Posted on 12/03/2006 2:59:56 PM PST by T-Bird45
The national commander of the American Legion never served in Vietnam although he describes himself as a "Vietnam veteran," a newspaper reported Sunday.
Paul A. Morin, who was elected Aug. 31 to a one-year term as commander of the nation's largest veterans organization, spent his time in the Army from 1972 to 1974 at Fort Dix, N.J., The Boston Sunday Globe reported.
Neither the federal government nor the 2.7 million-member American Legion makes a formal distinction between veterans who served in Vietnam and those known as "Vietnam-era" veterans.
"I am a Vietnam veteran," Morin, of Chicopee in western Massachusetts, told the newspaper. His biography on the Legion's Web site also describes Morin as a "Vietnam veteran of the US Army."
The Legion's top spokesman, Joe March, backed Morin's position. He said any current service member stationed in the United States at present could claim to be an Iraq war veteran.
But former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia said Morin's claim may undercut the credibility of veterans groups that fight for Congressional funding of veterans' programs.
"For the national commander of the American Legion, who never even served in the Vietnam theater, to call himself a Vietnam veteran is a lie," said Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm during combat in Vietnam, and who has been a Legion member since 1969.
Thomas G. Kelley, the Massachusetts secretary of veterans affairs and also a Vietnam veteran, said Morin is misleading people.
"When someone says he is a Vietnam veteran, it means he served in the theater of the war," Kelley said.
Before his national campaign, Morin was a ranking member of the Legion's state office and was described on its Web site as a Vietnam-era veteran who was stationed in New Jersey.
Morin is the superintendent of the Soldier's Home, a state-run facility in Holyoke for needy veterans. He took an unpaid leave to serve as leader of the American Legion.
Morin did not return two calls from The Associated Press seeking additional comment Sunday. March, the Legion's spokesman, also did not return a call Sunday.
Thank you for supporting him. I'm a veteran although I wasn't in a combat theater. I served right after Vietnam (went to basic in Feb '76) during the Cold War. People don't understand that whether you see combat or not, you are important to the mission, which is not to denigrate the combat vet. Combat vets are in a class by themselves. Max Cleland didn't get his injuries in combat, but he doesn't tell folks that. Funny how the pot is calling the kettle black.
Thank you for your service!
Thus?...
I don't know this guy, but it isn't a lie. Being a Vietnam Vet doesn't mean that you saw combat, any more than the WWII vet that I know that was stationed in the Pacific, but never saw the Japanese. Every soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine is an honored person whether they saw combat or not, because they were an important link in the chain. Pete Dawkins got in hot water for claiming two tours rather than one, not because he wasn't a combat vet. I, personally, don't care, since he went anyway, unlike a few people I can think of.
And what would you do with me? I enlisted in December '75, went to Basic in February '76, posted to Germany same year, and got out in '84. I didn't see combat, because we were pulling out of Nam. But the first thing I was told when I got off the plane in Germany was, if the Russians come over the border, you have 5 minutes to live. During my time there were some tense times, some that stood out were when the Russians came up on the border; the hostages were taken in the embassy in Iran (thanks to Carter), etc. I'm as proud of my service as anyone else. So "era" this! Morin served!You should back him rather than buy Max's holier-than-thou statements!
Thank you for your service! I was stationed in Germany twice. I too know what I did, and don't care if anyone else recognizes it.
Thanks again!
I would do nothing with you except thank you for your service.
In the Pac NW, "Vietnam era veteran" has always been the way folks whom I know referred to themselves on résumés, etc., if they were in the armed forces during the time the war was fought but were not sent to Vietnam. It describes the situation factually.
Think about it, have you ever heard the label "Korean War Era", or "WWII Era" vet? No, I didn't think so. This only happens with Nam. MSgt, I was in when we were pulling out of Nam. I posted to Germany twice during the Cold War. You don't have to be in a combat theater to be a vet of that era.
I really hate all this bickering between vets. And to the civilian, shut up! We all served the greater mission!
Thank you for your service!
Fraud ping.
Well said oav. I hope our guys will think twice before spitting on us remfs who supported their asses as hard as we could from when and where we were, and have shed more than a few tears ever since. Morin is, simply, one of the good guys. Cleland and AP can kiss my ass.
I remember VU 10 and NEGDEF.
Gitmo always was a "fun" place, before it became club med for terrorists, who knew it would have such potential.
I am a Vietnam ERA Veteran. So is Mr. Morin. It is appropriate for him to call himself a Vietnam ERA veteran.
I agree with the others from whatever party who question his calling himself a Vietnam Veteran. The "era" distinction is a long-standing (official, I think) way to point out the difference between those who served at that time and those who served on the ground in Vietnam.
I recall, though, that some troops in Italy during the Kosovo or Bosnia campaigns were awarded Bronze Stars for their efforts in that conflict. They never left Italy. They did things in support of the war from their own bases in Italy.
This calls into question those who call themselves WWII Vets but served only in England or Australia.
They weren't really on the ground, either.
I clearly was not in a job that provided direct support to the war in Vietnam. I was in Germany. Perhaps Morin's job did have him in direct support of that war. And perhaps that should qualify as being a "Viet Vet."
At least it does if Italy, England, and Australia qualify.
They had the draft. All 18 year-old males had to register for the draft, to be called up as needed. You could get a deferment if you were a full-time college student, but if that status changed, your name went to the top of the draft list, since you were a little bit older than the rest of the draft-eligible guys by that point.
At that point, you knew you were going to be drafted, and you could just go volunteer for one of the armed forces (for 4 years as opposed to 2) and at least have some choice in the matter, or you could just wait for the inevitable callup.
After you went on active duty, you were trained and sent off to your duty assignment. That could be service in Viet Nam, or anyplace else they wanted to send you. And you went where they sent you.
The reason you were in the service was because of Viet Nam, but Viet Nam was just one area of conflict in what we used to call the "Cold War", and at the time our military was involved all over the world, not just southeast Asia.
I hold guys who actually served in combat in Viet Nam with a special esteem, but I consider all who served honorably, performing their assignments faithfully, to be my brethren.
As I said before, you went where they sent you, you did your job, you sacrificed part of your youth for the good of your nation, and if everything worked out good you got grow old and join the Legion.
Brothers are brothers. We all just did our jobs, and we know those among us who we consider to be the true heroes.
That only applies to Reps. Kerry lied repeatedly about his service and was nominated by the Dems to be President and he was lionized by the MSM who decried the "swiftboating" about him.
I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up that point. It seems that people who served in the Vietnam "Era" but not actually in Vietnam, (such as myself), are always going to be stigmatized ad infinitum as no other veterans of previous wars ever were. And the ones who love to do it most are the "REAL" Vietnam vets.
That being said, I don't think that Commander Morin is doing the right thing here. But then, he is from Massachusetts. I wonder what Cleland's excuse is. Maybe he's just dumb as a board as someone suggested earlier.
Good job of explaining, Kenton. I was one of those who allowed the inevitable to happen after graduating college in '69. In November I got my letter from the man I had voted for for president the previous year inviting me to become part of the military fraternity. On January 27, 1970 I was sworn into the USMC. Never done me a bit of harm but I wasn't too pleased at the time.
I voted for Nixon again in '72 just to show I didn't hold a grudge.
Concur. If Morin was a Democrat, of course, this revelation would be denounced as "swiftboating."
I don't support Cleland's politics, but your account is contradicted by the people who were there. He was on a mission in a combat zone to set up an antennae, and somebody's grenade, possibly his own, went off accidenatlly and wounded him. It is distasteful to attack the way a soldier was wounded in combat for the country regardless of their politics.
Morin didn't say anything wrong. End of story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.