VIET NAM? IRAQ? WHAT"S THE DIFFERENCE?

Whatever else can be said of Americans, we have short memories. If we had longer memories we would not be conducting a war in Iraq. Indeed, we would remember the tragedy (and the absolute stupidity) of Viet Nam (a conflict which involved American troops between 1963 and 1975), and we would bail out of Iraq as fast as possible.

Our involvement in Viet Nam began when the late president John F. Kennedy agreed to send a "few" military advisors to South Viet Nam in an effort to assist its regime to prevent the Viet Cong, and its allies in North Viet Nam, from converting a pseudo democracy in to a full blown communist country. That the two Viet Nams, formerly Indo China, had been one country prior to its partitioning was less important (to the opponents of communism)than the desire of Vietnamese citizens to effect reunification. That the real dynamics of Viet Nam were a smoldering civil war (with only a modicum of concern for which kind of government might evolve in its afertermath) was ignored when faced with the possibility that the so-called "Domino Theory" might, in Viet Nam, come to fruition. And when, after the aggressive activities in the Gulf of Tonkin, in the summer of 1965, Lyndon Johnson decided to up the military ante to full American involvement, it was only a matter of months before a complement of 500,000 of our Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force were clogging the streets of almost every city in South Viet Nam. And when the dying commenced, it did so in earnest. America would ultimately sacrifice fifty-thousand of its finest, and the Vietnamese would lose more than ten times that many.

And when it was all over South Viet Nam was merged with North Viet Nam, a bland communist regime was in charge, Indo Chinese brothers and sisters were reunited, and a vast majority of Americans were left wondering why such a conflict (which could not be called a war because war had never been officially declared)had been necessary. And, in the final analysis, most people agreed that it had not been necessary; that our involvement had been most ill-advised, that our losses of men and materiel (and money) were unconscionable, and that we had gained absolutely nothing during our twelve years of active military involvement in southeast Asia.

Interestingly, the conclusion of our engagement in Viet Nam was not the result of a military outcome. We had not won; they had not lost. They had not won, and we had lost only to the extent that we had accomplished nothing by being there. But the end came not because of a political or military result. We got out of Viet Nam because the voice of the American people was finally heard by the administration of president Gerald Ford. He got us out, even if he did not completely agree with the naysayers. He got us out because it was politically sage to respond to the majority. And the majority of Americans were more than fed-up. And votes hinged on who did what. And Gerald Ford aspired to a full term of his own. And staying the course in Viet Nam was not the way to assure victory. He lost anyway (to then governor Jimmy Carter), but probably nowhere near as badly as he would have had he elected to continue the conflict.

Sound familiar? Advance the clock almost thirty years, account for our brief memory, and observe our involvement in Iraq. And note, as historians often do, that history repeats itself; especially when the outcome is negative.

There are a few differences this time. Ike, JFK and even LBJ, were probably ingenuous in their concerns that the potential fall of South Viet Nam could be perilous to the future of Asia, and by extension to the U.S. Obviously they were wrong, but at least we can believe that they didn't know it. But George W. Bush did know that invading Iraq was unrelated to his so-called "war on terrorism", he knew that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction (even as he loudly ranted that he did), and he was very well aware that whatever transpired in Iraq, it offered no discernible threat to the United States, or to any of its allies. Saddam could not even accurately direct his few Scuds to Israel. And Bush knew it. But he pulled the trigger anyway, and now, three years later, more than 3000 Americans have died in Iraq, countless Iraqis have succumbed, a functional coalition government is still not in place, and Bush continues to insist that our presence there is proper and necessary.

The differences between Viet Nam and Iraq are more a matter of dishonesty than anything else. We have a president who has consistently lied to us (not to mention himself), and the consequence is unnecessarily dead Americans, Iraqis, and coaltion forces; a rapid decline in American popularity world-wide, and the loss of our credibility in almost every corner of the globe.

Someday history may insist that Bush account for this business; he may have to answer the question as to whether it was worth it. And to answer in the affirmative he will have to lie again. The Senate impeached Bill Clinton because he lied about an affair with a White House intern. Perhaps it is time to consider the impeachment of someone who deserves it.

Garrett500

THE MAN WHO SHOT "LIBERTY" WHITTINGTON

Following the Republican Party's convention in the summer of '99, this observer concluded that a Bush/Cheney administration might be a greater disaster than the Johnstown Flood. We were wrong. This administration has proven to be far worse than anything we might have imagined.Comparatively, the Johnstown Flood was nothing. And the accounting of this administration's failures, which seem to grow daily, has a frightening three more years before it finally gives way to something more reasonable.

Were it not so horrendously expensive in terms of human suffering, lives lost, and money squandered, the litany of Bush/Cheney's tenure would almost be humorous. Indeed, if we could overlook their brazen behavior, their hypocritical approach to sensitive issues, and their insistence that they are right (when it is so patently obvious they are wrong), their record of stupidity could be laughable. And, when the history of this era is written, we suspect that some inordinately generous chroniclers of the times may color the period with a patina of amusement. But, for the nonce, we can only look forward to being awakened when it's over.

But stop, there is is more. This last weekend our inestimable vice president, Dick Cheney, went Quail hunting. (Why are we not surprised that this pseudo-macho product of the Wyoming hinterland would want to shoot birds in Texas? ) But, whether the veep bagged any birds is no longer relevant. He did bag a well known (and elderly) Texas attorney. Whether he was shooting from the hip (a process to which he seems regularly disposed), is unknown. But we do know that he reared up, pulled the trigger of his .28 guage scattergun, and almost turned his unwitting victim in to a Swiss cheese. The lawyer, 78 year old Harry Whittington, a long time Republican supporter from Austin, sustained an unknown number of hits, a (mild) heart attack, and, no doubt, a bruised ego. And Cheney, not one to readily own up to his failings, saw his pal hustled to a hospital, had a hurried dinner, implored silence, and flew back to Washington (not, we understand, on the wings of a dove). And the announcement of this horrible happentance did not occur until more than twelve hours after it transpired. And the fact that any announcement was made may be the outcome of a decision by the owner of the south Texas ranch on which this drama was played out. But for her notion that the public might have a right to know, this incident might still be under wraps.

It turns out that Cheney had a Texas hunting license. But he did not have the so-called Bird Stamp (available for seven bucks) required for shooting avians. Nor did he have a license to shoot an old Republican attorney. Fortunately, Texas law did not require that encumbrance. And the Kenedy County Sheriff, who was reluctantly allowed to investigate the circumstances, has concluded that the whole thing was an accident and that Cheney, and his party, should get nothing more than a warning for failure to have bird stamps. And Cheney, for his part, has assured Texas that his seven dollar check (albeit ex post facto) is "in the mail".

We are tempted, of course, to make reference to the gang who couldn't shoot straight. But that would be unfair. And, in this case it would also be inaccurate. With a shotgun Cheney can shoot straight. It is only his mouth which seems incapable of accuracy. And, being part of the current administration, nothing could be less surprising. And we should not be taken aback by the administration's failure (and obvious reluctance) to reveal this story when it happened. It is perfectly in character that we had to wait. (And, perhaps in this instance, we were even treated to a few globules of truth.) Overall, however, this episode is virtually identical to so many other mishandled events by this administration. Be it the war in Iraq, the screw-ups in Afghanistan, the inexcusable bungling of Katrina, the NSA use of illegal wire taps, the setting up of Scooter Libby, or any number of other scofflaws, this is simply another in the lengthening list. And this latest mishap gives a whole new meaning to idea that they are shooting themselves in the foot.
These guys should definitely not be allowed to have guns; not individually, not collectively, not at all...............................

ACHTUNG AMERICA

We now learn that a Pentagon study reveals that but for a bit of armor a number of dead American soldiers, killed at the hands of the Iraqi "enemy", would still be alive. Apparently, the requisite armor, which is reputed to cost two-hundred and sixty dollars per man, is readily available. But the Department of Defense has been loathe to ante-up. And, now that the cat is out of the bag (ie, that such armor could be saving American lives), good old Don Rumsfeldt, and his Pentagon cronies, are stonewalling the subject. And they are rationalizing their silence by saying that any public discussion of the issue will give aid to the enemy.

And the merry-go-round of "Republispeak", which endeavors to convince America that falsehoods are truths, proceeds apace.

More importantly is the need for the aforementioned armor to be quickly distributed to all of the American fighting troops in Iraq. That they do not already have it is unconscionable. And the caterwauling about giving aid to the enemy is the worst kind of utter nonsense. But it is typical of the way this administration counters objections and criticisms. If they don't like what they hear they rattle on about disloyalty and treason. And, unlike virtually any previous administration (save, perhaps, Richard Nixon's), it never occurs to these folks that dissent, difference of opinion, and downright disagreement are the very cartilage of our democracy.

From time to time (and we fervently hope it is just our imagination) we hear the sounds of caissons rolling ominously on our streets; of goose stepping troops encroaching upon our privacy, and of conservative leaders insisting that to preserve democracy we have to sacrifice some of it. These are frightening sounds evocative of an era we thought long passed. But as we see the continuation of the idiocy in Iraq, as we remain subjected to the rantings of Bush World, as more American troops succumb to these troubled ideas, and as more of our time honored civil liberties are relinquished to the politics of fear, we suspect that the sounds of imagined discontent may, all too soon, become all too real.

Garrett500
1/10/2006

PAT ROBERTSON, BIBLE THUMPER EXTRAORDINAIRE

Good old Pat Robertson; he has a biblical explanation (or profound pronouncement) for every cataclysmic event on the globe. And his latest chapter of claptrot is his suggestion that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's recent stroke is punishment from God for "dividing" Israel. And this comes from the same guy who regularly condemns anyone (group or individual) who clashes with his fundamentalist views of a world completely in the grips (as he sees it) of God's will. Oppose the notion of "intelligent design" (creationism in its current, thinly veiled, disguise) and you might as well plan on spending eternity in hell. Katrina was God's work, punishing folks, apparently, for being unfortunate enough to live in an area which, by Robertson's lights, is sinful. And heaven (won't) help those who fail to recognize the wrath of God (and Pat Robertson) when they see it. Nonsense of the highest order!

We will not attack the bible. It does not need our approbation, and it deserves better than our critique. But is has, no doubt unintentionally, spawned the likes of Pat Robertson. And the man is a moron. If God does have us in his grip; if He does preside over all human events, perhaps He could take the time to remind His disciple, Reverend Robertson, that he is nutsy-fagin; that he does not know what he's talking about, and that, in the interest of preserving his good standing as a Christian, (with a capitol C) that he should shut-up.

Garrett500
1/5/2006

FAUX PUBLISHING

Whenever we write a blog, decide we are satisfied with the finished product, and click on the button marked "Publish", we are given the illusion that something we have created will now be in the public domain and that readers enamored of our view points (and our stylish prose) will immediately tune-in and read our latest bits of wisdom. Wrong!

While it may be technically true that we have been published (on-line), it is also true, in the main, that no one is waiting with baited breath to read our latest epistle. If the number of comments we have received is any indication of this blog's popularity, it is highly likely we may be our only reader. And that is a reality akin to publishing a book and never selling so much as one copy. And it is nothing new. We had a grandfather who, at the height of World War II self-published a self-serving piece entitled MASTER OF MEN. He cajoled a local book store in to displaying five or six copies in its window, even advertising that the author was a "well known citizen of the area"; and not one single copy of his "masterpiece" was ever sold. And even the free copies he distributed to family members were never read. The book was simply dreadful.

And we may be experiencing a similar syndrome. A friend whom we directed to this blog site called recently and complained that he could not figure out how to read anything on the site, that he had not actually found anything we had written, and that if he had he was certain he would disagree with every word. Fortunately, we have not directed any enemies to the site.

So, blogging (at least for those of who are essentially unknown) is a form of mental masturbation. It is a way of being "published" without earning a legitimate right to do so, and it is satisfying mainly because it allows the writer(s) to vent, to sound off (even if no one is listening), and to hope (idly we fear) that somewhere, somehow, a kindred soul might stumble on to the site and offer similar views, or even a compliment or two on our writing. But, while a million bloggers grind out new stuff every day, they are not talking to each other. And faux publishing is the contemporary way of strutting around like the emperor who had no clothes. He was invisble. So are most bloggers.................

Garrett500
12/29/2005

MOVIE REVIEWS--WORSE THAN THE MOVIES!

Not all that many years ago it made sense for a film fan to read the opinions of the experts before heading off to the theater. Not that we always agreed with the critic, but we could at least figure on a fairly reliable assessment of the pictures we wanted to see. Indeed, there were some critics whose opinions were almost always the opposite of ours. If Vincent Canby, as a case in point, did not like a particular flick, there was a better than even chance that we would. Similarly, if Rex Reed (who is still plying his trade, albeit less noticeably) was fond of a new picture, we were reasonably certain we would not care for it.

These days reading the film critics (of which there are seemingly as many as there are movies) is a tricky business. It seems that many of them know nothing more about the cinematic arts than we do. And their jobs now come down to little more than the offering of their opinions as to whether they like, or dislike, what they see. Rather than critiquing performances, plots, camera work, sets, etc., today's critic is content to tell you why he likes something, or why he does not. But in doing so he offers no insights in to the background for his opinions. In fact, quite a number of our contemporary reviewers seem intent, mainly, on attempting to ferret out whatever meaning they think they discern in a film. Indeed, give them something really chewy, like MUNICH, and they will write reams of stuff about the scriptwriter's motivations, about the Director's sympathies for the Olympic victims, and why the film, so many years after the events it depicts, is "timely". Take another piece, THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA, and we have reviewers telling us that C.S. Lewis's story is actually a biblical allegory. And they tell us that having no idea whether Lewis intended it that way. None of them, after all, got to interview him; and nowhere (that we know of) did he write anything to the effect that NARNIA was a religious story. Doubtless some Christians were heartened to hear that this film embodies Lewis's spiritual predilections, but we would have preferred a review which more honestly appraised the picture's merits or demerits as a piece of the film maker's art. We know, after all, that Disney (the studio behind the production) made the movie for entertainment and for money (scads of which they intend to earn from ticket sales). Doubtless they gave no thought to C.S. Lewis's rationale for writing the book; only that it would lend itself to (potentially) good cinema.

So, when we read movie reviews these days we have very little we can rely on. Reading Roger Ebert, or any of the other dozen or so well known critics, offers us no assurances that their opinions can be relied upon. Ebert, for instance, waxes eloquent about a lot of things (and sometimes he discusses the film he is reviewing), but as often as not it is actually difficult to tell whether he likes or dislikes the picture he is writing about. To glean that information you have to see how many stars he bestows; and that information seems to appear someplace different than the review. He is not vague on his TV show, but in print his commentary cannot be used to determine whether a particular flick should be seen or avoided. When he reviewed GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, as a case in point, his affection for the work was less apparent than his reflections on the situation it depicted. It helps that a reviewer is old enough to remember historical events when depicted in film, but telling us why a movie is good (or bad) is also essential to the critic's job. And, from our perspective, most of them are now missing that point. And the reason, we suspect, is because the art of print journalism has been obliged to take a back seat to less obvious but far more pressing issues. Newspapers, unfortunately, are not about the news anymore. They are really about selling as much advertising as possible. And journalists are hired not so much for their professional skills as for their willingness to work for mediocre money. No, we do not suggest that one as well respected as Roger Ebert fits in this category. But while he, and a hand full of others, endeavor to work as professionals, far too many more cannot spell "professional" much less define what professionalism is. And for that reason alone, the reviews we read are often worse than the movies they critique.

Garrett500
12/28/2005

IMPEACHMENT; GETTING IT RIGHT

Recent revelations that president Bush has been allowing the NSA to eavesdrop on private phone conversations and emails came as no surprise to this observer. To the contrary, we would have been more surprised to learn that such activities were not taking place.

Nor is it surprising that the president, after a bit of back pedaling, owned up to these nefarious activities. He has made it clear, virtually since the smoke cleared on 9/11, that as far as he is concerned just about anything goes when it comes to fighting the war on terrorism. And where "spy gate" is concerned Mr. Bush is more aggrieved by the fact that ordinary Americans now know what he's been doing than by any suggestion that he might be breaking (or at least ignoring) the law. Indeed, his rationale for this chicanery is that terrorists don't play by the rules, so he shouldn't have to either. And when backed to the wall on the matter he retorts that we haven't been attacked in four years. Right, and the fact that he has been spying on Americans is doubtless the reason that Al Queda has left us alone.

That America is supposed to stand for something more noble than those nations which encourage, which foster, or which simply tolerate terrorism is, we fear, lost on the denizens of Bush World. They were wounded (albeit no where near mortally) on September 11,th 2001, and they are retaliating with a ferocity, and a lack of traditional American ethics, heretofore unimagined in the annals of this country's history. And even when it involves overt law breaking (which is surely what this spying is), the administration sits back and brazens it out by saying things like "we were cleared for this operation by Justice Department Attorneys", "read the Constitution, we're covered". But when asked to cite which specific statute, which part of the constitution, what law of any kind, legalizes spying on American citizens without benefit of a warrant, no one in Bush World can come up with anything except more hollow rhetoric.

There is too much which is ignoble in this administration's conduct of its business. It lied to us about the rationale for war, it has overseen the imprisonment without access to due process of hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals suspected, but not indicted. It was surely looking the other way at Abu Graib and to think otherwise is to believe in the Easter Bunny. And, for several years it has violated one of the most dearly held tenets of our democracy; it has been spying, without legal authority, and without apology, on what may be thousands of American citizens.

In 1998 a misguided Congress impeached then president, Bill Clinton. Republican conservatives (or at least those who could elude charges of hypocrisy) were incensed that Mr. Clinton had conducted an affair with a young White House intern. And they were really peeved at the fact that he had lied about it. Never mind that an admitted fifty-percent of married Americans have affairs. Forget the fact that one hundred percent of them lie about it. This was "Slick Willy", and those who wanted his cajones went after him tooth and nail. Ultimately, after subjecting the country to an exercise in abject tomfoolery, Clinton was acquitted, he completed the remainder of his presidency, and the country benefited, in the main, from his leadership. If we endeavored to impeach Clinton for having an affair would it not make even more sense to impeach Bush for lying and for breaking the law? Before he erodes all of our civil liberties should we not begin to sense his mission, make it clear that we don't need a dictator, and impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors? We think so, and we hope those members of Congress who share this view will get the ball rolling.

An otherwise competent president who stupidly indulges his fantasy in a twenty-four year old nymphet is one thing. A president who lies, who flagrantly breaks and ignores laws, who obviously believes he is above those laws, and who is presiding over the dismantling of our traditional democracy, is quite another. The last time we impeached a president we went after the wrong guy for the wrong reasons. We now have the opportunity to get it right.

Garrett 500
12/21/2005