A decent piece of MSM reporting about the DNC e-mail hacks has been posted online at CNN Money since July 26th. It's refeshing to see someone in MSM reporting more credibly than to wildly speculate about Vladimir Putin's ludicrously alledged involvement. . Here in part is what Jose Pagliery had to say: "A mysterious person operating under the name 'Guccifer 2.0' has claimed to be the hacker ... cybersecurity researchers ... pointed out that this mysterious persona is hiding behind computer servers that seem to be based in France. But the person is actually using the Russian computer service Elite VPN. This doesn't mean this person is Russian, or that the hack came from Russia. In fact, ... [other] researchers acknowledged there's no connection here to the Russian government. It's the latest piece of latest evidence that points to Russia." That doesn't seem expecially damning to "them bad ol' Ruskies" in general or to Mr. Putin in particular.
Nevertheless much of MSM all-week has been fanning the flames of innuendo while claiming collusion between The Donald and Vladimir Putin. MSM of course is far more rabid about having a Clinton presidency than anyone in Russia could possilbly be about a Trump presidency. It seems most of the American establishment fears Mr. Trump's potential attempts to shake-up established revenue streams—and perhaps he would try. Official recognition of NATO's contemporary obsolecence could be a marvelous start. There is absolutely no reason for Russia and the U.S. to be at odds these days, except for US-led choreography.
We prefer a more credible source than America's Director of National Intelligence for quoting, however, because of his extremely high-level position, that accomplished public liar is our best available offering at the moment. According to several sources including RT.COM, James Clapper recently affirmed at this week's Aspen Security Conference that the U.S. is "still unsure of who might be behind the latest WikiLeaks release of hacked Democratic National Committee emails" and he was directly quoted like this: "We don't know enough to ascribe motivation regardless of who it might have been"—so much for the "helping Hillary" propagandists.
This site does not advocate either The Donald or Hillary for POTUS but we do oppose propaganda irrespective of its source.
The Greens' Jill Stein or Bill Kreml would make far superior POTUS choices than what the Democrats and Republicans can offer these days.
Even the Libertarians are a lesser evil than either major political party can field in this principally-challenged society.
Right now it appears that either The Donald or Hillary will be the next "leader of the free world" and so all earthlings will lose
either way. In any case you can't blame the Russians for the inadequacies of our American system of government.
According to RT.COM White House counterterrorism adviser Lisa Monaco, while addressing the International Conference on Cyber Security in New York on Tuesday, revealed new federal guidelines for dealing with "significant cyber incidents" which she in effect equated with terrorism. The article implies the existence of a "new directive" which "classifies the severity of cyber-attacks on a five-point scale", and implies—here's the scary part—that severity determination and response will use "the same analysis that guides our military, intelligence, law enforcement, or operations elsewhere - in air, land, sea, or space" . How comforting is that?
Most observers see that our military is consistently deployed under bogus conditions, our intelligence "leaders" lie in public with impunity, and our law enforcement is so militarized that those who "serve and protect" follow "rules of engagement" that result in far too many needless deaths of private citizens of all colors on a daily basis. It certainly appears that vigorous U.S. operations almost everywhere showcase similar undesirabilities—check out the War on Drugs for example. Consequently touting the use of "analysis" that perpetually spawns untenable conditions does not seem especially wise and definitely is not very comforting to interested observers.
Already the recent Democratic National Committee (DNC) server breach speculatively has been attributed to Russia, not only by Hillary's band but also by hack pundits seeking establishment accolades. Despite what government shills would have you believe, there are seldom unequivocal determinations of computer-hack origins and that is especially true of State sponsored incidents. Most likely future official cyber-incident determinations will be expediently politicized under the new directive in order to "justify" heavy-handed punitive measures toward America's fashionably demonized enemy-of-the-moment. It's back to the same old bromide "when your only tool is a hammer, every problem has to be a nail".
The Stuxnet worm episode is a specific example of major cyber-incident which cannot be attributed unequivocally to its suspected originators, the U.S. and Israel, even about seven years after its approximate operational debut. Here's a direct quote from a pertinent IEEE article: "Although the authors of Stuxnet haven't been officially identified, the size and sophistication of the worm have led experts to believe that it could have been created only with the sponsorship of a nation-state, and although no one's owned up to it, leaks to the press from officials in the United States and Israel strongly suggest that those two countries did the deed." This eventual deduction was far from an immediate determination and noticeably relies on conjecture following "leaks to the press"—not some touted-genius bureaucrat in a darkened back room.
Keep in mind that those who officially "determine" the source of computer hacks are the same individuals who, while in a judicious public spotlight, claimed over 50 terrorist plots had been thwarted with mass surveillance when in fact none were so dispatched—discounting the paltry sum an LA taxi driver sent abroad. It is easy to point fingers when no proof is required and it is expedient to point fingers and magnify threats when additional money and authority are solicited from public resources. Those who can raid public coffers with finger pointing and without proof while operating in secret truly are unstoppable in characteristic deceit.
My contention is that if Russia were behind the DNC breach it probably would not be blatantly obvious. And no matter who the perpetrator is, government "experts" are not apt to make an unequivocal determination quickly—if at all—irrespective of future press releases.
By now everyone has heard Clinton-advocates' speculation about Russian President Vladimir Putin masterminding computer breaches which revealed DNC discrimination against Bernie Sanders' candidacy. Today's ludicrous assertion is that the Republican platform has been made more "pro-Russian" especially since The Donald has questioned the relevance of NATO in contemporary society—a question raised by many a scholar outside the purview of the financially-well-lubricated military-industrial-surveillance-legislative communities.. Hillary's time heading-up the State Department won her many "intelligence" admirers, in-part due to her successful advocacy of that "humanitarian action" which so devastated Libya.
In any case it appears that Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook, wants MSM followers to infer that the Republicans are somehow in bed with Putin thereby enervating American security and simultaneously endangering NATO members. According to RT.COM Trump Junior has lashed-out at the innuendo and unsubstantiated speculation like this: "I can't think of bigger lies, but that exactly goes to show you what the DNC and what the Clinton camp will do". No argument here.
Of course the real problem here is that prejudicial activities of the DNC have been broadcast to the world—at least to anyone remotely interested.. The DNC appears to believe that blame for their unacceptable activities somehow can be conflated with the fashionably-touted evils of Vladimir Putin—thereby implying, "It's not that Hillary is unworthy of election, it's that she is worthy because Russia likes her opponent best". Good luck with that. Of course this election is all about: "Do you fear The Donald more than you hate Hillary?" or "Do you hate Hillary more than you fear The Donald?". Some choice. .
This site is no advocate of either major American political party whether Democrat or Republican. We do oppose propaganda irrespective of its source. Anyone trying to make sense of nonsensical information in today's complex world has a troublesome, sometimes untenable journey. Nonetheless seekers need always keep in mind that America's intelligence "experts" are the same individuals whose leader lies to Congress with impunity and whose spokespersons consistently provide erroneous information as fact to the general public—like the number of terrorist plots thwarted by mass surveillance and the numbers of innocents killed by drones. There is no shame in government deceit because there are no consequences for the deceitful once smoked-out. Believe only the things that George Carlin believed when government disseminates information. He reveals them HERE.
According to ABC News about 6 in 10 voters are unhappy with the two choices most likely facing the electorate in November's presidential election. The Donald officially has cinched the Republican nomination and Hillary seems a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination in Philadelphia within a week. Exactly how American mythology eventually will ennoble either of these two remains to be seen.
America is in desperate need of a viable third party candidate. When MSM has the audacity to mention such an option it typically focuses on the Libertarian Party, which seems to be a sort of irrational Republican Party in drag, the GOP improved by a single evolutionary micron. A more reasonable, radical and lesser-known option is the Green Party. The Greens have done quite well worldwide in recent years because of generally sane and humane platforms opposing corporate rule1. For that reason alone they will never be touted by America's MSM corporate cheerleaders.
The Greens refuse obligations to "big money" and in fact will not accept corporate campaign contributions. Another enormous difference between the Libertarians and the Greens is that the Greens support the social security system and a single-payer healthcare system, both of which are critical—as the society is currently constituted—to adequately care for a majority of U.S. citizens both now and in the foreseeable future.
In 2012 Dr. Jill Stein was the Presidential choice of the Greens and she could well be their candidate again this year. The Green Party nominating convention will be held in Houston, Texas, August 4 - 7 and Dr. Stein's opponent there is Bill Kreml. Either of these two is a far more reasonable choice for President than either Hillary or The Donald.
It looks like this will be the year to transition from "Independent" to "Green" on the voters' registrar's rolls. There are certainly no reasonable choices anywhere else in America's polling places—especially for those of us who, in Jill Stein's words, want to "move ahead and take back the America and the world that works for all of us, based on putting people, planet and peace over profit".
1dead link removed 3/28/2017.
For at least a year this site has suggested that there are absolutely no legitimate reasons for western powers and Russia to be at odds nowadays and that the US-led rift has been orchestrated in the interests of revenue streams and hegemony. Last month we reemphasized NATO's Eastern Europe build-up to be about reinventing NATO relevance in order to rejuvenate NATO revenue streams while encouraging worldwide arms procurement. Four days ago we talked again about how ludicrous the "Russian threat" appears to be in the light of reality.
Consistent with our blog policy those writings are very brief although the specific subject matter is worthy of amplification—something this site might deliver in essay form. Propitiously Bryan MacDonald, an Irish journalist stationed in Russia, yesterday beat us to the punch and delivered an excellent work to RT.COM regarding these very issues. It would be highly desirable for every American to read Bryan's words and digest what he is intimating in his very worthwhile piece.
There was a time in American history when professional soldiers seeking public office were viewed with skepticism and caution by the American electorate and there is even greater need for such discretion today. The constant accretion of the military-industrial-surveillance complex's "unwarranted influence" into the fabric of American society, has been relentless and America has all but completely succumbed to militarism. President Eisenhower saw it coming and futilely warned the electorate back in 1961. Things were different back then.
Neither presumptive presidential nominee is ex-military however Hillary has been extensively trained in that mindset as Secretary of State. Both she and The Donald are autocratic by nature. In any case both are vetting retired flag officers as possible running mates and the very thought of more military influence at the seat of American government is abhorrent to reasonable people everywhere. Today's military mindsets programmed to "win at any cost" characteristically lack both prerequisite capacities and humanitarian incentives for effective diplomacy, something evermore incrementally essential in this complex and molten world.
Much of today's worldwide belligerence is directly attributable to failed U.S. foreign policies and many of "those who hate us" have legitimate cause. Unfortunately the fashionable narrative in "defense" circles denies insentient activities and deflects blame elsewhere—hardly the origin of negotiation, diplomacy, and detente which in concert would have enormous international influence toward peace. The upper echelons of western government seem hell-bent to satiate an "all or nothing" appetite which most assuredly is bound for failure irrespective of the ultimate magnitude of loss.
The Donald's choice for VEEP has written a really scary book. The book is scary because its author could possibly hold an important office. The book is called The Field of Fight and claims in essence that we are involuntarily at war with the very countries we have so ignominiously abused and deceived for generations. He does not seem aware of U.S. history with the nations he accuses of aggression and he unwisely blames Islam for many troubles. But don't take my word for it, read THIS excerpt HERE.
Hillary is picking a friend who was NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe while she was Secretary of State and who consequently became a shadow facilitator of her "humanitarian action" which so devastated Libya that the nation is still without unequivocally recognizable government. The huge power vacuum following regime demise added significantly to the happening now recognized as the greatest refugee crisis the world has ever known. Hillary's vetting choice seems to be one of the fools who labeled it "a model intervention"—perhaps another NATO platitude—and seems to have plenty more of what I call military prejudices against sanity. You can get the pure unadulterated truth about Libya right HERE right now.
In my opinion neither of the two candidates being vetted is likely to make the final cut. Nevertheless the fact that they are being vetted at all is frightening to a peace loving critter like me. For both president and vice president we desperately need educated statespeople, complete enough in their beings to put principles and people before profit and paganism. You know what? It simply ain't gonna happen.
Apparently I'm not the only person on the planet believing the now fashionably-touted "Russian threat" to be pure balderdash. I'm in excellent company with Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Even the man credited as a major player in ending the [first] cold war, Mikhail Gorbachev seems to agree with the three of us.
According to RT.COM Herr Schroeder has "ridiculed the idea that Russia 'may be nurturing a plan to invade NATO-countries, 'stressing that the notion is completely out of touch with the real state of affairs." He also said "that it was a 'serious mistake' that Germany assumed leadership over NATO troops near Russia's borders 'right on the [75th] anniversary of the German attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941.'
The same source says that Herr Steinmeier "slammed NATO's policies of confrontation with Russia, such as holding military drills near its borders, saying they are counterproductive. Rather than inflaming the situation further 'through saber-rattling and warmongering,' there ought to be more space for dialogue and cooperation with Moscow, Steinmeier said. It would be 'fatal to now narrow the focus to the military, and seek a remedy solely through a policy of deterrence,' the German FM said, calling to turn to diplomacy instead of military posturing."
Also according to RT.COM, former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev said this to Interfax: "The rhetoric in Warsaw [July NATO summit] screams of an intention to practically declare war on Russia. They only talk about defense, but in fact they are preparing an offensive,"
Meanwhile Frau Merkel disagrees with the four of us and with about 91% of the German citizenry and defends the NATO buildup despite her awareness that Russia is key to European stability. She's tied to the western narrative that Russia, not the U.S., somehow stoked un-choreographed regime change in Ukraine and is responsible for the chips not falling exactly where the U.S. wanted.
The U.S. meanwhile appears to be desperately trying to revive the cold war while blaming Russia for the west's rejuvenation of NATO revenue sources and refurbishing of NATO military forces—essentially reinventing NATO relevance with innuendo. This may be western child's play once both Hillary and Theresa May are ensconced in office. The rejuvenated cold war is apt to get incrementally hotter. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.
The Brits' "second in command" behind Tony Blair during the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq was Lord John Leslie Prescott who left office in 2007. Today The Sunday Mirror published a contrite op-ed written by Lord Prescott after he was stimulated by the light of the Chilcot Report. The piece ends like this: "I will live with the decision of going to war and its catastrophic consequences for the rest of my life. In 2004, the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that as regime change was the prime aim of the Iraq War, it was illegal. With great sadness and anger, I now believe him to be right." WOW! There's an official admission of guilt.
Can you imagine Dick Cheney admitting such a thing? Can you imagine any U.S. official accepting any such a report as fact without accusing another political party of tainting the findings? Can you imagine any U.S. official supporting these findings? Can you imagine justice being meted out to any U.S. official involved in propagating the illegal invasion? Of course not. American politicians are conjoined at the head by the cohesive power of public plunder and while expediting mostly African leaders to The Hague are technically not subjecting themselves to that body because, although a signatory, the U.S. has never ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Double WOW! Regardless Richard Clarke opined two years ago that Bush and Cheney "probably" could be prosecuted by the ICC for war crimes. Apparently at least one ex-US-official has glimpsed a bit of reality.
If you haven't watched the short excerpt at this site of General Wesley Clark's 2007 address to the Commonwealth Club of California, please do. And then consider this: because the US-led invasion of Iraq did not meet Russian opposition, Hillary's State Department became emboldened enough to facilitate needlessly destroying Libya as well—effecting illegal regime change under the guise of "humanitarian action"—but still a new regime in process. That "done", American "leaders" starting pinging Syria—before Russia drew a line. Now that Russia has performed so well in Syria—and shown US-led efforts there to be mostly sham with primary interests of additional illegal regime change—the US has accelerated demonization of Russia and has instigated NATO threats to the Russian heartland, pseudo "partnering" to nullify a trumped-up "soviet threat". Triple WOW! U.S. "diplomats" still prefer familiar things like bombs, destruction, and bullshit to unfamiliar things like diplomacy, detente, and truth. Tantrums typically are destructive.
For those of us truly concerned about the direction and future of this nation under military auspices, we know that the piper eventually must be paid,
and it all will have been avoidable. Even more important is the immediate devastation sown throughout the Middle East and North Africa and the despondency
of the lingering European refugee crisis—all resulting from failed U.S. policies. Responsibility for an
enormous amount of ongoing horror rests
firmly on the shoulders of the past four U.S. Presidential Administrations. Hopefully, in time, justice can be served in a civilized manner.
Shortly after Dubbya left office the Brits announced commencement of an Iraq Inquiry which has become know as the Chilcot Inquiry after its chair Sir John Chilcot, a British Privy Counsellor [advisors to the sovereigns]. The inquiry's report about the Iraq invasion and its aftermath was released to the public within the last 48 hours. The process of investigation and presentation has spanned virtually the entirety of President Obama's administrations to date.
The report's content substantiates the concerns of those opposing the invasion back in 2003, in essence calling it ill-advised and premature. At least one U.K. pundit calls the report "the Mind-boggling incompetence of Bush, Blair and Howard laid bare"—no arguments here.
Victoria Priestly worked as a contract officer in procurement and was interviewed by a journalist about the lack of proper equipment supplied British troops, which is addressed in the report. She talked briefly about those issues and closed with: "The Chilcot Report has made me feel shocked and sick. To realise that there was no need for the war and no need for people to lose their lives." How does she think the people of Iraq feel? It's an enormous impetus for extremism.
The report acknowledges that and more. The report talks about how the invasion of Iraq bears substantial responsibly for the rise of ISIS and how Sadam Hussein's core military people became ISIS leaders in the un-choreographed aftermath of toppling Hussein—things intellectuals like Noam Chomsky have been telling us for years. In America all the information is publicly available, you just have to be curious enough to find and study it—you won't find it while listening to MSM apologists.
So where do you find a good war crimes tribunal when you need one?
Several days ago this site posted a picture of Jane Fonda taken during her notorious trip to North Vietnam in 1972. The next day it was taken down because the picture, after posting, somehow seemed in poor taste—a friend and Vietnam veteran awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross drew that to my attention. Lamentably Jane Fonda has been rudely castigated for that particular photograph because so many are misled about the specifics of her Vietnam trip. Consequently she regrets the photograph's existence and likely would not welcome any exposure for it. I apologize for having posted it at all.
Personally I appreciated Jane Fonda's youthful antiwar activities and I still admire her for them. Even before listening carefully to what she has said to Barbara Walters on several different occasions over several decades, I could completely understand how the offending photo came into existence. As far as I'm concerned she is totally forgiven, if there is, or ever was, anything therein begging forgiveness.
Nowadays unfortunately there are no high-profile antiwar protestors drawing attention to the unjustness of America's calloused, self-serving foreign policies. The military-industrial-surveillance-legislative complex has bolted totally out of control and appears to be calling the shots both on and off the battlefield—and no one seems to care. The complicit Congress is funding constant belligerence without formal declarations of war and steadily legislates-away citizens' constitutional protections in favor of societal militarization—the quintessence of "unwarranted influence" which Ike so futilely warned against in 1961. There are no overseers in sight.
In the 60s I was enamored of those who protested out of heart-felt conviction. The spectators on my side of the fence typically were enduring the adequate
fulfillment of military servitude contracts which occasionally spawned enormous personal conflict and always suppressed dissent. Today's war participants have
analogous struggles. The primary difference is absence of any military draft. Contemporary cannon fodder always volunteers. The Vietnam War was illegal,
precipitated on lies, evermore incrementally difficult, and increasingly offensive to the planet's sentient beings—just like America's contemporary
Middle East efforts. Obviously few changes have endured in American foreign policy.
Afghanistan for example was invaded using logic immortalized by Adolph Hitler when invading Poland. In WWII the Fuhrer claimed Polish saboteurs so seriously threatened the homeland that invasion was actually a defensive maneuver. In recent times the US has claimed the Afghanistan countryside to be so riddled with terrorist training camps that the U.S. invasion of that country was a defensive maneuver—Nazi rationale repeated.
The invasion of Iraq was rationalized using trumped-up weapons of mass destruction. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis needlessly have been slaughtered because the Supreme Court—in the words of Chalmers Johnson—appointed "a sophomoric ignoramus" to the highest office in the land [and history could well repeat]. Ill-considered militarism perennially victimizes Middle East residents and discerned maltreatment manifests as extremism—another unbroken cycle inflaming persistent ideology as in Vietnam. Where is a good war crimes tribunal when you need one?
Libya of course was a "humanitarian action"—so labeled using words palatable to UN observers. No one heeded the repeated warnings of Moammar Gadhafi about north African power vacuums because no one cared, not a part of the plan. Soon an ill bred, foolishly arrogant Secretary of State would grinningly drool these words: "We came, we saw, he died", apparently perceiving her miserable self to be worthy of paraphrasing Julius Caesar in context and obviously oblivious to the un-choreographed aftermath. Having produced these wonders from State, imagine what she can do as POTUS.
Syria as we know it is not yet an invasion. The U.S. drops a lot of bombs and nowadays drops a few special forces here and there illegally, but it's not yet a full scale invasion. The Russians are in Syria legally since they were invited by Syria's legitimate government. The U.S. just wants someone else to rule over Syria because Bashar al-Assad likes Russia best. This is what America calls "national security interests". If your leader likes some other nation better than America—borrowing the words of George Carlin—"you'd better watch the fuck out!" The U.S. is short on diplomacy but long on rationalization, drones, and remote bombardments, especially where the antiaircraft defenses are inadequate.
Presented above were three illegal invasions and a wannabee—harmoniously spawning the greatest European refugee crisis since WWII with enough associated secret "national security" stuff swirling amid that mess to sink a Titanic filled with corrupt self-serving politicians. And take a look at the intra planetary drone assassination program. American drones are killing individuals not only in the invaded countries but also in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and who knows where else sometimes without knowing exactly who was executed and never with confirmation of guilt duly processed. Jeremy Scahill says in his well-documented The Assassination Complex "... during one four-and-a-half month period ... nearly 90 percent of the people killed ... were not the intended targets ..." No wonder inhabitants of these countries are frequently radicalized. Once again, where is a good war crimes tribunal when you need one?
Much of the world outside America—yes, Virginia, there is one—believes America to be the greatest planetary threat to world peace and the most accomplished terrorist organization on earth. Her foreign policy is characterized by illegal invasions, indiscriminate aerial bombings, remote controlled assassinations, punitive sanctions, and incessant extortion, all underpinned with unchallenged brute force. Kidnapping, torture, and clandestine incarceration have been used worldwide with impunity. The terror that Hitler's V2 rockets visited on England in WWII is tame compared to BO's drones. This site's favorite question is: "How can a nation devoid of humanitarian goals, dismissive of human rights, and primarily exporting war be considered the leader of the free world?" The difference between leadership and barbaric war mongering is enormous.
If you ask an elected official about these things you're apt to get platitudes about national security and terrorism threats and how important it is to
have an unpunished public liar as Director of National Intelligence and how unfettered mass surveillance is the only viable tool for intelligence and law
enforcement in the current millennium—pretending to know what's best and practicing the characteristic deceit defining so many U.S. officials.
The only solution, if there is one, is a long shot. The general public must be somehow corralled and educated to the realities of U.S. foreign policy—an almost impossible task without MSM onboard. The perennially bamboozled American electorate does not seem to understand that bureaucracies with secret budgets and secret operations seldom benefit taxpayers and that every taxpayer dollar spent in the name of causeless defense is, as Ike implied, a theft from the betterment of mankind. An educated electorate might apply enough pressure at the seat of government to effect desirable change—something Jane Fonda fully appreciates.
Michael Cimino died yesterday at age 77. Had the New York Times not led with "Michael Cimino, Director of The Deer Hunter and Heaven's Gate, Dies at 77" I would not have known about his death. Reference to The Deer Hunter is what caught my attention. The movie made a distinct impression on me when it was released back in 1978. I remember the cinematography as absolutely astounding but the Vietnam scenes and scenarios as being disgustingly short on fact, long Hollywood. I saw it as nothing more than well-crafted fashionable entertainment for the times. Nevertheless it IS a work of art.
Regardless of what I thought, the movie won "best picture" at the 1979 Academy Awards, as well as "best cinematography". That was the same year that Jon Voight and Jane Fonda won "best actor" and "best actress" respectively for roles in Coming Home, which also won "best writing, screenplay". I well remember that one as likely the most worthwhile Vietnam-era movie ever produced and certainly my pick for the "best picture" award that year—and all accomplished on a fraction of The Deer Hunter's budget.
It was the following year that Apocalypse Now won "best cinematography" and almost a decade before Oliver Stone would win "best director" for Platoon", both praiseworthy Vietnam-era movies for very different reasons irrespective of authenticity. For me it might be interesting to watch Coming Home again to see how it plays in 2016. Back in 1978 I found it extremely worthwhile, and I had been home almost a decade at the time. I'm still very appreciative of Jane Fonda's activities in the 60s and 70s—including her portrayal in Coming Home of a United States Marine Corps officer's wife.
1A news clipping/photo was removed from this blog entry on 07/15/2016 to reduce resource usage for this web page. The picture briefly shown here on 07/03 and 07/04/2016 was removed for different reasons. Jane Fonda regrets the existence of that photograph and this site will not give it exposure. The photograph's existence is her only regret regarding that commendable July 1972 trip to Vietnam. Like she told Barbara Walters in the late 1980s: "... I was trying to help end the killing and the war ...". There is absolutely nothing to regret about that. What is regrettable is the lack of high profile antiwar activism in today's war-torn world.