<The question whether we should have been there or not is academic>
Cannot quite agree on this one - it's not a purely academic question, as it has deeply affected and forever changed millions of human lives in both countries.
But that's the only point here i disagree with.
Why she did what she did? (IMHO)
I'm afraid (just my opinion) that for her it was just another show, another sensational publicity stunt, another pose to take in front of camera, another script to act by, but NOT a matter of personal conviction. And obviously no any thought or care was given about impact it may make on human lives around (NON-profit-wise).
<Jane is a liar and hypocrite...>
Exactly.
<What in God's name was he (Turner) thinking (marrying her)?>
Most likely he (both of them) were thinking that it's another business venture - mutually beneficial merger with great potential of profiting from celebrity hype made first on the news of their upcoming marriage, and then from the future marital scandals and possibly divorce. Do you really think it was a "made in heaven" romantic union of two soulmates??
I personally don't bother to follow idiotic celebrity stories and scandals, spiced up and dumbed down for easy digestion, and have no idea when that marriage occurred and how it turned out, but that's the general idea behind most of "celebrity unions" (such as Michael Jackson + Lisa Marie Presley and some others). Strictly business and marketing.
<Ms. Fonda should be tried in a military tribunal on treason...>
If that was ever possible, she (and probably some high-profile astronomically-priced attorneys) would welcome an opportunity to turn it into another publicity show. Only this time, instead of the North Vietnamese tank, she would straddle the First Amendment...
