Kodiak, re: Question. In what important way was Jane's stand against the war different from the mustered-out John Kerry's view, with the medal throwing, the "testimony" before Congress and the 1971 book? As far as I can tell, both wanted to end the war as quickly as possible and both didn't let anything stand in the way; a pure ends justifies the means philosophy. And, if John Kerry had not "confessed" to war crimes on the part of so many others (but not himself, of course), wouldn't this be a very different election and discussion today?
Kerry was an advocate for the end of the war. Fonda was an advocate for the NVA to win the war. Kerry loved our men in Vietnam. His men loved him. Fonda hated our men in Vietnam. She called them killers, (correctly,) and despised them personally for their killing. Kerry despised the killing, not the men who were placed there where killing was necessary. Fonda seeemed to have believed everything negative told to her about the "good" of the insurgents-VC-NVA with little or no personal knowledge to moderate or substantiate her beliefs. Kerry had personal background knowledge of the conditions, attitudes and war "climate" in Vietnam from which he could evaluate the probable truth of those facts that he didn't have personal knowledge of.
Kerry was RIGHT in the views he expresssed of the corrupt, morally bankrupt sickness of that war, the lack of a "winning strategy" and the lack of a compelling justification for it. He had his finger on the "truth" of Vietnam. Fonda was wrong in many of her perceptions of the war, radical beyond truth, and wrong to act in ways that indicated that she believed that opposing the war justified expressly and emotionally supporting our enemies IN THEIR KILLING OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS.
Those who feel that Kerry had an "ends justify the means" philosophy with respect to encouraging an end to the war, fail to point out where his statements were, in any material way, untruthful or even erroneous. If he didn't have the right to tell the truth to a public that NEEDED to know what was being done in their name, and how, then none of us did. And I can't accept that.
In answer to the last sentence of your query, if Kerry hadn't spoken out against the war he would have been a rising political star from an early age, the Swift Boat veterans would not be telling stories about how he didn't "deserve" his medals or purple hearts, and he would be far ahead in this election. I think it took courage to do what he did when you consider that the people he'd been in combat with and formed strong bonds with were on the other side of that issue at the time. (I'm talking about not only the other "officers" of the Swift Boats, but also his own crew.) You should also know that he DID, correctly, admit to violations of the Geneva convention himself.
On the issue of "civil disobedience" versus free speech, Kerry was arrested one time. I don't know if Fonda was. If she wasn't it was probably because Nixon's government didn't want the publicity. In her travels abroad to Hanoi, I'm sure she could have been arrested and charged with something. Do you think Ashcroft would find something?
I wasn't advocating that Fonda shouldn't have had the right to advocate for, support, cheer for or make statement's on behalf of the NVA. I was only stating that even under my very broad views of standing up for what one believes, I draw the line at respecting someone who crosses the line and emotionally supports those who are killing our troops. It's the difference between wanting the war to stop, and wanting it to stop so badly that you hope for the defeat (deaths) of our young men and women in the military. She was so rabidly anti-American soldier, anti-war and pro-enemy that I was sure at the time that she was well over that line. |
