that you break the will of it';s poeple to resist. we started our involvement in that war in the late 1950's. we left in 74-75, that is a long time to be fighting an "insurgancy" and if not for the war protesters it would have cme to a much quicker conclusion with less casualties. the very act of war is a political tool to impose your will upon another nation. in so doing the stark realities of war need to be acknowledge, every city is a target, civilians will die, and crops/ cattle/ and industry will be totally destroyed to ensure starvation/death and ultimetly total defeat of our enemies. short of these understandings we shold not enter into war. it can be argued that vietnam was the first step in the sissy-fication of our country. which contiues today with the constant crying about civilian casualites. our nation was biult on the belief that a govenment recieves it's mandate to government from the poeple. there fore the pleople are ultimetely responsible for it's actions. this is getting off the point a bit....
Jane fonda went to vietnam and didn't innicently sit in an anti-aircraft gun by accident. in the video she is surrounded by cheering NVA soldiers and she is clearly delighted to be there. i don't recall any celebrities going to japan or germany during WWII. that's right, they were all mostly in the military fighting against them, that would cut back on free time to travel to the enemy countries. Jane Fonda is a traitor and should have been shot, which is quite legal in this country, for giving aid and comfort to our enemies. think the didn't comfort them? then i ask why the USO organizes trips to the front lines to bring famous poeple to our troops and reassure them that they are supported. tink that's not comforting? in this dat and age everyone says they support the troops, but don't support the war. that's like saying you support football players but hate football. soldiers kill. no one likes war, but the only way to support soldiers is to stand behind what it is they are doing. besides fighting for each other they do fight for a cause. it's something most will never get so it's worthless to try and explain. but they fight for something bigger than they are. we stil talk about little round top at gettysburg, mt suribachi on iwo jima...they fight for doing something to be remebered by and being part of a worthy cause so that if they may parish their cause will remain pure. protesters fight to take that away from them and tarnish all they do while mouthing that they "support the troops". nothing is more hurtfull than being part of a "force in the field" and being slandered, disrespected, or betrayed by those whom you look to for support, your own contrymen. that's all i have to say about that.
If we shoot Jane Fonda, can we shoot George Bush as well? Might it not be possible that the Bushes have ties to families that have their knees deep in oil and therefore "terror"? Are they not giving safe financial haven to our enemies??
This presidency doesn't seem to care much for public or global opinion, therefore will do and conduct the war as it sees fit, so the threat of protestors causing wartime setbacks should be few. If we run out of government funding for the war, maybe Cheyney can make a charitable contribution to war funds via Haliburton. What a tax writeoff that would be!
I totally agree, Rae..the hypocrisy by Republicans is not to be believed..
Post a Comment