I see a major difference between a politician doing, whether it is actually wrong or right, what they think is necessary and a famous child of privilege providing USO-like services for the enemy.
I'm sure you do. It just doesn't make sense to me that you'd hold more anger for someone who misjudged the effects of their behavior *during* an atrociously wrong-headed war, than you would for someone who misjudged the effects of their decision to actually *start* an atrociously wrong-headed war.
I don't know if it's an aversion to holding authority figures to account, or if it's a class warfare thing...either way, I just find people who feel the need to rail against Fonda to be seriously unfocused and out-of-touch with their anger. There is certainly enough to be angry about, but I seriously doubt Fonda's behavior had absolutely any real effect on the outcome, and/or execution of the war. She has become nothing more than a sorry scapegoat for America's failings. Much like the "
spitting of the soldiers" myth successfully drowned out war detractors, she provides a psychological outlet for people like yourself to comfortably vent their frustrations. I mean, who'd feel sorry for a privileged little rich girl? Right?
I've got plenty of family that served, with an extremely messed up uncle to boot...and none of them believes she had anything to do with their suffering. But, whatever, to each their own. It's harder to admit mistakes were made than it is to just blame somebody else for them.
mrC