Don't fret about the vets.

Joe Conason is worried about John Edwards' efforts to make peace patriotic this Memorial Day. After all, we've been warned...

...the national commander of the American Legion immediately denounced Edwards for "politicizing" the holiday, and charged that the candidate had "blatantly violated the sanctity of this most special day." Right-wing bloggers quickly seized upon and amplified that theme...

Uh huh. This National Commander…

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.

****

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.

It's noteworthy that Cleland himself is a longtime Legionnaire. Like many of us, Max knows that historically only three vet's organizations have been effective lobbies for the rights and needs of military veterans, the Legion, the VFW and the DAV. I was a member of the Legion myself until an incident that Conason cites proved to be my last straw...

...the Legion's habitually authoritarian attitude toward dissent is itself an offense to basic American values -- as its leaders proved again last August when they passed a bizarre, vaguely threatening resolution demanding the cessation of all "public protests and media events" against the war.

Membership in the Legion is, in fact, no indication of agreement with the political slant of the national leadership on issues extending beyond GI benefits. Even the leadership has issues with the leadership. Lt. Colonel Hal Donahue, a life member and District Deputy Commander of the Legion, is blunt.

...I know many members of the American Legion were simply embarrassed by positions taken by the Leadership of the organization, which blindly supports this administration's war in Iraq while just as blindly ignoring wounded military living conditions at Walter Reed.

That's doubtless part of the reason that of the 24.5 million living US veterans, fewer than three million belong to the Legion. Still, Joe's worried...

Despite the shortcomings of the Legion, however, its anger over what Edwards is doing will resonate more broadly. His call to protest risks offending the sensibilities of everyone who believes the holiday should be solemnly commemorative rather than politically noisy. Even many vets who have come to despise the Bush administration believe that antiwar displays on that day are at best insensitive, reviving bad memories of the Vietnam era.

First, be clear. It's not the Legion's anger. It's the anger of a liar, a man who has disgraced the uniform he once wore, the soldiers he served with and the organization he leads by lying, openly, repeatedly and unrepentantly, about his service record.

Still, Conason has a point. It's certainly possible to wave protest signs on Memorial Day in ways that would be "neither kind nor smart." There are also respectful and intelligent ways to do the same thing. Vets and their families are smart enough to know the difference. Conason fears they might not, though, and that we could lose gains he apparently thinks were unique to the last election cycle, which...

…featured victorious House and Senate campaigns by Democratic veterans and the stunning debut of Votevets.org, proved that the political direction of veterans and their families should no longer be taken for granted. A promising trend that began with the presidential candidacy of retired Gen. Wesley Clark in 2004 is gathering momentum.

Of course, you could argue that the trend, in fairly modern terms, at least, began in 1948, with former Infantry commander Harry Truman, or 1960, when John Kennedy's personal heroics as a Naval officer may well have been the deciding factor in his election. Maybe it wasn't until we elected Annapolis grad Jimmy Carter in 1976. Time and again, highly decorated and courageous veterans like Medal of Honor winners Bob Kerrey and Daniel Inouye , or John Glenn, with his six Distinguished Flying Crosses, or Silver Star recipients like Max Cleland, George McGovern and, of course, that Kerry fella, have set their political courses as members of the Democratic Party.

It's hard to tell when it started, exactly, but the trend seems to have had momentum for awhile now.

Conason concludes...

In short, Republicans have proved that they no longer deserve a monopoly on military loyalty (and in fact they never did). Whether Democrats and progressives can win back the respect -- and the votes -- of soldiers, veterans and their families is a critical question for the future of American politics. It will never happen if they believe that the left devalues or ignores their sacrifice.

Clearly, the Republicans have never deserved, and have never had, "a monopoly on military loyalty." In fact, soldiers, veterans and their families have long respected and voted for Democrats. That might be because so many of us are Democrats.

And they know - to support the troops, it's time to end the war.

So don't fret about the votes of vets and our families, Joe. We seem to be smarter than you think.