Donald John Trump should have this headline emblazoned over his mausoleum in gold:
Trump Buries the 20th Century
(Has he had a gaudy mausoleum designed yet or does he expect to live forever?)
The headline comes from a Politico column by Alexander Burns, Politico’s senior executive editor:
With a roar of rockets and bombs, a gasp of international outcry and the death of Iran’s supreme leader, President Donald Trump’s legacy became clearer than ever.
He is burying the 20th Century: Its villains, its alliances, its political norms and ceasefires. And he is unleashing a future of uncertainty and disruption with no new equilibrium in sight.
Across both his terms as president, and in so many different areas of policy and governance and culture, his signal achievements have been acts of demolition.
His Supreme Court appointees struck down Roe v. Wade, ending the seething political and legal stalemate on abortion rights that governed America since the 1970s.
His military interventions in Latin America have brought the Cuban government, one of the last surviving Cold War regimes, to the brink of collapse.
His tariffs and trade threats have blown apart the Reagan-Clinton policy consensus on free trade, upending half a century of global commercial arrangements and diplomatic relations.
This reads like the bill of particulars in our Declaration of Independence from George III.
Burns goes on. NATO’s post-war legacy of trans-Atlantic stability? Dead. Post-Watergate legal and ethical norms? Dead. Any sense that the United States, the former arsenal of democracy, stands for anything beyond “corporate favoritism and personal enrichment” and “use of the justice system as a weapon of vengeance”? Dead.
“Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
America’s credibility in the community of nations is ground to dust, its legacy abandoned in the desert like the trunkless legs of Ozymandias. Joe Biden considered the TV showman’s self-absorption, Burns writes, with his “philistinism and historical ignorance,” an insult to American tradition and to the office of the presidency. And Trump is.
The builder, it turns out, is better at demolishing what others created than he is at building. That includes our nation of laws. He is better at slapping his name in gold on once noble edifices than at creating anything worthy of the world’s memory, save for what once was. Trump would rather cart the links at his Mar-a-Lago resort and be feted by Botoxed courtiers as artificial as his ridiculous comb over.
Burns concludes:
If the 20th Century is finally dead, this country’s trajectory in the 21st is an immense question mark.
That is the great challenge Trump has left for the next president. For a visionary successor, it could also be an opportunity unmatched in recent U.S. history.
Has anyone checked to see if in his temple of honor, Lincoln’s seated statue sheds tears? Such a miracle might at least shock some Americans deadened by Trump’s garish spectacle into shedding their own over what he’s destroyed. Perhaps to mourn. Perhaps to repent. Perhaps to find themselves once again. It’s long been said that with Trump and the party he leads there is no bottom. No ultimate, dark night of the soul from which springs a renewed commitment to clawing back a life (and a country) worth living. Indeed, there seems none.
As the country staggers toward fall elections and whatever befalls us in 2028, now is a time for visionaries, if there be any left among the technocrats and social media influencers Americans now send to Washington, D.C. in place of statesmen like Lincoln.
a slurring Trump in new video on American troops killed by Iran: “Sadly, there will likely be more before it ends. That's the way it is. Likely be more.“ pic.twitter.com/oSARG2xrv7
I don’t usually do the “imagine if XXXX said this…” because it’s just so obvious. But I have to make an exception in this case. My God. Imagine if Biden or Obama had ever said such a thing.
He seems more addled than usual. I’d guess he isn’t getting much sleep. He’s awake all night hoping against hope that somehow this works out ok even though he has no idea what to do. He just banks on his luck holding out.
Days before the election, the president appeared to admit for the first time that Republicans might lose the House. “It could happen,” Trump said. “And you know what you do? My whole life, you know what I say? ‘Don’t worry about it, I’ll just figure it out.’” Trump said.
It’s worked for him so far. But the stakes have never been higher than they are now.
The New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner interviewed progressive foreign policy expert Matt Duss about why this Iran gambit is such a mistake. Here Duss discusses how the Obama administration approached the problem, first with the nuclear agreement and what they saw as the advantages that agreement conferred for future progress:
Over the past several months, there has been incredible repression by the Iranian regime against Iranians. We don’t know how many people have been killed, but it’s in the many thousands. The Trump Administration has occasionally threatened Iran, saying that it can’t kill protesters, and has occasionally made noises about caring about the welfare of the Iranian people, but the Administration has obviously allowed the regime to continue killing protesters. What do you think would be a sane posture for America to take toward Iran, and does the repression that we’ve seen over the past few months change how you think about it?
Clearly, this is a bad regime. It’s a repressive regime. It uses enormous violence against its own people, which we’ve seen horrific examples of over the past few weeks. I think the approach to Iran that makes the most sense was the one that President Barack Obama had, which was to acknowledge that Iran poses a challenge on a number of fronts, the most important of which was the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. That’s why he pursued diplomacy to deal with that challenge aggressively. He did so with close international partners, and got what, I think, was clearly a pretty strong nonproliferation agreement that established heavy inspections and surveillance of Iran’s nuclear program. That dealt with that one challenge, but it also created the opportunity to begin to deal with the other challenges Iran posed.
At the end of Obama’s Presidency, right before Trump took office, there were a number of American sailors seized by Iran in the Gulf, creating a situation that could have escalated easily and ended very badly. But because there was a line of communication that had been built up between the U.S. and Iran over the course of negotiating the Iran nuclear deal, that situation was de-escalated and ended without real incident. The nuclear deal was an opportunity to begin to deal with issues like Iran’s support for regional extremist groups and questions of Iran’s internal repression. That opportunity was squandered when Trump withdrew from the agreement during his first term. It showed Iran, and frankly showed the world, that you cannot trust the United States. And I have to say, Joe Biden squandered an opportunity to rejoin that agreement and to re-start that channel. I would add this: historically, Iran’s internal repression has gotten worse when it feels threatened externally. I’ve heard this from Iranian activists. And when you dial down tension between the U.S. and Iran, space for reform begins to open up.
Now I think given the level of the Iranian government’s violence against protesters, my understanding, again, from talking to Iranian colleagues, is that we are in a different situation. There’s much less hope now, if any hope, that the current government could be reasonably reformed, but, still, the idea that we can change the Iranian government for the better through a violent regime-change operation, like the one we’re witnessing right now, has a very bad historical track record.
He says that the Biden administration made a mistake in the early years of his administration by thinking they could slow walk further talks in the hope of getting more which seems odd to me. They changed their approach later but it was too late.
Personally, I think it was probably hopeless anyway since the election of Trump and his subsequent idiotic actions showed that the U.S. was becoming unstable and there was no reason to trust anything we did. Electing him to a second term has pretty much written that in stone. Agreements with America have no meaning anymore.
But it is interesting to see what might have been if we didn’t lose our minds back in 2016.
Timeline: 2014: Trump says Obama will invade Iran because he’s not a good enough negotiator to get a deal with them
2015: Obama, with the backing of the EU, China, Russia and others, gets a deal with them
2018: Trump cancels deal bc it was Obama’s and says he can negotiate a better one.
2018-2020: Trump can’t negotiate one. Arms control experts and Trump officials start to grumble that scrapping Obama’s deal was probably a bad idea.
2025: Trump still can’t negotiate a new deal
2025: Israel launches an attack on Iran. Drags Trump in. Trump claims Iran’s nuclear capacity was wiped out
2025-2026: Trump still can’t negotiate a deal
2026: Trump launches a regime change war on Iran, at Israel’s goading
The mistake McFaul makes in this analysis is in assuming that democracy is the goal. Clearly neither the United States or Israeli governments particularly want democracy. Just look at what we’ve done in Venezuela. They obviously only cared about getting an acquiescent puppet in place and believe they have one there in Darcy Rodriguez. There has been no talk of elections and a total side-lining of the people who actually won the last one. Democracy is far too messy for these people — including here at home.
They want business partners, period. They don’t care about anything else.
Remember that old fashioned term “the appearance of conflict of interest?” This is a full blown, living color illustration of it.
I just want you to take a moment to consider that these assholes made Hunter Biden into a political pinata for four years while Jr and Eric are openly profiting from Trump’s presidency without any consideration for how it looks. And if you think these bets weren’t “informed” by people on the inside you’re being naive. Of course they were.
Democrats have zero reasons to offer any support for this. That doesn’t mean that some won’t. We’re already seeing some reflexive clinging to “process” in which the main argument isn’t about why it’s daft and dangerous to do it but that he didn’t follow the right rules in doing it. That is a cowardly tactic to try to have it both ways. The reason to oppose this war is because it’s a felony stupid decision based upon prodding from the Israeli government, hawkish weirdos like Lindsey Graham and Trump’s megalomania.
Maybe Trump does some bombing, gets bored, and moves on to something else. But if we take him at his word, this will be a protracted conflict that could cost American lives, destabilize the region, and spike energy prices here at home.
Democrats must loudly and boldly oppose this war. They have a moral responsibility and a political obligation to do so. If Democrats cannot bring themselves to oppose an idiotic, unjustified regime change war in the Middle East, they do not deserve the power they seek.
The vast majority of Democrats are in the right place. Many have been loudly criticizing Trump and pointing out the stupidity and hypocrisy of this war. But we need to be as unified as possible and speak with one voice.
That starts with a vote in the House next week on a bipartisan War Powers Resolution, which would require Trump to seek congressional approval to continue bombing Iran. Almost every Democrat and at least one Republican is expected to vote for it.
Two Democrats — Josh Gottheimer and Jared Moskowitz — have said they will vote no. Moskowitz even obnoxiously called the resolution the “Ayatollah Protection Act.” By blocking a Congressional vote on the war, Gottheimer and Moskowitz are playing cynical national security politics, and I hope they face vigorous primary challenges because of it.
The resolution could, but probably won’t, pass the House. Even if it passed the Senate, Trump would veto it, and there aren’t the votes to override. That said, many of the Democrats who will vote for the resolution are less firm on the underlying policy question of the war itself.
Axios reported earlier this week that a potential U.S. strike on Iran is exposing a quiet but consequential split inside the Senate Democratic caucus. The Democratic base strongly opposes war with Iran, but some of Chuck Schumer’s colleagues are more open to military action — provided Congress has a say.
That’s the “process” BS.
No. Not this time. Not with Trump, a criminal president with a 36% approval rating. Jesus.
There are two reasons Democrats behave this way. Many still carry a post-9/11 mentality, perpetually worried about being cast as weak or unpatriotic by Republicans and the right-wing media machine. That fear is an increasingly outdated notion in today’s political environment, but learned helplessness is hard to unlearn.
There are also Democrats who genuinely believe that regime change in Iran is a top national security priority and are willing to support military force, under the right circumstances, to achieve it. That’s not a view I share — I think it means failing to absorb every lesson of Iraq — but it’s a position someone can hold in good faith.
Even so: how can anyone seriously believe that Donald Trump, a corrupt, erratic wannabe dictator who couldn’t find Iran on a map, is the right person to manage that incredibly complex undertaking? Even if the military achieves regime change, do we really want Trump deciding what comes next in Iran? His first priority will probably be a Trump-branded golf course outside Tehran. The idea that Trump should be the one doing this is indefensible.
The American people are on our side. They don’t want this war. They elected Trump to stop wars, not start them. Democrats need to stop complicating something that is actually pretty simple — and loudly, boldly oppose a dumb and dangerous man launching a dumb and dangerous war for no good reason.
The fact is that the United States has proved over many decades now that this “regime change” concept, usually taken with the fatuous notion that we are killing the people for their own good, backfires every time. This self-serving idea that we’ll be greeted a liberators never proves true and the death and chaos we inflict in the process is never worth it.
Wars of choice are bad, period. We should have learned this by now.
Moreover, Rachel Maddow’s point from yesterday — that you have to look at who will really benefit — is especially true with this corrupt bunch of gangsters leading the charge. There is simply no doubt that Trump was persuaded by the prospect of somehow getting our hands on all that oil. It’s not like he ever made a secret of it, since he’s said “we should have kept the oil!” hundreds of times over the years.
No, this is one is very easy (as was Iraq) — just say no. Democrats have a head start this time, the public is already against it. Even Republicans are tepid much less the Democrats and Independents. They’ve never had a better case, from “wag the dog” to “no war for oil” to “he promised no more wars.” They simply must stick together and oppose this war unequivocally.
Image shows a young woman receiving surgical procedure at Jeffrey Epstein’s apartment. Photo via Department of Justice
Citizen and professional journalists more motivated than Donald Trump lackeys at the Department of Justice continue to uncover disturbing items in Epstein files released to date. Among them, photographs that the DOJ should have been redacted but missed, “including pictures of a young girl kissing Jeffrey Epstein on the cheek and personal data on passports and drivers’ licenses,” CNN found.
The New Jersey mother of four is among hundreds of citizen-journalists, or sleuths, absorbed by the material connected to the late Jeffrey Epstein. She’s determined to learn the stories behind his illicit sex ring and relationships with some of the world’s most powerful people — and publish what she finds on Substack.
[…]
With all that, there’s plenty of room for people like Leonard. She’s been journalism-adjacent for much of her career, running a business that offered transcription services until AI rendered it largely obsolete. She worked briefly in education and wrote about politics and social issues on her Substack, The Panicked Writer.
But after seeing the interest generated when she started looking at Epstein documents a few months ago, she began devoting all of her professional time to it.
[…]
Journalist Wajahat Ali, who runs the Left Hook Substack, said he admires Leonard’s work and often features her on his site. Some of the Epstein citizen journalists gather on livestreams to talk about what they’ve found.
Over the past decade, Ali has watched the growth of a subculture of people obsessed with true crime stories who love to comb through evidence and advance their own theories.
The Epstein files are “the mother lode,” he said. “If you love conspiracy theories, if you love true crime, this is the ‘Citizen Kane’ of true crime. It is the unfortunately sordid gift that will keep on giving.”
These sleuths are Trump’s worst nightmare as well as for the men and women not yet publicly named in connection with Epstein or who had their names “helpfully” redacted by the Trump DOJ. They’ve escaped American justice for crimes committed with Epstein while overseas counterparts to U.S. policing are “eager to examine the American documents as part of criminal investigations into potential wrongdoing,” the New York Times reports:
In Britain, two arrests have taken place, of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former prince, and of Peter Mandelson, a former ambassador to Washington. Both were arrested on suspicion of the same offense: misconduct in public office. It’s a broad, centuries-old common law offense that makes it a crime to act with “wilfull abuse or neglect of the power or responsibilities of the public office.”
“We don’t have those sort of generic, open-ended kinds of crimes in the United States,” said Paul G. Cassell, a professor of law at the University of Utah. For a decade, he represented Virginia Giuffre, who accused Mr. Epstein of trafficking her to his friends, including Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor, in the early 2000s.
As in the United States, the Epstein files have forced some firings or resignations outside of the criminal justice system.
In Britain, the prime minister’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, and his communications director, Tim Allan, stepped down amid ongoing questions about how much they were aware of connections between Mr. Epstein and Mr. Mandelson, the man they pushed to be Britain’s ambassador to the United States. Neither Mr. McSweeney nor Mr. Allan has any known ties to Mr. Epstein.
CNN worked with Visual Layer, an Israeli software company that uses artificial intelligence to analyze massive sets of images, to review 100,000 photos that the DOJ released related to Epstein, the late convicted sex offender who was accused of abusing hundreds of girls. Those images were among millions of pages of documents and videos released by the DOJ.
These previously unreported findings add to a growing list of botched redactions in the DOJ releases. This includes multiple videos showing women’s faces, documents that named a survivor of Epstein’s abuse, footage showing an undercover FBI agent on the job, and at least one court filing in which sensitive material could be unredacted via copy-and-paste.
CNN reached out to the DOJ on Monday about the problematic images that were still viewable on the government site. After CNN’s inquiry, DOJ uploaded new versions of these images with proper redactions, covering up private data and faces of women and minors.
“Our team is working around the clock to address any victim concerns, additional redactions of personally identifiable information, as well as any files that require further redactions under the Act, to include images of a sexual nature,” a DOJ spokesperson told CNN in a statement on Tuesday.
The transparency law that Congress passed last year requiring the files’ release said the DOJ could withhold or redact images depicting child sexual abuse or any materials that would lead to an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” especially for victims.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in January said that his document team had redacted every woman in images except for Ghislaine Maxwell. They undertook “painstaking” efforts redact “personal identifying information” as well as all “victim information.”
Apparently not painstaking enough. What’s helped keep such images hidden in plain sight is a terrible search engine on the government’s site:
CNN used Visual Layer’s technology to find unredacted items that simpler searches on the Justice Department’s database may have missed. The company’s founder, Danny Bickson, said the Justice Department website has a “basic search engine” that can find text in Epstein’s emails and court filings, “but if you need to search for an image or video, it’s impossible.”
So, Bickson imported the full original DOJ dataset onto his platform, and “it was pretty easy to find, in a few minutes, problematic content,” he said.
So while Trump is ordering the U.S. military to throw up a massive Epstein smokescreen in Iran, people obsessed with the obvious coverup are poring over the documents and making connections that redactions fail to hide. And it is not simply pedophile men, but a stable of medical professionals with flexible ethics that Epstein kept on informal “retainer” to ensure his girls were sexually fit. (Follow gift link.) The amateurs will keep digging. They will ensure that this scandal keeps unfolding for years. Trump is almost powerless to stop them. Almost. But more careers will come crashing down. He’ll be fine with that so long as it’s not his.
If it comes down to it, Trump will throw the world under the bus to save himself.
An old Soviet-era joke goes “There is no truth in Pravda, and no news in Izvestia”.
Pravda (Truth) was the official newspaper of the Soviet Communist Party. It now publishes three times per week, mostly online (Wikipedia). Izvestia (News) was the mouthpiece of the government and published by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Izvestia is now Russia’s national newspaper. The wry joke Soviet citizens told acknowledged that theirs was a country awash in official propaganda.
Here in the U.S., Republicans in leadership are also propagandists and lead by a pathological liar at best averse to truth in advertising. Daily Beast’s Michael Daly sees the irony:
What better dodge is there for draft-dodger Donald Trump than to get elected as the “peace president,” promise an end to forever foreign wars, then hype the founding of a “Board of Peace” while contriving to slap his name on the United States Institute of Peace.
The president delivered the opening address at the renamed The Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace on Feb. 22.
“What we’re doing is very simple,” Trump said. “Peace. It’s called the Board of Peace, and it’s all about an easy word to say but a hard word to produce. Peace. But we’re going to produce it, and we’ve been doing a really good job.”
Six days later, barely two months since removing the leader of Venezuela in an unsanctioned military strike (leaving the rest of the Nicolás Maduro government in place), the peace president started an illegal war with Iran aided by Israel. Someone with comedy chops needs to write Americans a Pravda/Izvestia joke about that. Watch Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert on Monday night. Maybe one of theirs will catch on.
When Mr. Trump ran for president in 2024, he boasted of starting “no new wars,” and asserted that if Kamala Harris won, “she would get us into a World War III guaranteed,” and send the “sons and daughters” of Americans “to go fight for a war in a country that you’ve never heard of.”
Barely a year later, Mr. Trump is racing to topple foreign regimes, and is sending American sons and daughters to wage another war in the Middle East. The self-declared “president of PEACE” has chosen to become the president of war after all, unleashing the full power of the U.S. military on Iran with the explicit goal of toppling its government.
Baker sees no explanation in Trump’s statements to date for why Iran and why now the peace president is suddenly the regime-change president.
“One way or the other, his allies were already talking about it being a legacy moment for Mr. Trump,” Baker concludes. “What kind of legacy is not yet clear. But it will not be the one that he originally promised.”
The “truth in advertising president” Trump is not and has never been. He still means to have his Nobel Peace Prize if he has to kill, maim, and destroy his way to one. If the imperial monster has other reasons for starting a war with Iran, he’s not telling. But as always with Donald Trump, follow the money. Who stands to gain?
The Iran attack is a helluva distraction from Epstein files revelations that keep leading to Trump’s doorstep and, when he leaves office, potentially to jail. His mind is an open tweet. The “projection president” has a history of accusing enemies of what’s swirling in his fetid brain.
@BarackObama will attack Iran in order to get re-elected.
Trump biographer Michael Wolff believes Trump may not himself grasp where his recent paroxysms of violence lead, except to scratch an immediate itch. He discussed the Iran action on the Inside Trump’s Head podcast.
Co-host, Joanna Coles reflected on Trump’s early morning video announcing “major combat operations in Iran.”
“He basically gives a potted history of Iran,” Coles noted. “It’s almost as if he’s giving it to himself as much as to anybody else—but reminding people of the American hostages, which is such a Boomer moment. It’s probably perhaps the moment most seared in Boomers’ memories in terms of foreign policy. Jimmy Carter tried to release them, absolute disaster. Reagan swings into power and immediately they’re released.”
She added, “I wonder if that’s at the back of Donald Trump’s head, too.”
“There’s always a mishmash of factual, semi-factual, and historical references that he doesn’t quite understand and that he skimmed over,” Wolff said.
But Epic Fury, amirite? How big-swinging-dick is that? Made for TV by a made-for-TV president.
The familiar pool of Trump critics are aghast: “former GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, far-right figure Alex Jones,” manosphere influencer Andrew Tate, Sen. Rand Paul, and Rep. Thomas Massie.
I am opposed to this War.
This is not “America First.”
When Congress reconvenes, I will work with @RepRoKhanna to force a Congressional vote on war with Iran.
The Constitution requires a vote, and your Representative needs to be on record as opposing or supporting this war.
Trump’s base voters have a history of saying, “Yes, sir, how high?” when Trump demands that they pivot like a windsock to his whims. Will they this time? Have they finally realized that they’ve been conned? Pray that this action will blow up in Trump’s face (with as few casualties as possible) by November and not in ours.
Now a note to the President, and the Government, and the judges of this place We’re still waitin’ for you to bring our troops home, clean up that mess you made ‘Cause it smells of blood and money and oil, across the Iraqi land But its so easy here to blind us with your united we stand
Israel and the US have launched a war on Iran, unleashing waves of air attacks across the country in an attempt to bring about regime change and plunging the region into a conflict that could last weeks or months.
The sudden offensive triggered Iranian retaliatory strikes throughout the day across a swathe of the Middle East, with explosions reported in Israel, Bahrain, Syria, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
In a televised address, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, indicated that the strikes had killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei has not been heard from since the strikes began and satellite imagery has shown that his secure compound was heavily damaged in the initial barrage. “There are many signs that [Khamenei] is no longer alive,” Netanyahu said on Saturday evening. Netanyahu said that Israeli strikes had also killed “several leaders” involved in the Iranian nuclear programme and that strikes against sites linked to the programme would continue in the coming days.
The remarks, which stopped short of confirming Khamenei’s death, were the strongest official indication yet that the missing leader is dead. Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, had earlier claimed to NBC News that Khamenei and president Masoud Pezeshkian were alive “as far as I know”.
In a televised address, Donald Trump claimed Operation Epic Fury would end a security threat to the US and give Iranians a chance to “rise up” against their rulers. Netanyahu in his evening address called on Iranians to “flood the streets and finish the job”.
Iranian officials said they had not been surprised by the US attacks and that the consequences would “be long lasting and extensive. All scenarios were on the table including ones that were not previously considered.”
Sorry I asked.
With the 25th twin anniversary of September 11th and America’s “war on terror” coming up this Fall, and in light of today’s concomitant developments in the Middle East, I thought I might peruse my 20 years of Hullabaloo movie reviews for some perspective. As I plumbed the archives, I was surprised at the number of documentaries and feature films related to our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan that I have covered. Collectively, these films not only paint a broad canvas of these endless wars themselves, but put the full spectrum of humanity on display, from “the better angels of our nature” to the absolute worst (mostly the worst).
So in lieu of a 3,000-word dissertation, I’ve culled 9 films that perhaps best represent what’s gone down “over there” (and on the home front) since the World Trade Center towers fell, and one film that serves as a preface. It doesn’t feel appropriate to call this a “top 10” list, so let’s just call it, “food for thought”.
Pray for peace.
Charlie Wilson’s War – Aaron Sorkin, you silver-tongued devil, you had me at: “Ladies and gentlemen of the clandestine community…”
That line is from the opening scene of Charlie Wilson’s War, in which the titular character, a Texas congressman (Tom Hanks) is receiving an Honored Colleague award from the er-ladies and gentlemen of the clandestine community (you know, that same group of merry pranksters who orchestrated such wild and woolly hi-jinx as the Bay of Pigs invasion.)
Sorkin provides the snappy dialog for director Mike Nichols’ political satire. In actuality, Nichols and Sorkin may have viewed their screen adaptation of Wilson’s real-life story as a cakewalk, because it falls into the “you couldn’t make this shit up” category.
Wilson, known to Beltway insiders as “good-time Charlie” during his congressional tenure, is an unlikely American hero. He drank like a fish and loved to party but could readily charm key movers and shakers into supporting his pet causes and any attractive young lady within range into the sack. So how did this whiskey quaffing Romeo circumvent the official U.S. foreign policy of the time (1980s) and help the Mujahedin rebels drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, ostensibly paving the way for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War? While a (mostly) true story, it plays like a fairy tale now; although in view of recent events we know the Afghan people didn’t necessarily live happily ever after. (Full review)
Fair Game – Doug Liman’s slightly uneven 2010 dramatization of the “Plame affair” and the part it played in the Bush administration’s “weapons of mass destruction” fiasco may hold more relevance now, with the benefit of hindsight. Jez and John-Henry Butterworth based their screenplay on two memoirs, The Politics of Truth by Joe Wilson, and FairGame by Valerie Plame.
Sean Penn and Naomi Watts bring their star power to the table as the Wilsons, portraying them as a loving couple who were living relatively low key lives (she more as a necessity of her profession) until they got pushed into a boiling cauldron of nasty political intrigue that falls somewhere in between All the President’s Men and Three Days of the Condor.
Viewers unfamiliar with the back story could be misled by the opening scenes, which give the impression you may be in for a Bourne-style action thriller. The conundrum is that the part of the story concerning Valerie Plame’s CIA exploits can at best be speculative in nature. Due to the sensitivity of those matters, Plame has only gone on record concerning that part of her life in vague, generalized terms, so what you end up with is something along the lines of Confessions of a Dangerous Mind.
However, the most important part of the couple’s story was the political fallout that transpired once Valerie was “outed” by conservative journalist Robert Novak. Liman wisely shifts the focus to depicting how Wilson and Plame weathered this storm together, and ultimately stood up to the Bush-Cheney juggernaut of “alternative facts” that helped sell the American public on Operation Iraqi Freedom. (Full review)
The Kill Team – In an ideal world, no one should ever have to “go to war”. But it’s not an ideal world. For as long as humans have existed, there has been conflict. And always with the hitting, and the stoning, and the clubbing, and then later with the skewering and the slicing and stabbing…then eventually with the shooting and the bombing and the vaporizing.
So if we absolutely have to have a military, one would hope that the majority of the men and women who serve in our armed forces at least “go to war” as fearless, disciplined, trained professionals, instilled with a sense of honor and integrity. In an ideal world. Which again, this is not.
In 2011, five soldiers from the Fifth Stryker Brigade, Second Infantry Division (stationed near Kandahar) were officially accused of murdering three innocent Afghan civilians. Led by an apparently psychopathic squad leader, a Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs, the men were all members of the 3rd Platoon, which became known as “The Kill Team”.
Artfully blending intimate interviews with moody composition (strongly recalling the films of Errol Morris), director Dan Krauss coaxes extraordinary confessionals from several key participants and witnesses involved in a series of 2010 Afghanistan War incidents usually referred to as the “Maywand District murders“.
This is really quite a story (sadly, an old one), and because it can be analyzed in many contexts (first person, historical, political, sociological, and psychological), some may find Krauss’ film frustrating, incomplete, or even slanted. But judging purely on the context he has chosen to use (first person) I think it works quite well. (Full review)
The Messenger – I think this is the film that comes closest to getting the harrowing national nightmare of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “right”. Infused with sharp writing, smart direction and compelling performances, The Messenger is one of those insightful observations of the human condition that sneaks up and really gets inside you, haunting you long after the credits roll. First-time director Owen Moverman and co-writer Alessandro Camon not only bring the war(s) home but proceed to march up your driveway and deposit in on your doorstep. Ben Foster, Samantha Morton and Woody Harrelson are outstanding. I think this film is to the Iraq/Afghanistan quagmire what The Deer Hunter was to Vietnam. It’s that good…and just as devastating. (Full review)
Son of Babylon – This heartbreaking Iraqi drama from 2010 is set in 2003, just weeks after the fall of Saddam. It follows the arduous journey of a Kurdish boy named Ahmed (Yasser Talib) and his grandmother (Shazda Hussein) as they head for the last known location of Ahmed’s father, who disappeared during the first Gulf War.
As they traverse the bleak, post-apocalyptic landscapes of Iraq’s bomb-cratered desert, a portrait emerges of a people struggling to keep mind and soul together, and to make sense of the horror and suffering precipitated by two wars and a harsh dictatorship.
Director Mohamed Al Daradji and co-screenwriter Jennifer Norridge deliver something conspicuously absent in the Iraq War(s) movies from Western directors in recent years-an honest and humanistic evaluation of the everyday people who inevitably get caught in the middle of such armed conflicts-not just in Iraq, but in any war, anywhere. (Full review)
Standard Operating Procedure – I once saw a fascinating TV documentary called Nazi Scrapbooks from Hell. It was the most harrowing depiction of the Holocaust I’ve seen, but it offered nary a glimpse of the oft-shown photographs of the atrocities themselves. Rather, it focused on photos from a scrapbook (discovered decades after the war) that belonged to an SS officer assigned to Auschwitz.
Essentially an organized, affably annotated gallery of the “after hours” lifestyle of a “workaday” concentration camp staff, it shows cheerful participants enjoying a little outdoor nosh, catching some sun, and even the odd sing-along, all in the shadow of the notorious death factory where they “worked”.
If it weren’t for the Nazi uniforms, you might think it was just a bunch of guys from the office, hamming it up for the camera at a company picnic. As the filmmakers point out, it is the everyday banality of this evil that makes it so chilling. The most amazing fact is that these pictures were taken in the first place.
What were they thinking?
This is the same rhetorical question posed by one of the interviewees in this documentary about the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal from renowned filmmaker Errol Morris. The gentleman is a military C.I.D. investigator who had the unenviable task of sifting through the hundreds of damning photos taken by several of the perpetrators.
Morris makes an interesting choice here. He aims his spotlight not so much on the obvious inhumanity on display in those sickening photos, but rather on our perception of them (echoes of Antonioni’s Blow-Up). So just who are these people that took them? What was the actual intent behind the self-documentation? Can we conclusively pass judgment on the actions of the people involved, based solely on what we “think” these photographs show us? A disturbing, yet compelling treatise on the fine line between “the fog of war” and state-sanctioned cruelty. (Full review)
Stop/Loss – This powerful and heartfelt 2008 drama is from Boys Don’t Cry director Kimberly Peirce. Co-written by the director along with Mark Richard, it was one of the first substantive films to address the plight of Iraq war vets.
As the film opens, we meet Sgt. Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe), an infantry squad leader leading his men in hot pursuit of a carload of heavily armed insurgents through the streets of Tikrit. The chase ends in a harrowing ambush, with the squad suffering heavy casualties.
Brandon is wounded in the skirmish, as are two of his lifelong buddies, Steve (Channing Tatum) and Tommy (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). They return to their small Texas hometown to receive Purple Hearts and a hero’s welcome, infusing the battle-weary vets with a brief euphoria that inevitably gives way to varying degrees of PTSD for the trio.
A road trip that drives the film’s third act becomes a metaphorical journey through the zeitgeist of the modern-day American veteran. Peirce and her co-writer (largely) avoid clichés and remain low-key on political subtext; this is ultimately a soldier’s story. Regardless of your political stance on the Iraq War(s), anyone with an ounce of compassion will find this film both heart wrenching and moving. (Full review)
W – No one has ever accused Oliver Stone of being subtle. However, once you watch his 2008 take on the life and times of George W. Bush (uncannily played by Josh Brolin), I think the popular perception about the director, which is that he is a rabid conspiracy theorist who rewrites history via Grand Guignol-fueled cinematic polemics, could begin to diminish. I’m even going to go out on a limb and call W a fairly straightforward biopic.
Stone intersperses highlights of Bush’s White House years with episodic flashbacks and flash forwards, beginning in the late 60s (when Junior was attending Yale) and taking us up to the end of his second term.
I’m not saying that Stone doesn’t take a point of view; he wouldn’t be Oliver Stone if he didn’t. He caught some flak for dwelling on Bush’s battle with the bottle (the manufacturers of Jack Daniels must have laid out serious bucks for the ubiquitous product placement). Bush’s history of boozing is a matter of record.
Some took umbrage at another one of the underlying themes in Stanley Weisner’s screenplay, which is that Bush’s angst (and the drive to succeed at all costs) is propelled by an unrequited desire to please a perennially disapproving George Senior. I’m no psychologist, but that sounds reasonable to me. (Full review)
A War – This powerful 2015 Oscar-nominated drama is from writer-director Tobias Lindholm. Pilou Aesbaek stars as a Danish military company commander serving in the Afghanistan War. After one of his units is demoralized by the loss of a man to a Taliban sniper while on recon, the commander bolsters morale by personally leading a patrol, which becomes hopelessly pinned down during an intense firefight. Faced with a split-second decision, the commander requests air support, resulting in a “fog of war” misstep. The commander is ordered back home, facing charges of murdering civilians.
For the first two-thirds of the film Lindholm intersperses the commander’s front line travails with those of his family back home, as his wife (Yuva Novotny) struggles to keep life and soul together while maintaining as much of a sense of “normalcy” as she can muster for the sake their three kids. The home front and the war front are both played “for real” (aside from the obvious fact that it’s a Danish production, this is a refreshingly “un-Hollywoodized” war movie).
Some may be dismayed by the moral and ethical ambivalence of the denouement. Then again, there are few tidy endings in life…particularly in war, which (to quote Bertrand Russell) never determines who is “right”, but who is left. Is that a tired trope? Perhaps; but it’s one that bears repeating…until that very last bullet on Earth gets fired in anger. (Full review)
Zero Dark Thirty – “Whadaya think…this is like the Army, where you can shoot ‘em from a mile away?! No, you gotta get up like this, and budda-bing, you blow their brains all over your nice Ivy League suit.”
–from The Godfather, screenplay by Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola
If CIA operative Maya (Jessica Chastain), the partially fictionalized protagonist of Zero Dark Thirty had her druthers, she would “drop a bomb” on Osama Bin Laden’s compound, as opposed to dispatching a Navy SEAL team with all their “…Velcro and gear.” Therein lays the crux of my dilemma regarding Kathryn Bigelow’s film recounting the 10-year hunt for the 9-11 mastermind and events surrounding his take down; I can’t decide if it’s “like the Army” or a glorified mob movie.
But that’s just me. Perhaps the film is intended as a litmus test for its viewers (the cries of “Foul!” that emitted from both poles of the political spectrum, even before its wide release back in 2013 would seem to bear this out). And indeed, Bigelow has nearly succeeded in making an objective, apolitical docudrama.
Notice I said “nearly”. But if you can get past the fact that Bigelow or screenwriter Mark Boal are not ones to necessarily allow the truth to get in the way of a good story (and that The Battle of Algiers or The Day of the Jackal…this definitely ain’t), in terms of pure film making, there is an impressive amount of (if I may appropriate an oft-used phrase from the movie) cinematic “trade craft” on display.
While lukewarm as a political thriller, it does make a terrific detective story, and the recreation of the SEAL mission, while up for debate as to accuracy (only those who were there could say for sure, and keeping mum on such escapades is kind of a major part of their job description) is quite taut and exciting. The best I can do is arm you with those caveats; so you will have to judge for yourself. (Full review)
