Jane's Brain Drain
Jane Fonda must be very busy touting her book. She doesn't have time to read the papers.
I don't know what excuse Letterman's audience has. It's getting harder and harder to pick a day to spout that kind of political baby-talk without drooling it on news of something inspiring that the Iraqis, or Lebanese, have done for themselves, directly or indirectly as a result of the American decision to start toppling dominos in the Middle East.
The same day Fonda spoke, and Letterman's crew applauded her, a Kurdish man who had spent decades at war with Saddam Hussein was named president of Iraq. Hussein had to watch his old enemy sworn in from a prison cell television.
Perhaps Jane Fonda said that because she has in mind some other path than the one George Bush follows. Perhaps she would have advocated for another way to get from point A (mass-murdering tyrant with a lust for WMD rules Iraq) to point B (leader of a people formerly targeted for genocide now the free leader of an Iraq steaming toward democracy).
If she has such a plan in mind, however, she neglected to make it known before March 2003. And she neglected to make it known Wednesday night. She recently spent a lot of time writing a book about her petulance toward her father and her string of rich husbands, so apparently she hasn't had time to really elaborate that Iraq peace proposal.
Or maybe she really prefers Iraq as it was. With Uday's rape palaces still running and Jalal Talabani still on the run for his life. The choice in Iraq never was between war and peace, if you were an Iraqi. The war was there before the Americans set foot on the sand: the dictator of the nation was at war against the people.
Or maybe real, hard choices just never register at the windy corner of Hollywood and Sixties, where Jane has the biggest mansion in sight. Realities can be thorny things. They stick. It's much nobler if even your own actions are not your fault. Or if you pretend they aren't.
So what exactly was she doing in 1972 on that North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun, declaring that American POWs were treated humanely and condemning U.S. soldiers as "war criminals" and later denouncing them as liars for claiming they had been tortured?
I guess the right-wing nutjobs gave her an overdose of GBH and propped her up there for the cameras. But that drug sure lasted a long time:
And they accuse the Bushies of not being "reality-based."
Meanwhile, my very progressive co-worker has lectured me on "the real reason" American military men hate Jane Fonda. As close to her actual words as I can render it, this is the cause: Jane was a beautiful, feminine actress in the 1960s who was the focus of much desire of young men. Then she became very earthy and gave up being a sex symbol. She started being an intelligent, powerful woman instead. She scuttled their juvenile lust fantasies. This is what really offended those immature American men, and they never forgave Jane for that.
I kid you not.
Fonda was on CBS' "Late Show with David Letterman" Wednesday night and Letterman asked how she feels about the war in Iraq. Fonda got a big hand from Letterman's audience when she said, "I think the war is wrong. I think it's a mistake and I think that we should get out." [link]
I don't know what excuse Letterman's audience has. It's getting harder and harder to pick a day to spout that kind of political baby-talk without drooling it on news of something inspiring that the Iraqis, or Lebanese, have done for themselves, directly or indirectly as a result of the American decision to start toppling dominos in the Middle East.
The same day Fonda spoke, and Letterman's crew applauded her, a Kurdish man who had spent decades at war with Saddam Hussein was named president of Iraq. Hussein had to watch his old enemy sworn in from a prison cell television.
Perhaps Jane Fonda said that because she has in mind some other path than the one George Bush follows. Perhaps she would have advocated for another way to get from point A (mass-murdering tyrant with a lust for WMD rules Iraq) to point B (leader of a people formerly targeted for genocide now the free leader of an Iraq steaming toward democracy).
If she has such a plan in mind, however, she neglected to make it known before March 2003. And she neglected to make it known Wednesday night. She recently spent a lot of time writing a book about her petulance toward her father and her string of rich husbands, so apparently she hasn't had time to really elaborate that Iraq peace proposal.
Or maybe she really prefers Iraq as it was. With Uday's rape palaces still running and Jalal Talabani still on the run for his life. The choice in Iraq never was between war and peace, if you were an Iraqi. The war was there before the Americans set foot on the sand: the dictator of the nation was at war against the people.
Or maybe real, hard choices just never register at the windy corner of Hollywood and Sixties, where Jane has the biggest mansion in sight. Realities can be thorny things. They stick. It's much nobler if even your own actions are not your fault. Or if you pretend they aren't.
Fonda told Letterman her image as Hanoi Jane is a creation of ideologues to "promulgate their right wing, narrow world view. It really doesn't have anything to do with me and it's kind of sick."
So what exactly was she doing in 1972 on that North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun, declaring that American POWs were treated humanely and condemning U.S. soldiers as "war criminals" and later denouncing them as liars for claiming they had been tortured?
I guess the right-wing nutjobs gave her an overdose of GBH and propped her up there for the cameras. But that drug sure lasted a long time:
To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted. She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law." [link]
And they accuse the Bushies of not being "reality-based."
Meanwhile, my very progressive co-worker has lectured me on "the real reason" American military men hate Jane Fonda. As close to her actual words as I can render it, this is the cause: Jane was a beautiful, feminine actress in the 1960s who was the focus of much desire of young men. Then she became very earthy and gave up being a sex symbol. She started being an intelligent, powerful woman instead. She scuttled their juvenile lust fantasies. This is what really offended those immature American men, and they never forgave Jane for that.
I kid you not.
Labels: anti-war, Jane Fonda, Sixties
