I happened to see a portion of Sean Penn's appearance on Larry King Weekend tonight--you can read the transcript if you like. Sean and Larry were talking about Sean's recent trip to Iraq. They discussed his reasons for going on the trip, how he came to be invited to go in the first place, his feelings on war, his feelings on News Corp.'s media properties, whether actors should speak out on political issues, and his future as an actor and a director. I came away with several impressions of Sean, and I have a few suggestions for things he should consider as he moves forward as a "political celebrity".
- He feels guilty about his success in what is a frivolous occupation, and wishes he could make a greater contribution to the world.
- He spends lots of time talking with journalists and other lefty friends who he trusts to provide "stubborn facts" for his consideration.
- He has thin skin. Bill O'Reilly's show and News Corp.'s media have really gotten to him.
- He has more than a passing acquaintance with the drug culture. His fractured syntax and thought jumps show some fried synaptic connections are in his brain case. He thinks the drug war was and is a failure, of course.
- Our leadership of the coalition that defeated Iraq in 1991 means that we are responsible for the terrible burden that sanctions have placed on the Iraqi people.
- Our motives for going to war are suspect, and war may create a new generation of people who hate America. His children may grow up to face that generation at some future day, if mankind doesn't erase itself from the earth in this generation.
- We need to provide more data on the threat to our country. We have the technology--sort of like that "CSI" show--to find his hidden weapons like needles in a haystack.

I think that it would be worth Sean's time to consider these points so that he can feel he's dealt with the issue in a "fair and balanced" way.
- Iraq's citizens suffer under the yoke of a brutal madman who has destroyed their country's economy and world standing. They starve in part because UN sanctions limit trade, and in part because the state treasure that is earned goes to build grand palaces for Saddam--as well as monuments, mosques, and entertainment--as well as to purchase dual use materials and technologies to reconstruct his weapons programs.
- South Africa lived under sanctions for a time, and was embraced as a noble member of the world community when it finally acted to comply with the sanctions placed against it. Iraq could have provided food, shelter, and better education for its people for years had it done the same. It is interesting that there was no outcry by the left against the conditions forced upon South Africans by sanctions. Perhaps that was because that country's leadership was not so evil as to oppress its people while denying itself nothing under the terms of the sanctions, as Saddam's thuggish government does.
- If Saddam is allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, will he be more, or less, likely to intimidate his neighbors and threaten Israel with destruction while daring the US and its allies to act? Will his children be safer if we do nothing?
- If decisive steps had been taken in the 90s to stop North Korea--destroying or forcing the destruction of its reactors and nuclear facilities while providing funds to build replacement power generation systems--would we be facing the threat to our interests and our allies in the Far East today? Some might call this the "pay me now, or pay me later" decision.
- I agree with Jerry Pournelle, who says that we should build some "monuments" in the Middle East that show the extent of our power to act as a reminder of our willingness to meet force--whether by armies or terrorists--with overwhelming force. Those monuments should contain a statement that we have no designs on territory and that we are willing to leave them alone as long as they do not export their war to our shores, to our citizens living abroad, and/or to the borders of our allies.
- Unfortunately, despite the paranoia of druggies everywhere, "the man" doesn't have spies everywhere. Our human intelligence assets were depleted in the 70s and further drained under Clinton. Finding Iraq's buried weapons requires feet on the street as well as electronic snooping. But one thing is already apparent: the inspectors aren't able to find the items they found--artillery shells filled with gas agents, manufacturing equipment, etc.--that they found prior to 1998. That's the "baseline" issue that Blix referred to in his full comments that were aired last week by news agencies that reported more than the "money quote". Is the gun beginning to smoke a bit, Sean?
- Scott Ritter is a punk, and a disgrace to the Marine Corps. He took money from an Iraqi stooge to fund his lecture tour. His absence from the airwaves is an indication that even the press find his conversion from hawk to dove spurious.
- If Iraq is polluting the Tigris with 500,000 gallons of sewage a day and can't afford to repair its infrastructure to provide safe water for its people, please ask Saddam about the money he's using for the purposes mentioned in my first point above. Of course, Saddam has already shown his environmental credentials back when he had the Kuwaiti oil wells blown up. Quite a clean up project that was, run by mostly American firms. Made a nice IMAX movie that would be worth your time to watch. Maybe we'll help the people of Iraq rebuild after the war as we helped the Germans and Japanese after WWII, the war my father fought in. What was your comment in the interview? "Probably would have fought in -- would aspire to be able to say I would have fought in World War II. ".

Hoo-rah.