Politics & Policy

Plain Jane; Clinton’s Animal Alter-Ego

PLAIN JANE

Yesterday a promise was made in this space to bash Jane Fonda. The “why” is obvious – she’s an awful, traitorous bully of a woman (my apologies to those readers who think I’m mincing words). But the question of “why now” is a bit more pertinent. After all, her treason was a long time ago. And these days she spends most of her time being a relatively harmless left wing liar and nice complement to Ted Turner.

Well, what got me thinking about this was the fuss over John F. Kennedy Jr. and the bonfires at Woodstock. For the last week we witnessed myth-making first hand by the media. Without dredging up that argument again, it seems everyone can agree that the media believed that JFK Jr.’s death was a very big deal and a monumental loss. Some people disagree a little, some a lot, some not at all.

But just as the press can see some things as very important, it can dismiss some things as trivial – the ruckus over what the President does with his pants just being one example. So, if John Kennedy’s modest but laudable accomplishments made him a secular saint, Jane Fonda’s perfidious crimes can be overlooked because she’s glamorous, sexy, and a good feminist. So last month the American Association of University Women gave Fonda its first Speaking Out for Justice Award. And earlier this spring ABC’s “A Celebration: 100 Years of Great Women” included Fonda. Barbara Walters didn’t think Fonda’s politics were worth inquiring about.

It’s not that media bigwigs and limousine liberals will go out of their way to defend Fonda, but they just don’t care about the bad things she’s done. That’s all in the past, after all. It’s as if they have no depth perception to their left. Speaking out against the war is the same as legally refusing the draft (i.e. going voluntarily to jail) which is the same as evading the draft which is the same as dodging the draft which is the same as aiding and abetting the enemy.

So, because if something is unforgivable it should remain unforgettable, herewith a quick primer on why Jane Fonda is awful (with special thanks to Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe whose column I have borrowed from).

In July of 1972, Jane Fonda flew to Vietnam on a morale mission of sorts. What made it different was that she was there to boost the morale of the North Vietnamese troops and demoralize the Americans.

She can be found at your local library on the cover of the July 16th New York Times clapping as an enemy (an ally in her case) operates an anti-aircraft gun used on American aircraft.

Fonda made several broadcasts on Radio Hanoi praising the bravery of North Vietnamese troops and denouncing American “imperialism.”

She even posed in the gunner’s seat of an enemy anti-aircraft gun, put on an enemy helmet, and pretended she was shooting down American planes.

She encouraged American troops to disobey their superiors: “I’m speaking particularly to the US servicemen,” she said on Hanoi Radio. “I don’t know what your officers tell you…but [your] weapons are illegal and…the men who are ordering you to use these weapons are war criminals.” She compared American officers to war criminals from Germany and Japan and suggested that her fellow countrymen should be executed.

She visited American POWs and claimed that she saw no evidence that they had been mistreated. The reality was that POWs were tortured if they declined to meet with Fonda and pose for propaganda photos.

One Navy Captain, David Hoffman, was hung by his broken arm from a hook in the ceiling. Michael Benge, a civilian POW, was forced to kneel on a concrete floor, arms extended, with a heavy metal rebar laid across his hands; every time his arms sagged from the weight, he was whipped with a bamboo cane. While this torture wasn’t unusual, it was administered in their cases precisely because these men refused to cooperate with Fonda. When they and others came home, Fonda called them ‘’hypocrites and liars” for suggesting they received anything but the best treatment.

She didn’t apologize for sixteen years and when she did it was tepid and half-hearted and treated the whole issue as silly.

But Fonda is a class act in so many ways. She praised Jim Jones’s Church as the one “I relate to most’’ for its ‘’sense of what life is all about.’’ She libels Christian conservatives saying “They don’t care about children that don’t look like them,” she declared. “They don’t care about children that are not white, middle-class Christians. As far as they’re concerned, others can be eliminated.”

Indeed, she regularly lies for justice, as when she said that Northern Georgia was like a Third World country where children are ‘’starving to death’’ and people live ‘’in tar-paper shacks with no indoor plumbing.’’ She married Ted Turner, who never seems to have an unexpressed bad thought about the Pope and whose views hug the line of racism when it comes to world population problems. Everything would be great ‘’if everybody adopted a one-child policy for 100 years,” Turner said recently.

Anyway, it may seem like an odd time to be talking about Hanoi Jane. But since there’s never a right time for the mainstream press, now is as good a time as any.

CLINTON’S ANIMAL ALTER-EGO

Today’s New York Times science section has an interesting article on the coyote. But that’s not pertinent. Listen to this description of the animal in the first paragraph. Does it sound like the ancient Indians had prophesied Bill Clinton’s arrival or what?

I have replaced the words “animals spirits” with “American Presidents.”

“By American Indian tradition, he is the Trickster, the most cunning but also the most flawed and human of American presidents. Noble and godlike in some ways, he is also perverse, vain, deceitful, larcenous, obsessed with sex, and a lover of pranks who repeatedly blunders into trouble and gets his comeuppance, but always bounces back.”

“Noble and godlike” doesn’t work for me, but it certainly explains the behavior of some Clinton cronies.

HATE MAIL UPDATE

My combing through the hate mail feature will have to wait for later this week. My article(s) about JFK Jr. have unleashed a deluge of correspondence pro and con and I am still sifting through it.

Recommended

The Latest