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.
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.
Fudging a stateside military background when others were dying abroad? Blumenthal is running for the wrong party.
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
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.
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…
David Vitter went to Harvard undergrad. Elliot Spitzer probably wonders why he bothered to resign.
Mr Blumenthal is flawed but there are many flawed politicians who continue to serve. David Vitter comes to mind.
Thank you FF LEO.
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.
Wonder if Connecticut for Lieberman is offering a candidate…
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.
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.
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.
“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?
Toast.
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.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/richard-blumenthal-vietnam_n_579656.html
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.
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.
From the article:
“… That dog won’t hunt, however, with many citizens. …”
===============================================================
I’d be one of them.
Another one bites the dust.