Yeah. Right. Like something like SENSE will be used? Color me cynical.
Bhagdad Sean doesn't scan as well as "Hanoi Jane," but it's the same thing, isn't it?

Thanks for some laffs, Dan. Unfortunately for people like Penn, and especially Bob Altman, I find their unremitting nonsensical blatherings have been so imprinted on my memory, I can't separate it from their work.
Thus, I don't see their films anymore. Not a protest, or a statement, or a call for a boycott. I've just turned my back on their work, as I have turned my back on their words.

Penn was asked whether he would comment on what he was seeing in the country, and he said that he would not say anything until he got back. He seemed to be saying both that he needed time to digest what he saw, and that it would make more sense for the public debate if both sides were engaged. He graciously phrased the latter point as saying it would be better for his opponents to have at him if he were present.

I'm saddened by some of the celebs on the new list of usual suspects. But I have two moderating thoughts.

One, that being wrong is... okay. Nobody is 100% correct. Different and competing points of view make our time vibrant and interesting. Being wrong about this doesn't make anyone wrong about anything else; and being right about this shouldn't give us some sort of automatic intellectual superiority complex, either.

Two, as little as we would care to admit it, true intellectual honesty requires one to carefully examine all sides to any argument. As unlikely as it seems, we may be wrong.

What exactly is Sean Penn's claim to fame? Supposedly that he has an ability to mouth the words other people feed him, and to emote on cue. He's perfect for this little junket-- he's used to being used in stupid roles, and playing morons.

And it's stunts like this that's the reason why, within a decade, he and all the other high-priced idiots will be replaced with Computer Generated Actors.

Having been on the Universal Studios Tour-Hollywood, I've seen the 7/8th size reproduction sets of a Wild West town, Manhattan, and other environs. Can Hollywood Sean tell the difference? Can other 'stars'?
Talk about Potemkin Villages!?! Peter Arnett on MSNBC took the 'tour' ("Please exit through our 'UN Atrocities' Giftshop!") of the bombed out 'bomb shelter' in Baghdad where 300 Iraqi civilians died in the Gulf War (truly regrettable, no sarcasm) yet NEVER asked the pertinent and oh, so obvious question, "Why would 300 Iraqi women and children be sent into a known Command and Control Center unless their fearless leader wanted them dead for propaganda purposes?"
The upside is that Mr Penn, unlike Ms Fonda (who is even now is kinda hot lookin' for an old commie slag) is a man, baby, so patriotic Americans (both men and women) can feel free to slap, punch, and kick him from now until the day he dies. After a couple of years of getting his ass kicked out of real working class taverns, "Saddam's Buttboy" will screw off with his humorless bitch wife Robin (he used to tie his first skank wife to a chair) to another country (France?) to make 'art films' that won't make a dime.
F**k him. What a butthole!

Undertoad: Your two "moderating thoughts" seem to be essentially the same thought. I do question whether I am correct and I do question whether there are other ways of accomplishing our goals. I do wonder if war can be avoided. The peaceniks are all telling me there are alternatives to war. Well, that's great... but what are they?

Intellectual honesty requires us to look at actual facts: propaganda from Saddam's useful idiots is irrelevant. We WANT an honest intellectual discourse, but almost nothing we've heard from the anti-war side is constructive. Instead we get useful idiots like Sean Penn going to Baghdad, and then you tell us we're not being good intellectuals because we're pointing out how full of crap the whole charade is.

Look, it really doesn't matter what Woody Harrelson has to say, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, or any of these other bleeding heart liberals who haven't got a clue. The vast majority of Americans see right through their propaganda and rhetoric, where their "insights" replace facts, their conjecture replaces analytical thought and their reckless abandon threatens us all. At no time in my life did the term "celebrity" take on less significance than ever after 9/11.

It's a shame, but I have no doubts that these same traitorous, hypocritical bastards would at first recoil by a nuclear attack that wiped out Philadelphia, then, months later, go on television and state that "We had it coming. We must have done something to bring this upon ourselves. If only..."

I saw Sheryl Crowe on Good Morning America last week wearing a T-shirt that read "I don't believe in your war, Mr. Bush". Well, I think I'll print up a t-shirt that says "F**k Saddam, and Sheryl Crow, too." I'm so sick of pntoficating "celebrities" that I could wretch. Just who in the hell do they think they are?

You know, the truly sick thing about this particular media spectacle is that when this no talent drug addled nitwit comes home he will undoubtedly defend himself by saying he undertook his personal "fact finding mission" because he wasn't getting the "true story" from either our government or the "corporate controlled media" and the media will fall all over themselves agreeing with him. Penn and his ilk are no different from the Henry Fords and Joseph Kennedys of yesteryear who went to Germany in 1932 and swore that the Nazis were no threat to the US or her neighbors.

Anti-American Hypocrites Who've Made Money As American Heroes and Military personnel...

Sean Penn: Played an American soldier on Guadalcanal in "The Thin Red Line."

Alec Baldwin: Played Jimmy Doolittle in "Pearl Harbor" and Jack Ryan, CIA Analyst, in the "Hunt for Red October."

Woody Harrelson: Played a heroic soldier in "The Thin Red Line."

Gillian Anderson: Played an FBI agent on the "X-Files"

Don Cheadle: Played an FBI agent in "Swordfish" and a DEA agent in "Traffic"

Matt Damon: Played Private Ryan, in "Saving Private Ryan" and a spy in "The Bourne Identity"

David Duchovny: Played an FBI agent on the "X-Files"

Mike Farrell: Played an Army doctor on "M.A.S.H."

Larry Gelbart: Primary writer on "M.A.S.H

Samuel L. Jackson: Played a super-patriot secret agent in "XXX"

Martin Sheen: Played an American officer in "Apocalypse Now"

Loretta Swit: Played an Army Nurse on "M.A.S.H"

James Whitmore: Played Harry Truman in "Give 'em Hell, Harry" and in the cast of "Above and Beyond" about the crew that bombed Hiroshima.

Dennis Weaver: Played a Naval officer in "The Gallant Hours."

As a show biz vet myself, let me point out a Hollywood fact here. We have a very talented but notoriously unreliable actor who has had drug problems and has zero box office appeal. In other words getting his next job is always iffy.

What to do? He kisses ass with the Hollywood Left that does all the hiring for all the jobs. The Left has always done their best to hire their own, from the Communists (and they WERE actual Communists dispite the endless propaganda), to the anti-Vietnam War crowd, to the anti-everythings today. Trust me, if it weren't for the fact that the Jews are getting killed every day this would be a repeat of the 60's.

Look at it this way: Penn is looking for work. Being anti-Amierican in Hollywood gives him a leg up over a pro-democracy actor of equal talent.

Remember Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle? He was a silent film actor involved in a scandal where a woman died maybe from his overly eager "attentions." He was tried and acquitted (think early OJ type trial). His actor friends stuck by him, but audiences booed his films out of the theaters. It took him years before he could appear in pictures again.

The moral of the story? How about a not in OUR name counter-campaign? I don't care if Sean Penn is a nut personally, but when he and his fellow idiot travelers start to parade around the world pushing their crap, maybe they should pay for it literally in lost revenue. Sean Penn, and fellow nuts in the entertainment industry, is using his "fame" to provide a platform. Take away the platform by drying up their revenue. Entertainment executives will listen. The issue is not their views (nutty as they are) but the fact that they are abusing their status as "entertainers" to pontificate on a variety of matters in which they should have no more say so than a telemarketer. Think about it, telemarketers read from a script and try and convince you of something they don't believe in too. Does that make them an expert worth listening to? No. Well, I would say something to a telemarketer's boss if he/she started preaching to me about something. Same principal applies here.

Joe - I like the idea, but since I haven't seen a Sean Penn movie (except by accident on cable) since that howling China-disaster with Madonna, I can't really participate.

Dan's points are all well taken, but I really doubt that Penn has any true aim of fairness, or objectivity. Dan said to have some credibilty Penn should ask tough questions, which I agree would be nice, but would be as unexpected as if Penn were to declare himself a republican tomorrow. His opinion is one out of 280 million Americans, which is to say of no more importance than mine. Being well paid to pretend being someone else is nice, but hardly a reason to pay any attention to his opinions.

I will never watch, or pay to watch anything to put money in his pockect. I get tired of working people paying for the reckless and stupid antics of "stars", then having them turn around and spit on what we believe in. Penn has the right to say what he likes, I have the right to call him a moron for behaving like one.

Give the guy a break -- what's wrong with Penn additional perspective on Iraq by going and seeing for himself? He surely knows he'll be fed a lot of bull and will do his best to recognize it. While he's obviously opened himself up for criticism, I do admire his effort. And it seems to me that he has thusfar said the right things.

Oh yeah, we all know Sean Penn as a perfect judge of character... NOT. Does anyone remember WHY he dropped out of the limelight for so long? Because he screwed up repeatedly, and usually in front of many cameras and witnesses. Now, it would be very nice if that rubbed off on Saddam, but not too likely. Penn has always been a moody, rash person. Can anyone give me a good reason why we should take anything he says seriously?

11. Do NOT have your picture taken while sitting on an anti- aircraft gun.
Reference: Fonda, Jane

Dan,

Great comments. Sean and Saddam, like dude, you know, smoked some hash together, far out! We took turns with the whores of Babylon. They've got some serious biological problems, Sean's got a bad rash now, you know a rash person. Sean is hoping to make a movie about his trip, "Bowling in Baghdad". Iraqi studios should take the whole lot from Hollywood. Eventually, they would be selling cigarettes in Amman, like the rest of the Iraqi exiles trying to survive. Where's Jimmy Stewart when you need him. God bless him!

Sean Penn is just another example of "famous" people taking themselves altogether too seriously. We have the "Not In Our Name" crowd and the "Victory Without War" crowd believing that their views, because they are rich and/or famous, are more important and intelligent than the typical citizens, and now Sean Penn weighs in. Or maybe Howard is correct and this is just a cynical move by Mr. Penn and others of his ilk to gain employment. Either way, their views matter no more than yours or mine and perhaps it is time to take Joe's plan seriously.

I'll reserve judgement on Penn until I hear what he actually has to say once he gets back. Who knows? Maybe Satan will go skating and Penn will say something intelligent. More unlikely things have happened in the past. Like that big dinosaur-killing asteroid. That was probably more unlikely.

But you know, I think the fault is ours, not theirs. Those Hollywood stars are using their positions to stand for something they believe in. Any of us would do the same thing. And let's face it - if Bruce Willis used his star-power to go on TV and recruit for the military, we'd all be going, "Way to go, Bruce!"

I actually have some respect for people like Tim Robbins, Mike Farrell, Bono, and even Sean Penn. They're usually dead wrong and annoying as hell, but you've gotta at least admit that they are following their conscience and backing it up with their own time and money.

The problem is that people take them seriously. As a group, Hollywood stars are probably less educated and less intelligent than the average citizen, yet they have a significant amount of political clout. People should just make fun of them or otherwise ignore what they have to say.

The worst of all are the star-struck politicians who allow these nitwits to testify in front of Congress. Who gives a rat's ass what Meryl Streep thinks about the environment? She probably just got her information channelling an ancient druid or something. And hey, destroying industry with heavy regulation isn't too high a price to pay for a genuine photo of yourself with Meryl, right?

Don't blame the actors. Blame the people who take what they have to say seriously.

I think Howard Veit makes a strong point. The statements and signatures have a lot to do with the business of Hollywood. It's sort of ironic that they have to trot out their lefty credentials in order to maintain their million dollar lifestyles.

In an industry where a lot of business is done over schmoozing and socializing, the wrong political stance could mean missing out on a role.

These Hollywood stars are using their fame to present an alternative message to Americans. Who else has the power to ask questions that the media don't seem to want to explore. Where is the "evidence"? Why haven't we found Bin Laden yet? Why haven't we found the person who carried out the anthrax attacks in our own country? Where is the al-Qaeda/Iraq link? If celebrities are the voice of Americans demanding answers to these questions, so be it. They are not selling a political agenda, benefitting from oil or defense contracting businesses, or ready to put their lives or the lives of others on the line for an unjustifiable war.

People like Penn and Robinson are asking why the US government is willing to put thousands of American lives, both soldiers and civilians, along with thousands of others in the Middle East in jeopardy. Not to mention that war in Iraq will destabilize the region, endanger the tenuous peace in surrounding countries, and fuel anti-American sentiments that are likely to result in increasing the numbers and scale of acts of terrorism. The consequences seem obvious. Why does the media and the US government seem oblivious?

It's fine to ask the questions. It's stupid to think that the government of Iraq has the answers. Penn should know that all he's going to get from that government is a load of propaganda. There will be no 'facts' to be had.

If he really wants to educate himself on the issues, he should study what the think tanks are saying, listen to arguments on both sides, visit not only the government of Iraq, but also the Kurds, the dissidents and defectors, and the British and American governments. THEN use his fame to air his conclusions. Going to Baghdad as a guest of the government is simply not intelligent. He will learn nothing, but he will provide valuable propaganda to Iraq. The phrase 'useful idiot' comes to mind.

And Kate, the consequences may seem obvious to you, but they are far from obvious to other people who study the issue. For example, you think that it's 'obvious' that war with Iraq will destabilize the region. The counter-arguments to that are, 1) Since most of the countries in the area are cesspools of human rights abuses and dictatorship, maybe a little 'destabilization' is a good thing, and 2) Since Saddam is one of the worst inciters in the area, what with the funding of the suicide bombers and the rhetoric and the huge military and the hey hey hey, perhaps getting rid of him would *stabilize the region.

But the more important things to consider are the consequeneces of inaction as well as action. Even if what you say is true and the war does destabilize the region and 'endanger the tenuous peace', that is not necessarily a reason to avoid war. Those negatives need to be balanced against the negative consequences of NOT going to war. For example, having a smoking hole in the ground where downtown LA is today. Or being blackmailed by a Saddam who threatens to nuke Tel Aviv unless we let him have Kuwait again, and Saudi Arabia, and... Look at the mess we're in with North Korea right now, and imagine that same mess with Saddam, in the powerderkeg that is the middle east. A short, sharp military conflict now may prevent that. If the cost is to 'destabilize' the nut-hatcheries in the area and to disturb the peaceful sounds of suicide bombers detonating all over the place, then so be it.

"Who else has the power to ask questions that the media don't seem to want to explore."

What makes you think that more weight is going to be brought to bear just because Sean Penn is in Iraq asking questions?

"Where is the 'evidence'?"

I don't suppose you managed to miss the recent revelation that Saddam was oh-so-close to an actual working bomb, did you?

"Why haven't we found Bin Laden yet?"

Quite frankly, bin Laden is just a player. But ask yourself this: Has there been ANY credible proof produced that bin Laden is still alive? And why should bin Laden be the SOLE target?

"Why haven't we found the person who carried out the anthrax attacks in our own country?"

Probably because they are dead. As they should be.

"Where is the al-Qaeda/Iraq link?"

Remember when Czech officials said that Atta met an Iraqi agent in Prague? The fact that Saddam has managed to so far avoid being taken down proves that he's not some suicidal maniac. He's already in the crosshairs, so for him to be overtly connected to al Qaeda would just speed up his demise.

"If celebrities are the voice of Americans demanding answers to these questions, so be it."

They aren't. They're "celebrities", not elected government officials.

"They are not selling a political agenda, benefitting from oil or defense contracting businesses, or ready to put their lives or the lives of others on the line for an unjustifiable war."

They are also not answerable to the American public.

(I'll ignore the "benefitting from oil or defense contracting" conspiracy-type junk)

"People like Penn and Robinson are asking why the US government is willing to put thousands of American lives, both soldiers and civilians, along with thousands of others in the Middle East in jeopardy."

Because not only does Saddam pose a threat to the security of his neighbors, he poses a threat to OUR security. Unless you think that terrorism is something to be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

"Not to mention that war in Iraq will destabilize the region.."

Faced with a choice of "destabilization" as opposed to the current "stability", I can't see how it would be any worse.

"..endanger the tenuous peace in surrounding countries.."

Remove the supporters of terrorism, and the peace becomes a bit less tenuous and a little more substantial.

"..and fuel anti-American sentiments that are likely to result in increasing the numbers and scale of acts of terrorism."

How much worse can it get?

People shot at? Buildings blown up? Suicide bombings?

Been there, done that. Time to try something different, something that those bastards in the Middle East understand - overwhelming, unrelenting force. And this time, FINISHING the job.

"The consequences seem obvious."

Apparently not.

Carter's unwillingness to forcefully deal with Iran, Bush Sr's choice to not press on to Baghdad and take care of Saddam when he had the chance, and Clinton's fecklessness in dealing with terrorism and Saddam's noncompliance with Gulf War ceasefire terms paved the way to the current situation.

"Why does the media and the US government seem oblivious?"

I don't care one whit about the media, but if the U.S. government is ready to crush Saddam, then it has my support. It's time to methodically pick off the troublemakers one by one.

Sure Saddam has terrorized his own people and neighbors, and the USA was right there supporting him when it happened; we even gave him the tools. He is not directly threatening us right now, and until there is actual proof that he (and notice I say "he", not the Iraqi people) is posing an imminent threat to the US, then we have no right to attack Iraq. Such an act of war makes us the criminal, not them.

Just show me the evidence. And you cannot prove guilt through a negative - "He isn't proving that his WMD no longer exist." Until I see the immediate threat, I don't understand why we want thousands of people to die for this cause. Maybe he is close to getting a bomb - does that mean he is going to attack Americans? He knows that would mean the annihilation of his regime. Is he going to attack neighboring countries? Maybe - and if they feel threatened, they are more than welcome to ask us for help.

Check out some opinions coming from other Middle Eastern countries. Most of them are asking us to focus on resovling the Israel-Palestine conflict before moving forward with Iraq.

Bombing and killing our perceived enemies in this case is like mowing dandelions. We are not going to eradicate the roots of the causes of fundamentalist terrorism, which basically stem from US neo-imperialism spurred by national interests centering around dependence on foreign oil resources. Why else do we care so much what happens in that part of the world? And if that is not the cause of terrorism, maybe we should be expending a little more energy on figuring out what the causes are and how to diplomatically resolve those issues.

As for celebrities - their opinion is worth no more than yours or mine, nor is it of less worth. They just happen to have the means of sharing their opinions with a wider audience. People who see Sean Penn on the news also see Rummy and Dubya. Sean Penn should not be threatening if the administration is being honest and presenting a convincing case. The fact that their case is not being supported by hard evidence is what makes the alternative opinions threatening.

Fair enough Kate. Two questions though.

What is your viable plan to solve the "oil problem"? Please include realistic figures on BTU replacement production, economic consequences, and projected streaming timeline (note: see Den Beste). I'm sorry, but this is always missing from complaints involving the "oil problem" and I'd like to see it answered in this context, just once. It's a fair question.

Second, what alternative do you offer to solve the Iraq problem, from now forward, that has NOT been tried in the last ten years? Specifics please, not recriminations. Considering that the evidence of threat you seek will likely be bodies, this too, is a fair question.

Thank you.

I just have to...

"He is not directly threatening us right now, and until there is actual proof that he (and notice I say "he", not the Iraqi people) is posing an imminent threat to the US, then we have no right to attack Iraq. Such an act of war makes us the criminal, not them."

The possibility of the threat is a nicety. His violations of pre-existing U.N. mandates is sufficient reason to remove him from power. Giving him *permission* to remain in power (which we had no obligation to do) after his war of conquest against his neighbors was a 'second chance', as is the new resolution. Any country in the world, not just the U.S., has the right and the moral obligation to deal with a madman, a lesson I would've thought everyone learned after we tried letting Hitler have a reasonably free hand.

"Maybe he is close to getting a bomb - does that mean he is going to attack Americans? He knows that would mean the annihilation of his regime."

Not if a terrorist merely acquires "a" bomb from unprovable sources, or even "steals" one from Saddam's military, it doesn't.

"Is he going to attack neighboring countries? Maybe - and if they feel threatened, they are more than welcome to ask us for help."

He already did. His troops executed Kuwaiti men in the streets and gangraped their women. During his retreat he burned Kuwaiti oil fields, creating an ecological disastor of monstrous proportions. We should've killed him then. Now? As the Snickers commercial goes, the crunch will be just as satisfying.

"Most of them are asking us to focus on resovling the Israel-Palestine conflict before moving forward with Iraq."

Given that the Palestinians (Philistines) and Israelis have been murdering each other since what we've been able to identify as the beginning of civilization, a request to resolve that situation before moving on is essentially a request to never do anything ever again.

"We are not going to eradicate the roots of the causes of fundamentalist terrorism, which basically stem from US neo-imperialism spurred by national interests centering around dependence on foreign oil resources."

Regardless of your condition or the causes of it, you are never justified in lashing out in a targeted attack against civilians, which is what terrorism is. It's one thing to strike at a military target, a valid statement. When you deliberately murder innocent people, you forfeit both your life and validity of your views.

To say we should reconsider our actions over terrorism is like saying that a woman deserved to be raped because she dressed too sexy or flirted too much. We don't say that anymore because we have established a clear system of right and wrong, and have declared that it's not ok to rape a woman just because she teased you too much. Our ideals are higher than that. We consider less to be barbaric. By the same token, no matter how much they deserve it, you *aren't* allowed to blow people up, and they are justified in using lethal force to stop it. The people who use the deliberate mass murder of civilians as a political tool are barbarians, and should not *ever* be allowed to guide our policies.

As for our "neo-imperialism" itself, people are poor and starving in third world countries because their leaders deny them the food we try to send them and deny them the ability to provide it for themselves as a means of subjugation; not because of some imagined effort of the U.S. to keep the rest of the world in poverty. (To what end, and exactly how are we doing that?) The parts of the world that have embraced freedom, democracy, and capitalism are doing very very well. The parts that have not, are not. I see a pattern. In this case, "bombing and killing the enemies" of democracy, freedom, and capitalism will allow the civilized world to bring democracy, freedom and capitalism to Iraq, so maybe those people will have some freakin' food to eat.

"As for celebrities - their opinion is worth no more than yours or mine, nor is it of less worth. They just happen to have the means of sharing their opinions with a wider audience. People who see Sean Penn on the news also see Rummy and Dubya."

Actually, their opinions *are* of substantially less worth than those of Rummy and Dubya. The latter were placed in power by democracy as elected and appointed officials of the Republic in accordance with the law. It's Sean's very use of his means to reach a wider audience that is offensive. He is abusing his fame to place himself alongside our leadership, a role which he does not have, nor has he ever been asked to take. It's simply in poor taste, and, to be honest, terribly unpopulist of him. If his opinion is no more or less valid than yours or mine, why is his opinion put on national television, and not yours or mine? The media is basically telling you and me that our opinions are worth less than Sean Penn's. How does that make you feel? It could be because the media is full of boobs who can't tell a pimp from a piano, know little or nothing about the subjects they are reporting on, and so are quick to promote the views of others who are similarly ignorant, and thus are non-threatening to the media itself.

"Sean Penn should not be threatening if the administration is being honest and presenting a convincing case. The fact that their case is not being supported by hard evidence is what makes the alternative opinions threatening."

There's a lot of hard evidence (including the hardest evidence of all: his blatant refusal to comply with UN mandates that were agreed to as an express alternative to killing him on the spot, as tradition mandates), however, his views aren't threatening, instead his arrogance is insulting. I have strong views, but I don't have the mandate of the Republic to lead any portion of the American people, and would have no business sticking my face on CNN and attempting to do so. Neither does Sean Penn. When he runs for and is elected to some political office, I will then be able to stomach seeing him on the news with his views.

I, too, am curious to hear your alternatives! I'm always open to new ideas!

It seems to me that containment has worked fine thus far. Since we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait, they haven't really done anything else (that I know of). Backing Saddam into a corner is more likely to make him lash out. Otherwise, I would say that he would probaly be very reluctant to share any kind of weapon with individuals or organizations that could potentially threaten his own power. He is paranoid. Yes, I agree that something could be stolen or smuggled out; that is why we need to focus our efforts on the "war" on terrorism rather than concentrating on Baghdad. Also, by using existing satellite surveillance we can monitor whether he is building large weapons plants and immediately destroy them if that is the case. Seems a lot less risky than sending in thousands of troops for an all-out war.

As for the long term (and of course this will sound naive), but wouldn't it make sense to attempt some kind of dialogue with the Iraqi state? Wouldn't it be legitimate if Bush sent a letter to Saddam asking a few key questions, such as "What are our key points of contention?" "Here is what you are doing that is pissing us off (X,Y,Z) - what are we doing to piss you off?" "Is there anything reasonable that we could possibly agree upon to eliminate the need for war?"

Then, if he responded with really irrational demands (which he probably would), at least the US would be able to justify more agressive tactics to the rest of the world. The US always encourages other states to resolve issues through diplomacy, so whay should we be exempt from that? I personally do not think inspections coupled with threatening military action will encourage any better behavior from Saddam.

As for the oil problem, I really do not have enough technical knowledge to present an elaborate solution. In general, I think the US should spend a lot more on researching alternative energy sources like hydrgogen. Americans are know for their inventiveness and creativity. If the US gov't was pushing an agenda for a major, rapid decrease on oil dependency and set annual goals for reduction percentages then the American people would quickly figure out alternatives. We just need support and resources from the gov't to accomplish this.

Finally - it is debatable whether GW was actually "elected". His ignorance on so many topics, lack of experience abroad, and questionable behavior in the past do not exactly encourage me to trust anything he says or does, even if he is really trying to do "good". To promote a pre-emptive strike seems more on the evil side of the spectrum. That is just my point of view!

Hi Kate, in my opinion, you fleshed out your argument in a much better way with that post. Let me stick my nose back in though.

Containment and negotiation are all fine, except that Saddam *has* made clear his overriding interest in becoming a conquering superpower in the Arab world, and *does* starve, deceive, and murder his own people. At what point do we say "ENOUGH!", recognize that he is a bad person, and has no place leading anyone anywhere on the earth?

As for nuclear weapons themselves, we may or not be able to detect the production of a bomb from space. We can detect tests, but building a single bomb doesn't require a massive industrial plant, it could be done inside a well-equipped lab easily enough. That's how the Pakistanis, Indians, and North Koreans have all done it, and, in fact, how we did it in World War II. You only need a factory if you intend to mass produce them, in which case, the factory would border on cost-prohibitive due to the controlled environment and super-precise machining neccessary to build a fissionable device.

Odds are, we would not know Saddam Hussein has a nuclear weapon until he gave his first one to a terrorist to "test" in Tel Aviv, London, Moscow, or Chicago, or tested one in the desert to begin blackmailing the Arab world with the threat. (Of course, if the bomb was a rough draft and worked on a lesser scale than intended, a terrorist application would only make it look even more plausible that the terrorists themselves had it built and botched it, and that Saddam was innocent.) The point is that he does not need a large weapons plant turning out hundreds of warheads: He needs one. We only needed two small, poorly constructed nuclear weapons to completely defeat a major world superpower.

There will always be anti-Western Islamic extremists, they have existed since the beginning of Islam itself, and I don't see how we can prosecute the War on Terror in such a way as to eliminate it. We can only cripple it. There is one thing we can eliminate though: Saddam Hussein and his nuclear weapons programs. These are the most terrible weapons mankind has ever created, and it's just common sense that we should do *whatever* is neccessary to prevent a man who's expressed goal is to wipe America off the earth from having them.

To go back to Hussein himself, we basically *did* try the compromise technique with the original set of U.N. resolutions. We offered Saddam limited participation in the world community, some power to trade, if he did some basic things... (Feed your people, stop slaughtering Kurds, let us make sure you aren't planning to kill us all, nothing unreasonable), but as far as anyone can tell, he refused to cooperate with almost every provision and still expected us to do our end.

Again, at what point do we say enough is enough? We weren't obligated to offer him ANY compromise whatsoever. The Allies had the complete freedom to march into Baghdad, kill every Ba'ath political leader they could find, and be done with Saddam's version of Iraq forever. That's what historically happens when you lose a war that you started. The game is over. No resolutions, no compromise. Instead, we tried to be bigger about it and try giving him a second chance, as a step toward this new 'enlightened' era. It didn't work, most likely because Saddam Hussein is just a big old floppy penis head.

As for George Bush, a lot of elections have been debatable. Henry Ford, I believe, was once challenged on his own competence, at a time when his stockholders were trying to steal his company out from under him. When he was questioned at his hearing, he was asking something to the effect of "Can you answer these questions about the industry you're in?" His response was "No, but if you give me a bit, I'll get the people in here who can." In this case, it's similar. George Bush has some of the finest advisers this country can produce. That's why the Cabinet was *created*. No one man is well versed enough in all topics to run this country with his own hands. Any one who pretends to be is a fraud (*Clinton* *cough* *Gore*). That, too, is just my opinion. :)

I shall bank the remainder of my time for the hosts of this fine Blog. :)

"Sure Saddam has terrorized his own people and neighbors, and the USA was right there supporting him when it happened; we even gave him the tools."

Gave him WHAT tools?

"Just show me the evidence. And you cannot prove guilt through a negative - 'He isn't proving that his WMD no longer exist.'"

It's already been established that Saddam's lackeys were oh-so-close to putting together an actual bomb. Is tthat good enough for you?

As for them having to prove that their WMDs no longer exist, that is an entirely reasonable demand. Either they do that, or the U.S. military can go in and sweep the place clean of Saddam and his cronies so that REAL inspections can take place. Wanna bet that things will start turning up then?

"Until I see the immediate threat, I don't understand why we want thousands of people to die for this cause."

Are you the type that waits for the speeding car to be a foot in front of you before you try to jump out of the way?

"Maybe he is close to getting a bomb - does that mean he is going to attack Americans? He knows that would mean the annihilation of his regime."

You are analyzing things rationally. That is more than can be said for Hussein.

"Is he going to attack neighboring countries?"

Well I dunno, didn't Saddam already attack Kuwait once?

"Maybe - and if they feel threatened, they are more than welcome to ask us for help."

It takes time to mount a counterattack when no forces are in the region. While the U.S. military is many things, it doesn't perform magic.

"Check out some opinions coming from other Middle Eastern countries. Most of them are asking us to focus on resovling the Israel-Palestine conflict before moving forward with Iraq."

That is a crock of you-know-what.

The Palestinian problem has dragged on because no one has twisted their arms hard enough. People keep dancing around, hoping that things work out, but they never do. The only thing that barbarians understand is brute force, and it's time to give it to them.

"Bombing and killing our perceived enemies in this case is like mowing dandelions. We are not going to eradicate the roots of the causes of fundamentalist terrorism, which basically stem from US neo-imperialism spurred by national interests centering around dependence on foreign oil resources. Why else do we care so much what happens in that part of the world?"

Neo-imperialism. Yawn.

Hint: It's not just the U.S. that would suffer from a disruption of oil flowing from the Middle East.

"And if that is not the cause of terrorism, maybe we should be expending a little more energy on figuring out what the causes are and how to diplomatically resolve those issues."

Saddam is still pursuing the bomb, Palestinians are still killing Jews, and the Iranians are still state-supporters of terrorists. Do you STILL think that diplomacy is going to work???

"As for celebrities - their opinion is worth no more than yours or mine, nor is it of less worth. They just happen to have the means of sharing their opinions with a wider audience."

Actually, these celebs think that just because they're famous their words have more weight. Well they DON'T.

"People who see Sean Penn on the news also see Rummy and Dubya."

That's because those two are government individuals, people who we entrust to oversee our security, not some dumbass that makes movies and thinks that he is qualified to evaluate foreign policy based on his celebrity status.

"Sean Penn should not be threatening if the administration is being honest and presenting a convincing case."

There's nothing "threatening" about Penn's blatherings. They have more of an entertainment aspect to them, if anything.

"The fact that their case is not being supported by hard evidence is what makes the alternative opinions threatening."

What hard evidence do you want? How about a bio-attack? Nuclear? Chemical?

I found this site refreshing. I am tired of Hollywood pushing there liberal opinions down the American’s throat. I have a BFA in Theatre Arts and I am a working professional in the performing arts – I find the Sean Penn/Sheryl Crow’s of the entertainment industry disgusting. Quite frankly, I don’t know why Jane Fonda wasn’t on trial for treason – she will always have the blood of the American soldiers on her head, which she personally executed by giving the enemy there social security numbers (that they slipped to her in faith as a fellow American). If that isn’t treason – I don’t know what is!

I truly believe the views of liberal Hollywood have nothing to do with war or no war. They simply want to take whatever position is in opposition with a republican administration. I think it is time they started to think like American citizens and not the bloody French (who never in history has had a spine), Germany (the country we saved from Russian and re-built entirely after WWII) or the majority of the citizens of Great Brittan (not including Tony Blair of course – but the would be speaking German, if it wasn’t for the USA saving Great Brittan). It is time for BIPARTISINSHIP!!!!! Guaranteed liberal Hollywood would not like it if they personally are inconvenienced by death because of Saddam. Do they really not remember Hitler – who killed 30 million people during the holocaust – not just 6 million Jewish – 30 million total – 24 million non-Jewish people. Hitler didn’t like anyone! Saddam doesn’t like anyone – only himself. Is liberal Hollywood really ready to repeat history?!?!?!
God that is a scary thought !!!!!!!!!!
Oh, and is Alec Baldwin still an American citizen? Wasn’t he leaving the country if Bush was elected. I am sure we can assist him with an airline ticket if that is the problem.

I agree with MAJ. Hollywood celebs should stick to what they do best, acting, and leave the foreign policy to those who are elected to do that. If this was really about opposition to sticking our nose into other peoples business, then why were there no demonstrations when Clinton bombed Iraq four years ago? What about Kosovo? Clinton stated a desire to petition the UN to bomb Kosovo, but when he found that Russia would veto it, he decided to go it alone. Where was the moral outrage over that pre-emptive strike on that sovern nation? Hollywood lined up for the opportunity to offer their support to Clinton, but now those same celebs oppose and far more important issue to our national security. This is one of the many places that the liberal argument falls apart. It never was about opposition to war, it is only about opposition to the President. Disgusting!!!

Those same liberals claim the GW stole the election, but they fail to acknowledge that every recount showed Bush as the winner. Even when the Supreme Court stopped the delays, the liberal media stepped in to perform their own recount, guess what they found? Yup!, GW won the election.

I also love the argument that a war will kill innocent women and children. If Hollywood liberals are so concerned about the women and children in Iraq, why no concern about the fact that they are dying right now because of a ruthless dictator who would rather build palaces for himself than feed his people?

...And don't even get me started on the "Blood for Oil" argument. Opps too late! The USA gets almost none of its oil from Iraq. France, on the other hand, gets a significant percentage of its oil from Iraq. Therefore, with France, it really is about oil, but not the USA

I keep hearing about how the world recently expressed its opposition to war, but it seems to me that all the recent protests in the world only got about 10 million participants. Sounds like a lot until you consider that there are about 6 billion people in the world. Look at it that way, and it seems to imply that only about 1 person in 600 feel this way. Doesn't sound like the whole world to me, sounds like the lunatic fringe.

I really love the misunderstanding the liberals have regarding the UN and their role in this. They seem to think that UN Resolution 1441 was about us proving the Saddam has WMD. It was really about Saddam proving he did not have them. He has not cooperated and is in material breach. It is time to squash this cockroach!

The liberal position on this issue is so inconsistent with everything else they believe in that it makes it difficult to take them seriously. For example:
* Liberals believe in human rights, Saddam believes that humans have the right to die.
* Liberals believe in woman’s rights, Saddam believes that women are second class citizens and should be executed for getting pregnant by someone other than her husband, even in cases of rape.
* Liberals believe that religious and ethnic minorities have the same rights as everyone else, Saddam believes that all minorities should be killed and has done so.
* Liberals believe in freedom of speech, but Saddam kills anyone who disagrees with him.
* Liberals support protection of the environment, but Saddam created an ecological disaster during the first gulf war by burning Kuwait’s oil fields.

My advise to Hollywood, France, Germany and the rest of the cowards in the world is to go hide under your beds.

They are nitwits, no doubt about it. Even in their protests and statements they are actors. Funny how Martin Sheen likes to look studious with his glasses down his nows. If it were not so sad it would be hilarious. JUST REMEMBER ALL OF YOU, DO NOT GO SEE THEIR MOVIES OR SHOWS!!!!!

Remember Sean did play a retard in I Am Sam! Not that I have a problem with mentally challenged people. It seems that he may not have been acting in this case!

To Sean Penn, Natalie Maines, Martin Sheen, Sheryl Crow and the rest of the Hollywood Leftist society: Move to France. Just get the hell out of the U.S. Mainstream America doesn't care about your politics. Shame on them or any American who's forgotten September 11th. President Bush said "We are going to hunt down terrorists all over the globe. You are either with us or against us." Former Pres. Clinton didn't do crap in his eight years to stem terrorism and he didn't hold Saddam to the Gulf War surrender terms. Hit these Hollywood elitist where it hurts, boycott their movies and their CD's. It can be done. Anybody remember K.D. Lang and her famous(?) don't eat beef comments? Last I heard she was playing the Holiday Inn in Fargo.

What in hell makes these grossly over-paid hollywood idiots think that their opinions matter to the rest of us hard-working grossly under-paid
people of America? I certainly could care less what their opinions are! We don't pay their salaries for anything other than to act in movies!
And some of them don't even do that very well!

I do not understand the thought process of those celebreties Hollywood who are so outspoken with their opposition to the current war. However, they are free to express their opinions which is very necessary our free society. Likewise I am also free to not attend and/or rent movies, watch TV shows and other events in which they have a part. Our men and women in uniform are paying the cost for our freedom now( in some cases death )as those in past generations have done. FREEDOM has never been nor will ever be FREE. In a Feb. 1922 speach, Calvin Coolidge said "There is no greater service we can render the oppressed of the earth than to maintain inviolate the freedom of our own citizens" Just some food for thought.

I went off on a rant against a co-worker yesterday regarding this whole Hollywood celebrity non-sense. It is particularly galling that certain celebs (e.g., Tim Robbins and Madonna) now are complaining their right to free speech is being impinged. If they got off their high horses and/or pulled their heads out of their asses, they would see that it is not that their right to free speech is impacted at all, it is just that the vast majority of Americans are sick of their uninformed rhetoric and now are willing to take affirmative steps to punish them via votes with their wallets. Simply put, they don't like people disagreeing with them.

One last thing, would it have really harmed any of those nitwits at the Academy Award show to wear an American flag pin as a show of patriotism? After all, the supreme irony is that it is this country and the freedoms they enjoy that make them so disgustingly rich and gives them the soap box they now enjoy.

Go USA!