In an article on the MyWay news site, it appears that Jane Fonda has decided to start a cross-country tour to put an end to the war in Iraq.
Actress and activist Jane Fonda says she intends to take a cross-country bus tour to call for an end to U.S. military operations in Iraq.
Fonda said her anti-war tour in March will use a bus that runs on “vegetable oil.” She will be joined by families of Iraq war veterans and her daughter. They plan to return to the Santa Fe area, where she was promoting her book, “My Life So Far” on Saturday. Prompted by a question from the audience, Fonda said war veterans that she has met on a nationwide book tour have encouraged her to break her silence on the Iraq war.
“I’ve decided I’m coming out,” she said.
Hundreds of people in the audience cheered loudly when Fonda announced her intentions to join the anti-Iraq war movement.
“I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam,” she said. “I carry a lot of baggage from that.”
To say that she carries baggage is a bit of an understatement. In Vietnam, she supported an enemy that tortured and killed American troops. She assisted in turning the American public against its military which eventually caused its defeat. And when we pulled out, Pol Pot massacred two million people. How many drugs did it take to forget about those fields filled with skulls?
Now thirty-five years later, Jane Fonda believes she can just stroll triumphantly in front of veterans and denounce the war in Iraq while promoting a new book. I believe once she leaves her microcosm of sycophants, she will be in for a bit of a shock. I hope she saves some of that vegetable oil for the ass-pounding she is about to receive from the public.
Thanks to the Drudge Report for pointing out the article!
The vegetable oil bus sounds amazing! Is it shaped like a gigantic carrot, I wonder? Will it be Wesson oil, or store-brand?
When will they come out with a margarine-powered conveyance? It could be called the Parkaymobile!
I’m stealing the “microcosm of sycophants” line. It’s classic. And Hanoi Jane’s been one of the best examples of “Useful Idiots” there’s ever been since Lenin coined the term.
first of all, it wasn’t the attitude of the american public that resulted in the military pulling out (or losing, however you want to term it). moreoever you insinuate that it was solely because of unprincipled opposition to the war that public opinion turned against it. that’s simplistic and specious reasoning to say the least.
this is not to defend what fonda did in hanoi, but opposition to that war came in all forms, principled and unprinciplied. just as opposition to the iraq war comes in all forms, both principled and unprincipled (ironic, given that the grounds for going to war have been pretty much found to be unprincipled).
“(ironic, given that the grounds for going to war have been pretty much found to be unprincipled).”
Even parenthetically, there’s far less basis for that statement’s veracity than Morgan’s assessment of the reasons why the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam. Indeed, I’d go so far as to say that to characterize the reasons for the war in Iraq as “unprincipled” places one firmly in the “unprincipled opposition” camp.
It could be that I’m unclear as to the definition of the term “unprincipled,” especially in this context.
Somebody up there woefully ignorant of history said it wasn’t the attitude of the American people that caused us to pull out of Vietnam? Huh? Lyndon Johnson did not run for reelection because of the war and Richard Nixon was backpeddling out of there as fast as he could before Watergate brought him down. Read books, people.
I said that the Hanoi Jane assisted in turning the American public. There were a lot more reasons besides the easily manipulated hippies and dope smokers. The press continously vilified the military making the army out to be mass murderer while also inflating the damage caused by the Tet offensive. I should also mention the politicians who were running the war from Washington and campaigning for re-election reduced the number of troops and limited the bombing.
All of these contributed to the eventual pull out of American forces and lead to Pol Pot’s bloody reign which resulted in the death of 2 million people.
I would like someone to ask Jane Fonda if she was an activist during WWII, would she have been sharing a schnapps with Hitler?
Banjo’s suggestion to read books is rather…ironic, considering that he/she/it didn’t even bother to fully read Morgan’s post.
Free speech doesn’t just require a constitutional right, Jane, it requires credibility.
i use ‘unprincipled’ as meaning based on lies and deceit. which is pretty much what we’ve found to be the case wrt going to war in iraq. but we digress…morgan you have a source for the press “inflating the damage of tet”? also, pol pot was cambodia, not vietnam. there’s no logically sound way to assert that pol pot would not have risen to power had the outcome in vietnam been different. finally, speaking of logical leaps, the “wwii/schnapps with hitler” argument doesn’t work — two different situations, not at all analogous.
“i use ‘unprincipled’ as meaning based on lies and deceit. which is pretty much what we’ve found to be the case wrt going to war in iraq. but we digress…”
Hold on there. Morgan’s a big boy and can take care of himself, but I hope he’ll indulge me in a continuance of your digression in his post. I have a few requests for attribution of my own. Specifically:
1) The definition of “lies and deceit,” with particular emphasis on the difference between deliberate untruth and error.
2) How “lies and deceit” were the basis for the decision to go to war in Iraq, keeping in mind the definitions determined in #1. Don’t forget that a requirement for proving that someone has lied includes proof that the individual(s) knew what the truth was.
Please keep in mind that sources such as Atrios, Kos, Smirking Chimp, and Salon.com don’t really carry much weight in serious argument. National Review and FrontPage Magazine may be considered.
This request for attribution can be posted on your own site, emailed to a Waterglass blogger for posting here, or in the comments section of this post. Alternatively, a one-line quote can be substituted, but only if it’s “Bush lied, people died!” or “It was all about the ooooooiiiil!”
front page? credible in serious argument? please. my cats can write with more credibility on national and international affairs than anyone at front page.