My blog entry here: http://www.lotterypost.com/blogcomments.asp?i=3902
involves Hanoi Jane and Joan Baez. It's buried, but fundamental difference of perspective is being penned by konane and me in the comments section. I believe that difference is one worth pulling to the top of the blog where others can enter the discussion if they'd care to do so:
KONANE: Comment by konane- Today, 2:23 pm
Things haven't changed much for her except plastic surgery and hair dye. Still selling out her nation,
working for the communists. Ooops, I mean Progressive Socialists as they're now reinvented, repackaged.
Jay Dyson's political satire sums her up best..... click on the pic for his commentary.
RIP SNORTER: Comment by Rip Snorter- Today, 2:48 pm
I make a distinction between 'selling out her country' (as it pertains to supporting, or opposing this police action) and actively supporting the opposing forces. The dispicable thing about the Hanoi incident with Joan and Jane had nothing to do with their opposition to the presidential war. They visited North Vietnam in active support of and enthusiastic endorsement of specific measures and instruments for killing their own countrymen.
That thin line between opposing the hostilities in Vietnam and continuing to support the well-being of US troops in the field was a nuance that was lost on both of them. The fact US troops were in opposition to the political ideals and outcomes both hoped, and their willingness to cheer the use of armed force to kill the opposition to their political ideal, wish the worst on Americans who served there, no matter what they believed, is what I consider dispicable.
KONANE: Comment by konane- Today, 5:14 pm
I suppose my line of thinking is very old in that if you do not agree with a particular president's course of action involving our troop deployment that while those troops are deployed on whatever mission that it is best to keep opinions silent until troops come home.
Voicing opposition to Nam and also now shows the enemy a divided nation which is viewed as being weak and vulnerable to defeat.
I believe it was General Giap who praised the anti war protesters for their victory, seems it was Kerry in particular.
I always thought that the whole pile of them should be tried for treason and punished accordingly because they went way over the line and cost many an American soldier their lives.
My reply, here, not there:
That's an opinion the government of the time would have shared with you, konane. If citizens, like yourself, but opposed to the war, could have been charged with treason or sedition they would have been.
Unfortunately for those who'd have liked that war to still be going on, the presidents who were sending young men off to be killed and crippled while you cheered, didn't have a legal case for treason, nor sedition. No 'enemy' was defined, war didn't exist.
The men who served as president during those years of all three wars mentioned presented the public with a fait accompli. Troops were in the field an awfully long while before opposition formed, and there was no means for that opposition to be heard, aside from the way it was.
If the president wanted a criminal action means of controlling protest, all he would have had to do was get a Constitutionally required declaration of war from Congress for each military adventure at issue. Then there'd have been a legal meaning to the word treason.
Instead, the president in each case betrayed the troops in the field by failing to mobilize the people and the Congress to support the war.
Your assertion is fundamentally flawed. If the prez, any of them, could have done as you believe they should have, they'd have done so. Instead, they avoided it at the cost of the troops in the field, because they'd never have been able to begin those wars if they'd had to do their sworn duty to the US Constitution and ask the elected representatives of the people for permission to wage war.