From Hanoi Jane to Jihad Jane: It's the March of the Peace Fascists

I haven’t spoken at an anti-war rally in 34 years, because I’ve been afraid that because of the lies that have, and continue to be spread about me and that war, that they would be used to hurt this new anti-war movement. But silence is no longer an option. I’m so sad that we still have to do this, that we did not learn the lessons from the Vietnam War.- Jane Fonda, last month

My Cindy Sheehan video post "expires" tomorrow.

Anti-war movements don't stop wars. Peace protests do not end suffering. They enable even more violence to take place. Nor are such movements popular with the American people. Jane Fonda and her peace cronies learned all the wrong lessons from Vietnam.

The anti-war movement of the 60's and 70's give themselves far too much credit for Vietnam. Not only do I question their actual effectiveness (at least in the manner in which they saw their influence), I also question their motives for protest back then.

Something to note: By the end of 1971, under Richard Nixon, the draft had ended. There were major peace protests throughout 1968 and into 1971. Operation Linebacker II was the most intense bombing of the war, and took place during Christmas of 1972. Any protests? Any peace movement marches? Nada. Zippo. Zilch. The peace protestors remained largely silent, because the popularity of the movement was motivated by self-interest in not wanting to serve. After the draft ended, so too did the majority support for these idiotic marches, which only fueled more violence; not less.

Richard Nixon committed himself when he became president to the idea of "Vietnamization", which was to train more and more South Vietnamese troops to become self-sufficient; and consequently, part of the plan was the steady troop withdrawal and intensified bombing. In '72, when Nixon was running for re-election, and after Operation Linebacker II, he finally got the North Vietnamese onboard with the Paris Peace Accords. Part of the package included two secret agreements: one was billions of dollars in reparations, after the war. But the North did not get it, because they had broken their agreement by invading the South. The 2nd secret agreement was with the South Vietnamese. He gave them a solemn pledge, in writing, that if the North broke agreements, and invaded the South, America would get back in, and provide whatever aid the South needed; even troop support. Unfortunately for the South Vietnamese, Nixon was driven from office by the Watergate scandal. When the North Vietnamese invaded the South, an unelected President in the form of Gerald Ford pleaded with Congress to enforce our agreements and honor our pledge to our South Vietnamese allies. In 1975, more than one million innocent Vietnamese fled in terror from a massive invasion by the North. Congress and the anti-war movement did nothing to alleviate the suffering.

As a constant reminder of what President Ford deemed to be his failure, he kept the U.S. Embassy (Saigon) stairs in his library. It wasn't President Ford's failure: It was America's failure.

And it is the Mother Sheehans, the Michael Bergs, the Hollywood know-nothing liberals, and the Jihad Janes who wish the same fate to befall Iraq. Uh-uh. Never again. Not on our watch.

The compassion of pacifists such as Jihad Jane, is in the abstract. It is in the childish naivete. They never ask of themselves, "What happens now?" "What will be the end results and consequences of my actions?" This is the typical mindset of liberal d0-gooders: they back "feel-good" policies, without ever pondering if their actions actually bring about the desired objective; often, they have the opposite effect.

Feminists, human rights advocates, should be at the forefront of ensuring that democracy succeeds in Iraq. But instead, they are a dead weight....a ball-and-chain every step of the way when it comes to doing what it actually takes to create a better world. Rather than blaming the violence on the violence makers, they blame it on us, the true peacemakers.

The anti-war left is angry for what got us into this war; you want to debate it? Fine. But don't undermine and endanger the mission and lives of American soldiers. Real anger should be leveled at the radical Islamic militants; at the ones who have nothing to offer the Iraqi people other than a dismal future of suffering. The Left needs to get over themselves and quit wanting a Bush defeat more than they want an American and Iraqi victory. How does a premature withdrawal from Iraq make America safer; and how exactly is this showing compassion for the Iraqi people?


The terrorists and insurgents bombing the Iraqi people don't want America to leave; if they did, all they would have to do is stop the violence, and the American military would eagerly come home. What they want is an American defeat.

Back then, at least, we did not have an enemy that threatened to attack our homeland; today, we have enemies who are trying to do just that. They are on the defensive. Let's keep them that way.

On March 17th, the Peace fascists will be on the march, again. But so will we. Usually, it's the tantrum-throwing Left that is good at making noise and making an embarrassing spectacle of themselves. But on March 17th, we will see who makes the most effective noise and sends the clearest message to our enemies and allies.

I will post my "A Gathering of Eagles" post, soon.

Hat tip to Michael Medved for the history lesson