Jane Fonda
Oregonian Letters to the Editor. This is a stupid letter:
Which is the real John Kerry?
02/14/04
I need help trying to figure out Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and his feelings about the Vietnam War.
Sometimes he wants to be seen as a Vietnam War hero, and at other times he wants to be known as a Vietnam War protester.
Currently he wants to be known as a hero, but years ago as a protester, he threw medals over a White House fence during a protest march. He also wanted to be seen and known as a protester when he sat with the traitor Jane Fonda at a Vietnam War protest function.
It appears he is one of the politicians who watch the polls to decide what is most beneficial for him at a particular time.
Bernard F. Verbout
North Portland
#1: “Vietnam Hero” and “Vietnam Protester” are not mutually exclusive.
#2: His connection to Jane Fonda?: Sitting in the same crowd. More or less it. More importantly, he distanced himself from them. After all, HE HAD A CAREER IN POLITICS THAT HE WANTED TO PURSUE.
#3: Let’s play a little game, courtesy of the folks at Snopes.
Thie photograph is real:
This photograph, floating around cyberspace for the miscreants to foam at, is fake:
And this photograph may possibly be the only photograph which includes both Jane Fonda and John Kerry in the same shot:
John Kerry is sitting there, 3 or so rows behind Jane Fonda. Drift your eyes to the bearded dude, and compare him to the style of John Kerry. Recall the movie Forrest Gump. There was a reason Gump was cut to the top of the line to speak.
#4: Fascinating thing, though. A google search pairing the words Fonda and Kerry will bring up any number of items of fascination:
http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=777
The great lesson of Vietnam being that we could’ve “won” had we just clamped down hard enough on those unruly kids. Of course.
Burrow over to Rush Limbaugh’s site. I didn’t stay long enough to complete my mission of figuring out whether or not Limbaugh has the fake photograph on his site. But, I did notice the line “Do we really want to go back to the 60s?”
Which has me scratching my head, wondering what the hell he is talking about, and pondering, even if the culture is shifting toward whatever items of the 60s [one-dimesnional thinking that] that he’s railing against (that is late 60s/ early 70s), whether or not it would matter one iota whether the modern day equivalent of a Lyndon B Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, or Dick Nixon is sitting in the White House.