KipWellsFan Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 (edited) There's been a lot of news lately about Jane so I checked her out on snopes.com After reading it, I actually disliked her more. But some some of the POW stuff I've seen on here about her is not true. http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp The most serious accusations in the piece quoted above, that Fonda turned over slips of paper furtively given her by American POWs to the North Vietnamese and that several POWs were beaten to death as a result, are untrue. Those named in the inflammatory e-mail categorically deny the events they supposedly were part of. "It's a figment of somebody's imagination," says Ret. Col. Larry Carrigan, one of the servicemen mentioned in the 'slips of paper' incident. Carrigan was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 and did spend time in a POW camp. He has no idea why the story was attributed to him, saying, "I never met Jane Fonda." The tale about a defiant serviceman who spit at Jane Fonda and is severely beaten as a result is often attributed to Air Force pilot Jerry Driscoll. He has repeatedly stated on the record that it did not originate with him. Mike McGrath, President of NAM-POWs, also stepped forward to disclaim the story: Please excuse the generic response, but I have been swamped with so many e-mails on the subject of the Jane Fonda article (Carrigan, Driscoll, strips of paper, torture and deaths of POWs, etc.) that I have to resort to this pre-scripted rebuttal. The truth is that most of this never happened. This is a hoax story placed on the internet by unknown Fonda haters. No one knows who initiated the story. Please assist by not propagating the story. Fonda did enough bad things to assure her a correct place in the garbage dumps of history. We don't want to be party to false stories, which could be used as an excuse that her real actions didn't really happen either. I have spoken with all the parties named: Carrigan, Driscoll, et al. They all state that this particular internet story is a hoax and they wish to disassociate their names from the false story. Lots more at the link Edited May 16, 2005 by KipWellsFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Like Mark Furhman framing an guilty man . . . it never works to make up accusations. Sadly, too many people believe anything they read if it comes in an email. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 If what is written there is an accurate quote by Col Carrigan and the others mentioned then I'll concede that that story is an "urban legend". However, that article had more than enough juicy stuff on that traitor to convict her of treason several times over. Its really a shame that she wasn't thrown in jail for what she did. She clearly crossed the line between free speech and treason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigHurt35 Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ May 16, 2005 -> 01:36 PM) However, that article had more than enough juicy stuff on that traitor to convict her of treason several times over. Its really a shame that she wasn't thrown in jail for what she did. She clearly crossed the line between free speech and treason. If the popularity of the anti-war movement wasn't so strong as to protentially cost Nixon a ton of votes, he most likely would've impeached her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDylan Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 I hate that woman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ May 16, 2005 -> 01:38 PM) If the popularity of the anti-war movement wasn't so strong as to protentially cost Nixon a ton of votes, he most likely would've impeached her. One of the things about politicians that really burns me up is that when given the choice to do something that's popular as opposed to whats right the politician will always go with popular. I also don't believe the hippies had the muscle to oust Nixon anyway. 4 years after promising to end the war Nixon was still in Vietnam and he won 49 states in his re-election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigHurt35 Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ May 16, 2005 -> 01:41 PM) I also don't believe the hippies had the muscle to oust Nixon anyway. 4 years after promising to end the war Nixon was still in Vietnam and he won 49 states in his re-election. Agreed, but bringing up Fonda on treason charges may have swayed a lot of moderates to the other side. She's damn lucky, as her actions were clearly treasonous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ May 16, 2005 -> 01:56 PM) Agreed, but bringing up Fonda on treason charges may have swayed a lot of moderates to the other side. She's damn lucky, as her actions were clearly treasonous. If it was a questionable case then I could see people being upset with it but what she did was so blatant that I'm surprised there wasn't a greater outcry to charge her outside of the military community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yossarian Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 I'm so old, not only was I alive in 1972, I was old enough to vote. Nixon had no threats whatsoever to his reelection after Wallace was shot and Muskie self destructed. When Fonda committed her heinous acts in North Vietnam, Nixon was pretty much a shoo in, and one of the biggest reasons was Jane Fonda herself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Kip, I'm just left wondering if you're trying to say anything w/ this. Just w/ her statements, she's one of the evilest b****es alive today. Honestly, I believe everything you posted, and my opinion of her hasn't changed one f'n bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted May 17, 2005 Author Share Posted May 17, 2005 Naw I'm not saying anything. I don't really care about her, just dispelling a myth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigHurt35 Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 QUOTE(Yossarian @ May 16, 2005 -> 05:14 PM) I'm so old, not only was I alive in 1972, I was old enough to vote. Nixon had no threats whatsoever to his reelection after Wallace was shot and Muskie self destructed. When Fonda committed her heinous acts in North Vietnam, Nixon was pretty much a shoo in, and one of the biggest reasons was Jane Fonda herself. He apparently didn't think so when he ordered his goons to break into the Watergate Building. Perhaps his paranoia had something to do with his decision regarding Fonda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ May 17, 2005 -> 08:57 AM) He apparently didn't think so when he ordered his goons to break into the Watergate Building. Perhaps his paranoia had something to do with his decision regarding Fonda. With some of the personnel decisions he made, I'm surprised he didn't make her Secretary of the Defense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yossarian Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ May 17, 2005 -> 07:57 AM) He apparently didn't think so when he ordered his goons to break into the Watergate Building. Perhaps his paranoia had something to do with his decision regarding Fonda. Nixon had absolutely nothing to do with Watergate other than covering it up. I suggest you read Secret Agenda by Jim Hougan and Silent Coup by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin. Both are far far superior to anything the boobs Wooward and Bernstein ever wrote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigHurt35 Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 QUOTE(Yossarian @ May 18, 2005 -> 11:22 AM) Nixon had absolutely nothing to do with Watergate other than covering it up. I suggest you read Secret Agenda by Jim Hougan and Silent Coup by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin. Both are far far superior to anything the boobs Wooward and Bernstein ever wrote. Sorry, but I don't buy that. I'm busy writing a grant proposal right now and don't have the time for leisure reading. What is their evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 QUOTE(Yossarian @ May 18, 2005 -> 12:22 PM) Nixon had absolutely nothing to do with Watergate other than covering it up. I suggest you read Secret Agenda by Jim Hougan and Silent Coup by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin. Both are far far superior to anything the boobs Wooward and Bernstein ever wrote. Of course without Woodward and Bernstein their probably would not have been the other books. They were two very young reporters with one great source and an editor that trusted them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yossarian Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 I doubt that this will change anyone's mind since the canonization of Woodward and Bernstein seem to be in full swing. Not too much time to read if you're busy writing a grant but if you're really interested in something substantial and very well researched then be my guest. Better than any spy novel I ever read Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.