Mrs. Chapman's words are in black; my comments are in red below. 

I’m here tonight because men and women of the United States military have given their lives for my freedom. 
Actually she is able to be there in the specific way she was because of our form of government, our cultural values (including "liberal" values about women's rights to vote, hold public office, and speak at public forums), and because the military had enough survivors and enough resources to win wars against those who might not have let her be there. But in any country, those protected by the military or other forces are able to give public addresses.  So no matter who had won past wars we have fought, she, or someone like her, might have been able to be making a public speech there on that night, even one very similar to the one she gave, only it might be in a different language or under a different form of government. The freedom to make a speech does not necessarily mean its contentions are justified, that the form of government which permits it is a good one, or that the military or police power that insures it is a benevolent one. In this case, I will try to show her contentions in this speech are neither justified nor even reasonable.

But more importantly, as General Patton said, though in a more colorful way, you do not win battles by giving up your life; you win battles by making the enemy give up his life.  Death and risk of death is a necessary evil in most war, but it is not what wins wars, and it is not what justifies wars.  Nor does it justify any particular battle or action in even a just war.  There have been battles that were disasters by flawed design from the beginning, and the deaths in those battles did not further the cause of the country fighting them.  And one would not have been unpatriotic to try to prevent those battles from being fought.  On the contrary, it would have done our troops a great service to have been able to prevent them from being sent to their deaths for no useful purpose.

I am not here tonight because Sheryl Crowe, Rosie O’Donnell, Jane Fonda, Martin Sheen, the Dixie Chicks, Barbra Streisand, George Clooney or Phil Donahue, sacrificed their lives for me. 
True, but so what? You are also not there because George Bush or Harry Truman or George Washington or Ronald Reagan sacrificed their lives for you either. It is not sacrifice of one's life that makes one's ideas be true or false, reasonable or unreasonable, wise or foolish, right or wrong.

If my memory serves me correctly, it was not movie stars or musicians, but the United States Military who fought on the shores of Iwo Jima the jungles of Vietnam, and the beaches of Normandy. 
Although there were some movie stars who served in the military during wars, it is true that it is the military normally that fights for a country, not the film industry, though the film industry normally supports war efforts such as WWII in various ways that are not insignificant.  But it was also not an association of state auditors that fought on the shores of Iwo Jima, the jungles of Vietnam, and the beaches of Normandy either. So if only those from organizations which fought in previous battles should be allowed to talk about war or be heeded with respect, she should not be speaking either, or should not be accorded any credibility.

Tonight, I say we should support the President of the United States and the U.S. military and tell the liberal, tree-hugging, hippy, Birkenstock wearing, tie-dyed liberals to go make their movies and music and whine somewhere else. 
This is three different things all portrayed as one action: supporting the military, supporting the President, and telling liberals to go elsewhere.  It presumes that liberals don't support the military or that supporting the military means cheering them on to battle, whether the battle or war is just or justified or not.  It also assumes that supporting the President of the United States (no matter who is President) means supporting the President's policies no matter what they are. That is not part of our Constitution, nor does it constitute part of the makeup of our society.  We believe in freedom of speech about public policies.  And freedom of speech does not mean banishing those who do not support a President or even a majority position.  It would hardly be freedom of speech if it could only be used to support what the majority already believes.  And there would be no point in freedom of speech if that were what it meant. Freedom of agreement is not freedom of speech.

After all, if they lived in Iraq , they wouldn’t be allowed the freedom of speech they’re being given here today - - ironically, they would be put to death at the hands of Sadam Husssein or Osama Bin Laden. 
So they should not be allowed to speak here either?  Or does she mean that if one is blessed with a government that allows freedom of speech, one should not use it to be critical of any government policy, especially if it is about going to war with a government that does not tolerate criticism?

I want to know how the very people who are against war because of the loss of life, can possibly be the same people who are for abortion? 
On the surface it is probably in the same way that those who think life is the most valuable thing can urge 19 year olds to risk their lives in war that is not just about self-defense. And it is in the same way those who are "pro-life" can also agree with Patrick Henry when he said "give me liberty or give me death." There are other values besides creating and preserving life, and sometimes those values override the right to life.  This is not the place to go into the complexities of either the abortion issue or issues of what constitutes a just war.  But there are serious, knowledgeable treatises on both, and if Mrs. Chapman really wants to know how one can hold a particular abortion might be right and a particular war or battle wrong, she can read those treatises.  If she only wants to debate opponents who are no more knowledgeable, logical, or reasonable than she is, then that is a different matter.

They are the same people who are for animal rights but against the rights of the unborn. 
Again, there are serious and reasonable treatises on the issue of abortion that talk about which abortions might be justified and why.  And there are serious works about what sorts of rights animals should or should not have. That some people have trivial arguments or no good reason to support abortion or animal rights or to oppose a given war does not mean there is no strong argument available to justify the same conclusions.

Moreover, our society as a whole has pretty much inconsistent values about matters of life and death.  We often claim to hold life to be of ultimate value, but we do not even require people to donate blood (let alone kidneys) to save lives, even of those they may have culpably injured in an automobile accident.  We do not even require dead people to donate their organs to save lives, even though presumably they have no further use for those organs themselves.  I am not saying we should be required to give blood or donate organs.  I am only saying that issues about values in regard to life and death are not as simple or as obvious as Mrs. Chapman seems to think they are.

The movie stars say they want to go to Iraq and serve as human shields for the Iraqis, I say let them buy a one-way ticket and go. 
Her version of "Go ahead and make my day!"  Only Dirty Harry always said it in the right situations, against the person who was actually guilty, and in fact in the midst of committing an evil act at which he has been caught red-handed. 

No one likes war, I hate war. But the one thing I hate more is the fact that this country has been forced into war—innocent people have lost their lives - - and there but for the grace of God, it could have been my brother, my husband, or even worse my own son. 
(I guess that shows her brother and her husband where they stand.)  It is true that innocent people lost their lives in the terribly sad and reprehensible 9/11 attacks, but that does not mean war with Iraq was justified, if Iraq had nothing to do with that attack. It may be that war with Iraq is justified on some grounds or other, such as being a future threat, a supplier of future terrible weapons for attacks against us by others, or an inciter of violence against us, perhaps even for being brutal against its own citizens, but unless there is evidence that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, her reference to the loss of innocent life on that day does not justify our waging war on them for it. It only serves to incite the country into the foreign policy equivalent of a lynching mood.

On December 7, 1941 , there are no records of movie stars treading the blazing waters of Pearl Harbor . 
As above, are their records of state auditors treading those waters?  Again, are only those who were attacked allowed to choose which wars we fight?  Or to talk about which wars we should fight?

On September 11, 2001 ; there are no photos of movie stars standing as human shields against the debris and falling bodies descending from the World Trade Center. There were only policemen and firemen - -underpaid civil servants who gave their all with nothing expected in return. 
Again, it is obvious that a great evil was done by Al Queda September 11, but without evidence of complicity by Iraq, that particular evil does not justify invading Iraq.  Afghanistan was the country, whose government, the Taliban, was harboring the leadership of Al Queda, the organization guilty of the barbarous attack on the World Trade Towers. That justified attacking Afghanistan in order to try to capture or kill the perpetrators of that heinous slaughter of innocent Americans.

I myself think there was at least probable cause for invading Iraq in the name of future security of the U.S., but there does not seem to have been evidence at the time, or yet, that Iraq had any role in the terrible attack on the World Trade Center.  The "movie stars" in question were not trying to protect the perpetrators of 9/11. And talking about their protecting Iraq citizens while not having protected World Trade Tower victims implies they are more concerned about criminals who attacked us than they are about our own innocent victims on that day. That is a misrepresenting implication.  There are, of course, some cases where some liberals are more concerned about criminals than about their victims in certain ways. But that is not necessarily the case here, because Iraq may not have been culpable in the first place in this particular act.

When the USS Cole was bombed, there were no movie stars guarding the ship - - where were the human shields then? 
Same as above.  All this is totally irrelevant.  "Movie stars" didn't know about the planned attack on the USS Cole, and would not likely have been able to thwart it just by their known presence on board.  Presumably they would have tried to stop it if they were there, and may have pitched in to help if they had been there. But you cannot blame anyone for not doing anything to prevent a totally unexpected attack.  The military could easily have thwarted that particular attack, had they known of it or even had any suspicion it might occur in that way.  Doing nothing to prevent something reprehensible you have no knowledge of does not justify doing nothing to prevent something you do know about and think is wrong.

If America’s movie stars want to be human shields, let them shield the gang-ridden streets of Los Angeles, or New York City, let them shield the lives of the children of North Birmingham whose mothers lay them down to sleep on the floor each night to shelter them from stray bullets. 
Being a human shield only works, or is only reasonably attempted, where the people about to shoot have some reverence for innocent life, particularly reverence for the life of the person serving as a shield.  Being a human shield in gang-ridden areas (meaning presumably where people shoot others indiscriminately without compunction) is not a meaningful exercise because it would not likely change the mind of those about to pull the trigger.  Apparently it would not stop Mrs. Chapman from bombing Iraq either, and might even be a further enticement for her.  But the act was intended to try to get sufficient outcry from sensitive citizens to prevent the bombing.

If they want to be human shields, I say let them shield the men and women of honesty and integrity who epitomize courage and embody the spirit of freedom by wearing the proud uniforms of the United States Military. Those are the people who have earned and deserve shielding. 
I think that is generally also part of the intention of trying to prevent a war that is believed to be unnecessary and unjust. It not only protects innocent people from the other side, but it tries to keep our soldiers from having to risk their lives for no necessary or worthwhile purpose. It is not the role of our military to go to war for no good reason.  Just because soldiers are willing to die, does not mean their lives should be sacrificed by errors in the judgment of those in government or in command of them.

Throughout the course of history, this country has remained free, not because of movie stars and liberal activists but because of brave men and women who hated war too - - but lay down their lives so that we all may live in freedom. 
That is true in many cases. But I think there are plenty of soldiers who served in Korea and in Vietnam, and plenty of families of soldiers who died there, who feel that the sacrifice of the fallen was unnecessary and in vain.  The fact that some wars we have fought in were important to our freedom does not mean that just any war is necessary to our freedom.

After all – What greater love hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friend,” but in this case a country. 
This should be, in the way this is phrased in this particular construction: what greater love hath any man, than that he lay down his life for his friend? But the important point is that willingness of soldiers to die for their country does not give the country the right to send them into war indiscriminately or against the wrong alleged enemy.  It does not give the country the right to sacrifice them needlessly or out of revenge against the wrong country.

We should give our military honor and acknowledgement and not let their lives be in vain. 
True, and sacrificing them wrongly or needlessly is to let their deaths be in vain.  And it is not a proper use of their lives to have them wage unjust or needless wars.

 If you want to see true human shields, walk through Arlington Cemetery . There lie human shields, heroes, and the BRAVE Americans who didn’t get on television and talk about being human shields, they were human shields. 
True, but there have been non-military people who have risked their lives to save others.  One does not have to be in the police or fire department or the military to try to save another person's life at some risk to your own. 

I thank God tonight for freedom - - those who bought and paid for it with their lives in the past - - those who will protect it in the present and defend it in the future. 
One might also want to thank God for those who used the military wisely and only in those cases where freedom or some other value worth dying for was at risk.  One would not want to thank God for government's needlessly or wrongly sending brave people into harm's way.  The issue is not about whether soldiers are brave or loving, but whether a particular war requires their courage and love, or whether it squanders it.

America has remained silent too long. God-fearing people have remained silent too long. 
About what? Do God-fearing people wage wars indiscriminately or mistakenly as a virtue?

We must lift our voices united in a humble prayer to God for guidance and the strength and courage to sustain us throughout whatever the future may hold. 
True, but we should also lift up our voices to prevent our country from doing what we think is wrong, when we think it is wrong.  You don't jump off buildings or start unjust wars just because you believe in God.  In seeking divine Providence, one should also be reasonably provident in one's own behavior; it should not be God's work to protect us from our own folly or willful hardness of heart.

After the tragic events of Sept. 11th, my then eleven -year-old son said terrorism is a war against us and them and if you’re not one of us, then you’re one of them. 
I presume this is meant to say that he said it was a war "between" us and them and that if you are not one of us, you are one of them.  But it is simply not true that everyone not on your side in every fight is therefore automatically on the other side. But far more importantly, it is certainly not true that everyone who disagrees with your particular solution or response to any problem is therefore your enemy.  People who risk your enmity and wrath in order to prevent you from making a terrible mistake are sometimes your best friends, not your enemy.  Friends don't let friends start the wrong wars.

So in closing tonight, let us be of one accord, let us stand proud, and let us be the human shields of prayer, encouragement and support for the President, our troops and their families and our country. 
If any President wages an unjust or unnecessary war, it is impossible to support the troops and their families by supporting that President's policy.  That is the issue here. It is not a question whether those who are against unjust or needless war hate or disrespect soldiers. Sometimes those who oppose a given war are saving the lives of their own soldiers and are showing more respect for their lives.

Moreover, if we were to truly support our military, we would increase their pay to a decent wage, we would take care of their families while they are gone (as some communities do by giving free services or reduced rates for products and services where possible), and we would give them the health care they need when they return, instead of denying they caught any disease or chemically induced syndrome while they were serving on our behalf in a foreign land.  It is not much support and it is very little patriotism simply to wave flags and cheer other people's sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives on to risk their lives, even when the cause is just.

May God bless America, the land of the free, the home of the brave and the greatest country on the face of this earth! 
A great country should use its power wisely and responsibly.  It should not only seek God's blessing, but, through its behavior and intentions, deserve God's blessing by acting justly and rightly, and with great care. 

Finally, the issue here, in this essay, is not whether the war in Iraq is justified or not. There are two issues here. The first is that those who counsel against it are not automatically our enemy and do not deserve our ridicule and enmity for speaking out.  The second is that passionate speech is not thereby wise, fair, or even reasonable  speech.