I have opened a Yahoo! e-mail account as I have discovered that the free Blogger does not support Comments. If you would like to take the time to comment, please do so.
Preferably, your comments will be reasoned and thoughtful. "Teenagers-in-adult-bodies" or freepers needn't bother. I will not respond to you.
The address is: gmontjr@yahoo.com

My last post may leave the impression that I feel that no one who skipped military service is qualified to oversee the military or initiate military action. A recent essay by Christopher Hitchens took issue with the term 'chickenhawk' and implied that usage of that term meant that civilians with no military service should not oversee the Armed Forces. It most certainly does not.
The term 'chickenhawk' applies to those persons who most vocally and enthusiastically support the use of our armed forces when other means have not yet been tried or those means are not given a real chance to work.
In the case of Iraq, the use of force is touted as the best tactic, rather than the one of last resort. That is stupid and reflects the 'cowboy' mentality prevalent in the Bushie Cartel. Like it or not, we as one of many nations on this planet, must play by the rules as defined by the U.N. Most of those bellicose individuals are probably emotionally-stunted. They were born to privilege or acheived early success and told themselves 'Hey, I got this life-stuff down pat' and stopped growing. They are teenagers in adult bodies, using temper tantrums, name-calling, and various other primitive behaviors as their way of getting through life.

Here is a copy of the letter that I'm sending to the various news media listed on Take Back The Media.

Dear Sirs/Madams,

Speaking as a Viet Nam veteran, I would like to know why the media are beating the war drums for the Bush administration.
Are our soldiers' lives that cheap, that we can throw them away as we did in Viet Nam?
The chickenhawks in this un-elected government avoided service in Viet Nam:

Bush hid out in the reserves - a well-known dodge in that time.

VP Cheney - several deferments, the last by marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than military service")

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Majority Whip Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve. "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself."

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - sought deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State

Jeb Bush, Florida Governor - did not serve.

Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve

"B-1" Bob Dornan - avoided Korean War combat duty by enrolling in college acting classes (Orange County Register article)

Phil Gramm - avoided the draft, did not serve, four (?) student deferments

Are these the Republicans that are tough on defense?
Am I to believe that these sad sacks are qualified to over-rule Pentagon brass and attack Iraq? Oh, please!

George A. Montgomery Jr.
USMC, 2/69 - 6/75

This is my first post to this web log. It really doesn't seem like such a good idea when I actually have to sit down and type the words. What seems perfectly lucid and reasonable in my head is difficult to express verbally or in writing.
However, I must add my own small voice, a voice of dissent. From my reading of the various winger blogs out there, disapproval of any of the Bush-team proposals, foreign or domestic, is tantamount to treason. Any thinking person realizes that is rubbish. Each and every one of us has a responsibility to think and act on what he or she believes to be the most moral choice. Rarely should we ever accept uncritically the pronouncements of authority or be spoon-fed what's right or wrong. One of my favorite authors, M. Scott Peck, says '...the path to holiness (ed. morality) lies in questioning everything...'
I am firmly opposed to the headlong rush to war against Iraq. To keep silent is to give tacit approval to the killing of innocents (collateral damage?) and the needless sacrifice of our soldiers (and the "enemy's", many of them are just regular joes, conscripted or enlisted).
That is why the war-mongers are so upset with dissenting voices. Their actions are being called into question. How dare a nobody such as myself call into question the policies of the president? What do I know about running a country or the reasons for waging a war? What gives a movie actor the right to protest?
I believe that by these objections the wingers show a contempt for the freedoms fought for by our forefathers. What the right seems to desire is a lockstep populace, a sort of pre-World War II Germany, with the masses proclaiming the glory of the Fatherland and it's virtuous leader. (Whew! I might be getting carried away here.)