Of course Jane Fonda didn't order any withdrawal. She had no authority to do so. But she was anti-war and, eventually, the anti-war position of 'people like Jane Fonda' prevailed. Presumably, that saved the lives of many American soldiers who likely would have been killed had the US not pulled out. The South Vietnamese, on the other hand, didn't fare so well.

They weren't faring so well when we were there, Iowan. In fact, far more Vietnamese, North and South, died while we were fighting them than after we left. Don't blame Fonda for that. She's no genius, but she knew it was a mistake to go, and a mistake to stay. It benefitted no one but a few politicians and contractors.

Question it to your heart's content. What you saw or didn't see is not the determining factor.

Right. The determining factor is the convenient myths you prefer to believe.

Good for you. I'm happy to hear that you had "We Support the Troops' bumper stickers and t-shirts available at the rallies.

They were there, and signs too. Also a lot of veterans, and some speakers who were currently serving. This isn't about bumper stickers, though; it's about avoiding more senseless deaths.

I don't see any good reason to take [Fonda or McNamara] seriously when it comes to foreign policy and/or military issues.

But President AWOL, who has been spectacularly wrong nearly every step of the way in Iraq, deserves the benefit of every doubt? I don't think so.

I'm sure the familes of the hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese who perished at the hands of the North Vietnamese after the US withdrawal take great comfort in that thought.

You just admitted that Fonda had nothing to do with Nixon's decisions. And those ARVN and others who died--and I'm not sure where your figures come from--would have died whenever we left, as leave we had to. And if we'd stayed longer, even more would have died in that interim. So you see, there is simply no way that you can make a rational case that the antiwar position cost more lives than the prowar position. Obviously, it was exactly the opposite.

Fonda was clear that there as no mistreatment of POWs by the NV and all such claims were propoganda. Talk to John McCain about his captors.

Fonda was simply wrong. However, were US POWs treated worse than captured NVA or VC? I sincerely doubt that. McCain is a big man and has recognized what happened, and forgiven his captors and spearheaded (with Kerry, another Vietnam vet) normalization of relations with Vietnam. He was, after all, bombing them when he was captured. You want monsters? Look at the religious fanatics in Iraq. They would not keep US POWs as the Vietnamese did.

What is there to 're-examine'?

For you, nothing. That would be fatal to your worldview.

What is Jane Fonda saying today that is different from her 'advice' of 30 years ago? In what significant ways have her positions changed?

That's the point. She was right, but the hawks of that era advocated perpetuating a doomed military conflict founded on a poor understanding of strategic imperatives. After we left, the only "dominoes" that fell were the ones we tipped over ourselves in Laos and Cambodia. It was all for nothing, and we and they'd have been better off if we'd pulled out sooner. You never learned that lesson; you just can't admit it even to yourselves. It's the same in Iraq. You won't re-examine your own assumptions and are thus unable to re-examine the advice given you by the antiwar protestors.

I have no idea what the Iraqi people want.

Yes you do, because you saw the same poll I did after I called your attention to it. Most want us gone, and a majority think it's a dandy idea to kill American troops.

As I've said elsewhere, I'd be in favor of having a referendum and vote by the Iraqis on the issue of continued US presence.

So demand it. Why would you be willing to have Americans die for a country that may not even want us there?

If the Iraqis vote in favor of the US leaving, then I think we should begin a withdrawal from Iraq.

But you prefer not to know.

And if the Congress was really serious about their opposition to the surge, they'd deny funding for it.

I agree. That may happen, though if it were put to a vote today it would lose.

With respect, that's about the silliest bit of tripe I've ever seen you post. And that's no small feat!

Oh, I've posted some truly silly things, but that wasn't one of them. It's dead accurate. Guys are being shipped home in coffins because a bunch of stubborn men don't want to admit they made a mistake.

Then all that is necessary for your position to prevail is to convince your leaders in Congress to defund the war. No money, no troop surge in Iraq.

I'm working on it.

The US Congress is now under the leadership of 'people like Jane Fonda'.

I wish. Hillary Clinton supported the war, for instance, as did a whole bunch of others. Even many of those who have seen the light won't defund the surge.

Tell 'em to get to work, char. Defund this thing NOW.

Can I count on your support?

After all, that's what the American people want, that's what Jacques Chirac wants, that's what the CIA wants, right?

This is the first time I've seen you so open about your contempt for what the American people want. Maybe the first step to health is to admit you have a problem.

By the way, a package will be winging its way to you from the Capitol mailroom soon. Wear its contents in good health.