Francis Ford Coppola's film Apocalypse Now follows a suffering Captain Willard to Cambodia to terminate a renegade Colonel Kurtz, who has established himself as a god in a local tribe.  Most viewers and critics alike agree that the film is "anti-war" in that it is a demonstration against America's involvement in Vietnam.  Many fail to examine, however, of how the film represents both a transition from the United States' activism, and a significant increase in deception by the U.S. government and subsequently a growing distrust between that government and it's people.

In the film, Colonel Kurtz  --  a character based off of the ivory trader of the same name in Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness  --  is a very successful and talented soldier, who fed up with the Army's command and with the nature of the Vietnam War, conducts his own missions and operations without official clearance.  One such mission orchestrated by Kurtz resulted in the killing of four South Vietnamese officers who he discovered were double agents working for the Northern Vietnamese. The military, however, believes he has gone insane and can no longer be trusted, so they dispatch Captain Willard on a mission to assassinate Kurtz for murder.  The military's willingness to assassinate an American citizen, who also happens to be a distinguished Colonel, without trial is representative of the escalating distrust between Americans and their government.  

The Vietnam War, of course, would not be the first time politicians have lied to their constituents, but the War is pivotal in shaping the rift between voter and votee, and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was fundamental in opening this gap.  The Resolution, which was signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson in August of 1964, granted the President "very broad powers to conduct combat operations in Southeast Asia." (Moise, 226).  Within a few years though, as opposition to the war grew, so did doubts about the attacks on the USS Maddox, and many Congress members began to doubt LBJ's intentions when the Resolution was presented to them.  

"Not having believed when they voted for the reolution that the president intended to use it as authority for massive escalation off the war, many members did not feel committed later to support him in putting it to such use."

Almost no congressmen anticipated that Johnson would use the Resolution the escalate the War.

It was not only the President's lies which led 
