Which President Was Most Responsible for the Artemis Project?

The Orion spacecraft during trans-lunar injection, to bring an Artemis mission to the moon. (Image credit: NASA)

The short answer, much as it pains me to say this, is that our current President, Donald Trump, is the President most responsible for the Artemis Project.  My readers will know how strongly I have opposed and criticized Trump's policies in his two administrations, on immigration, ICE, just talking about destroying Iranian civilization, and just about everything else.  But a key factor in Trump's policies is his disregard for the truth.  And the truth is that the Artemis Project was initiated in Trump's first administration, enacted with the uncrewed Artemis I in Joe Biden's administration, and furthered with the human trip around the Moon just completed by Artemis II, in the current second Trump administration.  The truth therefore is that Trump is the President who was most responsible for Artemis.

There's of course a history to all this.   As I outlined in several books -- Realspace: The Fate of Physical Presence On and Off Planet and Touching the Face of the Cosmos: On the Intersection of Space Travel and Religion -- Richard Nixon, a Republican, stopped trips to the Moon in the space program, dropped them like a hot potato, after the extraordinary success of the Apollo Program in 1961-1972, because it heralded the vision of John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, who beat Nixon in the 1960 election and ignited NASA and the US space program after its slow start in the 1950s under Republican Dwight Eisenhower.  By the time we got to the 1980s, Democrats like Walter Mondale were active opponents of spending money on space, and Ronald Reagan and the Republicans had become the champions of extending our species off this planet.  That reversal continued into the first Trump administration.  Democrat Bill Clinton did little for space.  Republican George W. Bush started the Vision for Space Program in 2004, which included the Constellation initiative, a vehicle aimed at returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020 as a stepping stone to Mars.  Democrat Barack Obama ended the Constellation in 2010, which almost made me sorry I voted for him.

This history is important, because it spotlights the significance of Joe Biden's strong support for Artemis in his one term in office.  That crucial support makes Biden the first Democratic President to fully support the space program -- specifically, getting human beings to actual moons and worlds beyond this planet -- since LBJ in the 1960s.   When the history of how the human species went out into the universe is someday written, it will show that we Americans, supported by both parties, led the way.  And if Donald Trump was a crucial factor and force in that success, so be it.   

That doesn't mean that we have to support Trump and his dangerous policies that threaten our very democracy.   But it does mean that we have to stand up for the truth, which in just about every other aspect of his presidency, Trump disdains.

All the Way on HBO and its Relevance to Hillary

I saw All the Way on HBO last night.  I thought this movie about the Texas politician and Vice President who became President on the day of what I still see as the worst public event in my lifetime - the assassination of JFK in November, 1963 - was outstanding for at least part of the way, in its portrayal of LBJ's mastery of domestic policy.  But it was frustrating for what it barely addressed - how Lyndon Baines Johnson messed up so badly in foreign policy, in Vietnam.

I came of age in the 1960s.  Not only was I devastated by the murder of JFK and his zest and idealism, but I appreciated and cheered the way Johnson came back with extraordinary Civil Rights legislation and all kinds of pathbreaking law for life in America, such as Medicare.  For a very short time, it looked as if the future could survive what happened to JFK. And then the Vietnam War, not started by LBJ but prosecuted and expanded by him, shattered all of that forever, or certainly at least until this very day.

All the Way does a great in job in showing how Johnson brought into being those domestic miracles, how he played the necessary Senators and recalcitrant parts of the country like a chess master moving pieces on a board.  Bryan Crantson gives an astonishingly  good performance, capturing every bit of Johnson's swagger, political cunning, vulgarity, wisdom, and insecurity.  Anthony Mackie and Bradley Whitford are spot-on and memorable in their portrayals of MLK, Jr. and the hapless Hubert Humphrey.   The deliveries and demeanors of the Senators and other players in this movie don't miss a beat.

Did LBJ really believe in civil rights and other domestic revolutions he championed and succeeded in putting into Federal law?  At the time, I was pretty sure he did, and All the Way - assuming that LBJ's words and expressions in the movie are based on truth - reinforces and satisfies that sense.

But what went wrong with LBJ in Vietnam?  All the Way provides little more than a shadow of that calamitous development, and thus not much help in understanding how and why it happened that the U.S. got drawn into this unconstitutional, disastrous war.   When it has happening, my best explanation was that Johnson was just over his head when it came to foreign policy, unable to navigate and parse what his generals and advisors were telling him, and above all not wanting to appear weak or indecisive. He just lacked the requisite experience.

Which brings this movie back to 2016 and its relevance to a decision facing all Americans today.   Though Hillary Clinton is not without her failings, including in foreign policy, she has far and away the most foreign policy experience of the three candidates still standing - easily more than Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump's experience in foreign policy is zero.  Hillary Clinton, as a former Secretary of State, has more experience in seeing to America's best interests in the world than anyone other than a former President or Secretary of State.

LBJ's error in Vietnam, just hinted at like a hurricane on the horizine in All the Way, changed the United States for the worse in a way that has endured to this very day.  Given the challenges that our country now faces in the world, we need someone in the White House with enough experience to avoid making an equivalent mistake in the next few years, which could have far worse consequences than what happened in the 1960s.   Thank you HBO for bringing home this point so effectively, though it was likely not your intention.   In the short and long run, All the Way may be more important for what it didn't actually show on the screen.

Obama in Afghanistan: Tragic History Repeating Itself

In the tradition of George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama has just committed 30,000 American troops to fight an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Afghanistan.

It is amazing and depressing to hear how similar the rhetoric of our current and past Presidents on this issue - the sending of more Americans to fight an undeclared war overseas. They all told us that we need these additional troops to hasten the time when all of our troops can come home, that we need to be in these foreign lands to preserve our own security at home.

But did Johnson and Nixon's actions in Vietnam hasten the return of Americans first sent to fight in Indochina by JFK? It wasn't until after Nixon had been forced to resign that we finally left South Vietnam, as North Vietnam overwhelmed a country that mostly did not want our defense.

There are differences between Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, to be sure. Obama was right to point out that no one situated in Vietnam had ever attacked us, and the same is true of Iraq.

But Afghanistan is nonetheless a country that we have no business in occupying, whatever Obama or anyone may term the presence of our growing number of troops. Osama bin Laden's presence there nearly a decade ago justified a brief military action back in 2001 - an action which failed to get him then. But how does that justify a "war" - Obama's term - right now?

Presidents should not be allowed to send troops for any length of time to fight in any foreign country, without a Declaration of War by both houses of Congress (Senate and the House of Representatives), as required by our Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11), the Supreme Law of the Land.

Congress and the media failed to do their jobs with Johnson, Nixon, and both Bushes. I hope Congress and the media finally begin to do their jobs with Barack Obama now.

A Proposal for the Obama and Clinton Campaigns

Well, Hillary Clinton won Ohio and Rhode Island tonight, Barack Obama won Vermont, and Hillary Clinton won by small margin in Texas. It is nonetheless clear that (a) Obama still has a substantial, likely insurmountable lead in elected delegates and (b) Clinton will redouble her efforts in the race.

The speeches given by the two candidates to their supporters were as expected: Obama's was far more inspiring, but Clinton's was fine.

Two things I did not like in the Clinton speech were (1) her inclusion of Michigan and Florida in the tally of states she had won (especially egregious in the case of Michigan, where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot), and (2) her reference to the 3 o'clock in the morning ad, of which her campaign is apparently very proud. From my perspective, having studied the history of propaganda, that ad ranks as one of worst panderings to public fears (right up there with Tony Schwartz's atom bomb ad on behalf of LBJ in 1964).

And Obama again offered his view that kids would be better off with books than video games - at least he didn't include television along with video games this time. But children can benefit from both books and video games - it need not be one or the other.

So, two good speeches, one inspiring (Obama's), one nonetheless effective (Clinton's), two things wrong with Clinton's and one thing wrong with Obama's - at least, according to my tally.

With John McCain now the unofficial offical Republican nominee, what can the Democrats do to unite their party in the face of two so equally matched candidates?

Here is my proposal: Obama and Clinton agree to the following: 1. Whoever has the greatest number of elected delegates at the end of primaries gets the Presidential nomination. 2. The other candidate gets the VP nomination. (Florida and Michigan do not count - unless the primaries are done over in those two states.)

Hey, I'm still supporting Obama, and I'm sure my proposal won't fly (I doubt that either campaign would agree to it) - but, think about it, it could be the best way to proceed - one which most respects the democratic process.

Spirited Republican Debate on Fox in South Carolina Tonight: Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul Come Out Best

A crisp, spirited Republican debate in South Carolina earlier tonight - one of the best so far, as good the Republican debate on ABC on Saturday - and Fox included Ron Paul, which it didn't do on Sunday.

Fred Thompson was the best he's been so far, responding with a sharp mix of passion, clarity, and humor. He took Mike Huckabee to task for being a Democrat in Republican clothing. Even though I agree with Huckabee's "Democratic" positions about education, etc., I had to admire Thompson's performance.

Huckabee, for his part, however, was also excellent. He came through again as likable and sincere, as well as vivid and saber-rattling in his response to the Iranian gunboat incident - warning Iranians and anyone that if they attack American boats, the next thing they'll be seeing are the gates of hell. (Thompson got in a good line about the Iranians being close to seeing the virgins they think await their heroes in the afterlife.) Again, I don't agree at all with this jingoism, but it was good Republican television.

As for what I do agree with, Ron Paul was incisive and right on target in his comparison of the Iranian gunboat incident with the Gulf on Tonkin incident off the coast of North Vietnam in the 1960s. Lyndon Johnson used it to push the US into an escalated (undeclared) war in Vietnam. But, as Ron Paul correctly alluded to, it turned out later that this incident had been set up and provoked by Johnson precisely for the purpose of increasing US military action in Vietnam - or, starting up a full-fledged (undeclared) war.

Ron Paul was also clear in disassociating himself and his candidacy from the 9/11 "truthers" - those who think that the U.S. brought down the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.

Likely Ron Paul was so effective tonight because he was finally given some time to speak and make his points.

But the Southern weather agreed with all of the candidates. Guiliani was forceful in his defense of his immigration policy in NYC - how can you question the immigration status, he asked, of someone who is giving the police information a rape or a murder? You don't need a green card to commit those crimes, he added.

Romney sparred well, but once again came up with a science fictional, computational metaphor - making some point about three-dimensional chess (the first I ever saw of three-dimensional chess was when Spock was playing it on Star Trek). I don't know, it's a different series, but I'm still thinking Cylon...

And McCain was pretty good, too - though, in general, he seemed to assume the position as the most tired candidate, held until tonight by Fred Thompson.

***
After the debate: Ron Paul won the telephone poll, and of course Hannity didn't believe it. At least, this time, he knew better than to come up some story about Ron Paul's supporters voting multiple times.

A lot more debates in both parties coming up this month. It's good to see that they're getting sharper and more focused as the campaigns progress.