From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject:  Re: Clinton/Fonda
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:39:15 GMT

kw> See, cowardice isn't the same thing as fear.  I'll leave it up to
kw> you to try to figure out the difference...  

>>I understand the difference, Ken.  I also understand terms like 
>>"principles", "democracy", "freedom", "hypocrisy", and "intellectual 
>>courage". 

Good, you understand the meaning of lots of words.  And I understand the
meaning of treason.  Plainly put, it means giving aid and comfort
to the enemy, which is what Hanoi Jane did.  Which makes the bitch a 
traitor.  She committed treason.

>>I'm not defending the actions of folks who called US soldiers 
>>"baby killers", nor am I defending the actions of folks who spat 
on US servicemen. 

Yeah you are. We're talking about the same people.  I suspect that if
you'd been older, you would have been one of them.

>> However, I take grave issue with anyone who 
>>thinks that a US citizen was a traitor or a coward...  simply 
>>because he/she openly opposed, and/or refused to join, a prolonged 
>>debacle that may well be the longest running series of political 
>>and moral blunders in US history.  

Lots of people opposed the war, including me.  After I served, that is.
I actively campaigned for George McGovern, and I supported Gene McCarthy
in '68.  That's not what I'm talking about, but since you seem to have
such a short attention span, let me repeat myself (sigh...)

Jane Fonda actively supported the enemy, and I'm not going to let you try 
to obscure that fact.  What she did in making propaganda statements from 
Hanoi on behalf of the enemy, urging American troops to put down their 
weapons and refuse to fight, was EXACTLY the same things that "Tokyo Rose" 
(who was also an American citizen, btw) did on behalf of the Japanese 
during WW2.  (Tokyo Rose was hanged for treason, although she was an Asian, 
not Henry Fonda's lily-white darling little commie bitch.)  I suppose you 
think Tokyo Rose was just another patriot?  If you don't, maybe you DON'T 
understand the meaning of "hypocrisy".


>>...  in accordance with your notions of what "good germans" ought 
>>to do when their leaders tell them who to kill?  Do the citizens 
>>of the US owe their duty to a group of politicians waging an 
>>undeclared war that was initially shaped by the policies of the 
>>McCarthy era?  Or, do they owe their duty to the principles on 
>>which their country was founded?  

Well...actually it was John F. Kennedy who got us involved in Viet Nam, and
LBJ who got us mired there, but I don't expect that sits well with your
leftist leanings, so feel free to ignore the facts if you like.

rl> What exactly is it that you find
rl> offensive about the term, "good german"?   

kw> The phrase refers to those germans who feigned ignorance at the
kw> holocaust.  I object to the comparison.  

>It refers to men and women who did what they were told, and never 
>challenged the dictum, "My country -- right or wrong". 

OK, so you don't mind if I use the blanket term "coward" for those that
made cheap excuses to run away from their duty to their country?  (Oh
that's right...  only "good germans" have a duty to their country...  
The rest of us only have a duty to ourselves, right?)  I have news for you
Russell.  Lots of us in the service had real serious questions about
being on the blunt end of Lyndon Johnson's meglomaniacal foreign policy,
but we just didn't have a lot of choice in the matter.

>>SS soldiers were also serving their country, or so they thought.

Russell, you really are starting to sound like a mindless bag of wind...
Thanks for publicly displaying your true colors to everybody like this.
(Care to go over to an army base and compare the troops to the SS
for having joined?  It might make for a real interesting "debate".)

>>Your comments about Ellsberg are intriguing.  Given two men, each 
>>holding similar convictions that the war was flatout wrong, I don't
>>understand why why you'd excuse the opposition of one while 
>condemning the opposition of the other.  You seem to be saying that
>>it was ok for a 40 year old bureaucrat to oppose the war, but not
>>ok for a young man of draft age to express his opposition.

Ellsburg was too old to be drafted, so it's pretty hard to suspect
him of using his opposition to the war as a handy justification
for trying to run from the draft.  Clinton did a handy little
two-step in order to avoid the draft, while still trying to
"preserve his political viability".  Considering he signed up
for ROTC, it's a real stretch of the imaginiation to believe
that he thought the war was "flat out wrong".  I think (and apparently 
quite a few other do too) he was just trying to save himself from danger.  
Hey, I can relate to that.  It was pretty dangerous over there.  I don't 
even consider that cowardice, necessarily.  In a lot of ways, it made
good sense.  However, since I, unlike you, can't go back 25 years and read 
these men's minds, I must reserve my questions on his true motivation. %^P  

Anyway.  I never said  there was anything wrong with him expressing his 
opposition to the war.  All I said was that I have real problem with a draft 
dodger being commander in chief of the armed forces.  I bet a lot of the
folks in the armed forces will too.

kw> 3.  Fonda.  This is the same person who refused to criticize the Khmer Rouge
kw>     when the stories of their "killing field" atrocities became public
kw>     knowledge, saying something to the effect of, "I don't think that it's
kw>     appropriate to criticize "progressive regimes".  (I heard her say this
kw>     on TV, I'm not making it up or telling you about something I've only 
kw>     gotten second-hand.)  The same person who said about Communism "if
kw>     people only understood what Communism was really all about, you'd
kw>     pray for the day that America becomes Communist."  (These aren't
kw>     exact quotes, but the substance of the statements are accurate.)  Of 
kw>     course, maybe you'd agree with these statements, I don't know.  Care to
kw>     try to defend them? 

>>I'd be happy to defend her right to make such statements.  

I would also defend her right to make those statements, but that wasn't
what I asked you about (but then, you knew that all the time, now, didn't
you?).  Given that she MADE the statements, do you agree with them?  You
DO seem rather eager to apologize for her...  (OK, everybody, watch out.
Don't let Russell knock you down when he tries to dodge the question.)


>>And, I'd
>>be happy to fight mock patriots who think that fighting "communism" 
>>grants them a special privilege to trample on human rights.

Yeah, me too.  If I'd been around in WW2, I would have fought the Nazis.
Would you have, or would you have made excuses?  There was a non-interventionist
"peace movement" before WW2, you know.  I'm sure you could have found a
German ancestor back somewhere in your lineage that would have permitted
you to be opposed to fighting them (probably not a "good german", though...)

kw> Since you want to compare Viet Nam veterans to Nazis,
kw> how about if we deal with Traitor Jane's warm, fuzzy feelings about Joseph
kw> Stalin's party?  Is this REALLY worthy of honor?  Why do you PERSONALLY 
kw> feel a need to come to her defense?  Are YOU anti-American/pro-communist?

>>I'm an advocate of rights, Ken.  And I strongly believe that 
>>people should have the right to determine the way they choose to 
>>live their own lives.   Does that make me a "communist"?  Or does
>>that make me an "american"?

It doesn't make you anything.  Of course, if you really want to believe that
people under a Communist regime have any right to choose how to live their
own lives, maybe you should talk to somebody from Eastern Europe.  But that 
wasn't my question, now was it? (Nice try AGAIN, but no cigar...)  So, let's 
get back to my original question:  Are you anti-American?  In this thread
you've done your best to show how little regard you hold this country and
those who have put their lives on the line for her;  you sure SOUND anti-
American...  Are you pro-Communist?  I have several hundred lines from
you on this thread that sure sounds like it.  You seem to have an awful
lot of good things to say about them, and very little good to say about us.

kw> I've always considered such statements to be nothing but cheap excuses
kw> for people trying to rationalize their own unwillingness to put themselves
kw> at risk on behalf of their country...

>>That's obvious.  Perhaps it would help if you'd throw away the 
>>crystal ball that gives you such remarkable insights into the 
>>motivations of people with political ideologies that you find 
>>disagreeable.  

I don't have a crystal ball.  My insights aren't all that remarkable.
And I got them the hard way.

Now, we've dealt with your questions and comments, so let's get back to
the stuff you deleted and/or conveniently overlooked:


How old are you?  Do you have any firsthand knowledge of this subject, or just
what you've read?  What were YOU doing during the war in Viet Nam, Russell?
Were you protesting, or just sitting around in your playpen eating boogers?
Why can't you accept the fact that many, (NOT ALL) of those who dodged the draft
did so out of a desire to protect their own hides?  Are we talking about your
father?  I guess my point is, if all you can do is quote history books to me,
keep it to yourself.  "History book knowledge" is too cheaply attained to
impress me very much, not terribly accurate, and I'm certainly not inclined 
to suffer fools who try to use it to lecture me on something I have first-hand 
knowledge of.  












































 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals