Blumenthal: "I served in Vietnam"/NYT to Blumenthal: You lie!

[Brittain33]

Yuck. I bet he survives this, though.

[Brittain33]

Oh dear. Why or why did he do this? Why do so many politicians recklessly lie? Why?

The argument made is that he has gotten used to referring to his service in the Vietnam Era (itself a dishonest case, given his multiple deferments and Bush- and Quayle-style search for a safe haven) and became so comfortable with it that he went whole hog without realizing and made his implied claim explicit.

This is not a defense of what he did--claiming veteran status you don't have is pretty despicable--but an explanation of how someone who has otherwise proven himself to be intelligent could do something so transparent and stupid.

[Brittain33]

Yeah, let's see if McMahon is the nominee though.

If we're lucky, she'll jump on this issue tomorrow and yell into the microphones enough that the media forgets anyone else is running for the R nomination in their rush to cover her.

[Brittain33]

Bloomy holds a press conference later today. Predictions?

What I hope is that he acknowledges his misstatements without abasing himself too much, describes his service as it was, expresses his respect and admiration for veterans, and then talks about why he's going to Washington to fight for Connecticut against the big banks, polluters, etc. as he always has. If he can't navigate this press conference successfully with a huge lead, he'd never make it through the campaign.

[Brittain33]

Can you say "Career over?"

We'll know if this is the case or not in another 24-48 hours. George W. Bush claimed he'd been to war and served in Vietnam on occasion, accidentally.

[Brittain33]

We'll know if this is the case or not in another 24-48 hours. George W. Bush claimed he'd been to war and served in Vietnam on occasion, accidentally.

This seems to be the "progressive" spin of the day.  Please cite ONE instance when George W. Bush claimed he had served in Vietnam.  ONE.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_05/023850.php

You're right, he only said he'd "been to war" and seen combat "firsthand" and "served in the U.S. Air Force", all of which are lies. It was up to the listener to assme it was during his service in the Vietnam Era, and not Grenada or the Crimean War or some such.

[Brittain33]

Ok, so it turns out the NYT piece was a load of crap. In the same speech that the NYT makes a big deal about, where he said he served in Vietnam, in the same speech he clarified with "served in the military, during the Vietnam era."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNhzPBn3zP0&feature=player_embedded

Having just listened to the video, Blumenthal said at the beginning of his remarks that he served during the Vietnam War, and then later said he served "in" Vietnam. It is the latter reference (one of five instances allegedly), that got Blumenthal in trouble.

The juxtaposition shows that he did not set out to lie, but made a verbal error later. If he were trying to convince people he served in Vietnam, he wouldn't have used the "era" phrasing to begin with. If you speak extemporaneously, this stuff happens.

[Brittain33]

He was even warned by his friends in the past that he was going to far in his statements and that he should back off.

Nope. It's ok, I had the same conclusion when I first read the article that Shays (one friend, not friends) provided to the Times, but if you read it more closely, you see that he never actually spoke to Blumenthal. It's all "hey, I got worried and kept thinking I should go up and talk to him, I had a strong impulse, [but I didn't.]"

[Brittain33]

Another hole in NYT's article.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0510/Blumenthal_was_on_swim_team.html

I wouldn't exactly call that one a "win."

Why not? It doesn't erase the other issue, but it's a blow to the credibility of the article.

[Brittain33]

Does anyone still think that Blumenthal was not deliberately lying, and just accidentally "misspoke?"

(Goes to link) Yes, I do. I think he was careless and revisited this particular topic on many, many occasions, and sometimes he let his "we" identification with those who actually fought carry him somewhere he shouldn't have. I think that if you served in the Vietnam Era enough to identify with that side in the culture war over whether we should be there or not and how to protest, to the extent you can effortlessly and honestly say "we" to talk about people coming home, and if you give variations of the same talk over and over again but with variations because you speak off the cuff, you will find words coming out of your mouth that don't reflect what you intended to say because you are carried away with your admiration, your sense of camaraderie, and perhaps your own sense of not having done as much as later, with hindsight and no risk to yourself, you wish you could have. I think a similar article on George W. Bush, given his imprecision of speech, would have him claiming stolen valor as well on some occasions, and god knows what other accomplishments. And I think it is most notable that the Times isn't finding him giving lengthy stories of his time in Vietnam, or claims to his personal valor, but only sentences where he made a brief statement of having been in Vietnam.

But it's good and right for this to get a full airing.

[Brittain33]

I must say Brittain33 that I consider that a most generous assessment on your part. I just hope when I screw up that you are that generous.

I recognize it is generous, and that I am biased. But I'm biased in part because my communication skills never allowed me to consider being a lawyer and presenting in court, and even having gotten better over time, I am surprised and embarrassed by some of the combinations of words coming out of my mouth. I recognize the statements taken at face value as dishonest, but I don't see a premeditated or thorough fraud here. Most especially because he has made his real history clear with great frequency and never tried to hide what his service was, and the falsehoods are all individual sentences in speeches where, in some cases, he described his service honestly. So I am inclined to generosity, the same way as I'm sure George W. Bush didn't mean to lie when he said he served in the U.S. Air Force or had seen war, but was using the wrong terms to describe real actions. I do think Blumenthal went beyond Bush because he got carried away when using a justificable rhetorical device in saying when "we" came home from Vietnam--I do believe he said that in this context in the sense that all men who served were brothers and he identified with them as a form of respect. But I recognize that many men who put their lives on the line would see that as presumptuous, particularly if they disagreed with him on other issues.

I unchivalrously doubled the length of my post since you responded.

[Brittain33]

Take the first quote in the Times article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, no. Literally speaking, they didn't endure taunts and insults in Vietnam, they suffered squalor and physical attacks. The insults and taunts were stateside, "in the U.S." and that is clear from his context about people coming home. And if he was wearing his uniform around in the U.S., he experienced taunts and insults. So the meaning here was clearly in his head "In the Vietnam era,", or "in the Vietnam war time period," which is where he served, even if it wasn't dangerous like serving in actual Vietnam. And if he was pretending that he served in Vietnam, why would he then say "Welcome home" to himself? What sense does that make? He plainly puts himself in the place of the people saying "welcome."

Read it again in that light, Torie, and tell me he's pretending he was a soldier in Vietnam. And if you believe so, tell me how that sentence makes any sense as spoken.

[Brittain33]

Blumenthal has finally apologized (well, sort of).   Is it too late?

Not as long as Linda McMahon is the alternative.

[Brittain33]

Yes, Blumenthal can explain his way out of the misleading statement that you put up above, which is why I chose not to use it. When I get out the knife, I want to slice an artery, not a vein.

It proves that he uses "In Vietnam" as a shorthand in a way that hurt him in those other sentences you quoted.

[Brittain33]

"Proves" is a rather strong verb to use there.  Look the guy is a lawyer. The suggestion that he does not know the difference between saying "we" vis a vis Vietnam, which can be the collective "we" although it does have an arrogant connotation, and 'I" vis a vis Vietnam, or just accidentally used the word "I," strikes me as just ludicrous, particularly since this always happened when he was trying to impress Vets.

You know, I am not really trying to be partisan here. My honest judgment is that he was deliberately lying, and that usually is a deal breaker for me when it comes to politicians, and I want their careers to come to an end, and I don't care what party to which they belong.

I guess reality is indeed so often colored by the eyes of the beholder.

Ok, fine, if he's a lawyer and his wording is precise, can you explain how that sentence I broke down makes any sense at all as a lie? Where is the coherence? You owe me that much, and if you believe your judgment to be honest, you owe it to yourself.

[Brittain33]

"Proves" is a rather strong verb to use there.  Look the guy is a lawyer. The suggestion that he does not know the difference between saying "we" vis a vis Vietnam, which can be the collective "we" although it does have an arrogant connotation, and 'I" vis a vis Vietnam, or just accidentally used the word "I," strikes me as just ludicrous, particularly since this always happened when he was trying to impress Vets.

You know, I am not really trying to be partisan here. My honest judgment is that he was deliberately lying, and that usually is a deal breaker for me when it comes to politicians, and I want their careers to come to an end, and I don't care what party to which they belong.

I guess reality is indeed so often colored by the eyes of the beholder.

Ok, fine, if he's a lawyer and his wording is precise, can you explain how that sentence I broke down makes any sense at all as a lie? Where is the coherence? You owe me that much, and if you believe your judgment to be honest, you owe it to yourself.

My point in addressing it isn't that "Blumenthal can explain his way out of it." It's that if you read the sentence and think about it, it totally fails as a lie, it fails as a claim of service in Vietnam, it probably even fails the Turing test. I didn't need Blumenthal to tell me what he meant, I read the words and they don't parse coherently except by the explanation I gave for how he uses "in Vietnam." And that's my point.

[Brittain33]

Anyway, Brittain33, thanks for the tete a tete.

Ditto, it's enjoyable to violently disagree with you for once. This will be settled in the court of public opinion and I am interested to see what happens, but I'm guessing it will be settled on the basis that most people think he lied but decide whether it is material to their vote or not.

[Brittain33]

Because in the long run, it's better just to say I made a mistake, I apologize and let's move on than to unconvincingly argue over semantics for weeks.  Get the story out of the news cycle ASAP and limit the damage.

I agree, any explanation he gives has very high "I voted for it before I voted against it" potential. Better for his political future to fight aggressively at first and then try to put it away quietly with an apology, even if it's not good for our civic integrity or whathaveyou.