LT Smash asks "why should I boycott actors, or musicians, just because they oppose what I’m doing?" Good question, I guess. I think back to the music I listened to back in the Big 80's. It isn't all that hard to figure out the politics of The Communards, and Morrissey wanted Margaret on the Guillotine. I still like Sinead O'Connor's early stuff (didn't she quit music before, anyway?), and Bono still rocks. And I listened to that stuff when I was at West Point.

And the 80's stuff makes Romy and Michele a cool movie, even with Janeane Garofalo.

I wouldn't buy a Dixie Chicks album in the first place, and don't watch The West Wing, and don't like most of the things Susan Sarandon is in (but I think The Shawshank Redemption is still a great film, even after you know the ending).

So I'd have to agree with LT Smash. I want these people to speak out. It lets us know who the morons are. And they can learn about opinions, too. Like I think there is a lot of airbrushing going on here. I mean A LOT. On one of them, anyway.

With a slew of new posts.

I'm thinking that at some level, just like James Taranto, blaster gets results!

A new post at No Replacement for Displacement. Makes a good point on perp walks - we need to see these Ba'athists surrounded by beefy Marines with big guns, and holding their heads down in shame as they get pulled in. Kinda like that lovely picture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed - a reminder to the rest of the baddies out there, we got something for you.

Work makes the blogging go in stutters sometimes. So I click through my blogroll and find folks who haven't posted in a couple of weeks. Like tacitus. And No Replacement for Displacement - where MT plays a dirty trick since there are no posts this month. Just wondering.

A meme is a contagious idea, a fancy word for what some call "pack journalism" for the Big Media (with their editors and all!). Like the "Neocons planning to take over the world" meme. A meme of the moment is "How come Colin Powell isn't getting slammed?" The impetus for this is Newt Gingrich's speech yesterday at the American Enterprise Institute. In that speech, Gingrich never mentions Colin Powell by name, and only once to the Secretaty of State as a position. Yet, the meme is, Powell is a Teflon Man, never accountable for his tragic mistakes. 1 2 (Okay, 2 might be slim for a meme. Keep looking for it.)

I think this is just an extension of the neo-con meme, though. While I think the "neo-con" cabal business is just plain wrong, there is a philosophical divide between people within the administration, and there does appear to be a coalescing of folks around Powell and Rumsfeld on either side of that divide. Since Gingrich is on the Policy Review Board for Defense, some read his speech as an outrider making a criticism that the principal, Rumsfeld, cannot make for himself in public. Because, you know, the Policy Review Board is a haven for neo-cons, and it is how they exercise their control over Rumsfeld, and by extension, the President, in getting their way on ruling the world. A lot of folks seem to be reading a lot into this speech by the former speaker. I am seeing and hearing the point made that criticism of Powell is tantamount to criticizing the President - heard it on Laura Ingraham's show last night, and an unnamed official said it in the Post yesterday.

There is also the possibility that it isn't all a big conspiracy. That people in Washington may actually say what they think. Gingrich has been pilloried for doing just that in the past. Or, perhaps, instead of assigning an inimical intent, they are what were called in Clinton days "trial ballons," where ideas are floated before the public in a way that is unaccountable to the administration, and public opinion can be gauged. Back then, it was thought to be very clever, but that of course would clash with the "George Bush is a moron" meme.

I think that the Teflon meme, though, does a disservice to Colin Powell. It says that he is getting a pass for criticism because the doves think he is one of them, or more insidiously, as a form of affirmative action (though race never kept Justice Thomas from criticism). I think that Colin Powell is a good soldier, in all the meanings of that term, and that he is working to what he thinks is best, and to what the President wants him to do. As Powell once joked, the President told him "Republicans want me to fire you, Democrats think you should resign. That's just where I want you to be."

It also distracts from the real issues - Gingrich wasn't launching a Rummy v. Powell salvo, but an actual critique of what is going on within the State Department, which is certainly bigger and more permanent than the transient Secretary of State. There is a need for change there, and turning that into a petty squabble between personalities belittles the argument. I think the meme needs to change from the focus on Secretary Powell (in other words, it isn't about whether he is Teflon or weak), to a focus on what State is and does. Now that is the infection I would like to spread.

What we know as the "McCarthy era" is so ingrained into us that I don't know that we'll ever correct history on it. It is a hard thing, defending McCarthy, because he was a lot of the bad things that those who opposed him said he was. And of course, the Left will never forgive him, because even though he was cruel and reckless, he was also right. He exposed the Communists that riddled the State Department. But it was a Pyrrhic victory, because now those who "bravely stood up to the blacklist" are honored as heroes, and the name of the man who tried to ferret out the security risks within our government is practically an epithet.

Jill Serjeant of Reuters wrote that Hollywood actors raise McCarthyism specter on Iraq. It contains this paragraph:

SAG said suggestions that "well-known individuals who express 'unacceptable' views should be punished by losing their right to work" was a "shocking development" which recalled the 1950s House Committee on Un-American Activities under Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Now wasn't that Glenn Reynolds who got asked about how bloggers get by without editors? Why yes! It was. One might think that something as obviously wrong as saying that a Senator was running a House committee would be, well, obviously wrong. But there it is. The error in history that we will never fix. Because McCarthy never went after Hollywood. His targets were the State Department, and fatally, the Department of the Army.

HUAC did go after Hollywood. The Hollywood 10 were jailed for contempt of Congress, for failing to answer whether they belonged to the Communist Party (they all did) before the committee in 1947 and 1948. McCarthy made his famous speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, in 1950. And yet, it is McCarthyism that they decry.

UPDATE: I know, I should have titled this entry Exhuming McCarthy.

For those who made the argument that we should do nothing about Iraq because North Korea is a much bigger, much more dangerous threat, the SecDef has something for you:

A secret Donald Rumsfeld memorandum calling for regime change in North Korea was leaked yesterday, opening a fresh foreign policy split in the Bush administration.

The classified discussion paper, circulated by the defence secretary, appears to cut directly across State Department plans to disarm Kim Jong-il, the North's dictator, through threats leavened by promises that his regime is not a target for overthrow.

You would think that the "North Korea is a bigger threat" crowd would applaud this development, but I am just going to guess that they won't

Though I will also guess that this is like a lot of the "secrets" that made their way to the front pages of big time newspapers - not exactly true.

I'm a flappy bird.

Now its honor making a comeback (spotted at Instapundit). I guess for the pessimistic, honor means nothing crowd, W is the worst President ever.

I made this point over in the comments on a thread over at Patrick Ruffini's. The latest fad among the capital "L" Left is to point out the neocon cabal, with a "secret plan" to take over and democratize the Middle East. First of all, its not like that's a bad idea. And of course you can read in our National Security Strategy, which is on the White House website (not exactly secret), the following paragraph:

Finally, the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe.We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world. The events of September 11, 2001, taught us that weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states. Poverty does not make poor people into terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their borders.

I guess right now, the highest profile proponent of the "secret plan" theory is Josh Marshall, who says that he doesn't say that it's a secret plan, just a massive Presidential deception. Whatever.

So I would ask Marshall, and Paul Kennedy, about Public Law 105-338 (PDF). The short title of that law is "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." Here is the summary of the law: "Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."

1998. Hmmm. If it is a Public Law, your civics lessons should have taught you that this requires the signature of the President. In 1998, the President, as we should well remember, was Bill Clinton. But the Congress had been siezed by the Republicans at the time, surely the neocons steamrolled him, right? Well, according to the roll call vote in the House, 157 Democrats and 1 Independent (that would be Bernie Sanders, socialist from Vermont) voted Yea. In the Senate, it was voted under unanimous consent, which essentially means noone opposed. Senator Bob Kerrey (not to be confused with Senator John Kerry) said of the bill:

This bill, when passed and signed into law, is a clear commitment to a U.S. policy replacing the Saddam Hussein regime and replacing it with a transition to democracy. This bill is a statement that America refuses to coexist with a regime which has used chemical weapons on its own citizens and on neighboring countries, which has invaded its neighbors twice without provocation, which has still not accounted for its atrocities committed in Kuwait, which has fired ballistic missiles into the cities of three of its neighbors, which is attempting to develop nuclear and biological weapons, and which has brutalized and terrorized its own citizens for thirty years. I don't see how any democratic country could accept the existence of such a regime, but this bill says America will not. I will be an even prouder American when the refusal, and commitment to materially help the Iraqi resistance, are U.S. policy.

So if this democracy in the Middle East deal is a neocon cabal, Bill Clinton is in on it. Now that is one heck of a conspiracy.

UPDATE: I guess it is true that great minds think alike. Patrick Ruffini tracks down some Democrats neoconning Syria.

While everyone else was busy with the war, Burt Rutan - look at the picture, who else could it be - plans to launch a private space venture. Now that is the kind of optimism I am talking about. In the face of a war on terrorism, a Space Shuttle disaster, and a still bumpy economy, someone just plunges forward toward the future, expecting that things will be better. Thank you Mr. Rutan.

Spotted at Winds of Change. And, no, the gratuitous plane pics are not designed to steal traffic from Political Lomcevak - even though his front page doesn't have any....

A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said. And there is more. It is hard to tell how much of the story told by the scientist is true, and whether it applies to any part of the program beyond the one he worked in, but the precursor materials are evidence of 1) a program to develop WMD and 2) in violation of the UNSC resolutions. I expect we'll see more of this in the coming weeks.

Spotted in The Corner.

My mother-in-law brought me a translation of Sun-Tzu's Art of War and said, "you should read this, it exactly explains the war in Iraq." I was familiar with Sun-Tzu, but hadn't read the text, which is surprisingly short. And she was right. I guess those CNN generals should have picked up on this.

When doing battle, seek a quick victory.

A protracted battle will blunt weapons and dampen ardor.

If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

If the army is exposed to a prolonged campaign, the nation's resources will not suffice.

When weapons are blunted, and ardor dampened, strength exhausted, and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications.

Then even the wisest of counsels would not be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

Therefore, I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted.

No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare.

---

Therefore, one who is skilled in warfare principles subdues the enemy without doing battle, takes the enemy's walled city without attacking, and overthrows the enemy quickly, without protracted warfare.

---

To march over a thousand li without becoming distressed, march over where the enemy is not present.

---

Therefore, your strategy for victories in battle is not repetitious, and your formations in response to the enemy are endless.

The army's formation is like water.

The water's formation avoids the high and rushes to the low.

So an army's formation avoids the strong and rushes to the weak.

Water's formation adapts to the ground when flowing.

So then an army's formation adapts to the enemy to achieve victory.

---

Therefore, the army is established on deception, mobilized by advantage, and changed through dividing up and consolidating the troops.

Therefore, it advances like the wind;

it marches like the forest;

it invades and plunders like fire;

it stands like the mountain;

it is formless like the dark;

it strikes like thunder.

Therefore, an army does not have constant force, or have constant formation.

Those who are able to adapt and change in accord with the enemy and achieve victory are called divine

---

The essential factor in warfare is speed.

To take advantage of the enemy's lack of preparation, take unexpected routes to attack where the enemy is not prepared.

Generally, the Way of invading is when one has penetrated deep into enemy ground, the troops are united;

the defender will not be able to prevail.

---

If one then concentrates his strength on the enemy, killing his general a thousand li away, this is called achieving objectives through wit and skill.

---

What enables the enlightened rulers and good generals to conquer the enemy at every move and achieve extraordinary success is foreknowledge.

Foreknowledge cannot be elicited from ghosts and spirits;

it cannot be inferred from comparison of previous events, or from the calculations of the heavens, but must be obtained from people who have knowledge of the enemy's situation

I thought we had hashed this business out 140 or so years ago. This may be a good reason to revisit it. "Berkeley isn't America, and neither is San Francisco or Oakland." Spotted in The Corner.