Connecticut Senatorial candidate and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is now the focus of a potentially disastrous scandal after journalists alleged that he has lied about his service in Vietnam. It appears that Blumenthal never served in Vietnam despite repeated references to such service and his difficulties in “coming home” from the war.
I have previously written about “stolen valor” cases (here), though such cases involve the wearing of unearned medals.
Blumenthal, 64, is accused of claiming the mantle of being a veteran when he secured a series of deferments to serve at places like Harvard. In 2003, he told an audience in Bridgeport that “[w]hen we returned, we saw nothing like this. Let us do better by this generation of men and women.” In another rally in 2008, he allegedly expressed his pain upon returning to an unthankful country: “I served during the Vietnam era. I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse.”
Whatever taunts and insults he may have experienced appear to have occurred at Harvard. He asked for and received at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 — allowing him to study at Harvard, complete a fellowship in England, work for the Washington Post, and serve in the Nixon White House. In 1970, he secured a position with the Marine Reserve that performed such duties as repairing a campground and organizing a Toys for Tots drive. Of course, serving in the Nixon administration could have resulted in some posttraumatic stress with former staffers routinely waking up while screaming “No Martha [Mitchell], not the white vinyl boots!” And, by the way, as someone with four kids under 12, no actual combat experience can prepare you for Toys-for-Tots. It is ugly. Here is an account from one Toys-For-Tots veteran:
This is of course terrible news for the Democrats. Blumenthal is a very respected lawyer with an exemplary record as a public official. He could also argue that, since he was with a reserve unit, he did serve during the Vietnam War. That dog won’t hunt, however, with many citizens.
UPDATE: In one of the instances, the associated press has reported that the video given to the New York Times contained an earlier reference by Blumenthal to serving “during” the Vietnam War. Groups have objected that the original article should have included the quote, here.
For the story, click here.
From the article:
“… That dog won’t hunt, however, with many citizens. …”
===============================================================
I’d be one of them.
Another one bites the dust.
JT/
This is th eworst of the worst. My brother serve…I doubt that the wanted to do so at th etime, but his grades slipped and he lost his deferment. The day her got his Greetings letter, he has enlisted in the Navy and served with honor.
As for Bluemthal, to state that he was in the Reserve and to leave it at that, would be fine, but he mis-stated his service or lack thereof, to create a false impression. he is a disgrace to the men and women who served and who died/a disgrace to the legal profession, and I hope he gets his butt kicked/pompous old fool.
Blumenthal has been a very good attorney general. He has not been afraid to go after the corporations. He says he is staying in the race and his republican opposition is very weak. He might make it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/richard-blumenthal-vietnam_n_579656.html
He is not going to make it. They have him on tape.
He said “I served in Vietnam.”
He now says he may have mispoken. At other times he said “Although I did not serve in Vietnam …” He left the false stories standing in Slate and other biographical puff pieces.
Nope. Sorry. Not good enough. Not going to work.
There is no American male over 60 in the country that can make a mistake about this particular factual assertion.
You say either that I did not serve in Vietnam (but served in the regular or reserve miltary in the US or other areas, or was deferred, or was opposed to the war on principle, or went to Sweden or Canada, or was 100% disabled, and so on) or that I served in Vietnam.
This has all the elements of pure legal fraud. He made a misrepresentation. It concerned a material fact about his background. People placed reasonable reliance on his statement. It was false.
It was not inadvertent. It was a conscious, deliberate, malicious lie.
Does anyone recall “I am not a crook”?
That was a lie, too. Look where it got Tricky Dick.
Toast.
“In 2003, he told an audience in Bridgeport that “[w]hen we returned, we saw nothing like this”
You mean the night after that all night party?
Blumenthal’s main opponent although the republican endorsing convention has not been held is a woman involved with the WWE steroid scandal. That is why i say he could still win.
From the February, 2010, “Military Officer” magazine.
http://www.qg.com/smartools/ebook/hosted.rails?issue=fa09cdce83864563bcaae8f7b860ef12ce46f4c498ce40a8b2cbe8f7b860ef12
Turn to page 68. The article “Decorated In Shame.”
This isn’t going to end well for Mr. Blumenthal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_McMahon She will probably be republican nominee. She is trying to buy the election and her past is not exactly stellar.
Wonder if Connecticut for Lieberman is offering a candidate…
Those of us who served in any branch of the military stationed anywhere in the world during 1954 to 1975 are officially considered Viet Nam *Era* veterans (Vietnam). However, designation as a Viet Nam Era veteran *does not* confer that we served *in county* within Viet Nam as combat/war veterans. That is a very important distinction for many reasons, to include classification for benefits under the Department of Veteran Affairs policies.
Mr. B. has a seriously flawed character and is unfit to serve. He lied to combat veterans (and others) to deceptively display that he was ‘one of them.’
Signed by a proud Viet Nam *Era* veteran whose combat veteran brother was KIA during that needless Viet Nam War/Conflict.
Thank you FF LEO.
Mr Blumenthal is flawed but there are many flawed politicians who continue to serve. David Vitter comes to mind.
David Vitter went to Harvard undergrad. Elliot Spitzer probably wonders why he bothered to resign.
I thought that the deal was you shot yourself in the foot to avoid being sent to Vietnam, not that you shot yourself in the foot because you didn’t go to Vietnam…
He’s right to point out that it was unfair to people who were drafted into service in Vietnam to taunt them, and wrong to assault anyone just for being in the military. He would have some sense of that wearing his reserve uniform during that period – fine. But overall, what an idiot…
Jesus H. Christ in a wheelchair – what is wrong with people?? I am sorely disappointed in Blumenthal – calling him a dumba** is far too kind.
If McMahon manages to win the race, I’m STILL not watching the WWE.
FFLEO has it right. Everyone who served back then was a “Vietnam Era Veteran.” But that was not enough for Blumie. He had to say that he served “in” Vietnam, and that things were tough when he got back. That is mendacious.
There is an awful lot of hits on the word “abstinence” on the net today. A Rep out in Indiana was abstaining from fidelity to his wife, after a career of yelping about family values. He favored abstinence for everyone but himself and his loyal staffer.
Meanwhile, Dick Blumenthal has mastered the art of selective abstinence from truthful, candid statements. Sometimes he said he did serve, sometimes that he did not. Sure.
Blumie is into a new position, something like a half-Nelson or a modified limited hangout. I would call this a partial triple Elliot Spitzer backward somersault. Old Spitzer twisted in the wind slowly, slowly for days before it dawned on him. I don’t think he ever got it. All I am waiting for now is for Alan Dershowitz to enter the debate, mouth open and moving, defending Blumie.
In the meantime, it is like watching a slow-motion replay of the Hindenberg explosion over New Jersey. Blumie claims he misspoke, whatever that means. He confused serving “in” Vietnam with serving “during” Vietnam. Ha! Har, har, hardy, har har!
Does anyone out there believe that? Does he think his audience is composed of simpletons? Does he think that the WWE is a legitimate sports league and that the matches are not fixed?
He refuses to apologize. He had no responsibility to correct any misleading biographies or news stories.
The moron does not even have the brains to say the magic words. “I was wrong. I should not have said that. I am sorry.”
Don’t have to do that if you have lived a life of privilege.
Dan Stone nailed it in a Newsweek blog today, QUOTE
Posted Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:02 PM
The Indirect Sort-Of Apology While Blaming Someone Else: Blumenthal Coins New Kind of Mea Culpa
Daniel Stone
Imagery is always deliberate in political apologies. Clearly, Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut’s attorney general and Democratic Senate candidate, put some thought into how he’d apologize in front of the cameras just hours after a devastating front-page story in The New York Times implicated he had lied on several occasions about serving in Vietnam. Flanked by former Marines, two of Blumenthal’s former colleagues lamented the “malicious, deceptive charges” levied by the newspaper, then vouched for Blumenthal’s record speaking up for vets. Even the presentation was considered: rather than stare down at prepared statements, both speakers, attempting to appear authentic and not like political hacks, went off script, praising their brother Blumenthal.
The candidate took the mike, but only after several minutes of listing his experience as a Marine Corps reservist did he even get to the question everyone had. Specifically, why did you lie about Vietnam? “On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service,” he admitted with a confident tone. “I regret that and I take full responsibility.” When pressed by a reporter what that meant, he recited the same line almost verbatim.
But why stop there? With more to say, and a rare willingness to take questions during a public apology, Blumenthal kept going, digging a hole. At one point he blamed the maliciousness of the Times, whose reporting he called an “outrageous distortion.”
When asked why he never corrected the dozens of times his misstatements appeared in newspapers, he blamed reporters in general, whom he said—and he stipulated that he wasn’t talking about anyone in the room per se—”sometime make mistakes.” Statements like that usually go over great with reporters, especially ones who have printed lies someone else has told them.
By the end, and after more than a half-dozen repetitions, Blumenthal had come up with the word of the day: “misspeak,” a malleable and vague term that could perhaps be described as the act of lying unintentionally—or, in Blumenthal’s case, painting it as the fault of someone else who took it out of context. An ambitious kind of apology, to be sure. But enough to make everybody completely forget all this funny business ever happened? Not likely.
UNQUOTE
Link to source:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/05/18/the-indirect-sort-of-apology-while-blaming-someone-else-blumenthal-coins-new-kind-of-mea-culpa.aspx
Fudging a stateside military background when others were dying abroad? Blumenthal is running for the wrong party.
Paul D Wasn’t that Bush that lied about his military back round? Didn’t Dan rather get fired over that? Bush was elected twice.
There is no excuse for this. I was a 1967 draftee and ended up doing most of my tour in Korea. When it was over, I was proud to have served, but I would consider it disgraceful to pretend that I saw combat. Not only would it be a lie, it would be the ultimate insult to those who lived and died under fire.
Blumenthal’s attempts to brazen this out and deflect blame to the press only make him more of a scumbag. If he had an ounce of shame, he would withdraw from the race. But then again, if he had an ounce of shame, he never would have tried to palm himself off as a Vietnam combat vet in the first place.
If the Connecticut Democratic Party had any class (or sense), they’d kick him off the ticket immediately.
@Swarthmore mom;
Paul D Wasn’t that Bush that lied about his military back round?
To this day there’s still no proof that Captain Texas ever completed his duty bravely protecting Texas or Alabama from the Vietcong. A $10,000 reward offered for any witness or anyone providing such proof went unclaimed. Then again, there probably won’t be much in the way of any new discovery since Karen Hughes’ little document dumping spree at Camp Mabry.
Kinda takes the air out of such proclimations like “I’ve been to war.” or having ‘Firsthand’ experience with war.
-Bush was elected twice.
Proving that PT Barnum was wrong. There’s one born every second.
I made a mistake Bush was appointed once and elected the second time through voter suppression. He actually beat a real Vietnam Vet. He had him swift boated.
I lived through the Vietnam Era and I do not recall any instances of returning soldiers being spit upon or taunted by peace activists. I do recall a daisy being placed in an open gun barrel by a precocious lass, but even that “affront” merely amused the guardsman in question who appeared tome to be trying to get a date. Living right next to the Army’s largest logistical base with a high school populated by Army brats should have revealed something. It didn’t.
Kent State Professor Patrick G. Coy agrees with me. According to Coy:
The fact is, there is absolutely no record of any peace activist taunting or spitting upon returning veterans. It is myth, and like most myths it is hard to dislodge.
In 1995 sociologist Thomas Beamish and his colleagues analyzed all peace movement-related stories from 1965 – 1971 in the NY Times, LA Times, and SF Chronicle (495 stories). They found no instance of any spitting on returned troops by peace movement members, nor any taunting. Indeed, they found few examples of negative demonstrations involving returning troops of any kind, or even of simple disapproval of returning soldiers. Three years later, sociologist Jerry Lembcke conducted a similarly exhaustive study for his book, The Spitting Image, with like results. He discovered war protesters being spat upon by war supporters, and hostile acts toward Vietnam veterans by conservative, pro-war groups like the VFW, but no taunting or spitting on returned veterans by peace movement members. Returned veterans and in-service GIs were welcomed in the peace movement, and many assumed leadership roles. Yet the myth endures.
So Blumenthal may be criticized for both pseudo-false valor and slander of the anti-War movement. All may not be lost for Blumenthal however, as H.L. Mencken reminded us,“The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.”
Amen, Henry. Amen.
I would be interested in your opinion on whether Blumenthal’s transaction should result in action by the state’s attorney disciplinary commission.
Blumie is a lot like Spitzer in another respect. Spitzer was a PitBullRottWeilerDobermann when it came to other folks errors.
It came right back at him when it was his turn to stray.
It looks like Blumenthal really liked to pile on when anyone made a misstatement in the State of Connecticut:
QUOTE
The Blumenthal Rules
Why should anyone give Richard Blumenthal a break?
By William Saletan
Posted Tuesday, May 18, 2010, at 5:36 PM ET
Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut, has a problem. He’s running for the U.S. Senate, and he’s been caught on video implying falsely that he served in Vietnam. He’d like your understanding as he explains that he simply “misspoke” about his service. He’d like you to give him a break.
But Blumenthal has never given anyone a break. He has made a career out of holding others to the strictest standards of truth—and mercilessly prosecuting them when they fall short.UQ
Full story at
http://www.slate.com/id/2254214/
And why does he have to look like Prince Charles?
That is fraud right there.
But he won’t give up. As Bluto said, was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no. It ain’t over till he says it is.
FFLEO — Thanks for the clarification and your service.
My Dad was a Viet Nam Era veteran, serving in the Marine reserves (no deferments). He did his basic training at Camp Pendleton and served in Arizona.
I’m named after his best friend and the person who introduced my parents: CPL George Arthur Salcido. He died in Vietnam. Here’s the information from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall website (www.thewall-usa.com):
GEORGE ARTHUR SALCIDO
CPL – E4 – Marine Corps – Regular
His tour began on Mar 3, 1968
Casualty was on Jul 17, 1968
In QUANG TRI, SOUTH VIETNAM
HOSTILE, GROUND CASUALTY
GUN, SMALL ARMS FIRE
Body was recovered
In his name, I condemn Blumenthal’s lies.
Can you believe this piece of trash is the chief law enforcement officer of the great state of Connecticut?
It’s disgusting. He’s a proven lair with no reason to be trusted again with the public confidence.
Lastly, honor, truth and integrity are not campaign anecdotes, they are a way of being.
In the real world on an job application there is a small paragraph that says if you are lying on app you can be terminated.
Well lets see what happens here.
This shows the pathology of too many who are drawn to the power of government.
These individuals will lie, cheat, and even use the power of government to steal… all in order to get their next hit.
Vince,
I get the impression AG Blumenthal has rubbed you the wrong way.
And you’re right. That looking like Prince Charles isn’t helping him in the PR department. It’s one thing to act like a lying elitist snob but another all together to look like one on top of it.
Mespo and Swarthmore Mom,
I too lived through the Vietnam era(just barely)and I was arrested while watching a demonstration against the killings at Kent State. I recall Mespo’s flower in the gun picture and I also can’t recall seeing or hearing any slurs to individual soldiers, but there may have been some that weren’t reported. My brother served in Vietnam and I have had this discussion with him on a few occasions, and you can’t convince a Vietnam vet that he/she wasn’t abused when they came home. I can attest that people who did serve in Vietnam did not have the luxury of being hailed by their hometowns as they returned like my town does now for Iraq or Afghanistan vets.
Hi
jerseys-factory
A quote from a commenter at Huffington Post.
“Semper Fib”
Very good Former fed!
I’m a law student and Marine Reservist. In Blumenthal’s defense, the annual Toys for Tots drive (aka The Tot Offensive) is nearly as unpleasant as combat. Sorting toys in a warehouse is mind-numbingly boring. It’s also a horribly inefficient form of charity. More like charity for retailers, actually. Then there’s the shame of knowing that your active duty counterparts will never be reduced to wrangling Barbies. May Mr. Blumenthal find peace after his Toys for Tots experiences.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/poll-blumenthal-nosedives-in-wake-of-ny-times-story.php?ref=fpb
BIL wrote “Vince,I get the impression AG Blumenthal has rubbed you the wrong way.” Yeah, B, I guess you could sort of say that I was maybe a little bit irritated somewhat.
But I have seen this story before. Back in 1952, I watched the compelling story of another heroic war hero public official on the Ralph Edwards “This Is Your Life” TV show. Wiki has the history, but Time the Weekly Fiction Magazine had a vivid contemporary account of the crash and burn, QUOTE
Monday, Oct. 25, 1954
VETERANS: The Hoax
Utah Congressman Douglas R. Stringfellow, 32, supporting himself with canes and leg braces, made his way painfully into a studio at Salt Lake City’s television station KSL-TV one night last week. He had come to talk about his war record.
Stringfellow had been talking about the same subject for years. A paraplegic veteran of World War II, he got a job as an Ogden, Utah, radio announcer. In his spare time he made scores of speeches to Mormon church gatherings and civic groups. The story, as it evolved after hundreds of repetitions, was that he had been assigned to the OSS, parachuted behind German lines with 29 other men and kidnaped a German atomic scientist named Otto Hahn. Every other member of the mission, Stringfellow said, was later killed. He said that he was captured and tortured, then escaped to France, where he was crippled by a land mine.
The story was so good that Stringfellow began to get speaking dates far and wide. He collected a mantelful of awards from civic and veterans’ organizations, and this year he was named by the junior chamber of commerce as one of the ten most out standing young men in the nation. He ran for Congress as a Republican in 1952 and won easily. Up for re-election this fall, he looked a sure winner. This year his story was told on nationwide TV programs (This Is Your Life and Suspense).
But persistent reports began to be heard that Stringfellow’s story was not true. When reporters tried to check with the Defense Department, they were met by a strange reticence, which turned out to be fear of offending a Congressman. Last week the Army Times, an unofficial military journal, said that the Stringfellow story would not hold water. He blustered about a libel suit and asked President Eisenhower to open secret CIA files. Next day Stringfellow was called into a huddle with Utah’s two Republican Senators, Arthur Watkins and Wallace F. Bennett (both fellow Mormons). Under their questioning, he caved in, and that night he told the TV audience the truth.
He said that in his early speeches he was repeatedly asked for more details about his war record. Said Stringfellow: “Somewhere along the line, the idea . . . was integrated in introductions that Doug Stringfellow was a war hero . . . Like many other persons suddenly thrust into the limelight, I rather thrived on the adulation and new-found popularity … I began to embellish my speeches with more picturesque and fanciful incidents. I fell into a trap, which in part had been laid by my own glib tongue.” The facts, he said, were these: “I was never an OSS agent. I never participated in any secret, behind-the-lines mission … I never captured Otto Hahn or any other German physicist … I wish before my Heavenly Father that I might undo this wrong.” Stringfellow offered to withdraw from the election if the party asked him.
After the program he sobbed in the arms of his wife, while kindly old Arthur Watkins looked on. This week the Utah Republican leaders called a meeting to decide what to do about Doug Stringfellow. [UQ]
You can google and read the wiki article on him to find out about his sad end.
Blumo? Been there, seen that. BFD.
And listen to his friend Chris Shays describe the way that Blumenthal’s war stories grew more and more detailed over the years with each and every embellishment. He started off with careful, humble and factually accurate statements, but the house of cards kept getting taller and taller until it collapsed in a gust of wind.
In the NY Times, Shays said that QUOTE he and Mr. Blumenthal began their careers in politics at roughly the same time and frequently addressed the same groups. He recalled that early on, Mr. Blumenthal spoke humbly about his military record, rarely discussing it and always making clear that he had held only desk jobs and had not been in the line of fire, though he remained proud of having been a Marine.
“But as time went on, he would mention it more often, and Vietnam would show up,” even when Mr. Blumenthal was not speaking to veterans, Mr. Shays said.
Eventually, Mr. Shays said, he began hearing Mr. Blumenthal refer to having served in Vietnam. Mr. Shays said he assumed, wrongly, that Mr. Blumenthal had perhaps been a military lawyer there. That alone, he said, was enough for him to have had the impulse to advise Blumenthal to be careful, that people could interpret his remarks as a claim to have seen action there.
“I felt inclined to go to him and say, ‘Dick, in your service in Vietnam, you weren’t on the firing line, you don’t want to overstate that,’ ” Mr. Shays said. “I just felt like he was raising the stakes in a way that was inconsistent with what he’d said in the past. I was actually going to go up and speak to him. And I wish I had.”
Mr. Shays said the change occurred gradually in statements made over time.
“More and more it kept creeping in,” he said. “And it was very different than when he first described his service. I’m not surprised, because he just kept adding to the story, the more he told it. I think what happens in a case like this, it’s a tiny increment of change, but when you haven’t heard him in years you say, that’s a big difference.”
He added: “I understand how these things, over 30 years, you keep adding a little bit to it. And you’re on very thin ice. And obviously he’s on very thin ice right now. He walked too far out on the lake. It’s really too bad, because he’s a very good person.” END OF QUOTE
Link to source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/nyregion/19shays.html?scp=1&sq=shays&st=cse
Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!
–Walter Scott
Marmion, Canto VI. Stanza 17
Correction, This Is Your Life episode 55 on Rep. Douglas R. Stringfellow (Utah Congressman) aired on January 20, 1954, not in 1952.
http://www.crazyabouttv.com/thisisyourlife.html
I have no problem telling that I got almost as many deferments as Dick Cheney, though didn’t have a phony physical rectal deformity like Rush Limbaugh. My cousin “served” in country by running a PX, which made him a millionaire. Blumenthal made a slip about actually being in country. We all lived.
Of all of the above, who’s the biggest disgrace?
The New York Times has some explaining to do
So why didn’t the Times include Blumenthal “correctly characterizing his service” in its version of the video? That’s awfully misleading, isn’t it? Given that Republican Linda McMahon’s campaign has taken credit for feeding the Times the Blumenthal story, you have to wonder if it gave the Times the incomplete video, as well. Either way, the Times should explain why it chose to omit Blumenthal’s correct characterization of his service.
Linda McMahon campaign accidentally posts video of Blumenthal telling the truth
The Associated Press found the full video of Richard Blumenthal’s 2008 speech in which he claimed to served “in” Vietnam. In the same speech, though, he also correctly characterized his military service. You’ll never guess where the AP found the video! (Unless you read the headline.)
The other night, the New York Times ran what looked like a bombshell story: Democratic Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal lied about serving in Vietnam. Except it really was more like Richard Blumenthal allowed people to believe he served in Vietnam, and once or twice he said things that could’ve been construed as claiming to have served there.
Muddying the waters further, the campaign of Blumenthal’s Republican opponent, wrestling entrepreneur Linda McMahon, initially took credit for the Times story as the product of its opposition research. Which is, politically, dumb. (And also perhaps not even true — some people seem to think the story actually came from GOP candidate Rob Simmons. And today the Times ran an even odder story about how Blumenthal’s “friend” Chris Shays, a former Republican congressman who still may have political ambitions, wishes he’d said something about Blumenthal’s history of almost-lying sooner.)
The McMahon campaign eventually removed the claim from its site. But today, the official Linda McMahon campaign YouTube channel posted the full, six-minute version of the 2008 video. Not the short one the Times had. It posted the one in which Blumenthal correctly says he served “during the Vietnam era.”
And so Linda McMahon’s campaign has now completely undermined its best chance at derailing the candidacy of Richard Blumenthal.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/05/19/blumenthal_video_full/index.html
Seems like someone has some ‘splainin’ to do … and it’s not Lucy …
Nal,
Former Rep. Chris Shays, whose name Mr. Blumental mentioned twice in the “full video,” has acknowledged that over the many years he has known Mr. B that his Viet Nam story has changed (see VT’s previous post above).
Mr. B., even in the video, did not mention that he was a MC Reservist. All of us in the military or in college with low draft lottery numbers during that time know who got into the reserves, National Guard, or secured those numerous deferments until Nixon stopped deferments because of the outrage of the double standard expressed by the populace.
Mr. Blumental—according to his longtime good friend Mr. Shays and others—clearly lied about his service *in country* within Viet Nam during the Viet Nam Era.
At time 2:41 Blumental stated, as he pointedly emphasized with his right hand gesturing toward his chest, “…since the day(s) that I served in Viet Nam.”
I do not know what else to say except that you had to have lived in that era with a low lottery number, knew college friends who took the Reserve/NG “easy way out” to fully appreciate why those of us who had to go into the military—often with the catalytic impetus of The Draft Lottery—fully understand now that Mr. Blumental is lying—unequivocally so.
Therefore, I do not think that the NY Times has any explaining to do and I applaud them for exposing a fraud, who is otherwise—by all accounts—a decent man and a brilliant attorney. There are some things about which that you do not lie; assuming a fraudulent, assumed role alongside combat veterans who sacrificed their lives is one of those unpardonable lies.
In fact, the Times has explained.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/at_same_08_speech_blumenthal_more_correctly_descri.php?ref=fpb
QUOTE Late update: A spokesman for the Times says the video doesn’t change anything.
“The New York Times in its reporting uncovered Mr. Blumenthal’s long and well established pattern of misleading his constituents about his Vietnam War service, which he acknowledged in an interview with The Times,” said Diane McNulty. “The video doesn’t change our story. Saying that he served ‘during Vietnam’ doesn’t indicate one way or the other whether he went to Vietnam.”
She also urged Blumenthal to “come clean:”
“Mr. Blumenthal needs to be candid with his constituents about whether he went to Vietnam or not, since his official military records clearly indicate he did not,” she said. UNQUOTE
Saying that he served “during” the Vietnam war is inherently ambiguous. I could mean that he served in Vietnam, or that he served somewhere else. He should have repeated what he did say on some other occasions, that he did not serve in Vietnam.
The problem is wider than a single video. As Chris Shays noted, he built up the impression of his service in Vietnam repeatedly over the years. It was a long and well established practice. He left a lot of reported misinformation standing. He did not avail himself of the “corrections” functions at Slate or other outlets. The tape is just the trap that nailed him.
Blumo, repeat after Chris. I am a Vietnam era veteran. I trained for six months. I then served in the Marine Corps reserves in the US for 5 1/2 years. I did not serve in Vietnam. I am sorry that I stated on those occasions that I did serve in Vietnam and that I came back from Vietnam.
Then Blumie can move on.
How hard is that?
[His only active duty was his six months of training. It did not qualify for GI Bill education or housing benefits under the law at the time].
I want to state that serving in the Reserves in any branch of the military was honorable service and that those service members ‘could’ have been sent to Viet Nam. However, it was less likely than active duty personnel. Many Reservists provided critical support roles. My comment regarding the “easy way out” was just the way it was viewed by those of us who became active duty, especially those who had no means of securing deferments.
What makes Blumenthal’s situation reprehensible is that he only joined the Reserves after his numerous deferments lapsed and yet he stressed in his recent statement that he joined the Reserves without mentioning his many deferments.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/soft-landing-for-blumenthal.html
JT comments further in the New York Times: “Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s reported exaggeration of his military record is a shock to many supporters. But the irresistible temptation to invent or exaggerate military service is common to politicians and non-politicians alike.
“Whether it is a pick-up line in a bar or a boast on Memorial Day, people often learn that a little fib of military service can go along way in achieving certain advantages. It is a way of instantly giving yourself a better image — perhaps becoming the person you wish you were.”
Read more at the link:
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/politicians-and-their-fake-war-stories/?scp=3&sq=richard%20blumenthal&st=cse#jonathan
Very good point.
” It is a way of instantly giving yourself a better image — perhaps becoming the person you wish you were.”
==============================================================
… and never will be
My brother served in Nam … he wasn’t wounded there, nor did he die there but in the end, Nam killed him. (Nam vets know what I mean)
You see Blumenthal, each time you took a deferment, another guy was sent in your place. So, 5 deferments means 5 guys. Were any of them killed or wounded there? You’ll never know.
I am curious-what was Rush Limbaugh’s “rectal deformity” that got him his deferments? His head up his ass? Seriously. All these rightwingers who never served… I’d like more info on how Rush got his deferments.
If I remember correctly there was a Chief of Naval Operations or someone of similar rank in the Navy who blew his brains out in the parade ground of the Washington Naval Yard because he falsely claimed a valor star on one his bars. Obviously, this was tragic, but military people take these sort of false valor claims very seriously.
There are lies and there are lies. An attorney general who is running for senator should be held to a higher standard of truthfulness. Also, the subject of the lie matters. Lying about your military service when you are an attorney general running for senator is much more heinous than inflating your resume or lying about an affair. I have more sympathy for Eliot Spitzer than this guy.
Well, I couldn’t wait to get the Rush answer. On Wikipedia, it says Rush got a 4-f because of a pilonidal cyst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilonidal_cyst
The wiki article on pilonidal cysts lists Rush as the only “Famous Sufferer” of this malady. I hardly see why this would have gotten him a 4-f.
Interestingly, another article I saw mentions that Ken Starr got 4-f’d for psoriasis and that Pat Buchanan got 4-f’d for bad knees, even though he continued to be an avid runner after getting this deferment.
The objection by Blumenthal supporters that the Times left out his later quotation is completely lame.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/times_defends_posting_of_clipp.html
First he said he “served in Vietnam.”
Then he said he “served in the military, during the Vietnam era.”
So the sum total of his message to his audience was that he served in the military, in Vietnam, during the Vietnam era.
Liar.
The Marines’ motto is Semper Fidelis, Latin for Always Faithful. Blumentahl’s motto is Semper Falsus.
After all this bullshit, perhaps one who is a lawyer, should not be permitted to parcticipate as a candidate in the electoral process.