Eartha Kitt: An Anti-War Patriot

Forty years ago, America's cultural icons expressed the frustratation of the American people with the failure of then-President Lyndon Johnson to end this country's undeclared war in Vietnam by boldly demanding peace.

The most respected newsman in the nation, CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite, explained to a national television audience after the Tet Offensive that the war had gone horribly awry.

Singer Johnny Cash, whose music and style had made him a hero of blue-collar Americans, described himself as "a dove with claws" and began singing the anti-war song "Last Night I Had the Strangest Dream."

The Smothers Brothers variety show was censored when it attempted to air a segment featuring Harry Belafonte singing in front of images of student protesters clashing with the police. CBS executives reportedly feared that the implicit anti-war message would offend President Johnson and his aides.

But the most direct and powerful anti-war statement of the period was delived by singer Eartha Kitt, then at the height of her celebrity.

Kitt, the sultry singer of hits such as "Santa Baby" who died at age 81 on Christmas Day, was in 1968 an internationally-acclaimed music star who had begun making major stage and screen appearances. So it came as no great surprise when she was invited to a White House luncheon hosted by Lady Bird Johnson.

But the First Lady was surprised when she asked Kitt about the Vietnam War.

"You send the best of this country off to be shot and maimed," the singer told the First Lady and the 50 other women at the luncheon. "They rebel in the street. They don't want to go to school because they're going to be snatched off from their mothers to be shot in Vietnam."

The First Lady reportedly burst into tears.

The president was furious.

Kitt was blacklisted. She was investigated by the FBI and CIA, and ended up on the "Enemies List" of Johnson's successor, Richard Nixon.

Kitt spent the next decade performing mostly in Europe until, in 1978 -- after a triumphal return to Broadway to perform in the musical "Timbuktu!" -- she was invited back to the White House by the great healing executive of the post-war era, Jimmy Carter.

Years later, Kitt would recall her White House visit in an interview with Esquire magazine, saying "The thing that hurts, that became anger, was when I realized that if you tell the truth -- in a country that says you're entitled to tell the truth -- you get your face slapped and you get put out of work."

It was a painful lesson.

But we remember Kitt today as one of those remarkable Americans who was patriotic enough to speak truth to power. And she spoke in such a remarkable voice that it will linger far longer in our memory than those of the foolish politicians and misguided media moguls who were wrong about Vietnam -- and wrong about Eartha Kitt.

Comments (63)

1. Sleep tight, "SANTA BABY!!!"

   Posted by YourJomamma at 12/26/2008 @ 11:22am

2. It's a great thing to see Eartha Kitt remembered for the remarkable woman she was. Her talent, courage, and tenacity were beyond measure. She was creative, cultured, beautifully spoken and wrote so well. More people should know her story. I loved her books and her political bravery, her sophistication, humor, just her life force. A mighty spirit left the planet yesterday.

   Posted by TerryCM at 12/26/2008 @ 3:04pm

3. <<< They don't want to go to school because they're going to be snatched off from their mothers to be shot in Vietnam.">>> EARTHA KITT

   The idea of Kitt vis a vis Ladybird speaking truth to power, is absurd.

   She did not go to that non political luncheon "to tell the truth", and she did not tell the truth.

   The kids were going to school in record numbers, to avoid going to Vietnam. She was talking about the inner cities where the kids were not going to school for the same reason they are not going to school now.

   Kitt accepted that invitation to please her show business friends and to make a sensation, something her stage performances had stopped achieving.. Those gratuitous remarks were snuck into a non political event without the expectation of harm to her career, probably quite the opposite. In fact, like Cash and the Smothers Brothers, she helped herself far more than hurt herself. (Mohamed Ali was the only one who really hurt himself with his principled stance.) She had been in her prime in the 1950s. She was now a 41 year old veteran looking to revive her career.

   Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/26/2008 @ 4:42pm

4. a great singing talent with misguided understanding of both the world and mankind. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/26/2008 @ 4:21pm

   And LVL shows his faulty logic once again. Anyone who doesn't believe what he believes obviously doesn't understand anything. Some people get wiser with age and start to understand that their view isn't the only one that counts. Others get more stubborn and start to think that their view is the only one that is right.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/26/2008 @ 6:14pm

5. a great singing talent with misguided understanding of both the world and mankind. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/26/2008 @ 4:21pm

   You need to learn the difference LVL between someone being misguided and someone just having a different world view than yours. There are many much much much more highly educated and worldly people than you that have very different opinions than yours. Are they misguided and uneducated? Or perhaps they know things you don't.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/26/2008 @ 6:17pm

6. lvliberty, your perpetual attitude of condescension towards those who disagree with you is truly phenomenal. Frankly, I'll take Eartha Kitt's understanding of the world and humankind over yours anyday. Minds, my friend, they're like parachutes, they only function when they are open.

   Posted by canaro71 at 12/26/2008 @ 6:18pm

7. Minds, my friend, they're like parachutes, they only function when they are open. Posted by canaro71 at 12/26/2008 @ 6:18pm

   He will come back and contend that people have told him that he his the most open person they know. Never realizing that he condescends every single opinion different than his.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/26/2008 @ 7:04pm

8. the difference, lvliberty, is that you see fit to comment at the end of a piece that is clearly intended as a eulogy for someone who has just died, dismissing her views as 'misguided' without even bothering to explain why.

   can't you even see how inappropriate that is? it would be as if I stood up at Reagan's wake, in the presence of his family and friends, and said "a talented politician. pity he was so misguided".

   I'm fine with your belief that evil must be met with force.

   I disagree with it, and hold up the civil rights marchers who walked on Birmingham as just one of many examples who might suggest otherwise.

   But I would not presume to pass judgement on any conservative figure who died, dismissing them as "misguided" without considering that nobody asked my opinion and that sometimes, as for instance when someone has just died, it's time to let go of your obvious condescension toward others and consider that maybe there was more to their viewpoint that you have even realized.

   Posted by canaro71 at 12/26/2008 @ 7:58pm

9. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/26/2008 @ 7:34pm

   Get this through your old and thick skull. Just because you have a firm an passionate opinion does not mean you have to close your mind to all others.

   On top of that I wasn't the one who came onto a page intended to be a eulogy and insulted someones world view. YOU did. Maybe you should learn a little respect as well.

   "Talk about arrogance. If someone states an emphatic opinion contrary to the liberal position, then we are condescending, or exhibiting some kind of sense of superiority."

   It's not what you are saying LVL it's HOW you are saying it. But there's no point in bothering with this because you seem to think that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is somehow inferior to you.

   I am fine with disagreeing with other people. I have a great respect for others world views the only time I don't is when people(and I include you here) don't have respect for others world views and resort to calling them misguided instead of actually giving an opposite and legitimate argument. When you come on to a eulogy and call someones views misguided you better offer an opposing view others it is YOU who is resorting to ad hominem. Maybe you should look up the definition of the word before using it.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/26/2008 @ 9:02pm

10. Posted by canaro71 at 12/26/2008 @ 7:58pm

    Turn the other cheek maybe?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/26/2008 @ 9:06pm

11. Yeah, comanche, pretty crazy - a democrat who was a hardass and a sonofabitch who took no prisoners, just like it's pretty crazy that one of the most ambitious and far reaching experiments in social engineering of all time was carried out by Abe Lincoln (although people say that 'Republican' didn't mean the same thing back then), and for all the republican talk about being strong on defense, it was a democrat who got us through WWII. Point is well taken though, let's appreciate that stereotypes of left and right are often misguided on both sides...

    Posted by canaro71 at 12/26/2008 @ 10:29pm

12. Wow, lvliberty. It's really quite staggering that you have concluded that satyagraha did not help Gandhi lead India to independence, and that nonviolent resistance played no part in ending racial segregation in the United States. This is the point where, in a science fiction movie, it would suddenly become apparent that you have, in fact, come here from a different universe.

    Posted by canaro71 at 12/26/2008 @ 10:34pm

13. But I repeat, you have a youthful arrogance against those of us who have lived through enough to make a reasoned and experiential conclusion that differs from your own. Most of your viewpoints are gleaned from a theoretical and textbook basis and lack real world experience to validate them. That is not unusual for youth and we who are older have both been there, and learned to expect it from young people. We also know how adamant youth are, in that they believe they are the only ones with the truth.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/26/2008 @ 10:16pm

    And I repeat as somebody not so youthful, there is NOTHING worse then your pompous b.s.

    You paint all things in such broad strokes, you are constantly missing the "point".

    Just because you're "old" doesn't mean you're smart. Hell it doesn't mean much at all except that you get to collect a social security check (something I'm sure you absolutely abhor for the "misguided" socialist ideals it represents when you go to the bank to cash it).

    You do nothing but label people, constantly. Look at your own posts and count the amount of times you used liberal or conservative. You need to get your head checked friend. Sometimes wisdom brings it's friend dementia along to your old age.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 12/26/2008 @ 11:04pm

14. Wow, lvliberty. It's really quite staggering that you have concluded that satyagraha did not help Gandhi lead India to independence, and that nonviolent resistance played no part in ending racial segregation in the United States. This is the point where, in a science fiction movie, it would suddenly become apparent that you have, in fact, come here from a different universe.

    Posted by canaro71 at 12/26/2008 @ 10:34pm

    He ain't no thing. LVLIB is so far out in la-la land it would be funny if it weren't sad.

    What IS funny is that he lacks the self-awareness to realize how very often he sounds like the "black helicopter" crowd, who I'm sure he thinks are absolutely insane.

    Cuckoo.

    Isn't Obama supposed to be implementing his secret marxist-muslim-terrorist jihad by now?

    Posted by TexasFlood at 12/26/2008 @ 11:08pm

15. It didn't work for Ong or Gandhi. They as individuals were killed ablnd the cause they were fighting for have been tossed over board, reformsted and relabeled.

    In Kings case, the civil rights movement has been replaced by victimhood stances and extortion ala Ol' Jesse types along with AA, to a point that I do not think King himself would approve or recognize.

    In Gandhi, yes India is a free nation, which was coming anyway, and the rest is history... Just take a look at Pakistan, East Pakistan and Bangledesh... Gandihi dream dies not exist.

    What most here hate is the fact that the peace protesters in the final analysis are the ones first killed... By the victors.....and the LVLs only point his out.

    Ms Kitt was a talent indeed... But brave I am not so sure... What was her risk? She was, afterall, eating lunch in the WH , Not behind a protesters baracade. Or devmonstrstion for Ho Chi Min.... A true brave and traitorus act, but braclve for sure, since one had something to risk.

    I can't think of one example of a peace protester ending a cnflict. Peace comes about ONLY after victory... When one side us defeated decisively.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/26/2008 @ 11:13pm

16. Quick sanity check:

    Have you ever ruminated to yourself or posted on the internet something along the lines of: "I guarantee Barack Obama _____"

    a. "....is definitely a muslim!" b. "....is a marxist" c. "....hates America" d. "....is a terrorist" e. "....has a secret agenda to bring down the United States!"

    If so, please get thee to a mental health professional.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 12/26/2008 @ 11:14pm

17. Yourjomamma needs to download firefox and start workin' that spellchecker.

    Happy Holidays fellas!

    Posted by TexasFlood at 12/26/2008 @ 11:21pm

18. Sorry for spelling fiascos... iPhone key board is too small.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/26/2008 @ 11:22pm

19. Sorry for spelling fiascos... iPhone key board is too small.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/26/2008 @ 11:24pm

20. lvliberty, lvliberty, lvliberty. I feel as if I am in some surreal remake of the Big Lebowski, or in a Monty Python sketch with some dude who keeps insisting his parrot is not dead. ("It's resting.").

    Sorry if the pop culture refs are over your head, but having a discussion with you is truly surreal. But I need some entertainment, so let's give this a shot.

    First of all, you have no evidence to support your apparent belief that Eartha Kitt was a pacifist, other than she thought the war in Vietnam was a bad idea. Chances are if you were as rude to Eartha Kitt in person as you have been to many others around here, she would have given you the ass-wooping that you have long deserved.

    Second, while we are on the topic on nonviolence (not the same as pacifism, by the way), it is a strategy and a philosophical belief, not a movement. It has been employed successfully by many in this century, including Dr King and Gandhi among others; but if you also want to talk about the gap between the ANC and the PAC in South Africa, or the Dalai Lama, or Aung San Suu Kyi, we can talk about others as well. There is no "movement", any more than you represent a "war movement", because it is a response to circumstance, no more and no less.

    Thirdly, if you believe that Atlee was a good person to ask about the influence of Gandhi, you might also want to ask Dick Cheney to write a thesis on the influence of Kanye West on the evolution of hip hop.

    Fourthly, the fact that King and Gandhi were assassinated has no bearing on whether their advocacy of nonviolence as a strategy was successful, since neither of them was under the impression that their convictions would lead them to live forever; in fact, King's growing awareness that he would one day be assassinated only magnifies (cont)

    Posted by canaro71 at 12/26/2008 @ 11:33pm

21. the courage that it required of him to stand by his convictions.

    (p.s., "ass-whooping", above. please pardon the typo)

    merry christmas!

    Posted by canaro71 at 12/26/2008 @ 11:37pm

22. 3 thoughts:

    1) I think that the condescension point is at least somewhat fair, though this is slightly murky territory. Would it be condescension if you said she was mistaken? No, clearly not. Somehow, though, I feel like "misguided" carries a connotation beyond that, one suggesting a kind of mental inferiority. It seems, if this makes sense, like the kind of criticism one might give to a child. Thus, even though by its denotation I don't think it's condescending, the connotation appears to give the opposite impression.

    2) I don't understand why Liberty finds it necessary to go after the Gandhi and King cases. Even if you don't buy that Ghandi specifically solved the situation in India, it seems clear that nonviolence WAS an effective solution for King, at least in part because he was able to appeal to the underlying moral conscience of the country.

    Beyond this, though, all he needs in order to criticize Eartha is a far more limited position than the one he defends: at least SOME evils cannot be solved through nonviolence. Hitler's Germany would be a pretty easy example of this. Thus, even if you could agree to her opposition to Vietnam, you could still oppose her overall pacifist framework by beating her clearly false premise that war is never necessary.

    3)I find the "beating up on the dead" point a little strange given the complete willingness of many posters here to attack conservative icons when posts are made about their deaths. I don't want to paint too broad a brush here; many have also been respectful. At the very least, though, we should try to observe a consistent standard of respect for BOTH conservatives AND liberals. As such, I am sorry to see Eartha go even though I strongly disagree with her pacifism.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/26/2008 @ 11:39pm

23. merry christmas lvliberty! dream sweet dreams of yuletide enemas!

    Posted by canaro71 at 12/27/2008 @ 01:07am

24. "the fact that King and Gandhi were assassinated has no bearing on whether their advocacy of nonviolence as a strategy was successful..."

    Posted by canaro71 at 12/26/2008 @ 11:33pm

    I nominate this statement for the MRC's Notable Quotables for 2009...maybe the Silliest Analysis Award.

    Posted by usc1 at 12/27/2008 @ 01:25am

25. I second the nomination.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/27/2008 @ 01:48am

26. wow, you guys really just don't get it. let me repeat: the fact that King was assassinated HAS NO BEARING on the value of nonviolence as a political strategy.

    let me try again. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. It DOES NOT FOLLOW that freeing the slaves was morally, strategically, or philosophically unsound.

    Here's the big fat point that appears to elude y'all: King did not choose nonviolence IN ORDER TO PROLONG HIS OWN LIFE. He chose nonviolence for other reasons, and for other people.

    Think about it, guys.

    Posted by canaro71 at 12/27/2008 @ 01:59am

27. <i>Posted by canaro71 at 12/27/2008 @ 01:59am </i>

    This was the point I was making. Liberty's move to go after Gandhi is bizarre for two reasons:

    1) It's insufficient. Attacking this one individual (his response to King was, frankly, lacking) does nothing to attack the underlying position of nonviolence.

    2) It's wholly unnecessary. If he's aiming to clash with Kitt, all he has to do is say that nonviolence cannot ALWAYS be sufficient. He doesn't even have to engage King and Gandhi; all he has to say that under at least some circumstances (like Nazi Germany), nonviolence will not be sufficient.

    <i>Posted by usc1 at 12/27/2008 @ 01:25am</i>

    Really? How do you measure the success of their strategy? As canar (in a somewhat roundabout way) points out, this would be true if the strategy was aimed at preserving their own lives. Them being killed would clearly mean that the strategy's goal wasn't achieved. That ISN'T what the goal was, so it isn't the standard for success. The standard is something closer to peace/stability (which is vague, I admit). Did Gandhi's campaign achieve that? Issues raised by Liberty temporarily aside, India's history post-Britain may leave room for reasonable debate. Did King's nonviolence help achieve its goals? I think the answer is clearly yes. Absent his movement, I highly doubt the essential Civil Rights Act would have come into being.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/27/2008 @ 02:20am

28. Peace comes about ONLY after victory... When one side us defeated decisively. Posted by YourJomamma at 12/26/2008 @ 11:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    the vietnam war proves this to be nonsense. so does the war in afghanistan for the soviets. sometimes wars end because to carry on is not worth it.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/27/2008 @ 10:32am

29. It's a pity there still aren't more like Eartha Kitt out there protesting against war, she can at least rest in peace knowing she tried to do something to stop this senseless killing. War of any kind is abhorrent, I find it amazing how many folks still see the glory in it.

    Posted by Caj at 12/27/2008 @ 10:43am

30. JR,

    In both cases one side did not win decisively..

    in Viet Nam the US never tried to win it, just maintain a sort of sick status quo hoping negotiations would settle the deal and in Afganistan the Soviets just buggered out...ther was no formal surrendes, exchanging of symbolic and real controls, IE..Japan and Germany...where a total reconstruction and re alignment took place in the govt as well as population...

    this is my point...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/27/2008 @ 11:35am

31. Israel and Palestine...

    The Palestinians are not defeated...they have a population that is willing die to the last man, woman, and child...Israel may beat them like a drum, but until Palestine is wiped out, or totaly defeated where by both sides agree the one side is done for...there will be no peace there...Palestinians will always attack Israel despite negotiations and land give aways...forever... and will not quit until all Israelis are dead...and Israel will never give in to Palestinians...or Hellsboolah..

    and in fact, will go all out to destroy both, especialy after the last ill prepared battle with Hellsboolah..

    no peace in sight.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/27/2008 @ 11:41am

32. in Viet Nam the US never tried to win it,

    this is pretty naive. they tried like hell to win, but "victory" was not possible. it was about the hearts and minds of the population. Ho chi Min won that struggle.

    just like Afghanistan and Iraq.it appears the taleban are winning that struggle in their country.

    in Iraq, what happens when the 100,000 baathists are no longer being paid off? they will not go quietly.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/27/2008 @ 11:42am

33. I don't know of any war America was involved in that they did not want to win...victory is the mantra. Even if it's not possible we can't be seen as weak...it must be victory at all costs...I'm still keen to know what victory we have achieved in Iraq!!

    Posted by Caj at 12/27/2008 @ 11:48am

34. this is why the war in Vietnam dragged out the way it did. an american leader just could not face the facts that victory there was impossible. they were blind to the reality.Ho would have been willing to fight 20 years more. fifty years more.

    lesson: never fight a foe who is fighting for the ground under his feet.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/27/2008 @ 11:52am

35. Posted by emile duBois at 12/27/2008 @ 11:52

    Victory is only a word isn't it, but it is so important to us to be able to achieve that "word"...no matter what the cost to human life it may bring. Violence only causes more violence and so the cycle continues....how can anyone claim victory in that situation, makes no sense. Still, can't be seen to lose anything so I guess we will fight on indefinitely.

    Posted by Caj at 12/27/2008 @ 12:53pm

36. "a great singing talent with misguided understanding of both the world and mankind. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/26/2008 @ 4:21pm

    Don't think too much of her as a singer--gimme Billie Holiday, Abbey Lincoln, or Ella Fitzgerald anyday--but as to misguided understandings, the statement is hilarious. She was misguided in condemning state terrorism; the US government was clearly quite guided by committing and supporting it.

    As to "the innate sinful nature" of people, glad to know you support that by supporting the killing of innocent Iraqis. Not sure there is too much that could be more sinful.

    Posted by onthehelm at 12/27/2008 @ 1:09pm

37. I enjoyed Ms Kitts singing talents, unlike you, having enjoyed them during her prime.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/26/2008 @ 10:16pm

    I'm going to start with this little gem of a comment. What makes you assume I didn't like her singing? Are you a child or something?

    But I repeat, you have a youthful arrogance against those of us who have lived through enough to make a reasoned and experiential conclusion that differs from your own. Most of your viewpoints are gleaned from a theoretical and textbook basis and lack real world experience to validate them. That is not unusual for youth and we who are older have both been there, and learned to expect it from young people. We also know how adamant youth are, in that they believe they are the only ones with the truth. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/26/2008 @ 10:16pm |

    I will go to this one next. The benefit to youth is that I can look at things without preconceived notions about their meaning based on negative experiences. Is a 70 year old KKK member right because he is old and has the experience to know that black people are less than him? Age doesn't make you right LVL. You have experience but if you haven't learned from it, it doesn't matter how old you are. So let me ask you. If you met a 90 year old KKK member would he be more right than you because he has the experience to back up his beliefs?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/27/2008 @ 1:43pm

38. CCC,

    Experience may be the better word here....age and time are not always connected.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/27/2008 @ 2:01pm

39. JR,

    The reason I claim the US wasn't trying to win in VN was the fact we fucked around for 12 years and didn't really unleash the generals or the military machine with the orders to win and finish it.

    We couldn't shoot back here, could "legally" go there, couldn't bomb there....

    Imagine the Wehrmacht being told they couldn't go here, there or anywhere ....

    We had no purpose or drive to win. The whole thing became a political football and had no goal or path to get there.

    Ho should have surrendered... VN would have been another S Korea... Instead of another Cuba or N Korea sick man despite natural resources. It is getting better and many American and German companys are there but it took 20 or 30 years too long.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/27/2008 @ 2:11pm

40. Posted by YourJomamma at 12/27/2008 @ 11:41am

    So we need to wipe out all Iraqis? Or all Afghanis? It shows the simplistic way your thinking about this stuff. War isn't as simple as peace caused by victory. If I were to read your post correctly then you advocate genocide because it will solve the problem. World War 1 was a decisive victory yet it didn't achieve lasting peace it simply created conditions that prompted World War 2. War is rarely the solution because war breeds resentment. Victory does not bringing lasting peace it brings temporary calm before a storm. The Romans decisively conquered plenty of civilizations which then regrouped and rebelled the first chance they got. The world is becoming a place where the only solution is negotiation because a nation can no longer conquer another decisively. We can't even conquer Iraq and militarily we are the most powerful nation in the world. You think two countries of equal size could actually solve a problem through force? The only solution would be mutual annihilation if that's the road you advocate.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/27/2008 @ 4:20pm

41. Experience may be the better word here....age and time are not always connected. Posted by YourJomamma at 12/27/2008 @ 2:01pm

    Which is my point. LVL assumes that because he is older his opinion is more valid than mine or more right whatever that means. If you don't learn from experience it's worthless.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/27/2008 @ 4:22pm

42. CCC, To use your own words,...."if I read your post correctly...."

    You did read my post incorrectly.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/27/2008 @ 4:56pm

43. a great singing talent with misguided understanding of both the world and mankind. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/26/2008 @ 4:21pm

    I thought about you when I read this article. I wondered to myself what sort of negative remark you might make. I was not surprised. You are just a smart ass reactionary conformist who believes what the powers that be tell you to believe. The nerve of you to put the word liberty at the end of your name when you have such a superficial idea of what true liberty means. It means go your own way and to hell with the government and the big boys who want to send off young men and women off to war while they stay home and count the money. There was absolutely nothing patriotic about going to fight in Vietnam, or Iraq, for that matter. It's just power politics. Screw it.

    Posted by boing007 at 12/27/2008 @ 5:22pm

44. There was absolutely nothing patriotic about going to fight in Vietnam, or Iraq, for that matter. It's just power politics. Screw it.

    Posted by boing007 at 12/27/2008 @ 5:22pm

    That is so true, you are either with us or against us attitude from the right or we are all un-patriotic!!! We don't have to go along with our government because they say so...I don't have to conform to their ideas and if I don't agree that does not make me un-patriotic. They may run the country but they don't have to run our lives and make us believe it's their way or no way either.

    Posted by Caj at 12/27/2008 @ 5:43pm

45. Nasty, nasty Israel's cynical racist Christmas killing. I'm sickened to the marrow. We attacked Iraq in Gulf War I for a similar invasion. What are we waiting for? Sell them more weapons and then attack 'em!

    Posted by winyahn at 12/27/2008 @ 9:15pm

46. We couldn't shoot back here, could "legally" go there, couldn't bomb there....

    Imagine the Wehrmacht being told they couldn't go here, there or anywhere ....

    Posted by YourJomamma

    Explanation...The Wehrmacht was the military of a fascist dictatorship on a mission to conquer the world.

    There is civilian control of the military of the US and a large segment of the population opposed the war. Unpopular wars are untenable in a democracy.

    Posted by koroviev at 12/28/2008 @ 01:50am

47. Nasty Nasty Nasty

    Posted by winyahn at 12/27/2008 @ 9:15pm

    Unpopular wars are untenable in a democracy.

    Posted by koroviev at 12/28/2008 @ 01:50am

    when the election looms,

    ¡al ataque!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/28/2008 @ 02:09am

48. eartha kitt was the best catwoman.

    she was a cat, after all.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/28/2008 @ 02:12am

49. <i>Unpopular wars are untenable in a democracy.

    Posted by koroviev at 12/28/2008 @ 01:50am </i>

    Really? I mean, you could certainly say it's wrong to lie to the populace to woo them into war, but you have to pull out as soon as the war becomes unpopular? I thought that the whole purpose behind elected officials was that you didn't want a process of continual polling (which is what you'd have to have under your framework). I recognize that on the one hand, it could be dangerous to give the government free reign to prosecute war without the people's consent, but I doubt that even WWII enjoyed constant popular support. If you'd like to argue that we should have pulled out of that whenever people turned against it, you're more than welcome to defend that position. At the very least, it's a lot less cut-and-dry on your side than you seem to believe.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/28/2008 @ 02:17am

50. Posted by Thrawn at 12/28/2008 @ 02:17am

    Thrawn after receiving a letter from the US gov at some point in the unforeseeable future....

    "hmmm.. the salutation is titled 'Greetings'. Must be some kind of mistake, the yuletide having long since passed. Probably some bureaucratic jokester doing his thing at taxpayers expense, no doubt. Well, into the circular file with you! Let the prying census meddlers or whomever come up with a better opener than that! And now, back to the philosophy channel.

    Posted by Sorelish at 12/28/2008 @ 03:08am

51. I remember The Nation before it was plagued with an infestation of right winged demagogues, who manage to divert every issue to irrelevance by twisting and distorting the issue until it becomes so blurred it no longer exists.

    The issue is the eulogy of a great lady, Ms Eartha Kitt, an American icon, who, strong in her convictions, jeopardized her career to speak to her convictions in a setting where they would be the most effective. It is not about who is left or right on this forum, nor is it about encapsulating her entire lifetime contribution to a singular event.

    Some in the late 80's I canceled my subscription to The Nation when it took an experimental turn to the Right, and return to it now, merely because of the passing of a great and courageous woman, who gave much to her country, and doesn't deserve the specious vitriol of Right wing sycophants of a dying Republican Party. Mostly old men, who likely won't be with us to elect the next presidential administration, I'd like to think your own passing, of import to no one, will nonetheless be given more respect than you gave Ms Kitt's. For Lord's sake, go back to The National Review, and your other Right wing rags, and let us see the back of you.

    Posted by Tonywwk at 12/28/2008 @ 06:10am

52. What has this latest war decided?

    Just this week:

    28 killed by car bomb in Baghdad

    26 killed by suicide bomber in Pakistan

    7 Us soldiers killed in Iraq (but those don't count because American Soldiers are not Americans, according to the cons)

    Iraqi PM arrests Interior Dept of Iraq.

    Palestinians attack Israel

    Israel attacks Palestinians

    Last month we learned from two sources normally respected by the cons that the policies of the neo-cons are actually HELPING Al Qaeda.

    The non-violent weapons inspections (backed by the threat of force) succeeded in removing wmd threats from Iraq.

    The "evil" of the Vietnamese Communists has been overlooked in 2008 by the same people that called for extinction of the Vietnamese Communists in 1968...as they seek out cheaper labor. The same is true of their hatred for Red Chinese, it is gone, swept away as China opened it's doors so the west could access it's cheap labor.

    So, why is it that so many cons showed up to deride Ms. Kitts opposition to a war (that used up the poor, black and unconnected while leaving the upper classes free from harming their beautiful minds, except for people like Al Gore and john kerry who are now derided daily here) while THEY advocate for opening up the SAME communist countries that Ms Kitt wanted to not destroy?

    I would have to say that the non-violent movements of the 60's in the US were most successful. They helped galvanize the majority against the failed war policies of the duoploy, it ended the legal segregation supported by republicans and dixiecrats.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/28/2008 @ 10:41am

53. "The kids were going to school in record numbers, to avoid going to Vietnam."-HUGGY

    Who was going to school to keep from fighting for their country?

    Aug. 29, 1964: Dick and Lynne Cheney marry.

    May 19, 1965: The Selective Service classifies Dick Cheney 1-A, "available immediately for military service."

    July 28, 1965: President Lyndon Johnson says draft calls will be doubled.

    Oct. 26, 1965: The Selective Service declares that married men without children, who were previously exempted from the draft, will now be called up. Married men with children remain exempt.

    Jan. 19, 1966: The Selective Service reclassifies Dick Cheney 3-A, "deferred from military service because service would cause hardship upon his family," because his wife is pregnant with their first child.

    Mr. Cheney sought deferments. By the time he turned 26 in January 1967 and was no longer eligible for the draft, he had asked for and received five deferments, four because he was a student and one for being a new father.

    "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."-Dick Cheney, anti-non violent advocate for war.

    When can we count on HUGGY, JOMAMMA, COMMMANCHE and LUVS NO LIBERTIES to go fight for their firmly held beliefs?

    ----- "In Kings case, the civil rights movement has been replaced by victimhood stances and extortion ala Ol' Jesse types ..."JOMAMMA the friend of communists that support N. Korea and VIetnam

    Truly? Is it victimhood that won Obama the POTUS position? How did CLarence Thomas extort you in order to get his position as The Least Experienced Supreme? How does this mindset work in relation Appalachian Caucasian poverty, which accounts for most welfare recipients?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/28/2008 @ 11:00am

54. LUVSLIBERTY

    What "liberties" do you love? Free speech seems to get your goat.

    You don't seem to think that a Mormon should have the privilege to be president, so his liberty of freedom of religion goes out the door.

    Liberty from illegal search and seizure? Nope, you don't like that.

    Liberty to see evidence against you before being tried? Nope, no good, that could cause AQ to win.

    Liberty to live with the person of ones choosing, receiving the same benefit you do when you live with the person of your choosing? Nope, that isn't good for you.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/28/2008 @ 11:09am

55. More from War Beats Non-violence Every Time Fantasy Utopian Land

    China was opened without a shot being fired.

    AQ now operates in 60 countries.

    600 attacks were carried out by islamic terrorists between 2004 and 2005, more than the previous 30 years combined.

    A 2004 Pew survey revealed that Osama bin Laden is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco (45%). In Turkey as many as 31% say that suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable.

    In 2006, Palestine voters gave the group Hamas - which is designated as a terrorist organization in Israel, United States, Canada, and the European Union - a majority of the seats in its parliament

    In 2004 Egypts Muslim Brotherhood won the majority of seats in the "elections". The results were overturned by the government.

    Not a single new democracy is functioning in the Middle East.

    Just as non-violence is not always the answer, neither is endless war.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/28/2008 @ 11:25am

56. Now let us look at the results of right wing violence in America, and what IT has accomplished.

    Has the bombing of healthcare clinics resulted in the overturning of Roe/Wade?

    Did the killing of doctors lead to the passing of laws limiting extraction and dilation ?

    Did Tim McVeigh achive his desired result?

    did the bombing of the Olympics save a single fetus?

    Or has the right wing achieved it's goals through non-violent use of the legal system? A system they constantly deride with terms such as "activist judge" and their constant mocking of lawyers.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/28/2008 @ 11:32am

57. Posted by crabwalk at 12/28/2008 @ 11:09am

    CRABBY,

    You have astutely noticed the curiosities and the astounding dualisms within LUVVIE's concepts of liberty.

    However, it is characteristic of the condervaPrimitive to harbor bizarrely relativistic ideas. In LUVVIE's case, we have seen that he indignantly denounces Max Cleland as a Marxist enabler of the darkest earhtly forces because...Cleland fell on a grenade and saved his buddies at his own expense whils serving in Nam. At almost the same moment as Cleland fell on the grenade, Georgw W Loser fell of a barstool, someplace, while in a drunken stupor. Yet, W Loser is a manly warrior in LUVVIE's series of hyms to the "Maximum Leader", a "leader" (LUVVIE's word), even if W's record in combat is exactly equal to that of any given 1946-born French Left Bank Marxist pansy with a taste for another man's semen. (We'll leave JOMAMMA, the prostrate before China patriot out of this for now, although he constantly fudges his birth year in order to cover for his Vietnam era pansiness).

    It is best to udnerstand LUVVIE's ideas of liberty, relativistic as they are, in two words: Al Hurra! In plain English, "the free one"! In LUVVIE's damaged mind, Saudi Arabia is the very nexus of freedom. Notice:

    * No abortion. In fact, women do not drive, walk around except accompanied by male relatives, or show their hair. They certainkly are not so brazen as to tempt a man. A perfect realization of liberty.

    * God rules over the public squaure and Englightenment fussiness over firewalls between church & state are as unknown as a constitutional establishment clause.

    * Gayness is strictly forbidden; except (and here is that ever present relativism of the right) EXCEPT WHEN 2 MEN REALLY, REALLY *RESPECT* EACH OTHER AS MEN...

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 12/28/2008 @ 12:42pm

58. So, if Ghandi and Rev King were ineffective...

    then Bill Ayers must have had the right idea.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/28/2008 @ 3:39pm

59. "In fact, like Cash and the Smothers Brothers, she helped herself far more than hurt herself"-HUGGY

    Truly the ability to take reality and turn it on it's head must be wonderful when ones argument is faulty from the git-go.

    The Smothers Bros lost their show over politics, fired by the so-called "liberal media".

    [ At the start of the 1968/69 season, the network ordered that the Smothers deliver their shows finished and ready to air ten days before airdate so that the censors could edit the shows as necessary. In the season premiere, CBS deleted the entire segment of Belafonte singing against a backdrop of the havoc during the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

    With some local stations making their own deletions of controversial skits or comments, the continuing problems over the show reached a boiling point after CBS showed a rerun on March 9, 1969. The network explained the decision by stating that because that week's episode did not arrive in time to be previewed, it would not be shown. In that program, Joan Baez paid tribute to her then-husband–David Harris–who was entering jail after refusing military service.

    The saga of the cancellation of the show is the subject of a 2002 documentary film, Smothered.]

    How is getting ones show cancelled "helping " more than hurting?

    Why is it that we never hear about how pro-war celebrities "use their position" to advance their political agendas? Could it be because they have a first amendment right to do so, like the rest of us? Or is it actually that Kid Rocks opinion is more informed than Ms. Kitt's?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/28/2008 @ 4:01pm

60. Phil,

    One of the strangest posts ever.

    Born Nov 5, 1952

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/28/2008 @ 7:48pm

61. So, do right wing stooges dart in and out of here with each new subject, or does the RNC establish a permanent outpost?

    I was listening to two of Ms. Kitt's best renditions yesterday, "I Want to be Evil", and "Love for Sale", and wondered who, with the possible exception of Ms Nina Simone, or Dinah Washington, could have surpassed her throaty, sensuous style? Though she lacked Ms Simone's smoothness, and Ms Washington's repertoire, she was America's chanteuse, who probably didn't affect the outcome of our greatest and most pointless wars, but she galvanized some of us who otherwise would never have given a damn.

    I suspect those of you who do not mark her passing with any special passion may simply be too young to really remember her well, or you're one of those who believe a college education automatically imparts an elitist wisdom; forgetting, of course, that enlightenment can come to anyone who can truly be here for life's events. Eartha Kitt can not pass from here without taking a small part of all those whose life she affected with her, however, and how many of you can say that about yourselves?

    So, now that the blustering is over, goodbye Eartha Kitt, you are already missed.

    Posted by Tonywwk at 12/29/2008 @ 04:14am

62. Your absolutely correct that one must learn from their experiences. that is my point precisely. You lack any experience to test your idealism, whereas my opinions have been shaped from the coupling of my idealism with many decades of experience (here and globally). Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/29/2008 @ 12:58pm

    And I would contend that judging by your attitude towards the world that you must have learned very little.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/29/2008 @ 1:26pm

63. Really? I mean, you could certainly say it's wrong to lie to the populace to woo them into war, but you have to pull out as soon as the war becomes unpopular? I thought that the whole purpose behind elected officials was that you didn't want a process of continual polling (which is what you'd have to have under your framework). I recognize that on the one hand, it could be dangerous to give the government free reign to prosecute war without the people's consent, but I doubt that even WWII enjoyed constant popular support. If you'd like to argue that we should have pulled out of that whenever people turned against it, you're more than welcome to defend that position. At the very least, it's a lot less cut-and-dry on your side than you seem to believe.

    Posted by Thrawn

    Unpoplular wars are untenable in a democracy. It's not an opinion, it is an unavoidable fact. The system of government does not allow unpopular wars.

    Posted by koroviev at 12/30/2008 @ 02:23am