KPFA (Pacifica) now: forum on "The Fog of War" with MacNamara

[Bozita]

http://www.kpfa.org/


"The Fog of War."

A forum held at the University of California's Zellerbach auditorium February 4, on the topic of the Academy Award winning documentary. Mark Danner, professor at the University of California Graduate School of Journalism moderatesa discussion with director Errol Morris and former Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara.

[Faygo Kid]

1. One of the most important movies ever, and sadly ignored here

No "Fog of War" post can get any traction here at DU, which is unfortunate. A must see for all here, and I never, ever, presume to say that. In this case, I do. Good luck with your post.

[buycitgo]

4. yeah, well Daniel Ellsberg is NO fan at all of McNamara's

AFA his self-justifying stance on Vietnam, his silence after leaving his post in 1969, and more importantly, his SILENCE during the runup to war this time

he considers the movie DEEPLY dishonest when considering McNamara's real role in the Southeast Asian holocaust

but then, what does Ellsberg know about that, right?

listen for yourself right here

http://www.thisishell.com/archives_2004.html

check the February 28 show. Scott Ritter is a guest, as well

[m-jean03]

2. It only just got to the theatres here on Friday.

And I plan on seeing it this week. I think that many here may be in my same shoes, living in a place not metropolitan enough to have shown it yet. The soundtrack is pretty incredible though, that much I know.

[aldian159]

3. phenomenal movie

deserving of all DU's praise

[buycitgo]

5. yeah, sure, what a hero......almost as great as Kissinger

from Salon with Ellsberg:

Compare someone like Kerry to these high government officials from the Vietnam era, these secret doves like McNamara and Clark Clifford and Hubert Humphrey. Not one of them shared their real views, or their warnings, with the American public or Congress. None of them jeopardized their relationship with the president, none of them jeopardized their careers, their security clearances, their ability to come back in future administrations. None of them broke with the policy that they themselves thought was disastrous. None of them took steps to save any lives.

then there's this


And these veterans, people like Kerry, came back and spoke the truth and did what they could to end the war. Which McNamara did not do -- and which none of these high government officials did.

Now McNamara is in a somewhat different category. Because I believe that at least he, unlike the others, was in a position to keep the country from greatly expanding the war -- which I believe would've cost even more loss of life and still no victory. The right wing says, "He kept us from winning." I don't think they know what they're talking about. So it may be that he did in fact save a lot of lives, even as he was pursuing a policy that cost a lot of lives. I'll be specific here. In his last year in office, 1967, I believe McNamara did act very creditably as an insider, to keep us from expanding the war into a possible war with China, by going into North Vietnam much more heavily.

But when he left office, the war had seven more years to go. He left in 1968, the war continued until 1975. And there were five more years of American ground combat left. Most of the bombs fell after he left, most of the Americans and Vietnamese died after he left. And he was totally silent. And he has no good excuse for that. He did not save any lives after he left office by telling us the truths about the war that he could have.

then this

SALON: In January, McNamara spoke out against the war in Iraq for the first time, telling the Toronto Globe and Mail the war is "morally wrong, politically wrong, economically wrong." But when he was pressed to repeat his criticisms on stage in Berkeley this month, he refused, suggesting that it was improper for a former high government official to publicly attack U.S. policy and that it could cost lives in Iraq. You were in the audience that night -- what was your reaction?

ELLSBERG: Well, clearly we differ. I could not disagree more. To say that someone who had inside knowledge and government experience should not share that with the public, at a time when we're facing prolongation of a wrongful war, is just plain wrong.

I'll say this, McNamara is consistent. He refused to act from his inside knowledge and authority and experience to end the Vietnam War, and he's now refusing for the same reason to end the Iraq war. And he's consistent -- he was wrong then and he's wrong now.

I don't know what he actually learned from Vietnam -- I genuinely don't know, he might have learned something. He did clearly learn from the Cuban missile crisis, he did learn the risks of nuclear war can arise even with relatively rational men in power. That's an incredibly important message he's trying to convey, and I give him credit for that.

but, again, what gives HIM the right to cast such judgments

ha

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:CnogvxnLmqIJ:www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/19/ellsberg/index1.html+salon+ellsberg+mcnamara&hl=en&start=2&ie=UTF-8

so you can take your war criminals like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, MCNAMARA, etal, and stick them right up there

THEY'RE ALL the same

and as for self-aggrandizing egomaniacs like Morris, did you see his very first acceptance words at the Oscars? what a DICK!

[Faygo Kid]

6. Have you even seen the movie? Doesn't sound like it.

You walk out knowing that McNamara was a self serving hypocrite. I don't understand your posts; are you implying that someone who thinks "The Fog of War" is an excellent movie means they SYMPATHIZE with McNamara? If so, you have it bass-ackwards. The points you make in this post are ones I agree with. It's what I thought the movie conveyed. It's what I remember (in my 50s), and consistent with what I have read (see George Ball's "The Past Has Another Pattern"). Did you even see the movie? What's your beef, anyway?

[buycitgo]

7. what's MY beef? same one as Ellsberg. did you the salon interview?

Lighten up, eh?

I didn't see the movie, as I've read several books by and about McNamara (I have "The Living and the Dead" next to me right now), so I don't need to see his carefully circumspect mea culpas.

you can inFER all you want re: my feelings about McNamara/Morris; I don't need to see that movie to become any more aware of his stewardship of the Vietnam fiasco; I'm perfectly aware how it relates to our current situation. As for Morris, he makes pretentious, overwrought movies--occasionally interesting, but, as often as not, annoying. vastly overrated.

more on why I loathe McNamara:

If you'd read the Salon piece, you'd have seen this

But McNamara has not learned that he could be far more effective as an outside critic of U.S. policy. After he got out of government, he could have been far more effective than he was inside, by speaking out and saving lives. And he could save lives right now, in Iraq. He said in Berkeley that he did not want to risk American lives in Iraq by speaking out about the war. But it's difficult to figure out how he would be endangering lives by doing that.

It's not difficult to know exactly what the cost of his silence was during the Vietnam War. His failure to speak out -- and mine -- during those early years, 1964, '65, '66 and in his later years, did not just endanger troops, it cost the lives of 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese. And it's amazing that he hasn't learned that.

His admonition to the Berkeley audience to apply the lessons of Vietnam and be active and so forth is fine, as words. But it's pretty hollow because he's setting an example by refusing to inform that public in a way where they could be effective in their resistance.

I do respect a lot of parts of his career, actually, more than most people. But that is not a behavior pattern of his that I do respect.

point is, McNamara nauseates me, and I wouldn't go around the corner to see that movie, anymore than I went to see the much more compelling one that came out on Kissinger last year.

and WHY didn't the movie delve into areas like the ones Ellsberg mentions? that diminishes its truthfulness a great deal, as well as its "historical" value

[Faygo Kid]

8. Give it a try on DVD?

I respect your knowledge, but I found the points Ellsberg makes in the Salon interview revealed in the movie. I think it was great stuff. If you do see it sometime, let me know what you think then (I know, you made your point about never wanting to see it, but what the hey). Otherwise, not much else to say.

[AP]

9. This movie was incredilbe, but much more nuanced than I think many

people think it is.

McNamara presented himself as someone who thought he was doing more good staying in the administration and trying to mitigate the damage LBJ wanted to do. He seems to have really wished JFK lived and believes that, if he had, nothing that happened afterwards in Vietnam would have happened.

But I also think he's really amazing at dominating the narrative and telling a story about himself which might not be totally accurate. He could be a total lying sack of shit.

The whole thing is fascinating.

The Thin Blue Line, by the way (see below) is still a WAY better movie.

[Faygo Kid]

10. I think he does come off as a lying sack of sh*t

McNamara trying to mitigate the damage? Nope, that was George Ball, undersecretary of state, who stayed until he felt his voice was no longer being heard. I went in not believing McNamara's self-serving remembrances, and came out fascinated by the convolutions he employed. I liked the fact that it was nuanced. I don't need to be hit over the head with the obvious every time. Like the earlier poster who disagrees with me (but didn't see the movie), I consider myself pretty well read on the subject, and found the movie engrossing. Thanks for the recommendation about "The Thin Blue Line."

[AP]

11. Thin Blue Line and Fog of War are both directed by Errol Morris.

BTW. Which is why I recommend Thin Blue Line, which will blow you away. It's probably one of the five best documentaries ever made.

Llumumba: Death of a Prophet (the docu, not the feature film), and The Revolution Will Not be Televised are perhaps the two best political documentaries ever made.

Spellbound is right up there in the top 5.