The controversy over Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s claim of service in the Vietnam War continues. After the New York Times was accused of leaving out exculpatory statements made by Blumenthal on one such occasion, the newspaper insists that the earlier comment does not alter the misleading representations, here. Moreover, newly disclosed statements like “I wore the uniform in Vietnam and many came back to all kinds of disrespect” undermine his defense. Below is my column today on the New York Times blog discussing the scandal.
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.
For the state’s top lawyer (and a senatorial candidate), such claims are particularly problematic. Blumenthal’s office routinely prosecutes fraud and false statements in various contexts. Moreover, federal law makes certain false military claims a criminal matter. (Under the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, a person claiming specific military decorations or medals could be sentenced to a year in jail).
What is fascinating is that Blumenthal was already considered one of the nation’s leading politicians and lawyers. He is not some Walter Mitty who desperately wants to reinvent himself like Steven Burton, 39, of Palm Springs, who appeared at his high school reunion in a Marine Corps uniform supporting about a pound of medals.
Burton was just some schmo who worked in a bank and decided to remake himself into a decorated officer. Blumenthal is the guy that many people want to pretend to be: a Harvard-educated lawyer with a record of fighting for the public interest. Yet, even he wanted a degree of personal enhancement or reinvention.
In that sense he is similar to other leading citizens like Illinois Circuit Judge Michael F. O’Brien who claimed not one but two Congressional Medals of Honor. Likewise, there was Admiral Jeremy Michael Boorda, the 25th Chief of Naval Operations, who was a legend in the service as the only C.N.O. to have reached that position from the enlisted ranks. He committed suicide after being accused of wearing unearned “Combat Vs” on his Navy Commendation Medal and Navy Achievement Medal indicating valor in combat.
For politicians, the desire to claim military distinctions is sometimes irresistible. Politicians thrive on symbols and rhetoric that create bonds with the public. Military service is perhaps the strongest such self-authenticating qualification. It recasts a politician in a new light — not some self-serving egomaniac but a selfless public servant. Blumenthal’s comments about the trauma of returning home to a hostile nation would resonate with anyone and elicit universal affection.
Of course, the terrible irony is that reinventing oneself in this way can wipe away years of well-deserved respect and trust. In the eyes of many, Blumenthal has joined the ranks of the “semper frauds.” While he told crowds that he still remembered “the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse” following Vietnam, he is now experiencing that very reaction from citizens.
For the other views on the New York Times blog, click here.
Strange how only AG’s that aggressively persue corporate crime are taken out (yea I know, Spitzer was asking for it – but he paid for it himself – why not Vitter? et al tossed). You can play this wordsmith game with almost anuone who flaps their gums ooon record fopr forty years. Where is the outrage and campaign to remove Lindsay Graham who did the same thing?
OK – carry on doing the bidding of our corporate masters.
Isabel Darcy – OOO-RAH. Semper Fi
In what combat marine unit did you serve? Were you “in country”
Or do you just use the phrase to obfuscate, misrepresent, your involvement? Are you a “stupid liar?”
Graham’s info surfaced in 1998 and 2002, before the widespread use of the Internet. In fact, I did not know about RR’s or Graham’s false combat claims until yesterday and earlier today. Had the Internet been buzzing back then, their issues would have been as big as or bigger than Blumenthal’s false claims.
In my opinion, Blumenthal is a much better man than the sum total of Reagan, Bush, and Graham; however, he is still squarely and infamously within the pathetic Class of Stolen Valor Liars.
Blumenthal is now in the same Stolen Valor Class as Lindsey Graham.
Republicans can lie about military service and get away with because they are considered to be more patriotic but real vets like Gore and Kerry were criticized for not being patriotic enough.
Not saying what Blumenthal was right; not saying that two wrongs make a right; just saying that Blumenthal is not the first, more than likely isn’t the last, and there are more egregious examples:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/05/20/bushreagan/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/lindsey_graham/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/05/20/lindsey_graham_war_liar
Here’s an interesting story.
AP INVESTIGATION: Texas man faked way into Army
By DANNY ROBBINS, Associated Press Writer (5/21/2010)
Excerpt:
FORT WORTH, Texas – A Texas man with no military experience managed to trick the Army into letting him enter a reserve unit as a noncommissioned officer earlier this year, putting an untrained soldier in a leadership position in a time of war, an Associated Press investigation has found.
The revelation comes just months after the Army drew criticism for failing to flag the suspicious activities of the Army psychiatrist now charged with killing 13 and wounding dozens of others at Fort Hood.
The case, detailed in court records and other documents examined by the AP, raises more questions about the Army’s ability to vet soldiers’ backgrounds as it faces continued pressure from Congress over its screening and records system. While the soldier never deployed overseas, some say the case demonstrates how easily someone could pose as a member of the U.S. military.
Jesse Bernard Johnston III, 26, joined the Army Reserve in February as a sergeant and was assigned to the Corps Support Airplane Company based at the Fort Worth Naval Air Station. But he wasn’t qualified to hold that rank, according to military records obtained by the AP. The records show that Johnston’s only military experience was attending part of a 12-week Marine officer candidate course for college students in 2004.
Maj. Shawn Haney, spokeswoman for Marine Manpower and Reserve Affairs, said Johnston didn’t complete the course’s final six weeks. “He was never considered a Marine,” she said.
The matter, currently under investigation by the Army, means a soldier received a security clearance and was in position to lead troops in combat even though he hadn’t gone through basic training or spent any time in the service. The Corps Support Airplane Company has been deployed in Iraq, providing pilots as well as intelligence and support personnel for an aviation battalion set up to destroy improvised explosive devices.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_army_infiltrator
It’s also curious that the illegal invasion of Iraq for personal profit by the Bush Administration isn’t entering into the discussion and that’s a crime that makes Vietnam look like a prank.
Oh, wait.
No it’s not.
Because the issue here is a lying politician, not the war within which he lied about his service. Bullmenthal could be lying about his service in the war of 1812. The salient point is that he’s a serial liar.
Curious that prosecuting the Vietnam War by Uncle Sam was one of the most monstrous crimes perpetrated in the 20th Century doesn’t ever seem to enter into the discussion?
Not only is Blumenthal a liar, but he’s stupid. Stupid to think that he would not be caught out. The NYT did an interview with Chris Shays in which Shays said he watched Blumenthal’s increasing embellishment of his “involvement” in the war over the years with alarm. The whole issue about deferments, draft evading ,etc. is irrelevant to the fact that Blumenthal stated that he served in the uniform in Vietnam and saw the slurs and slander meeting returning vets. That’s just a flat out lie on two front. OOO-RAH. Semper Fi.
I will try to be very careful how I word this response; I would hate to have my intended meaning misrepresented or quoted out of context.
I am a “child of the Vietnam era”. By that, I mean that I am a military brat, the daughter of a career USAF officer. My father served during the “Vietnam era” in multiple duty stations here at home, “in Country” in Vietnam and in overseas duty stations. And, yes, I am proud of him. I am proud of him because he served as he was ordered, he honored his sworn oath taken when he enlisted, and he risked his life if for no other reason than to preserve our military system of order and our US government. I am proud of him because regardless of whether or not someone thinks the US belonged in Vietnam, the mere existence of our US military presence protects our freedom and our US way of life, which far exceeds that of many other countries. I ache inside every time I attend a Veterans’ Day parade and watch the WWII Vets proudly wearing their uniforms and marching, knowing inside that so many of the Vietnam Vets would never again consider putting on their uniforms and marching because they know how divided public opinion still is of their service. We have not honored our Vietnam Vets the same way as veterans of other wars and I will support Attorney General Blumenthal in any phrasing he chooses to use to convey that message, even if he speaks in the first person, if it moves people to show our Vietnam Vets the honor and respect they do deserve. It is way past time to let the blame and debate over our US involvement go and just say “thank you”.
We (as a nation) are approaching the 50th anniversary of the military troop build up and subsequent involvement in the, then – Vietnam military action, now – Vietnam War. For nearly 50 years now, I have seen this issue, a highly impassioned and highly polarized issue, at times straining our country at its seams, experience scrutiny and debate rivaling that of the abortion issue!
Vietnam was not a democratic or republican war. Both parties played active roles in the start, middle and end of the war, holding party majority power at different points during the era. Moreover, our “independent free press”, protected by law, played an active role in fanning the fires of this heated issue. Let us not ignore their role – as evidenced this week by the NYT article, the media is still stoking the issue fires and intentionally steering public opinion!
That said, I must ask, when will we say “enough”! When will we stop publicly “flogging” the young men who matured during that era for their decisions and actions? (Yes, women served; however, they served strictly voluntarily, they did not face the same decisions as our young men and at that time they did not serve in combat units.) Let us not forget that our “young men” were limited in their freedom of choice as to how they would “serve” during that era; we had mandatory draft. And truly there was no “right” decision at that time. Our young men were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t, and as we see from the NYT article and the debates that have followed that has not changed! Our country was so divided and polarized there was no choice universally considered to be the “correct” or “honorable” action to take, whether to voluntarily enlist, enlist under forcible draft, burn their draft card, evade the draft and seek asylum in Canada, request an “educational deferment”, or stand on a college campus and protest. All one has to do is read the blogs that have come from the NYT article to have an inkling of what our young men faced then and continue to face now as older men 50 years later.
We as a country and our press continue to condemn our men of that era for the choices of their youth. Yet still, there is no right answer. Even John McCain, a POW, faced questions as to whether his “life experience as a POW” would adversely affect his ability to make sound decisions regarding war if elected to office. When will we say “enough”? How many excellent leaders and candidates will we lose from government service and leadership, by “slinging Vietnam mud”? Why, 50 years later, when we still can not agree on whether or not the US should even have had ANY involvement in the Vietnam War, should we care what “service” a candidate did or did not have. Why are candidates still damned if they did or damned if they did not serve “in Country” (the currently in vogue choice)? Perhaps that is why so many of our GOOD male candidates to this day do not really know what to say about their decisions back then.
Shame on the New York Times for their article. Shame on them for skewing public opinion by showing a 58 second clip and omitting Attorney General Blumenthal’s full explanation of his service as he presented it further into that very same 2008 speech. Shame on the NYT, for being just as “vague and misleading” as they accused the Connecticut press of being in their news articles about Attorney General Blumenthal. (Is this not the NYT yellow press calling the CT press yellow?) I noticed the NYT shut off their site from accepting comments regarding their article before the full speech was reveled I am beginning to lose all respect for our media.
And, shame on Linda McMahon. How convenient for her, as a woman, who was not expected to “serve” in ANY capacity to point a finger and exact condemnation on Attorney General Blumenthal. She will NEVER have to be asked if she served “in Country” or not. She will NEVER have to be asked if she sought asylum in Canada. She will NEVER have to be asked if she sought an educational deferment. She will NEVER have to be asked if she carried a protest sign and called our soldiers baby killers, war mongers and mother rapers. Because she is a woman, voters will never ask or care what she was doing during that time in our country and JUDGE her for her choices! Shame on Linda for sitting now on her “pedestal of female asylum” and judging Attorney General Blumenthal! Shame on her for “slinging Vietnam mud” to impugn Attorney General Blumenthal while being shielded from recrimination. As a woman, I am offended by her actions! Don’t you just wonder if perhaps she ever had an abortion? Oh, excuse me…that was the question directed at Sarah Palin when it was reveled that her unwed teenage daughter was pregnant. Funny how these heated polarized issues work out.
Perhaps Linda McMahon, and all of us for that matter, should consider how we represent ourselves. Have we ever exaggerated our role on a team project, worded our resumes to present our background and experience in a “glowing” light, claimed to have donated more to charity than perhaps we did for the tax deduction, or exaggerated our education on our resume filed with our candidacy papers (Linda?), etc.. Perhaps, he or she who is without sin should cast the first stone! Otherwise, perhaps we should focus on campaign issues.
chasm,
You said:
“And ignorance is no defense! The information necessary to make an informed decision was widely circulated.”
This has to be the most ignorant statement I have read all year. The was no internet, no alternative press, and unless you were in the big cities, no anti-war movement from which to derive possible information.
Moreover, many of the men who fought and died over there DID NOT CHOOSE to go! No information could have stopped them from the draft.
I don’t necessarily disagree with some of your assumptions, but you are picking on the wrong people by picking on the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces. Anyone who has the balls to serve in war zone deserves our respect, whether by choice or force. War is literally hell. If you have a problem with the politicians and the global corporations that control them, start there. You’re misguided attack on the rank-and-file takes away from the broader argument you’re trying to make.
Vince Treacy,
Sorry, I had to rush off to meet my son-in-law
The point I was trying to make was that throughout our history, including the run-up to WW II, there have always been those anti-war on one side, war-mongers on the other, and the rest of us stuck somewhere in the middle.
I think that’s a benefit to the overall health of our nation.
Vince Treacy,
Wise words.
Interestingly enough during our first war, The Revolutionary War, “the patriots received active support from only 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority.”
Perhaps Chasm, Rissle, and jess would have sided with the Tories or done what so many others (pacifists, recent emigrants, and apoliticals) did … tried to sit out the whole thing.
truthfool is well named. USSR has not existed since we whipped their sorry soviet red asses in the Cold War, q.v.
We are all veterans now! The republicans cry in response to Ukraine war cries against USSR, Vince the lies of our leaders {Ukraine invaded the Russian Enclaves inside their country} continue and we who vote are responsible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chasm and Rissle and jess are spouting some kind of pacifist far-out lefty nonsense that has no relation to the real world.
Millions of Americans served in the military during World War II and during more than 40 years of the Cold War.
They won both wars for the United States. Every American benefits from their sacrifices every single day.
This Chasm and Rissle and jess crowd is now exercising the freedom of expression that would have been impossible under German, Japanese or Soviet rule.
It was not perfect. There was and is a lot to criticize.
But listen to these guys. “Serving in the U.S. military is nothing to be proud of, much less brag about.” “Those who went to Vietnam to assist in the murder of Vietnamese and the crushing of their aspirations for self-determination are deserving of nothing but contempt until they own up to their crimes and devote themselves to acts of redemption.” “How can we think this after all we have learned about the brutality of war, the massive questionableness of nearly every foreign war involvement that the U.S. has been in….”
In their blissful, ideological ignorance, they miss the facts that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the US before extermination six million, North Korea invaded South Korea, the Soviet union put missiles in Cuba and threatened Berlin, the Vietnamese and Cambodians killed millions and never allowed a vote for self-determination, and Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Their blanket condemnation is bottomed on invincible ignorance.
Not to mention being a despicable attack on millions of brave Americans.
This intemperate, unreasoned hate-filled diatribe sure looks like an example of the type of abuse that veterans must endure.
There is certainly a lot to debate about the last 100 years of foreign policy. Most of the debate throughout our history has focused on the leaders who directed that policy.
But Chasm and Rissle and jess?
They blame the victims.
The use of the “I was spat upon” in return from service was used after the movie Rambo came out depicting such behavior. You know and I know this behavior was and could not have happened in proof I offer the behavior of today’s public response to returning service members. Pity is the word we feel for these poor pawns in the machinations of old men sacrificing the flower of youth for personal political gain. That Blumenthal would attempt to avoid service of those “older than time forces”, then in pursuit of his political career become what he beheld perhaps is a fitting end.
Chasm and Rissler hit the nail on the head. Serving in the U.S. military is nothing to be proud of, much less brag about.
Actually he is telling two lies
He did not serve in Viet Nam.
Returning Soldiers were not spit on or physically assaulted. There are no contemporaneous accounts of these events, the later accounts that had any verifiable information in them have all proven to be untrue.
The second lie indicates that he wanted the credit provided if the first one were true.