Mr. Garamendi, also, is upside down

Just the usual chicanery for which politics is so well known.

Rep. John Garamendi last week pulled what the San Francisco Chronicle's Joe Garafoli called a "rookie mistake" by jumping headfirst into the public meatgrinder that is Stephen Colbert's "Better Know a District" segment of the Colbert Report. It's the semi-regular feature in which, with purposely insipid questions and crafty edits, even the sharpest tool in the Congressional shed comes out looking like an idiot. Garamendi, no rookie, did not miraculously change the outcome of this feature, instead emerging as said idiot.

Colbert repeatedly harped on the incongruous and unsettling fact that Garamendi does not live in the congressional district he represents; his front yard is in District 10, which Garamendi represents; his home is on the other side of the line in District 3. Presumably he has a card table and mobile phone out on the District 10 north (or south?) 40.

Not only did Garamendi, who never met a political office he didn't run for (he was state insurance commissioner twice, lieutenant governor, state assembly in two districts and senate member, plus deputy U.S. interior secretary and candidate for governor) come out the buffoon, he gave me an excuse to showcase some of my editorial cartoons about him. I mean, there's public service, but there's also wondering if Mr. Garamendi might have any other job skills.

At one point, Garamendi's wife Patti got into the act, running for the state Senate office her husband was vacating to become insurance commissioner. It put party opponent and Assembly member (and former Garamendi aide) Pat Johnston in the strange position of competing for the seat against the dubious Garamendi dynasty (below).

The Garamendis "liked" the cartoon so much, they wanted to buy it. Star struck, I may have actually sold it; it's the last time I was asked, thank goodness, because I'd never do it again. My goal was to get the Garamendis to cancel their subscription to The Stockton Record.

You spell Gaddafi, I spell Khadafy, you spell Qaddhafi …

The more things change …

Twenty-five years ago this week, The U.S. was preparing to war with Libyan leader Khadafy …

Hmm. Not entirely sure the message I was trying to send. Police dog to the World, the United States,
might be sniffing around a number of countries, but then found motivation with the crazy Libyan leader.

These cartoons were for The Hanford Sentinel, when I was just getting started on what an editorial cartoon should be.

Three days before the cartoon above, U.S. and Libyan aircraft had clashed in the Gulf of Sidra on Libya's coast, and four Libyan attack boats were sunk. This was another in a simmering sequence of tense clashes with Libya, tied to terrorist attacks against U.S. and British targets. In April, terrorists bombed a Berlin nightclub, killing a U.S. serviceman and injuring some 50 more among 200 people hurt in the blast. The United States unleashed Operation El Dorado Canyon, bombing Libyan targets.

(Before we go on, could the United Nations or someone organize a standardization of Khadafy's name? Virtually every other world leader's name is spelled the same across the news media. Why not his? It's not just his last name, sometimes spelled with the prefix al-, as in al-Qaddafi; his first name has almost as many variations, including Moammar and Muammar . Maybe this is a part of the chronic problem: He's not getting the world's tea cards asking him please to stop brutalizing his people.)

Again, my meaning is unclear, though the name, Tommy Tonkin, alludes to the United States' penchant for
manufacturing provocations for war or violent "nation building" (as in Gulf of Tonkin incident). Though not alone in this practice, the United States is especially good at it. The same with warring in the name of idealistic principles when in truth it's almost always for business. The new "no-fly zone" looks and feels like more of the same.

President Obama just went to the airwaves to explain this generation's bombing of Libya, dubbed Operation Odyssey Dawn (which Jon Stewart described as a Yes album, Stephen Colbert called a Carnival Cruise ship, and Lily Tomlin said was a bad name for a drag queen.)

As with his predecessors, President Obama has aspired to irony. I give him no argument about stopping a brutal leader from harming his own people, but as with the others who have made the same justification for war, I say, "Yes, but …" As in "Yes, but the people of Yemen are suffering in a similar fashion. Why aren't we stopping its government? Or Syria's? Why aren't we bombing hell out of those who massacre in Congo, Somalia and, for that matter, Mexico?"

It can't be just because we can't stand to see a government harm its own people, because quite clearly we can. It would be refreshing if our leader said, "Look, we can't intervene in Yemen because we have a military base there and we've got it pretty good with the government . Libya provides oil with fairly close access to our European allies, and we don't really have anything cozy going on with Mr. Khadafy, or however you spell it." Or something like that.

It would be depressing, but I'd prefer it to the same stirring rhetoric that belies its true aim. Then again, what would have cartoonists have to draw?

President Obama says action against Libya should eventually force Khadafy out because "history is not on his side." The guy's been in power for 40-some years; I think he's got the history racket worked out.

Get ready for another long, painful entrenchment.

Lord, I was wordy in the early days. That's a lot of ink to point out that the U.S. was practically alone
in this attack and President Reagan was less than skillful in getting help. One difference this time — apparently — is that France and Britain are taking more of a lead.