Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 10:31 am
You last visited January 22, 2017, 9:05 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

More Hanoi Jane and war protesters

Published:

Last Edited: September 18, 2005, 5:49 pm

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.

http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/leftovers/showpics.cgi?liberal_foreign_policy

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.

Jack


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.
Jack

Entry #299

Comments

1.
konaneComment by konane - September 18, 2005, 7:36 pm
Bringing that point of a congressional declaration of war forward to present time, then perhaps President Bush should have allowed al Qaeda to hit another American city then congress would have given that declaration for war.

However, al Qaeda isn't a nation so am not sure the constitution provides for declaring war against an ideology with no specific national identity and which is comprised of pockets in various nations.

Going back a few years if Cinton had taken bin Laden when he was offered him then we might not have American blood being spilled on this soil or in the Middle East.

First article gives a synopsis of what happened, plus on the page of the article there is a live link to a recording by Clinton admitting he was offered and turn down bin Laden which has voice print confirmed as his voice and aired on FoxNews.




"Ijaz: Clarke Blocked bin Laden Extradition
Clinton administration diplomatic troubleshooter Mansoor Ijaz charged Monday that one-time White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke blocked efforts to gather intelligence on al Qaeda and torpedoed a deal to have Osama bin Laden extradited from Afghanistan in the years before the 9/11 attacks.

"I was personally asked to brief Condoleezza Rice's deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley on exactly what had gone wrong in the previous efforts to get bin Laden out of the Sudan, to get the terrorism data out of the Sudan, which I negotiated the offer for," Ijaz told Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends."

He said he also personally negotiated an deal "to get bin Laden out of Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 2000, using at Abu Dhabi Royal Family as a proxy to get him out on an extradition offer."

But Ijaz told Fox:

"In each case of things that were involved in the Clinton administration, Richard Clarke himself stepped in and blocked the efforts that were being made over and over and over again."

The unofficial diplomat said that if Clarke hadn't put up roadblocks to obtaining Sudanese intelligence, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998 might have been prevented.

He called Clarke's account denying offers of Sudanese cooperation "absolutely disingenuous; it comes very close to flat-out lying."

After months of denials from his former aides, ex-President Clinton finally admitted that he personally turned down the offer by Sudan to arrest bin Laden.

"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again," Clinton told a New York business group in February 2002.

"They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

In his book, "Against All Enemies," Clarke called reports that Clinton had turned down the Sudanese offer "a fable."

To hear NewsMax.com's exclusive audiotape of ex-President Clinton exposing Richard Clarke's account as false, Click Here. (live link)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/22/223420.shtml
2.
Comment by Rip Snorter - September 18, 2005, 9:47 pm
It ain't me, konane. It's the US Constitution. That's the thing the prez swears to uphold. Says he doesn't do wars on his own ticket. Whatever you suppose the prez should or shouldn't have done as regards to al Qaeda has nothing to do with Honoi Jane, Vietnam, nor the US Constitution.

I honestly don't know much about Clinton, nor care.

The issue's how people who oppose this war can communicate their opposition to it without doing it through their elected representatives. Evidently you believe they just ought to keep their mouths shut every time a prez decides to go to war, wait until it's all over to decide whether they oppose it, or clamp their lips shut out of fear they'll be thought traitors in the eyes of war lovers.

That's not how it's going to work. If the prez wants support for this war, a legal definition of sedition, and a legal enemy for people not to aid and abet, he's going to have to do what he swore to do anyway. Obey the US Constitution.

If he doesn't, then there's no enemy to accuse anyone of abetting. And he'll go down if he continues the war because the citizenry is galvanizing against it and is becoming frustrated because there's not means of communicating the opposition through their elected representatives.

If he doesn't end it he'll go down because he's unlucky and spitting on the Constitution the same way his predecessors did isn't something he'll get by with. Truthfully, except for his daddy, it didn't do the rest of them any good, either.

Jack
3.
konaneComment by konane - September 19, 2005, 10:10 am
Well looks like we're dealing with an area of legality established through continuing with customary behavior begun by a predecessor, carried forward and has been "grandfathered" in.

Appears that it will take something regrettably more catastrophic than 9-11 to achieve a formal congressional declaration of war.

However, with suitcase nukes, biologicals, it's entirely possible and being predicted by security experts.

History has its lessons but there is no guarantee that if we repeat the same behavior as we have in the past that a similar outcome will occur today. Times have changed dramatically.

I'm personally more concerned with current threats and the ability to thwart them with instantaneous information and communication that we've not had until recently.

I believe we're up to the task and will prevail much to the chagrin of Hanoi Janes and her contemporary clones.
4.
Comment by Rip Snorter - September 19, 2005, 10:30 am
"Well looks like we're dealing with an area of legality established through continuing with customary behavior begun by a predecessor, carried forward and has been "grandfathered" in. "

"Appears that it will take something regrettably more catastrophic than 9-11 to achieve a formal congressional declaration of war."

Time will tell. Once we've abandoned the formal document prescribing how the country's supposed to run, everything's up for grabs and nothing much is out of bounds.

As for Congress declaring war, it's something the Chief Exec of the nation as to ask them to do, and why he's asking, since he's the one who'd have to execute the war. No president since Roosevelt has asked for such a declaration. The hands of elected representatives are tied in such circumstances, far more that those of individuals.

Congress could simply refuse to fund a war effort to try to force the hand of the prez, but in doing so they'd face the wrath of some unknown number kneejerk war lovers and probably the media, who'd maintain each member of the elected body who voted to cut off funds had traitorously betrayed the troops in the field.

Handy way to keep Congressional folks tightly in their corner with the help of unthinking patriots who (like the prez) have no respect for the US Constitution, have zip for knowledge of what it says, but who love the thrill of thinking some new 'enemy' has been defeated.

Unfortunate development, all in all.

I agree .... a lot of people will assert as you do, that we can win without a plan for winning, win without the support of the elected representatives of the electorate, as they believed similarly in Korea and Vietnam, through techno superiority, numbers, and more billions of dollars and lives thrown into the effort.

All Americans can do is hope you're correct, or do what conscience demands them to do to try to bring it to a halt.

Jack

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.