Obama endorser helped torture McCain…

Jane Fonda, (“Hanoi Jane”) recently endorsed Obama for President.  RedState makes a great point about Jane Fonda endorsing Obama.   in 1972, Jane Fonda was instrumental in spreading North Vietnamese propaganda against the troops.  Info as is verified in Snopes.com via RedState:

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.”

The point is made that John McCain, having been a POW in Hanoi, is one who was directly affected by the actions of Hanoi Jane. 

Will Barack Obama reject the endorsement of the treasonist Fonda for her part in the torture and beatings of many POWs during the Vietnam War?

It doesn’t look so great for Obama to accept, or at the very least, not reject, this endorsement. 

With a closer look, odds are Obama will not reject the endorsement.  After all, one of his mentors, Frank Marshall Davis, was a member of the Communist Party.  From Accuracy in Media,

However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”

The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What’s more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.  

 But then, as they say— birds of a communist feather, flock together!


24 Responses

  1. McCain helped getting 4024 Americans killed by pushing the Iraq invasion.

  2. gasdocpol,
    I guess the fact that 3000 Americans were killed at the hands of evil terrorist thugs on OUR soil is not worthy of your support for retaliation.
    But you believe it is justified to compare the bravery of over 4000 VOLUNTARY military members to the treasonist, anti-American, ignorant acts of Jane Fonda in the 1960’s.
    You need to stop drinking the Bush Derangement Koolaid and open your eyes to the worldwide terrorist threat.

  3. “McCain helped getting 4024 Americans killed by pushing the Iraq invasion”

    This is so typical of a leftie cool-aid drinker. What exactly is this supposed to mean? Come up with an original and intelligent thought ONE TIME.

    I guess the fact that 3000 Americans were killed at the hands of evil terrorist thugs on OUR soil is not worthy of your support for retaliation.



    But we “retaliated” against Iraq. and lied 4024 volunteers into early graves.

    It was OK because they were volunteers?

    Who is the one drinking the kool-ade ?

  5. gasdocpol,
    We actually retaliated in Afghanistan first….but I suppose you didn’t approve of that either.

    Many leaders in this world and in this country (including lefty Democrats) stated definitively that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he should be removed if he didn’t abide by UN sanctions.

    Bush didn’t make it up, I didn’t make it up…that is fact.

    I get really tired of those of your ilk who don’t hear but what you want to hear and then tell the rest of us “I got news for you.”

    Go drink your Koolaid and wait for the terrorist threat coming to your town….you obviously don’t have the forethought to think about eliminating terror over “there” to keep us safer here!

    (And, by the way, there have been no Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11…..guess Afghanistan and Iraq had nothing to do with that???)

  6. i agreed to the Afganistan invasion as well as Desert Storm. I voted for and supported GHW Bush (The Elder)

    The question is not if Saddam had WMD but if he was stupid and crazy enough to use them against the USA.

    Most of the world was against the Iraq invasion. The UN was against the invasion.

    It is much easier for Al Qaeda to fight us over there on our way to bankruptcy.

  7. What is the favorite drink of the radical left???


    Absolut and Kool-aid

  8. Good one, GJB!

  9. Absolute and kool-ade lol That’s rich. How long did it take to think that one up?

    We invaded Iraq to carry out the agenda of the draft -dodging chicken hawks of PNAC to establish the USA as the undisputed dominant force in the world in the 21st century.

    Strictly speaking, Rumsfeld does not qualify as a draft-dodging chickenhawk since he served in the peacetime navy.

    HOWEVER Cheney , Wolfowitz, Feith, Wm Kristol, Feith, Perle, John Bolton and Scooter Libby all willingly sent 4024 Americans to their death on a fools mission in Iraq. With the exception of 5 deferment Cheney they are all gone now.



    When did Obama say that? When he was in the Illinois Senate? If he said it then, he wasn’t being sage and wise, but foolishly talking out of his ass…like a couple of days ago in San Francisco. He wasn’t in ANY position to know one way or the other. He had no security clearances, no access to classified intelligence reports…NOTHING!

    If he said it after he was elected to the US Senate in Nov 2004, then he had the luxury of 20/20 hindsight to help inspire his brilliance. Again, not exactly the mark of a great strategic thinker.

    It’s pretty easy for aspiring politicians and kool-aid drinking lefties to criticize national security decisions when they have nothing on the line and there is no consequence for being wrong. The politically safe(r) move for Bush would have been to maintain status quo regarding Iraq. Launching a war is ALWAYS the more risky move because, as we’ve seen, many things happen that were not anticipated.

    Stick to the “we invaded for oil” claim. It sounds slightly less silly than “we invaded Iraq to carry out the agenda of the draft -dodging chicken hawks of PNAC to establish the USA as the undisputed dominant force in the world in the 21st century.”

  11. It did not take any clasified intelligence reports to see that the idea of Saddam attacking the USA as totally ridiculous.

    That would be like saying some feisty freshman football team that could give some JV teams and an occasional varsity team a good game was ready to go up against the NY Giants.

    The USA spent more on its military than the next 12 countries in the world combined, etc…..

    Apparently you have not looked at the PNAC website and read their own words.

    What is even sillier is that the Iraq invasion was to bring democracy to the Mideast at the cost of 4000 dead, 30,000 wounded , 3 trillion etc and it is worth it.

    I would feel better if the PNAC explaination could be disproven.

  12. gasdocpol,

    Once again, you drop your intellectual pants and display your fatuous thought process. A person (like BHO) who markets himself as a thoughtful and responsible leader, who would also be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, wouldn’t make good decisions affecting the security of the nation until all relevant information was reviewed and considered. I guess you would be happy if the next president made their decisions based solely on media reports?

    We’re not talking about sports here. My guess is that you’ve never had to make any decisions that had any major consequence. How many times have your decisions and actions directly affected whether others lived or died? I’m not talking about getting in a car and driving down the street. I’m talking about telling someone to go do something that could get them hurt or killed if things didn’t go well or YOU doing your job correctly or other people are going to be hurt or killed.

    People in leadership positions don’t have the luxury of hindsight. People like you do a fine job of dwelling on what has happened and who you think is to blame, but do NOTHING to provide constructive solutions to what must happen next.

  13. My guess is that you’ve never had to make any decisions that had any major consequence. How many times have your decisions and actions directly affected whether others lived or died

    1. Before I went to medical school I was Second Mate on a 600′ freighter in the carribean coming on the bridge at 4AM to find the ship in imminant danger of collision and I ordered hard right rudder. On the same trip , i came on the bridge to find that the Third Mate thought that lights ahead were fishing boats. I turned on the radar to see that it was the lights on the North coast of Taiwan and the ship was about to run aground.

    2. I was a practicing anesthesiologist for over 29 years. i cannot tell you how many times that I intervened to save lives.

    (I am glad you asked that question)

    When Obama made his October, 26, 2002 speech , he demonstrated foresight. Hillary demonstrated a degree of hindsight when said admitted the war was a mistake. McCain is blind as a bat on the question of the war. (BTW I was trained to be a naval officer too.)

    Google obama oct 2002 iraq

    and you will me amazed to read how well he predicted what will happen next.

    Peace Bro

  14. gasdocpol,
    I read the speech. And as is typical, it seems that if you look through the lense of liberal thinking and agendas, you would agree with what Barack said and think he was the most intelligent being on the planet.

    However, if you read the speech through the lense of what we knew at the time and through something other than “Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, and company are bad guys”, you might see that Obama is not the great prophet you would make him out to be.

    To say that Al Qaeda would bolster recruitment through the Iraq War is, well, not that hard to predict. Besides, I thought Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq?
    More importantly, I don’t know an enemy in history that wouldn’t try to “strengthen” their forces and positions if threatened with war….but that doesn’t give you a reason not to go to war and it certainly doesn’t mean that someone who claims such a thing before war is some wartime scholar with great insight.

    Most of the rest of his speech is verbatim Democrat talking points about the war and nothing more. He is anti-war (and speaking at an anti-war rally at the time) but tries to paint a different picture with his polished speaking skills….not unlike most of the issues he talks about today.

    Obama doesn’t like dumb wars? Well, I don’t like dumb politicians with no war experience speaking with a condescending attitude about war.

    Obamas says: “What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by……other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

    He doesn’t know any more than REAL arm chair quarterbacks, but damn does he have that delivery down when speaking!

    And ideological agendas being driven down our throats? Obama DOES know that well…

  15. gasdocpol,


    Sooo…it’s OK with you if Mr Obama makes a judgement about a serious national security issue without considering all the facts. However, as a physician…NO…not only a physician, but an anesthesiologist, you should know better than most of the necessity of having all available information prior to making a decision.

    Obama’s 2002 conclusion would be analagous to you putting people under with a hospital public affairs person briefing you on the surgical procedure, ignoring the medical history, and having me guess their weight! It might turn out all right once or twice, but the odds are going to catch up to you. If you would work under such conditions, I wouldn’t want you working on me any more than I’d want you making decisions about national security.

    “McCain is blind as a bat on the question of the war?”

    ROFLMAO! That’s even more amusing than your assertion that Carnac Obama doesn’t need to see anything more than what he reads in the paper to make an important decision. I guess they didn’t teach you during your “training” the part about McCain being a near-legend in Naval Aviation.

    My friend, you may have “trained” to be a naval officer but I was one…for over two decades in Naval Aviation. John McCain has forgotten more about the “question of war” than you (or me for that matter) will ever know.

    At this time in our history, I can think of no better person than someone who has served this nation (in the military and congress) for over 50 years. The guy isn’t perfect (and he doesn’t claim to be), but he has a track record of making good decisions under extreme pressure. He knows first hand the cost and consequences of war.

    If by some disaster Obama is elected, we will all find out how little HE understands about anything except maybe giving a good speech.

  16. 1. We had all the knowledge that we needed in October 2002. Clinicians routinely make decisions based on inadaquate information . I ,personally ,have correctly made life and death decisions based on far less information than was available about the risks and benefits or the proposed Iraq invasion.

    2. You brought up the question of my experience in decsion making and I notice that you have not responded to my answer..

    3. Obama was referring to the draft-dodging chickenhawks like Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby and other members of PNAC who put together the plot to invade Iraq. They were the dumb politicians you needed to be concerned about.

    4. You may have noticed that he repeated several times that he was not against ALL war just dumb wars.
    Even people who supported the war now recognise that it is a dumb war.

    5. You, Sir, are in denial. You had better go back and read the speech again and note the things that he predicted.

    a. Iraq posed no imminent danger. -IT DID NOT.

    b. II was a mistake to proceed without a clear rationale.
    and clear international support

    c. Even IF the war was successful ,we would be left with an occupation of undetermined lenth and cost

    etc .

    I have studied, thought about and have experince in the roles of experience,judgement ,decision making and common sense . Obama has what it takes.

  17. GBS

    OK I have worked with phyiscians who need to have “all available information” and they often make lousy clinicians. When ALL available information is available it might be too late.This is a great quality for a researcher or a teacher but those MDs tend not to be good clinicians.

    Anyone with common sense could figure out that Saddam had to be both stupid and crazy to attack the USA. even if indeed he had some WMD. Americans were manipulated and lied to.

    McCain’s experience in Vietnam consisted of 23 combat missions over a period of 3 months. The average Air Force pilot flew an average of 100 missions over a year and many Naval aviators flew over 300 over 3 years. McCain then spent 5 1/2 years as a POW. I do not feel that particularly makes him a near-legend in naval aviation or qualifies him to be President.

    If you go back to read his oct 2002. speech you will see that Obama identified the relavant facts , organised them, asigned priorities, considered the risk/benefit ratio and used common sense and good judgement in arriving what is now recognised as the right decision.

    McCain is superstitious and hot tempered. His knowedge of Iraqi and Mideast politics is deficient as it his knowledge of economics. Becoming President should not be his reward for surviving as a POW.

  18. gasdocpol,
    Obama didn’t say anything special in his speech. And just because he says something doesn’t make it so….
    It is clear to me that you have sipped the Kool Aid long and often….
    Everything you say is from the Dem talking points book.
    Your assessment of Obama’s speech sounds more like the process you go through to decide who to marry…..and that is about the extent of his experience……
    I’ve come to the conclusion you are a dyed-in-the wool liberal or you are just trying to stir up dust on the blog.
    Those are the only two explanations for how you can believe what you believe and say what you say.

    And, by the way, I am not in denial and I am not a “Sir”….

  19. Was it not so that Saddam posed no imminent danger, we had a long expensive occupation, we helped recruitment for Al Qaeda ?

    Considering that so many people went along with the Bush/Cheney rush to war saying that it was a dumb war WAS special.

    I was not aware that there was a “Dems talking point book” I have voted for as many Republicans as Democrats including : Nixon x3, Ford, GHW Bush. I have never voted for Carter.

    All it took to decide that the war was a mistake was readily available information and common sense.

    I hope that you did better at deciding who to marry than you you did at deciding whether it was a good idea to invade Iraq or not.

    I believe the war was a mistake . Do you deny that it was a mistake?

  20. gasdocpol,

    McCain’s 23 combat missions or his 5 1/2 years as a POW don’t qualify him to be President. It does, however, say much about the MAN and his character. In this regard, few, including Obama, are qualified to hold McCain’s jock.

    If we’re talking about qualifications to be President, I don’t suppose that McCain’s 25 years in the House and Senate hold a candle to Obama’s work as an associate attorney in a private law firm, three two-year terms in the Illinois Senate (interrupted by an unsuccessful run for a US House seat), and his now 3+ years a US Senator. Most impressive. Yes…McCain is a rank amateur compared to BHO.

    As for the war being a mistake…mistakes were definitely made in the planning and execution of post-war reconstruction. One can even make a rational (albeit hindsight) argument that the decision to go war itself was a mistake. However, most realists don’t live in a world of hindsight. We think about what is next. There are mistakes, and then there are mistakes that are made worse by those who are more concerned with dwelling on the past than dealing with the future.

    Regardless of who gets elected, they will have some very important decisions to make regarding Iraq. If you think that anyone, even BHO, is going to engage in some headlong retreat, you are likely to be disappointed. For better or worse, what we do there will have a lasting impact on the interests of the region and the US. It’s either going to work itself out or become a disaster and if you think it couldn’t get worse, you are VERY much mistaken. If elected, BHO is going to have to learn how to properly draw conclusions and make decisions or he will get run over.

    By the way, when I said “all available information”, I meant just that. When time is critical, you use what info is available and not wait for everything that might be knowable. When doing an elective procedure, as some assert the Iraq war was elective, you take your time and gather all the necessary info. To do anything else would be irresponsible…and if you cut corners unnecessarily as a physician, you were an unprofessional hack. If Obama approaches his responsibilities of elected national office like he did in that 2002 speech, he will be an unprofessional hack as well.

  21. 1. Papillon (Henri Charrière) was falsely convicted and spent 14 on Devil’s Island.

    Colonel Gregory “Pappy” Boyington, won the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Navy Cross and spent 20 months as a Japanese POW.

    Would their exploits qualify either of them to be President?

    2. If years of experience were as paramount as you say, every CEO should be the corporation’s most senior employee. I maintain that someone can have 20 years of experience or one year of experience 20 times.

    3. In Oct 2002, Obama had the FORESIGHT to predict that the invasion of iraq would be a grave mistake. Whatever lack of “experience ” Obama had, he demonstrated that he had more common sense and judgement than those who had more “experience” Maybe Hiilary had hindsight but Obama had foresight.


    5. Just because the Iraq situation was fraudulently sold to the Americans as urgent and they believed it, itdoes not mean that was so.


    -Did not have WMDs ready to go in 45 minutes
    -was not obtaining yellow cake uranium from niger
    -the long aluminum tube wre not to be used for concentrating unanium
    -etc etc etc…

    Obama said that the emperor had no clothes and you are still insisting that he did.

    If Obama had opposed the war because “war was wrong” or because his” gut’ (as GW Bush sometimes says) told him so , you could say he made a lucky guess . Obama gave specific reasons why it was a bad idea and they turned out to be true.

  22. Hello.

    I saw your site through WordPress. The Jane Fonda angle is brilliant. I am a conservative, and I applaud your bringing it up. Well done!

    As for me, I would like you to check out my blog http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com

    It is “The Tygrrrr Express.” I hope you enjoy reading my blog as much
    as I enjoy writing it.

    eric aka the Tygrrrr Express.

    P.S. If you would like to do a link exchange, I get some pretty decent traffic.

  23. blacktygrrr

    Are you conservative or neoconservative ? the Neoconservatives are not very conservative in my view.

    We need both liberals and conservatives. the liberals to forge ahead and the conservatives to consolidate gains. They also are needed to keep each other honest.

    With all this flap about elitism, the WORST that can be said about Obama is that might sincerely think he is superior (which I dispute)to those counrty folk in rural PA but want to help them.

    Those elitist draft-dodging Neocons in PNAC think that is just fine to lie and deceive other people into serving and dying in the military while it is for they the elite to run things. They are the elitists that concern me.

  24. Blacktygrrr,
    You’ve been added to my blogroll.
    Thanks…I did enjoy what I’ve read so far on your blog.

    You have a way with words. You’ve written about a lot of things that have come to my mind, but I haven’t written either from the lack of finding a way to getting my thoughts straight or not having time!

    Good luck and thanks for reading!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: