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

[cinyc]

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

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/politics/new-haven-blumenthal-apologizes

[Vepres]

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.

I agree with this assessment. Only if bending the truth about himself on other issues starts occurring could he actually be deliberately lying.

[Brittain33]

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

Not as long as Linda McMahon is the alternative.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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?"

Actually both quotes are from last week.

 

[Torie]

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.

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.

[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?"

Actually both quotes are from last week.

 

Well it is the first time I have seen them. The three I saw before were not as "good" as these two.

[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.

[Torie]

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.

"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.

[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.

[Torie]

OK, the smart lawyer just didn't think to insert the word "era" after Vietnam, and really didn't mean to mislead; maybe he thought it would be inferred. Well I give you this Britain33, you probably with the "era" defense, have come up with the best possible  defense available, given the two damaging quotes. I hope most agree with me and don't find your defense persuasive, but I guess we shall see. And I wonder why Blumenthal himself didn't come up with the "era" defense, if that is what he was thinking he was saying. I find that a bit odd too.

Anyway, Brittain33, thanks for the tete a tete.

[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.

[cinyc]

OK, the smart lawyer just didn't think to insert the word "era" after Vietnam, and really didn't mean to misled; maybe he thought it would be inferred. Well I give you this Britain33, you probably with the "era" defense, have come up with the best possible  defense available, given the two damaging quotes. I hope most agree with me and don't find your defense persuasive, but I guess we shall see. And I wonder why Blumenthal himself didn't come up with the "era" defense, if that is what he was thinking he was saying. I find that a bit odd too.

Anyway, Brittain33, thanks for the tete a tete.

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.

[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.

[Lunar]

http://richardblumenthal.com/action/ConventionVideo?utm_source=sp3022122&utm_medium=e&sc=sp3022122

If that's not a heartwarmer, you're far more cynical than I

[ilikeverin]

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?"

Yes.

[Lief 🗽]

http://richardblumenthal.com/action/ConventionVideo?utm_source=sp3022122&utm_medium=e&sc=sp3022122

If that's not a heartwarmer, you're far more cynical than I

Truly, (Democratic) Attorney Generals are the greatest Americans.

"Hey mom, there's the man who saved my life!" hahah, wow.

[Holmes]

http://richardblumenthal.com/action/ConventionVideo?utm_source=sp3022122&utm_medium=e&sc=sp3022122

If that's not a heartwarmer, you're far more cynical than I

"Dick has touched the lives of many people directly"

Heehee.