A slight faux pas on the part of the American Legion

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
Gee. Note any contradictions here?


Two quotes on conflict by the American Legion:


Editor & Publisher
American Legion Declares War on Protestors
August 24, 2005

"The American Legion will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples," Thomas Cadmus, national commander, told delegates at the group's national convention in Honolulu" . . . "We had hoped that the lessons learned from the Vietnam War would be clear to our fellow citizens. Public protests against the war here at home while our young men and women are in harm's way on the other side of the globe only provide aid and comfort to our enemies."

-------------------------------

American Legion
Letter to President Clinton
May 5, 1999

Dear Mr. President:
The American Legion, a wartime veterans organization of nearly three-million members, urges the immediate withdrawal of American troops participating in "Operation Allied Force.''

The National Executive Committee of The American Legion, meeting in Indianapolis today, adopted Resolution 44, titled "The American Legion's Statement on Yugoslavia.'' This resolution was debated and adopted unanimously.

Mr. President, the United States Armed Forces should never be committed to wartime operations unless the following conditions are fulfilled:

That there be a clear statement by the President of why it is in our vital national interests to be engaged in hostilities;

Guidelines be established for the mission, including a clear exit strategy;
That there be support of the mission by the U.S. Congress and the American people; and

That it be made clear that U.S. Forces will be commanded only by U.S. officers whom we acknowledge are superior military leaders.

It is the opinion of The American Legion, which I am sure is shared by the majority of Americans, that three of the above listed conditions have not been met in the current joint operation with NATO ("Operation Allied Force'').

In no case should America commit its Armed Forces in the absence of clearly defined objectives agreed upon by the U.S. Congress in accordance with Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States.

Sincerely,
Harold L. "Butch'' Miller,
National Commander





(Note too that no American forces were killed in "Operation Allied Force.")


Regards,


Steve
 

DngrRuss

Orange Belt
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
99
Reaction score
9
This is just typical of both sides of the aisle. Reps are just more venomous about it.

It's ok as long as the guy I voted for is in office. If my party does it, it must be right. If the other guy does it, it's unAmerican.

Just politics as usual. Or is it just human nature.

And they wonder why I drink.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,752
Reaction score
187
It can also be looked at as a contrast on how the average veteran viewed Bush versus Clinton. For better or worse, the American legion has tended to give Bush more of a benefit of the doubt than it gave Clinton, who many of it's members viewed as a political opportunist.

That isn't to say that they weren't, in hindsight, wrong on Yugoslavia, as were many conservatives. Clinton did not take us to war there to cover up scandal, as they claimed. What Clinton did was what needed to be done, as is what we are doing now.
 

DngrRuss

Orange Belt
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
99
Reaction score
9
A positive post about Clinton? Be careful Sgtmac. You might have to turn in your Liberals Suck Club membership card.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,752
Reaction score
187
DngrRuss said:
A positive post about Clinton? Be careful Sgtmac. You might have to turn in your Liberals Suck Club membership card.
You should read all my posts, you might find than i'm not the pure political ideologue some might claim. In reality, had 9/11 happened on Clinton's watch, I don't see his military response being much different.

I'm not sure any reasonable president, in the face of 9/11, would have responded far differently than Bush has, to include, to some greater or lesser extent, Iraq. I believe Clinton would have responded aggressively, but I believe he would have gotten more of a free ride from left.

Honestly, in reality, had Clinton presided over 9/11, it might be conservatives attacking this war and leftists supporting Clinton and the war. That would be an interesting twist, wouldn't it?
 
Top