It’s pretty clear that the protestors should demand that the American Legion’s right to protest the protest of the war should be taken away.
Well, Nixon ended (or effectively ended, if one wants to nitpick) American involvement, which I guess is close enough.
That’s Malcolm X, right? To be fair, the quote in the article is “by any means at his disposal.” Not exactly the same thing. When the American Legion starts channeling Malcolm X we will officially be down the rabbit hole.
I agree that they are idiots for claiming that protesting against the war is “endangering the lives” of our troops.
Don’t forget the cherry on top of that irony sundae:
As pointed out, the American Legion had a different attitude (regarding sending U.S. troops to war) when President Clinton was in office. The last couple of years (and especially since the 2004 election), I’ve been hearing an amazing number of statements that boil down to two insane, idiotic, un-American principles:
-
Once a president takes us to war, it’s somehow treasonable to ask hard questions about that war until it’s over.
-
Simply being elected wipes out any further requirement for accountability on the part of a president.
At first I thought it was only a few crackpots, but apparently this shit is being spewed every day on talk radio. I’ve been trying to imagine the people who actually believe this stuff applying the same logic to past presidents. The second one, especially, since by logical extension it means that no president has ever been accountable for anything (except the ones who inherited the job, and then only for the remainder of that term).
I think Saigon was taken by the North Vietnamese Army.
No, I’m pretty sure it was taken be the Viet Cong. I to this day remember the devastation caused to the U.S. Embassy by those rolling barrels . . . .
Charmingly naive.
Not totally off-topic:
If only Congress had approved more funds for hammers and bouncing stars.
The American Legion-- IIRC back in 1988 the American Legion cheered chickhawk Dan Quayle and booed war hero Lloyd Bentsen at that years national convention.
I think you are confusing it with the Tet Offensive. It was the PAVN that captured Saigon in 1975. The VC never recovered from their losses in the Tet Offensive.
Snippy remarks don’t change the facts. The anti-war protests may have been symptomatic of a loss in public support for the war, but they were a fringe phenomena. Nixon and Kissinger were the ones who actually planned and executed the strategy that lead to the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
My own judgement is that the American Legion has become largely irrelevant. Judging from the local post and the few I am acquainted with, its membership is largely aging, ill tempered WWII vets and a few Korean War vets. The Vietnam Veterans, its potential members from my generation, stayed away in droves. The guys from the so-called Liberation of Grenada and Panama, Gulf One and the present foreign adventure can’t make up much of the membership. I’d just chalk the whole outfit up as a great circle jerk of 70, 80 and 90 years olds who have been Colonel Blimp types ever since V-J Day. Now that we have with liquor-by-the drink and gambling casinos the Americaln Legion has lost its main social function and it exists only as an astro-turf mouth piece for the more-patriotic-than-thou wing of the old country club GOP.
Maybe when Eisenhower was running for President it had some political clout, but is certainly doesn’t have much anymore. We can all regard our selves as fortunate that the AL’s deceleration did not have a preface about not spending sixty days on the beach at Anzio so that a bunch of limp wristed pinkos could run the country.
Let’s face it. If the AL had any guts or any principles the “Swift Boat Liars” would not have lasted five minutes.
From Squink’s link (to the AL web site):
"and to engage whatever means necessary to ensure the united support of the American people. "
Now, if you will just pick up the bottle labeled “Drink me”…
My dad was Legionnaire. I am not.
They lost me when they supported arresting soldiers if they kissed someone of the wrong sex.
All they are is a bar, and not a very friendly one at that.
I say take it head on, seize the bull by the tail and face the situation.
It is entirely possible that war protests offer a form of aid and comfort to the enemy. Of course. How could it be otherwise?
There are a number of weaknesses that are inherent in a democratic governance, as opposed to the strength of unity of autocracy. One of them is that the all of the people can, indeed, be fooled some of the time. Or enough of them can be fooled so that disastrous and chuckle-witted persons and policies will be approved.
Another of those weaknesses is enemies, both real and potential, can readily observe any lack of unity. This creates a military weakness that hampers our strategic impact.
But political activism is the very essence of democracy, to peaceably assemble to demand a redress of greivances. To dissent is to be American, to seek the oppression of dissent is UnAmerican. If we are willing to surrender our hard-won rights for fear of an enemy, we might as well lay down our arms as well, we will have nothing to fight for, we will no longer be Americans. I’m a Tom Paine patriot, I believe in rousing the rabble, in speaking truth to power, and chuck the buggers out if they won’t listen!
If tolerating dissent weakens us militarily, so be it. Democracy ain’t for sissies.
I hardly think that Walter Cronkite could be considered “fringe.”
No, there was a “fringe” element in the beginning. But it wasn’t a fringe group that kept LBJ from running for another term. The nation became very deeply divided over the war.
I would make a distinction between the group that actively participated in anti-war demonstrations, and the much larger group that was opposed to, or ambivalent about, the war.
I was an active participant in many of those demonstrations.
No question that Saigon was PWNED, but I think it was the Cong.
mks57 - Because you missed my original joke, and because you’ve been pleasant and patient in trying to get me to see the light, I’ll break the joke and let you know I agree with you. I was just making a stupid video game joke
The wikipedia article says that Saigon fell to the NVA. I found a contemporaneous AP article which says that Duong Van Minh surrendered Saigon to the VC. Any reason both the NVA and the VC couldn’t have been involved?