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

[cinyc]

Contrary to Lief's wishes, this isn't going away yet.  Of course the Connecticut media is going to try to defend its previously bad reporting.  They don't like being shown up by an out-of-state paper.

From the Stamford Advocate, linked by Drudge:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And then, there's this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More overstating of his service record, though perhaps a more understandable mistake.

I still think Blumenthal survives this, but he has been damaged quite a bit.  I suspect Alpert will get the requisite 15% of the delegate votes at this weekend's convention to get on the primary ballot.

[Torie]

" 'I wore the uniform in Vietnam and many came back to all kinds of disrespect. Whatever we think of war, we owe the men and women of the armed forces our unconditional support.' "

The above is the money line. It is very hard to plausibly suggest that he thought he was saying that he just served during the Vietnam era, rather than "in" Vietnam (which was the case made by some coming to his defense regarding his comments on that video clip), when the point is here is  about coming whom to disrespect and ridicule precisely because of serving in Vietnam, an unpopular war, and one where much of the Left came close to arguing that  we were on the wrong side.

Lief, what is your comment on this one?

[Lief 🗽]

It's an unfortunate and confusing choice of words, but he's not saying that he specifically came back from Vietnam to all kinds of disrespect. If he had said "we came back", or "I came back", or "many like me came back" or something to that effect, then that would be damning.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Apparently all of the instances where he "misspoke" were when he addressed  veterans groups.
Whenever he talked to other audiences he was much more clear about his record. Coincidence?

[Vepres]

Damn prepositions!

[Torie]

Apparently all of the instances where he "misspoke" were when he addressed  veterans groups.
Whenever he talked to other audiences he was much more clear about his record. Coincidence?

Good potential insight. Maybe he didn't not want to get too much into detail that he was "just" in the reserves in a safe place, because he wanted to really try and bond with the vets.

[ilikeverin]

Yeah.  Replace "we" with "veterans" (or even "us veterans") in any of those quotes and they become pretty much prosaic.  In any case, I think it's about time for a massive psycholinguistic uprising right about now saying that a preposition or first-person-plural here or there doesn't make a lie; prepositions are such fickle things that, for all we know, all the quotes written down were actually misheard and mistranscribed.  This entire "controversy" is getting just a little bit ridiculous.

[Lunar]

Apparently all of the instances where he "misspoke" were when he addressed  veterans groups.
Whenever he talked to other audiences he was much more clear about his record. Coincidence?

Good potential insight. Maybe he didn't not want to get too much into detail that he was "just" in the reserves in a safe place, because he wanted to really try and bond with the vets.

It's important to remember that veterans are probably Blumenthal's #1 constituent priority.  As AG he has gone to EVERY single Connecticut soldier's funeral who has tied in Afghanistan/Iraq, he personally deals with any calls relating to veterans at his office [surprising veterans/veteran  spouses with his intense level of personal attention on issues they have been dealing with the bureaucracy with for 6+mo's], he marches in every parade etcetc.  Increasing benefits for veterans has really be one of the key focuses of his career, probably on the level that immigration reform has been for Tom Tancredo.  

He's not a johnny-come-lately to the veterans thing, I guess I mean to say.  It's really been at the core of his political identity since he's gotten into politics. 

[??????????]

This guy clearly misrepresented what he was. 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.

[Lunar]

This guy clearly misrepresented what he was. 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.

I don't doubt you (some of his quotes are absurd), but I've read a dozen or two articles on this story, haven't seen that.  Could you post the link?

[??????????]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/nyregion/19shays.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2254220

[Landslide Lyndon]

Another hole in NYT's article.

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

[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.]"

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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."

[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.

[Torie]

Even though Shays did not talk to Blumenthal, I found his remarks pretty devastating, since he apparently is very familiar with Blumenthal's remarks about the military over time.  So far, Blumenthal has not commented on that. I suspect most voters will conclude that Blumenthal was indeed deliberately gilding the lily, and actually trying to create the impression that he served in Vietnam, trying to choose his words carefully in doing that, but slipped over the edge into actually using words that mean he was actually there, time after time.

Whether the voters factoring this into their voting decision will tank Blumenthal remains to be seen.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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."

If your goal is to prove that the NYT posted a Republican hit-piece without checking their facts, how would you call it?

Even though Shays did not talk to Blumenthal, I found his remarks pretty devastating, since he apparently is very familiar with Blumenthal's remarks about the military over time.  So far, Blumenthal has not commented on that. I suspect most voters will conclude that Blumenthal was indeed deliberately gilding the lily, and actually trying to create the impression that he served in Vietnam, trying to choose his words carefully in doing that, but slipped over the edge into actually using words that mean he was actually there, time after time.

Whether the voters factoring this into their voting decision will tank Blumenthal remains to be seen.

That would have been true if Shays could mention when and what exactly Blumenthal said. He is very vague and he never mentions that Blumenthal said that he served in Vietnam.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

Why not? Because it doesn't make Blumenthal look better.

Blumenthal as captain of the swim team is still a perpetuated inaccuracy, regardless of whether he laughed about it with the real swim team captain or not.

It's not a full inaccuracy.  Only a partial one.  You know, like the partial inaccuracy about his service in (during!) Vietnam...

[Torie]

Politico has a long story on this describing the current lay of the land, and the NY Times ombudsman (the public editor, Mr. Hoyt) has been investigating the journalistic controversy, and will be publishing his findings tomorrow. The quote from the story on this:

"Hoyt is expected to publish a column Sunday detailing the findings of his investigation, for which he has reached out to the Blumenthal and McMahon campaigns, as well as Jean Risley, the chairwoman of Connecticut Vietnams Memorial, Inc. and a Blumenthal ally who alleged the Times misquoted her saying that Blumenthal had claimed to have served in Vietnam."

The Risley contretemps:

" 'He has always been completely straightforward' about his military service, said Jean Risley, a chairwoman of the Connecticut Vietnam Veterans Memorial Inc. 'I never once heard him say that he was in Vietnam.' "

"Risley was quoted in the Times as recalling an emotional Blumenthal describe the abuse that he and other veterans received when they returned from the war.

"She told ABCNews.com today that she was misquoted."

[??????????]

Yes, but he has said he served on video, more then once.

[Torie]

The latest drip, drip in the ongoing Blumenthal saga can be found  here. There these quotes to savor, and Blumenthal was  moved to apology for it all again.

" 'I wore the uniform in Vietnam,” he said, 'and many came back to all kinds of disrespect. Whatever we think of war, we owe the men and women of the armed forces our unconditional support.' ”

" 'We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam.' ”

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

[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.

[Torie]

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 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.

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

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.

[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.