Never mind his first amendment rights, or whether or not he broke the military's rules.

Here's what bothers me: He served honorably (I presume) in the military and was given an honorable discharge. Now they want to change his discharge AFTER THE FACT.

That's what galls me: After the fact. You can fine him, throw him in jail, do whatever you think is necessary since he apparently broke a rule. But you can't change his discharge status if he served honorably.

After being used like cardboard cutouts to form an artificially supportive background for Bush and The Dick, a veterans organization finally stood up for something other than the necessity to create more disabled veterans. glory be, there might still be hope for the republic yet. But scant hope it is, since the dipshit VFW commander couldn't just support the Marine combat vet. He just had to say he disagreed with him - or with anyone trying to stop the killing in Iraq.

When I was being actively recruited by the Legion and VFW following combat service in Vietnam, I recall a proviso in the by-laws of both organizations that prohibited the wearing of your Legion or VFW paraphernalia for political purposes. Apparently that rule has gone by the wayside. The current occupant has only two slam-dunk supportive audiences left to use as props in his "incite and inflame" speeches and one of those audiences is prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice from heckling.

But the real question here is when did a honorable discharge become a subjective decision? The Marine served in combat (Mr. President, that's when the evil doers shoot back). He didn't shirk his duty. He just got fed up with that duty. Now, the Crotch wants a "do-over" on his discharge because of how he feels as a civilian? Then some Pentago chairborne ranger might as well start the proceedings on changing my discharge. Rather than lead a million troops in war, I'd rather died alone, for peace.

Anyone who served in a war and survived will eventually realize the uselessness of those undertakings, especially if they are caused by people who evaded serving in combat or serving at all. Seeing an AWOL artist like George W. Bush appearing in the guise of a "heroic" pilot on an aircraft carrier makes a mockery out of those serving or having served in combat. I sure as hell share the opinion of the Sergeant . But why go after him? Is not the actor/decider/ and whatever else he wants to be, just as guilty? I for one am happy to be out of uniform, had to wear it long enough and seen too many of my comrades not making it home. War is hell. And if one looks at the records of those starting the present disaster of aggression, amazingly most of them never even wore a unifotm. All under the old motto: Do as I say , not as I do.

I just spent two days in a Veterans Hospital. For the record, the care was AAA excellent. My roommate, who also has cardiac issues, was an Omaha Beach veteran.

I saw him watching FOX News, and my being of the ilk that I had just marched on the Pentagon, I approached him warily.

Imagine my joy and surprise when he said that the cartoonish GOP bagman Sean Hannity made his blood boil.

His summary of Bush and Iraq was resignedly profound and bespoke his witness of slaughter as a youth..

"I simply do not see how killing other humans ultimately benefits the human race. There has to be a better way", he said.

I seem to remember George Bush "impersonating in full flight regalia" an airman on the deck of an aircraft carrier followed by another "impersonation" of what makes a great leader: Honesty...

While we're on the subject of antiwar protests here ... Does anyone remember that woman whose son was killed in Iraqnam, who traveled from California to Crawford to try to meet the president to talk about it and was turned away? I think it was a couple years ago. And if I remember correctly, Salon wrote tens of thousands of words about her -- quite a few lead stories -- as the leader of the grassroots protest movement. And in the ensuing months, a lot of politicians and journalists and other prominent "liberals" improved their images by standing behind her. Well, feeling discouraged and let down and left behind by the people she counted on -- and after the congressional Democrats laid down at the feet of Bush -- she "resigned" as the face of the movement on Memorial Day and went home to regain her life. And you folks at Salon, an alleged bastion of left-leaning journalism, couldn't find room for one solitary word this week on -- what was her name again?

"It's the political activity that is prohibited, not the type of event that it was," Lapan said. "If it had been a pro-war rally, it would still have been a violation."

Yeah, right. I'm sure.

Saintzac, At risk of repeating myself for the 20th time on Salon, it's obvious you don't know how military families vote or how they think. Do you? You make a big mistake if you think that the vast majority of enlisted ranks and commissioned officers are Republicans. Military people are not free to express themselves -- enlisted ranks are freer than officers to express opinions, but that doesn't mean there are not subtle ways the military can make their lives miserable. In the case of officers, upon accepting their commission, they swear that they will refrain from criticizing anyone in the chain of command all the way up to the president under penalty of court marshal.

I've been there, I know. When you live on a crappy army base in Georgia or Texas or Colorado your whole life is scrutinized. If you let anybody know you are a Democrat there are a thousand ways the military can make you pay a price for it. Perhaps you are thinking that voting records indicate a majority of Republicans in the military. What would you register as, a Democrat or a Republican, knowing that your commanding officer has access to county voter registration records? Surely you are not naive enough to believe absentee ballots from soldiers in Iraq are actually secret ballots like they are supposed to be, do you? It's easy for a commanding officer to see how an enlisted man has voted.

I refer you to m. nuckolls who wrote "Military folk are more complex than you think." Amen to that!

And again I recommend to all Salonians that if they are truly interested in what's on the minds of ordinary enlisted ranks, they should get a subscription to, or borrow copies of the Military Times Publishing Group, including The Army Times, the Marine Times, The Navy Times and/or The Air Force Times. These publications are independent of the military, not endorsed by the military, and are often a thorn in the side to the DoD and the Department of Veterans Affairs. You'll find plenty of stories critical of the way things are done in the military.

But if a civilian who is predisposed to hating the military reads these publications, they are going to be disappointed if they think they are going to read a left wing diatribe. Military people survive on pride as much as anything else. They can be very critical of the system among themselves. But they are not about to take any criticism about their service from those who have not worn the uniform. They have a job to do and they are proud of it.