Another Misinformed Vietnam Analogy

November 18, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Barack Obama, Richard Nixon, Vietnam | 2 Comments 

The Daily Mail’s Andrew Alexander is the latest:

When Vietnam was at its worst, President Nixon made the bogus claim that the Government in the South had reached the stage where it could fight the Viet Cong without outside support.

An undignified retreat then followed. Something like this can be expected for Afghanistan – just find an excuse to leave.

It was President Nixon’s goal to leave Vietnam in honor, not defeat. He said as much in his November 1969 speech, when he reached out to the “Silent Majority” for a peaceful end to the conflict. His strategy was neither irresponsible or undignified:

From a political standpoint this would have been a popular and easy course to follow. After all, we became involved in the war while my predecessor was in office. I could blame the defeat which would be the result of my action on him and come out as the peacemaker. Some put it to me quite bluntly: This was the only way to avoid allowing Johnson’s war to become Nixon’s war.

But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my administration and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation and on the future of peace and freedom in America and in the world.

Let us all understand that the question before us is not whether some Americans are for peace and some Americans are against peace. The question at issue is not whether Johnson’s war becomes Nixon’s war.

Was it really bogus as Alexander purports? According to Vietnam War veteran and historian Lewis Sorley, the situation on the ground started to improve as the strategy started to be rethought in the late Sixties. Similar to the surge operations in 2007 and 2008, American forces started to concentrate on pacification efforts on the provincial and rural levels.

Rather than continue search and destroy missions, progress was made through the strategy of “secure, build, and hold.” In other words the Nixon’s administration’s plan was not to simply waste time fighting an enemy that exploited hostilities and blended into the population, but rather engage and protect the population, isolate them from insurgents, and help the Vietnamese Army attain the competence to defend from the North.

During this time, the Vietnamese government also gained greater legitimacy as an effective reformer. In 1972, President Thieu spearheaded an initiative to distribute 400,000 acres of land to farmers that lead to an increase in production and the re-opening of local markets.

The Republic was ready to stand on its own.

But in June of 1973, it was Congress — assisted by an amendment from Senators Church and Case — who decided to leave the South defenseless:

Sorley doesn’t just argue that ”clear and hold” beat the Viet Cong. He goes on to argue that the Vietnamization program in general was a success, and that by the time the last US troops left in 1973, the South Vietnamese Army was capable of defending the country. The villain, in this retelling of the war, is the US Congress, which cut off all funding for US military operations in late 1973-making it impossible for the US to provide the air support it had promised in case of an invasion by the North Vietnamese Army-and went on to cut aid to South Vietnam starting in 1975. If the US had just provided South Vietnam with a bit of military aid and air support, Sorley implies, we would have won the Vietnam War.

Worth 2000 Words

November 18, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Barack Obama, China, History, News media, Pat Nixon, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

37: February 1972

44: November 2009.
The White House ID for downloading this photo is “hero_greatwall_LJ-01-60″

Featured Articles — August 18, 2009

November 18, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

How Copenhagen died during Barack Obama’s Asia trip By Steve Clemons, Politico
He did it! During his trip to China, President Barack Obama mentioned human rights and the importance of free thinking, and China didn’t dump its massive pile of U.S. dollars. America must still have some sway left in the world.

Obama’s Bad Trip By Richard Wolffe, The Daily Beast
He bowed to Japan. He treaded lightly with China. And then Israel thumbed its nose at Obama’s calls to freeze settlements. Richard Wolffe on why the president can’t wait to come home.

Tough job for prosecutors to get death penalty for evil 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed By James Gordon Meek, New York Daily News
Prosecutors who will try the 9/11 plotters in New York face a “Mission Impossible” task of winning death sentences for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his henchmen.

A tale of two American economies By Nouriel Roubini, The Globe and Mail
The smaller one is slowly recovering, but the larger one is still in a deep downturn.

Vision for victory In Afghanistan — Part I, Michael O’Hanlon, The Washington Times
What we have working in our favor right now

Obama Follows In RN’s Footsteps

November 17, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under China, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

From USA Today’s David Jackson:

“Surely, we have known setbacks and challenges over the last 30 years,” Obama said. “Our relationship has not been without disagreement and difficulty. But the notion that we must be adversaries is not predestined. … Indeed, because of our cooperation, both the United States and China are more prosperous and more secure.”

Nixon and foreign policy guru Henry Kissinger would not be surprised at the economic and military rise of China. The potential of Chinese power is one reason Nixon and Kissinger made their approach to the communist government led by Mao Zedong.

Global politics played another role. Nixon saw a new relationship with China as a way to pressure the Soviet Union.

At the time, the Chinese and the Russians hated each other more than either hated the U.S. The Soviets became eager for a U.S. summit after news of Nixon’s visit surfaced.

While much of this was known at the time, it was still shocking for many Americans to see Nixon, of all people, in what his supporters like to call Red China.

More than a few commentators said at the time that if another president had ventured to China, the long line of critics would have been led by Nixon. Hence the political phrase: Only Nixon could go to China.

Today, the United States is seeking stronger ties throughout Asia, from India to Indonesia, in part to balance the rising power of Asia.

Obama is now the seventh president to have visited China. It’s hard to say where the U.S.-Chinese relationship will end up, whether as a growing partnership or a Cold War-like rivalry.

Consider the fact that when Kissinger asked Mao about the historical impact of the French Revolution, Mao replied it was “too soon to tell.”

“Surely, we have known setbacks and challenges over the last 30 years,” Obama said. “Our relationship has not been without disagreement and difficulty. But the notion that we must be adversaries is not predestined. … Indeed, because of our cooperation, both the United States and China are more prosperous and more secure.”

Nixon and foreign policy guru Henry Kissinger would not be surprised at the economic and military rise of China. The potential of Chinese power is one reason Nixon and Kissinger made their approach to the communist government led by Mao Zedong.

Global politics played another role. Nixon saw a new relationship with China as a way to pressure the Soviet Union.

At the time, the Chinese and the Russians hated each other more than either hated the U.S. The Soviets became eager for a U.S. summit after news of Nixon’s visit surfaced.

While much of this was known at the time, it was still shocking for many Americans to see Nixon, of all people, in what his supporters like to call Red China.

More than a few commentators said at the time that if another president had ventured to China, the long line of critics would have been led by Nixon. Hence the political phrase: Only Nixon could go to China.

Today, the United States is seeking stronger ties throughout Asia, from India to Indonesia, in part to balance the rising power of Asia.

Obama is now the seventh president to have visited China. It’s hard to say where the U.S.-Chinese relationship will end up, whether as a growing partnership or a Cold War-like rivalry.

Consider the fact that when Kissinger asked Mao about the historical impact of the French Revolution, Mao replied it was “too soon to tell.”

It’s impossible to predict history, but we can be fairly sure that Nixon’s first visit will be discussed for decades to come.

RN, China, and Bowing

November 17, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Barack Obama, China, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

The Politico has a clip of RN appearing to bow to Mao.  Jim Pinkerton comments: “This footage, at 1:24, of Nixon’s bow was not at all a bow, as Obama bowed. Nixon clearly just shook his hand, and then bowed as someone was obviously paying him a compliment. Much different. And I am not being ironic. Much different.” 

 On RN’s death, John Gardner wrote in the Harvard Crimson:  “The trip to China was a strategic gambit of vast importance. At the depth of the Cold War, Richard Nixon and Zhou Enlai saw how china and America could work together. America’s involvement with China strengthened the hand of those who sought to turn away from the excesses of Maoism, including Zhou’s heir, Deng Xiaoping.”  And in an email, John adds:  “Look at :24 of the clip:  he stuck out his hand to greet Zhou Enlai very quickly, even before leaving the steps of Air Force One – widely seen and interpreted as a gesture to make up for Dulles’s refusal to shake hands with Zhou at the Geneva Conference in 1954 (when, of course, Nixon was VP).”

Communicating In Shanghai

November 17, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under China, History, International Affairs, Nixon Administration, Richard Nixon | 1 Comment 

On the shoulders of giants: President Obama at his town meeting in Shanghai.*

In his speech today, at his town meeting at Shanghai’s Fudan University, President Obama acknowledged the role —if not the name— of his Pacific Rim presidential predecessor who, after twenty-five years of non-communication and angry isolation, opened the door to relations between the U.S. and  China.

It was here, 37 years ago, that the Shanghai Communiqué opened the door to a new chapter of engagement between our governments and among our people.

The Shanghai Communiqué was issued on the final day of RN’s seven days in China —”the week that changed the world”— and, as he described it in RN, it represented something new and straightforward:

Our joint statement, issued from Shanghai at the end of the trip, has become known as the Shanghai Communiqué.

Following the formula Kissinger had worked out during Polo II, the communiqué broke diplomatic ground by stating frankly the significant differences between the two dies on major issues rather than smoothing them over.  Thus the text is surprisingly lively for a diplomatic document.

The first substantive section begins: “The U.S. side stated” and then details our positions on each of the major issues discussed.  This is folowed by a section that begins: “The Chinese side stated” and then covers the same ground in counterpoint.

February 1971: RN and Chou En Lai meet in Shanghai.

Here is the surprisingly lively text in full:

Joint Statement Following Discussions With Leaders of the People’s Republic of China.

February 27, 1972

(Two versions of the Shanghai Communiqué were signed, one in English and one in Chinese. The American version had the US position first, whereas the Chinese version had the Chinese position at top.  The following is the US version.)

PRESIDENT Richard Nixon of the United States of America visited the People’s Republic of China at the invitation of Premier Chou En-lai of the People’s Republic of China from February 21 to February 28, 1972. Accompanying the President were Mrs. Nixon, U.S. Secretary of State William Rogers, Assistant to the President Dr. Henry Kissinger, and other American officials.

President Nixon met with Chairman Mao Tse-tung of the Communist Party of China on February 21. The two leaders had a serious and frank exchange of views on Sino-U.S. relations and world affairs.

During the visit, extensive, earnest, and frank discussions were held between President Nixon and Premier Chou En-lai on the normalization of relations between the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China, as well as on other matters of interest to both sides. In addition, Secretary of State William Rogers and Foreign Minister Chi P’engfei held talks in the same spirit.

President Nixon and his party visited Peking and viewed cultural, industrial and agricultural sites, and they also toured Hangchow and Shanghai where, continuing discussions with Chinese leaders, they viewed similar places of interest.

The leaders of the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America found it beneficial to have this opportunity, after so many years without contact, to present candidly to one another their views on a variety of issues. They reviewed the international situation in which important changes and great upheavals are taking place and expounded their respective positions and attitudes.

The U.S. side stated: Peace in Asia and peace in the world requires efforts both to reduce immediate tensions and to eliminate the basic causes of conflict. The United States will work for a just and secure peace: just, because it fulfills the aspirations of peoples and nations for freedom and progress; secure, because it removes the danger of foreign aggression. The United States supports individual freedom and social progress for all the peoples of the world, free of outside pressure or intervention. The United States believes that the effort to reduce tensions is served by improving communication between countries that have different ideologies so as to lessen the risks of confrontation through accident, miscalculation or misunderstanding. Countries should treat each other with mutual respect and be willing to compete peacefully, letting performance be the ultimate judge. No country should claim infallibility and each country should be prepared to re-examine its own attitudes for the common good. The United States stressed that the peoples of Indochina should be allowed to determine their destiny without outside intervention; its constant primary objective has been a negotiated solution; the eight-point proposal put forward by the Republic of Vietnam and the United States on January 27, 1972 represents a basis for the attainment of that objective; in the absence of a negotiated settlement the United States envisages the ultimate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the region consistent with the aim of self-determination for each country of Indochina. The United States will maintain its close ties with and support for the Republic of Korea; the United States will support efforts of the Republic of Korea to seek a relaxation of tension and increased communication in the Korean peninsula. The United States places the highest value on its friendly relations with Japan; it will continue to develop the existing close bonds. Consistent with the United Nations Security Council Resolution of December 21, 1971, the United States favors the continuation of the cease-fire between India and Pakistan and the withdrawal of all military forces to within their own territories and to their own sides of the cease-fire line in Jammu and Kashmir; the United States supports the right of the peoples of South Asia to shape their own future in peace, free of military threat, and without having the area become the subject of great power rivalry.

The Chinese side stated: Wherever there is oppression, there is resistance. Countries want independence, nations want liberation and the people want revolution this has become the irresistible trend of history. All nations, big or small, should be equal; big nations should not bully the small and strong nations should not bully the weak. China will never be a superpower and it opposes hegemony and power politics of any kind. The Chinese side stated that it firmly supports the struggles of all the oppressed people and nations for freedom and liberation and that the people of all countries have the right to choose their social systems according to their own wishes and the right to safeguard the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of their own countries and oppose foreign aggression, interference, control and subversion. All foreign troops should be withdrawn to their own countries.

The Chinese side expressed its firm support to the peoples of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia in their efforts for the attainment of their goal and its firm support to the seven-point proposal of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam and the elaboration of February this year on the two key problems in the proposal, and to the Joint Declaration of the Summit Conference of the Indo-Chinese Peoples. It firmly supports the eight-point program for the peaceful unification of Korea put forward by the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on April 12, 1971, and the stand for the abolition of the “U.N. Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea.” It firmly opposes the revival and outward expansion of Japanese militarism and firmly supports the Japanese people’s desire to build an independent, democratic, peaceful and neutral Japan. It firmly maintains that India and Pakistan should, in accordance with the United Nations resolutions on the India-Pakistan question, immediately withdraw all their forces to their respective territories and to their own sides of the cease fire line in Jammu and Kashmir and firmly supports the Pakistan Government and people in their struggle to preserve their independence and sovereignty and the people of Jammu and Kashmir in their struggle for the right of self-determination.

There are essential differences between China and the United States in their social systems and foreign policies. However, the two sides agreed that countries, regardless of their social systems, should conduct their relations on the principles of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, nonaggression against other states, noninterference in the internal affairs of other states, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. International disputes should be settled on this basis, without resorting to the use or threat of force. The United States and the People’s Republic of China are prepared to apply these principles to their mutual relations.

With these principles of international relations in mind the two sides stated that:
–progress toward the normalization of relations between China and the United States is in the interests of all countries;
–both wish to reduce the danger of international military conflict;
–neither should seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region and each is opposed to efforts by any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony; and
–neither is prepared to negotiate on behalf of any third party or to enter into agreements or understandings with the other directed at other states.

Both sides are of the view that it would be against the interests of the peoples of the world for any major country to collude with another against other countries, or for major countries to divide up the world into spheres of interest.

The two sides reviewed the long-standing serious disputes between China and the United States. The Chinese side reaffirmed its position: The Taiwan question is the crucial question obstructing the normalization of relations between China and the United States; the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government of China; Taiwan is a province of China which has long been returned to the motherland; the liberation of Taiwan is China’s internal affair in which no other country has the right to interfere; and all U.S. forces and military installations must be withdrawn from Taiwan. The Chinese Government firmly opposes any activities which aim at the creation of “one China, one Taiwan, …. one China, two governments,” “two Chinas,” and “independent Taiwan” or advocate that “the status of Taiwan remains to be determined.”

The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes.

The two sides agreed that it is desirable to broaden the understanding between the two peoples. To this end, they discussed specific areas in such fields as science, technology, culture, sports and journalism, in which people-to-people contacts and exchanges would be mutually beneficial. Each side undertakes to facilitate the further development of such contacts and exchanges.

Both sides view bilateral trade as another area from which mutual benefit can be derived, and agreed that economic relations based on equality and mutual benefit are in the interest of the people of the two countries. They agree to facilitate the progressive development of trade between their two countries.

The two sides agreed that they will stay in contact through various channels, including the sending of a senior U.S. representative to Peking from time to time for concrete consultations to further the normalization of relations between the two countries and continue to exchange views on issues of common interest.

The two sides expressed the hope that the gains achieved during this visit would open up new prospects for the relations between the two countries. They believe that the normalization of relations between the two countries is not only in the interest of the Chinese and American peoples but also contributes to the relaxation of tension in Asia and the world.

President Nixon, Mrs. Nixon and the American party expressed their appreciation for the gracious hospitality shown them by the Government and people of the People’s Republic of China.

*If you download this photo from the White House website, the desktop file is “heroshanghaiATH-PS-0421″

Featured Articles — November 17, 2009

November 17, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

The Assassination of Greg Craig By Steve Clemons, The Daily Beast
The White House counsel was done in by a scurrilous leaks campaign. So much for the Obama team’s pledge to be transparent, forthright and accountable for their action.

Responding to Fort Hood By Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic
We need more Muslims in the ranks of the U.S. military—not fewer.

The Nation of Futurity By David Brooks, The New York Times
It would be nice if Americans regained their faith in the future. China seems to possess the optimism that once defined the U.S.

China’s on-off American romance By Simon Schama, Financial Times
Finding something American to sell to the Chinese, whether democracy or widgets, has always been a problem. The first merchant vessel to sail from New York to Canton in 1784 was on a tea-buying voyage, but the cargo it had to exchange was ginseng. American ginseng was consumed by the Chinese for its yin: the female properties of cool, while the native product was thought more yang-heavy. A population explosion may have made it difficult for domestic production to keep up with demand, hence the opening for American ginseng merchants who made a nifty profit.

‘A’ for Rhetoric, ‘D’ for Action By Nikolai Petrov, Moscow Times
Even before President Dmitry Medvedev published his “Go, Russia!” article, observers speculated that he would discuss three major themes in his state-of-the-nation address: Moscow’s relations with the regions, reforming the political system and modernizing the economy. As it turned out, his speech dealt with all three. But one thing was missing that would have been nice to see: a bridge between his wonderful strategic plans and his concrete proposals.

Obama Is The New Nixon

November 16, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under China, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

A writer from Columbia University’s student newspaper draws a compelling comparison:

President Obama’s visit to China, much like Richard Nixon’s visit in 1972, may mark a new era of diplomatic ties between the two nations. I have heard some say that wars will break out between China and the U.S. over natural resources in the next 50 years—I beg to differ. The economic interdependence between the two nations will render such conflicts unlikely—cutting all economic ties during a war would simply deal too much damage to make such a conflict worthwhile. The future of international relations is no longer about state versus state. Rather, it is the collective states versus our common obstacles, such as global warming. As students and future leaders, we should believe in a positive outlook and actively engage ourselves in understanding the differences across cultures. Many of us are already doing so. Students in both countries have started actively engaging each other in recent years. Student-run organizations, along with academic institutions such as the Weatherhead East Asian Institute at Columbia and the US-China Institute at the University of Southern California, are spurring greater cross-cultural collaboration. International student networks such as the Columbia-based Global China Connection, which operates 37 university chapters in North America, along with campus organizations such as the Columbia University Chinese Students and Scholars Association and the Business School’s Greater China Society, are promoting substantive interactions with China. From that point of view, I see the future of U.S.-China relations looking brighter than ever before.

Ever Since RN……

November 16, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under China, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

We could workout Sino-American challenges (NY Times editorial):

Ever since Richard Nixon opened the door in 1972, all presidents have faced a balancing act with China. For President Obama, who arrived in China on Sunday, the challenge is even tougher and more urgent. He needs Beijing’s help on a host of hugely important and extremely difficult problems, including stabilizing the global financial system, curbing global warming, prying away North Korea’s nuclear weapons, and ensuring that Iran doesn’t get to build any.

11.16.73

November 16, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Thirty-six years ago today, RN signed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, a legislative achievement vital to America’s national security and one that opened the doors for America’s energy independence.

It was October 6, 1973, on the Jewish Day of Atonement, when the Syrians and the Egyptians launched a surprise attack against Israel from the North and South. For RN, it came as a complete surprise, as he understood that Israeli forces boasted among the best intelligence organizations in the World. By the end of the day, the Israelis – inadequately mobilized — found themselves on the defensive as Soviet funded Egyptian forces advanced into the Sinai and Syrian forces into the Golan Heights.

By the third day of fighting it was clear that Jewish state gained the upper hand, but it came at a price: Israeli forces would lose over 1,000 men and a third of its field artillery.

According to historian and current Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, the Israeli’s received sufficient help from RN in their defensive effort.

“Whatever it takes,” RN said, “save Israel:”

Galaxy and Starlifter aircraft subsequently flew the 6,000 mile journey to Tel Aviv some three hundred times – Operation Nickel Grass – and delivered more than 22,000 tons of materiel.” The replenished Israeli forces doggedly turned the tide, driving the Syrians back to Damascus within a week and encircling the Egyptian army in Sinai.

One of the central tenets of the Nixon Doctrine, proclaimed by the President on July 15, 1969, was to furnish military and economic assistance to allies threatened by aggressor nations.

RN stayed true to this commitment when he supported the Israeli defensive. The response from OPEC nations was indignant and pernicious. On October 16, they cut oil production by 5 percent and increased the price by 70 percent to $5.11 per barrel.

To absorb the long term supply shock, RN called on Congress to pass the Alaska Act, legislation that would open the development and delivery of oil and gas via pipeline from Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay to the Port of Valdez. On November 12 and 13, it was passed in the House and Senate. By November 16, RN signed it at his desk.

In 1977, the 800 mile pipeline was completed, reaching peak capacity by the late 1980’s at 2 million barrels per day, 25 percent of total national output.

Featured Articles — November 16, 2009

November 16, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

Is America Losing Its Mojo? By Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek
Innovation is as American as baseball and apple pie. But some traditions can’t be trademarked.

Off the Chart By Ross Douthat, The New York Times
Ten months ago, at the beginning of the great stimulus debate, President-elect Barack Obama’s economic advisers produced an unfortunate chart.

The KSM Trial Will Be an Intelligence Bonanza for al Qaeda By John Yoo, The Wall Street Journal
The government will have to choose between vigorous prosecution and revealing classified sources and methods.

Obama’s Malpractice By Robert Samuelson, The Washington Post
There is an air of absurdity to what is mistakenly called “health care reform.” Everyone knows that the United States faces massive governmental budget deficits as far as calculators can project, driven heavily by an aging population and uncontrolled health costs.

The Great Wallop By Niall Ferguson and Moritz Schularick, The New York Times
A FEW years ago we came up with the term “Chimerica” to describe the combination of the Chinese and American economies, which together had become the key driver of the global economy. With a combined 13 percent of the world’s land surface and around a quarter of its population, Chimerica nevertheless accounted for a third of global economic output and two-fifths of worldwide growth from 1998 to 2007.

The Cardinal and the Constitution By Mary Anastasia O’Grady, The Wall Street Journal
Cardinal Rodriguez says Manuel Zelaya was removed from power constitutionally.

How To Bow

November 15, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Barack Obama, Richard Nixon | 1 Comment 

President Obama bowed to Japanese Emperor Akihito yesterday at his palace in Tokyo.

ABC’s Jake Tapper:

“This picture shows two things,” my friend writes.

“1) The ‘right’ is wrong about Obama’s bow.

“2) The ‘left’ is wrong about Obama’s bow.

“His bow is neither (1) unprecedented nor (2) a sign of cultural understanding.

“At their 1971 meeting in Alaska, the first visit of a Japanese Emperor to America, President Nixon bowed and referred to Emperor Hirohito and his wife repeatedly as ‘Your Imperial Majesties.’”

“Yet, (and?) Nixon gets the bow right. Slight arch from the waist hands at his side.

“Obama’s handshake/forward lurch was so jarring and inappropriate it recalls Bush’s back-rub of Merkel.

“Kyodo News is running his appropriate and reciprocated nod and shake with the Empress, certainly to show the president as dignified, and not in the form of a first year English teacher trying to impress with Karate Kid-level knowledge of Japanese customs.

“The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms….The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part.

RN greeted Emperor Hirohito with a bow at a 1971 meeting in Alaska .

No Laughing Matter

November 15, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Comedy, Culture, Entertainment, Media, Popular Culture, TV | Leave a Comment 

“A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.”

The philosophy of Chuckles  the Clown.

Comedy writer David Lloyd died last week at his home in Beverly Hills; he was 75.  A fitting epitaph was provided by Cheers co-creator Les Charles (for whom Lloyd wrote many episodes):  ”I do think he was the preeminent writer of television comedy.  If you consider how long his career was and how much he wrote for such really popular shows, he’s got to have been responsible for a record number of laughs in this world.”

Many of those laughs were concentrated in the seventh episode of the sixth season of the Mary Tyler Moore Show: “Chuckles Bites the Dust.”  In this script, the rarely seen Chuckles —host of a kid’s show at WJM, the Minneapolis TV station at which the series was set— meets a sudden and tragic end.

As Grand Marshal of the annual circus parade, he dresses as one of his many beloved characters Peter Peanut.  Station manager Lou Grant (Ed Asner) informs the shocked newsroom that, in this goober incarnation, Chuckles was shelled by a rogue elephant.

Here, from the show’s script, is that memorable moment:

               Lou enters, genuinely stricken.

                                     LOU
                              (Mutters)
                         Oh my! Oh, dear...!

                                     MARY
                         Mr. Grant...?

                                     LOU
                              (Really shaken)
                         Something terrible has happened.

                                     MURRAY
                              (Sober)
                         What is it, Lou?

                                     LOU
                         Someone we all know is dead.

                                     MARY
                         What! Mr. Grant--who?

                                     LOU
                              (Getting control)
                         No... I won't tell you about it now...
                         I don't want to upset you...

                                     MARY
                              (Frantic)
                         Mr. Grant!!...

                                     LOU
                         Where's Ted? I gotta tell Ted...

                                     MURRAY
                         He's on the air, Lou. What happened?
                         Who died? Tell us!

                                     LOU
                              (Still dazed)
                         Chuckles. Chuckles the Clown is dead.
                         It was a freak accident. He went to
                         the parade dressed as Peter Peanut...
                         and a rogue elephant tried to shell
                         him.

               They are both stunned.

For many years “Chuckles Bites the Dust” stood at the top of TV Guide’s list of the Top 100 Episodes of All Time.  (It has now been edged down to Number Three by Seinfeld’s 1992 “The Contest” and The Sopranos’ 1999 “College” episodes.)

Here’s TV Guide’s citation:

3. THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW
“Chuckles Bites the Dust” 10/25/1975
Take one unlucky peanut-clad clown, a rogue elephant, an irreverent newsroom, an Emmy-winning script and a virtuoso performance by one of TV’s greatest comedians, and you get one of the biggest laugh-out-loud sitcom episodes ever. When kiddie-show host Chuckles the Clown has his tragic culinary misadventure, it’s catnip to the WJM-TV crew—except for a disapproving Mary Richards. The comic payoff comes with Mary’s unsuccessful attempts to stifle her snickers during a eulogy celebrating Chuckles’ alter egos Mr. Fee-Fi-Fo and Auntie Yoo-Hoo. The pièce de genius: When the minister gives Mary permission to laugh, she begins to bawl. Amazingly, not everyone was on board, recalls star Mary Tyler Moore. The series’ usual director opted out of the episode “because he thought it was not in good taste,” says Moore. CBS also had misgivings about the show’s tone, she says, “but we knew it was something special. It’s not just about laughing at the funeral, but also the tensions and talking about it in the newsroom. It really is a uniquely funny episode.”

Here are links to the first, and second parts of “Chuckles Bites the Dust.”  And here is the final segment (which is even funnier if you watch the set up).   The audio is slightly out of sync but the laughs still arrive on time.

       Organ music stops and Reverend Burke steps to the lectern.

                                     BURKE
                         My friends... "Any man's death
                         diminishes me, because I am involved
                         in mankind. Therefore, ask not for
                         whom the bell tolls--it tolls for
                         thee."

                                     TED
                              (Sotto: scandalized)
                         Hey, Lou, he stole your poem!

                                     BURKE
                         Chuckles the Clown gave pleasure to
                         millions. The characters he created
                         will be remembered by children and
                         adults alike: Peter Peanut, Mr. Fee-
                         Fi-Fo, Billy Banana, and my particular
                         favorite, Aunt Yoo-Hoo.

               Mary stifles a laugh.

                                     BURKE
                         And not just for the laughter they
                         provided--there was always some deeper
                         meaning to whatever Chuckles did.
                         Remember Mr. Fee-Fi-Fo's little catch
                         phrase, remember how when his arch
                         rival Senor Caboom would hit him
                         with the giant cucumber and knock
                         him down? Mr. Fee-Fi-Fo would always
                         pick himself up, dust himself off
                         and say, "I hurt my foo-foo."

               Mary again stifles a laugh. The others in the row glare at
               her.

                                     BURKE
                         Life's a lot like that. From time to
                         time we all fall down and hurt our
                         foo-foo's.

               Mary again stifles a laugh. Other people turn to look at
               her.

                                     BURKE
                         If only we could all deal with it as
                         simple and bravely and honestly as
                         Mr. Fee-Fi-Fo. And what did Chuckles
                         ask in return? Not much--in his own
                         words--"A little song, a little dance,
                         a little seltzer down your pants."

               Mary has great difficulty in stifling herself here. Many
               people turn to look at her.

                                     BURKE
                              (Looking right at
                              Mary)
                         Excuse me, young lady... yes you...
                         would you stand up please?

               Mary, with no alternative, stands up.

                                     BURKE
                         You feel like laughing, don't you?
                         Don't try to stop yourself. Go ahead,
                         laugh out loud. Don't you see? Nothing
                         could have made Chuckles happier. He
                         lived to make people laugh. He found
                         tears offensive, deeply offensive.
                         He hated to see people cry. Go ahead,
                         my dear--laugh.

               As Mary bursts into tears, we:

                                                                   FADE OUT

                                      END OF ACT TWO

Bruce Weber in The New York Times and Dennis McLellan in the Los Angeles Times offered excellent obituaries. One of David Lloyd’s sons, Christopher, is co-creator of Modern Family —- the superb sitcom which, along with FlashForward, will save the 2009 season from the trash heap of TV history.

The Soundtrack Of Our Lives

November 15, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Soundtrack Of Our Lives | Leave a Comment 

The Soundtracker’s face is red yet again.  And it’s not just because of the chillty Ida-generated winds whistling up the Chesapeake.  It’s because he’s on the road with his laptop while this week’s Soundtrack is warm and dry at home on his desktop.  Soundtrack will return next week.  In the meantime, as a placeholder please accept the following…..

This weekend’s Reward featured Linda Ronstadt.  Her first hit —and what many still consider her most identifying song— was 1967’s “Different Drum” recorded while she was part of the Stone Poneys.

For the album version, she was the only Poney in the place — the backup musicians were studio pickups.  The string-driven arrangement, which has become all but iconic, can —and should— be heard here.

Here’s a performance at a live gig.  It’s thinner and less satisfying than the studio version, but it’s always engaging to watch Linda Ronstadt in action.

“Different Drum” was written by Mike Nesmith in his pre-Monkee incarnation.  He sang it as an encore in 1992 at the Britt Festival in Oregon:

Well you and I
Travel to the beat of a different drum
Can’t you tell by the way I run
Every time you make eyes at me

you cry, you moan
And say it’ll work out
But honey child I’ve got my doubts
You can’t see the forest for the trees

Now don’t get me wrong
It’s not that I knock it
It’s just that I am not in the market
For a girl who wants to love only me
And I’m not saying that you’re not pretty
All’s I saying’s I’m not ready
For any person place or thing
To try and pull the reins
In on me

Well I feel pretty sure
That you’ll find a man
Who will take a lot more than I ever could or can
And you’ll settle down with him
And I know that you’ll be happy

So goodbye
I’m a-leavin’
I see no sense in you cryin’ and grieven’
We’ll both live a lot longer
If you live without me

Ten years after she broke into the charts with “Different Drum,” Linda Ronstadt was on the cover of Time magazine’s 27 February 1977 issue.

11.15.68

November 15, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under American Politics, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Featured Articles — November 15, 2009

November 15, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

The Fed in the Crosshairs By David Ignatius, The Washington Post
Among the cherished prerogatives of members of Congress is the right to second-guess. That ritual is now playing itself out with a vengeance as the solons of Capitol Hill attack the Federal Reserve for its role in last year’s financial crisis.

Sarah Palin, the GOP’s blessing and curse By Max Blumenthal, The Los Angeles Times
The self-described ‘rogue’ is anathema to the party establishment but manna from heaven to the grass roots.

An insider’s view of Christie’s N.J. victory By Russ Schriefer, The Philadelphia Inquirer
During “that roller-coaster ride,” the campaign focused on independent voters, and the issues.

Five Things the U.S. Can Learn from China By Bill Powell, Time
On the evening of Nov. 15, President Barack Obama, the youthful leader of one of the world’s youngest countries, begins his first visit to China, among the world’s most ancient societies.

The “Other Challenges” Of Garry Wills

November 14, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Afghanistan, American Politics, Barack Obama, International Affairs, Military, News media, Presidents, Vietnam | Leave a Comment 

The new issue of the New York Review of Books has a short op-ed, which first appeared as a blogpost last week at the magazine’s site, by Garry Wills, professor emeritus at Northwestern University and author of several dozen books about religion and American history. His efforts in the latter field include his Pulitzer-winning Lincoln At Gettysburg, and his bestselling 1970 book Nixon Agonistes, which, in many ways, became the template for many of the books critical of the thirty-seventh President since then.

Wills’s article, in the space of about six hundred words, offers his opinion about what President Obama should do in Afghanistan. After the President returns from his whirlwind trip to Japan and China, it will be time, as Sen. John McCain pointed out this week, to make the final decision about how many more troops to commit to the eight-year fight against the Taliban, and for how long.

A considerable number of voices in the media and in the blogosphere have argued in recent weeks that the plan toward which the President seems to be leaning – an increase in the troop levels in Afghanistan, whether or not this corresponds to the 40,000 that the commanders in the field think is required at this point – is not one he should undertake. Wills is one of these voices.

In his article he contends that the arguments in favor of maintaing a military presence in Afghanistan are “the ones that made presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon pass on to their successors in the presidency the draining and self-lacerating Vietnam War.”

It’s worth mentioning that when President Nixon resigned in August 1974, I don’t remember any column or op-ed piece on the subject – and they were legion – which said that the Vietnam War was an ongoing conflict that Nixon had passed on to Gerald Ford. As far as the liberal pundits were concerned in those days, we were well and truly removed from that conflict for good. The North Vietnamese took such sentiments to mean that if they tried to overrun South Vietnam, the United States would do nothing to stop them.

And in the spring of 1975 this proved to be true when Congress rejected President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger’s appeals to aid South Vietnam, disregarding the promises made by President Nixon to protect the sovereignity of that nation when the Paris peace accords were signed in January 1973 – promises made to protect peace, but which Wills, evidently, regards as an extension of war.

He goes on to say that “when we did withdraw, the consequences were not as fatal as those we incurred during the years that saw the deaths of over 50,000 of our soldiers and many more Vietnamese.” Well, it’s true that while many died in Vietnamese prison camps after the South was defeated, the numbers were not equivalent to the number of Vietnamese that died in the course of the war. But in Cambodia, a nation that fell into the hands of the Khmer Rouge at the same time as South Vietnam was conquered, far more civilians died in four years of “peace” than in the preceding years of war.

Cambodia is worth keeping in mind when one looks at what follows in Wills’s commentary:

Some leader has to break the spell before costs mount further while our wars are passed from president to president. Among other things, this will give our military a needed chance to repair the wear and tear on men and equipment that the overstretched regular services and the National Guard have suffered, and to make them ready for other challenges.

We are in Afghanistan in response to a challenge, if one could call the bloodbath of 9/11 such. The Taliban, with no provocation from us, allowed Osama bin Laden and his henchmen to use their nation as a base to launch the vicious attacks of that day. In the eight years that Americans have fought and died to make sure that the Taliban would not have the chance to abuse the rule of a nation in such a fashion again, it has become more and more clear that, if it were allowed to regain power, it would not only take bloody revenge on every man and woman hoping for a civilized life in Afghanistan – that is to say, perhaps as large a percentage of the population as died in Cambodia – but would do its best to help its allies in northwest Pakistan overthrow that nation’s government, and thus gain control of nuclear weapons. Then we would see “other challenges,” on a scale so abominable that “wear and tear” on our tanks and airplanes would be the least of our worries.

Yesterday’s announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 conspirators will be tried for murder in New York is a reminder of what American servicepersons in Afghanistan are trying to protect us from. I hope that during their trial, enough testimony is presented about the Taliban’s acquiescence in bin Laden’s evil to remind even Garry Wills of why we have to fight in Afghanistan, and why the consequences of withdrawal would be so tragic.

In his op-ed, Wills says that Obama should get our troops out of Afghanistan even if the response to such an action results in his being a one-term President. A man so familiar with American history should remember that the subject of his Pulitzer-winning book persevered in 1864, in the face of calls from many of the pundits of his day to make peace with the South on its terms, and, within a matter of months, prevailed. The Gettysburg Address, indeed, explains just what the United States is fighting to preserve and protect now. Perhaps Northwestern’s professor emeritus of history should reread it.

Marvin Minoff, RIP

November 14, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Entertainment, Frost/Nixon, Movies | Leave a Comment 

Ron Howard’s acclaimed film Frost/Nixon, based on Peter Morgan’s play which was a hit in London’s West End and on Broadway, depicts two men as the architects of the famous set of TV interviews with President Nixon: the future Sir David Frost and the future Baron John Birt, the host and producer, respectively, of the broadcasts which mesmerized the nation in 1978. However, the play, and movie, leave out the contributions of a third man: Marvin Minoff, a veteran agent and the president of Frost’s Paradine production company, who was co-executive producer of the interviews.

It’s hard to say why Minoff’s role remained undepicted in the play and movie; it may be that Morgan, and later Howard, thought that the late Irving “Swifty” Lazar was such a colorful representative of showbiz mores in Frost/Nixon that adding another agent, while truer to history, would diminish the effect. In any event, Howard does not mention Minoff’s absence in his DVD commentary to the film, though the director gets around to discussing many of its other departures from the historical record.

Minoff died this week in Los Angeles at age 78. After the Frost-Nixon interviews, he went on to marry Bonnie Franklin, One Day At A Time’s Ann Romano, who survives him. He also joined forces with Mike Farrell of M*A*S*H* fame to produce a series of TV movies and two features: the little-remembered Dominick and Eugene with Tom Hulce and Ray Liotta, and Patch Adams, which elevated Robin Williams’s tendency to bathos to such a staggering level that the star has ever since downplayed sentimental roles in favor of “edgy” and “dark” dramatic parts. But with the Frost-Nixon series, Minoff made his mark on American history as well as American entertainment.

The First Pacific President?

November 14, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Barack Obama, Richard Nixon | 1 Comment 

In Tokyo today, President Obama said: “As America’s first Pacific president, I promise you that this Pacific nation will strengthen and sustain our leadership in this vitally important part of the world.”

The president was in error.  Though he was apparently referring to his birth in Hawaii and brief childhood sojourn in Indonesia, he is not our nation’s first Pacific president.  If a “Pacific president” is one born and raised in a Pacific state, that distinction belongs to Richard Nixon, born in Yorba Linda, California in 1913.  Indeed, RN spent a much greater proportion of his life near the Pacific than President Obama has.  He grew up in Whittier, went to Whittier College, practiced law in Southern California, did naval service in the Pacific, represented California in the House and Senate, ran for governor of the state, and for years had a home in San Clemente.  Between the Vietnam War and the opening to China, Pacific Rim affairs were a major focus of his presidency.

Other presidents also had significant experience in the Pacific.  William Howard Taft served as Governor-General of the Philippines.  Herbert Hoover spent much of his childhood in Oregon, graduated from Stanford, and spent years as a mining engineer in Australia and China.  Dwight Eisenhower had military duty in the Panama Canal Zone and the Philippines.

And there was also some fellow named Reagan…

TNN Weekly Weekend Reward

November 14, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Weekly Weekend Reward | 2 Comments 

In May 1979 Linda Ronstadt and Phoebe Snow were the musical guests on Saturday Night Live. Here’s their cover of Betty Everett’s 1964 Number One hit  recording of Rudy Clark’s “The Shoop Shoop Song (It’s In His Kiss).” And, yes, that is Patti Austin leading the backup singers; and a still hirsute Paul Shaffer bouncing between the keyboards; and music director Howard Shore on saxophone. Those were the days.

And since this is the Weekend Reward — here’s Betty Everett’s original:

« Previous Page — Next Page »