3 years of War and economic freefall, and the issue is Hanoi Jane?

[arendt]

Well, the Dems couldn't have screwed this up any worse
if they tried.

Bush is vulnerable on so many things that are COMPLETELY
his fault: lying us into war, ruining the economy and the budget,
trashing the Constitution, raping the environment.

So, what are we talking about?

Divisive crapola from 35 years ago. Viet Nam is like the Civil
War - you are never going to get the losers to admit they were
wrong.

It is already a masterstroke of confusion to co-mingle the
totally illegitimate Iraq war with an equally illegitimate earlier
war that the Right Wing Re-write Machine has had thirty
years to transform into the American equivalent of the
"stab in the back" lie that the Nazis used to excuse the
Wehrmacht's bloody failure in WW1.

From a one-sided no-brainer of a moral choice, we are moved
into a murky world of John Kerry's many careers: soldier,
war protestor, CIA critic, liberal senator, waffling enabler of the IWR.

We are talking about @#$%^ Jane Fonda (aka Hanoi Jane)
instead of the lying, looting, layoff-happy Bush.

-----

Now, it is clear that John Kerry wanted no part of this. He tried
to duck the whole fuss when Michael Moore brought it up. But,
the corporate media suddenly decided this had legs, unlike four
years ago when they buried it. Whatever the corporate media is
doing, the context is too bloody confusing for me to sort out.

Is it pre-emptive damage control (get the AWOL charge out front,
then declare it irrelevant and move on)? Is it a gambit to make
the last 35 years of Kerry's career fair game? Is the Hanoi Jane
thing a gambit to re-energize the Angry White Man vote? Or,

<tin foil> the media wants Bush out without upsetting all the
corporate mega profits. So have the election on this tangential
trivia; let Kerry win as long as he doesn't rock the boat. </tin foil>

The context is moving faster than any outsider can track.

----

What a mess. And still the DLC wants to anoint Kerry. Let's just all
wait and see how he handles this mess, plus the Massachusetts
Gay Marriage brawl.

Its Mr. Kerry's turn to take a spin in the barrel and a swim in the
shark tank. If he's as good as his supporters say he is, he will
emerge unscathed. And unbelievers will have some tangible
reason to get on the bandwagon.

arendt

[JVS]

1. Yeah, this has to be the stupidest year ever

[aldian159]

6. And it's only February

n/t

[arendt]

2. More confusing scenarios

Bush has already collected $200 Million. If he goes
down in the primary season because of AWOL,
what happens to all that cash? And who is the GOP
going to run? Can't run Rudi instead of Unca Dick
if the Chimp isn't running.

So, the AWOL push makes no sense. Bush has too
much power for THIS issue to stick unless the powers
that be want him out -

we are back to my tinfoil scenario.

Please, someone give me a reason the press is
pushing AWOL so hard at this particular moment.
Is it a way to make John Kerry look good momentarily
so he wipes out his last rivals and then, later, when
he is the nominee, all the shit starts: affairs, money,
the wife's unique background.

The harder they bash Bush on AWOL, the more scared
I get. This is the WRONG issue to get all this attention.
What about the REAL issues: the war, the lies, the
coverups, the looting, the economy.

The media doesn't waste this kind of bandwidth for
NO REASON. Somebody please give me a reason
that I can believe.

arendt

[Jacobin]

3. Read any Greek tragedy

To hold the audience's attention, you must have a grand personage, held in high esteem, at the top of his game...someone admired by all. Then, you bring him down, flaming preferably, into the muck and mud of despair.

Bush has been built up (god knows beyond any semblance of reality) and now, to complete the cycle and to keep the public entertained, he must be brought low.

Keep in mind, that once having brought a formerly highly esteemed personage up and then down, he may also be raised up again from the ashes.

YOu are seeing the beginning of Act II. Have no doubt that Act III, (bringing him back up from the ashes) will unfold just in time for November.

[arendt]

9. You're probably right, mon ami, but...

why bother to vote when all the media does is play
some soap opera script written by the CIA?

It really pisses me off that someone "behind the
curtain" dictates what will or won't get "traction"
in the media. Just like when they disappeared all
the anti-war demonstrations. That was unreal.
100,000 people in DC and the NY Times has
to run an apology three days later for not reporting
that fact. 500,000 people in NYC, and practically
no on-the-scene coverage plus a drastic under-
estimate of the crowd size (probably under by
over 200,000 people).

The media really is Bizarro World or Down the
Rabbit Hole. How can anyone be an informed
voter if that is where they get their news?

We really have to Take Back the Media.

arendt

[einniv]

5. I think you are correct in that it was done to legitimize the

coming personal attacks.
Except that I (naively ? ) think that our press wants to be balanced. Timmy didn't give Bush a pass.
Our press is still free. Yes there are a lot of pressures from a lot of angles that warps it sometimes but it isn't totally Pravda just yet.

Edit:I would like to add that it was apparent to me that many of Russerts questions were derived from questions he recieved through email and mabey even Du'ers!

[Vogon_Glory]

4. Pix, Proximity, and John Kerry

The notorious right-wing propaganda feed News Max seeks to link John Kerry with Jane Fonda's behavior by using a photo from an anti-war rally taken over two years before Jane Fonda went to Hanoi.

Anyone who has seen that photo has seen that youthful John Kerry sitting a couple of rows away and behind Jane Fonda. The far right seems to think that the image somehow indicates that Kerry and Fonda were in complete agreement in thought, word, and deed in regard to their beliefs concerning the Vietnam War.

Such an interpretation is hogwash. I myself have sat closer to then-Texas Governor George Walker Bush than Kerry did to Fonda when George the Younger was visiting my aunt and uncle's church here in Texas. Such proximity doesn't mean that I'm either a Methodist or a George W. Bush supporter.

News Max--:P :crazy: :silly:

[arewethereyet]

7. if anyone is surprized at this turn of events please return voter cards

it's not exactly news that he was a VN protester and pointedly so.

you didn't expect that this would pass quietly with or without Jane Fonda did you ? There was no chance that pictures would NOT appear, there were only so many large rallies and the usual suspects tended to appear.

if this is coming as a surprize, you have flunked the informed voter quiz.

[arendt]

10. You are right, it was inevitable...

its just that I still am working for Howard Dean, and I
was not ready for the campaign to jump ahead like
Kerry had won already, which he has not.

As far as I'm concerned, these attacks on Kerry are
perfectly appropriate. If he can't handle them, he
shouldn't be the nominee - and there is still time and
primary votes to make that so.

If he can handle them, then he legitimizes himself
to some degree.

Another reason for being surprised is that, living in
Massachusetts, I am in the eye of this gay marriage
hurricane. We locals have had to take a time out from
Presidential politics to fight the corrupt Dems and the
slimeball GOP in this state. Meanwhile, Kerry ducks
the issue entirely - such leadership, NOT.

arendt

[dansolo]

8. Why would the war be an issue?

The Democrats are overwhelmingly voting for a guy who voted for it.

[Straight Shooter]

11. If Vietnam has been resurrected, expect all ghosts to be in attendance

This was the chance that Kerry took when he assumed the Vietnam "war hero" position, and when he makes it a focal point of his campaign. It was a double-edged sword. He expected the fallout of his association with VVAW, and any association or lack thereof with Hanoi Jane.

Bitter wounds run deep.