Quotes from the New York Times Article:
"When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “Let us do better by this generation of men and women.” "The New Haven Register on July 20, 2006, described him as “a veteran of the Vietnam War,” and on April 6, 2007, said that the attorney general had “served in the Marines in Vietnam.” "On May 26, 2009, The Connecticut Post, a Bridgeport newspaper that is the state’s third-largest daily, described Mr. Blumenthal as “a Vietnam veteran.” The Shelton Weekly reported on May 23, 2008, that Mr. Blumenthal “was met with applause when he spoke about his experience as a Marine sergeant in Vietnam.” “We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008."
"In 1970, with his last deferment in jeopardy, he landed a coveted spot in the Marine Reserve, which virtually guaranteed that he would not be sent to Vietnam."
"He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records."
"But what is striking about Mr. Blumenthal’s record is the contrast between the many steps he took that allowed him to avoid Vietnam, and the misleading way he often speaks about that period of his life now, especially when he is speaking at veterans’ ceremonies or other patriotic events."
"Sometimes his remarks have been plainly untrue, as in his speech to the group in Norwalk. At other times, he has used more ambiguous language, but the impression left on audiences can be similar. "
The NYTimes adds this: "It does not appear that Mr. Blumenthal ever sought to correct those mistakes." Apparently, not, and thanks for being honest, NYTimes... Okay, folks...so having read those quotes.......
.....now read THIS ARTICLE from the Associated Press published on Yahoo...it includes this:"Blumenthal, the longtime state attorney general, admitted he misspoke about his military service on various occasions by saying he served "in" Vietnam when he actually served stateside as a member of the Marine reserve."
REALLY? THAT'S ALL HE SAID? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The ONLY QUOTE THEY MENTION is what they say is a MISSPEAK...like "oops!..well, no biggie!!"...THAT'S IT, FOLKS! THAT's all that the AP decided people should know among all of Blumenthal's quotes (sorry "quote", singular, according to the AP?!).......imagine that? This dishonest and so incomplete AP article irks me MORE than the LIES! See my point?
And, really, COULD YOU VOTE FOR THIS GUY? EVER? HE LIED BLATANTLY...it's Memorial Day in a few days...........many, many Americans did go to Vietnam and many didn't return.......think of those soldiers who died! This guy LIED!
z
24 comments:
They are all liars. We must find the one that lies the least and at the same time, best shares our political views.
This Administration is packed with liars and they are radical Leftists. Few, if any, have even served in anything military, but we know they have been involved in Marxist philosophical groups.
I know very little about Mr. Blumenthal except he did something that was totally uncalled for, lie about his service record.
It's not like he lied about an upcoming vote or stance to keep political heat off of him. Pols do that all of the time. It's not like it was any dishonor to serve in the Reserves or National Guard. Many brave men and women have served in those branches throughout history.
He tried to make himself a war hero for political gain, and that is the worst kind of lie. Ergo, he is the worst kind of liar and I would never vote for him under any circumstance.
I prefer to err on the side that gauges leftists as imbeciles lacking reading comprehension and language skills compounded by a distinct incapacity for rational thought rather than the alternative that assigns malicious motive to their actions.
Either way, just dumb as bricks or actively planning a sequel to the Holocaust, there's no reason to vote for leftists (primarily Democrats) so they can pass bills to see what's in them.
Beamish summed it up pretty well.
Hell no I wouldn't vote for him. He lied about being in Vietnam.
What is striking here is the arrogance. I believe, due to the fact that the press is in bed with the left, that these guys have become convinced they can say whatever they want and get away with it.
LASunsett.."worst kind of liar" is my exact point..
beamish...I wouldn't vote for a guy who lied this big-time if he was a Conservative. Of course, I guess the Conservatives would have weeded him out and replaced him if this happened.
Chuck...what strikes me also is the ARROGANCE OF AP to NOT LIST the quotes the Times listed, shown in my post in blue.......as if "it wasn't really any big deal.."
He lied and yet he seems to be way ahead in the polls. Go figure. Lying seems to be an asset for some folks.
Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com
He needs to get beaten up by a bunch of hired thugs within inches of his life and his kneecaps removed for lying like that.
A third to Beamish!
The asshat in question needs to be tied to a rail and horsewhipped by REAL Vietnam Vets.
And why hesitate to use the word liar? Call it as it is!
To answer the question bluntly:
It would depend entirely on his prior track record.
I don't subscribe to puristic, simplistic, absolutist doctrines.
Men should be not defined only by the sins they commit. If that were a proper, viable standard, NO ONE on EARTH could qualify for ANYTHING, or even have the right to LIVE.
~ FreeThinke
Ft, normally I would sort of agree with you,
This is the reason people are still championing this guy because it "would depend entirely on his prior track record."...and, apparently, plenty of people think he did a good job for them.
But, if it's "puristic, simplistic" or "absolutist" not to vote for a guy who has been lying about his military record as many times and as grossly as he has, than I fear for America even more than I have been.
This board sounds a lot like an angry mob out for blood, Z.
I felt a need to say something that might help counteract the atmosphere that was building.
Mobs (even mental ones in cyberspace) are always dangerous.
We're all angry -- and rightly so -- about the things that have happened to our country. We need an outlet for the rage and frustration we feel. In effectively "hanging" a man -- even though just in our minds -- because he was caught in a self-aggrandizing lie -- we do a disservice to ourselves. At least I think so.
I would use this information to be skeptical, but I'd have to know a great deal more about Blumenthal and what he has accomplished throughout his career before I could call for his head on a platter.
I speak metaphorically, of course. ;-)
~ FT
Nothing "absolutist" about looking at his track record of lying about serving in Vietnam and concluding the guy is either delusional or willfully deceptive, two traits that find a happy home on the left but have no place in the representation or governance of rational people.
If Blumenthal would lie about this, he's already demonstrated he has no scruples.
This was the kind of lie that a consummate liar makes. The kind of lie that is habitual, to elevate the liar's stature.
You couldn't trust this man as far as you could throw him. He is as untrustworthy as one could get.
Pris
I'd take it further:
If the man's repeated lies about Vietnam service are the result of "mispeaking" do you really want this guy trying to parse legislation written in English?
If the man's repeated lies about Vietnam service are the result of meticulously self-aggrandizing deception, do you really want this guy anywhere near the the power to enrich himself on the public dime?
What other choices are there? The guy is either an imbecile or a snake.
FT...we are angry and I'm glad this is a place we can vent. I encourage it.
If you don't think this was egregious behavior, that's fine! I appreciate your sentiment but have to admit I can't wrap my brain around a man who'd lie so blatantly about something so important and so easy to disprove (perhaps he's also not too bright? Or just that desperate)...
The more I think about it, I believe, for me, it's maybe a little less the LIE than WHAT HE LIED ABOUT...it's almost unforgivable when I know men and women are putting their lives on the line for us. he did not but suggests he did.
Beamish and Pris...Yes..this big and important a lie does put his character in a terrible light...he just can't be an honorable man IN GENERAL and have propagated this kind of misinformation.
At any rate, it's all moot with me, because I assume Blumenthal is a DemonRat, and I would never vote for him anyway, because of the fundamental disagreement I have with the unnamed-but-still-avowed socialist agenda of the DemonRat party.
All the same I am against militant "opposition research" on principle. It's a scurrilous methodology, and it's done irreparable harm to American society.
What this boils down to is that I hate GOTCHA journalism more than I dislike the sins it exposes.
Why? because GOTCHA journalism has no depth, and it's only purpose is not to INFORM, but to DESTROY. I think that's innately evil.
Use evil to overcome evil, and you BECOME evil.
Didn't Jesus tell us, "Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good?"
I think so!
~ FreeThinke
FT..'militant' would be a good word for this situation.
Sorry, while I admire your sentiments, I can't agree...
I'm afraid we do have to overcome evil and most of us think the Democrat agenda IS evil and so we have to do all we can to show the true character of their players. Sometimes it's not GOTCHA (Which I agree with you, I HATE), it's just the plain old truth!
And THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!.
Okay, I just read up a little on Richard Blumenthal. He IS a turd.
I might forgive him for "not correcting" the exaggerated claims written about him by others -- after all who is going to denounce friendly good publicity -- especially if someone ELSE does your lying FOR you?
BUT, Blumenthal has a solidly ANTI-BUSINESS record, has used his position to BULLY small businesses through judicial FIAT, and enact regulations that could not possibly have passed in the legislature if the ideas had been subject to legitimate debate.
He stinks, he rots, he reeks. KILL him! ;-)
If there's one thing I detest even more than mob psychology, it's a BULLY.
C'mon! LET GET A ROPE!
~ FT
FT, that cracked me up!
I'd say "let's get a rope" for Hillary's incredibly STUPID and unAmerican comments about the rich not paying enough. This is horrifying and I'm hoping kids aren't listening...what the heck would they have to look forward to as far as working hard, getting successful, if they really buy into the new Democrat idiocy of THIS?
Sure, let's not cut spending, get rid of the illegals who cost us SO SO MUCH, and let's just make the rich pay MORE! What the heck..who needs JOBS? Why NOT have businesses go overseas with employment when they're taxed so highly? DO DEMOCRATS THINK?
D'Rats don't THINK, Z -- they SCHEME.
};-)>
~ FT
Anyway, RB look like man-eating monster in the picture.
I didn't see it at first, but there's a HARDNESS there that's truly frightening.
Okay. I'm converted. GO GET THAT ROPE.
~ FT
Illinois Senate candidate admits claim about military award was inaccurate
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 29, 2010; 5:41 PM
The Republican candidate for President Obama's old Senate seat has admitted to inaccurately claiming he received the U.S. Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year award for his service during NATO's conflict with Serbia in the late 1990s.
Rep. Mark Kirk, a Navy reservist who was elected to Congress in 2001, acknowledged the error in his official biography after The Washington Post began looking into whether he had received the prestigious award, which is given by top Navy officials to a single individual annually.
The Post's inquiries were sparked by complaints from a representative of state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, Kirk's Democratic opponent in the Illinois Senate race.
Cmdr. Danny Hernandez, the Navy's assistant chief of information, said for several days last week that he was having trouble finding records to clarify the matter. Then on Friday, he said Kirk, an Appropriations Committee member who co-chairs an electronic warfare working group, had changed his Web site to incorporate a different account of the award.
In a message on his blog, Kirk wrote that "upon a recent review of my records, I found that an award listed in my official biography was misidentified" and that the award he had intended to list was given to his unit, not to him individually.
Kirk was assigned to a unit based in Aviano, Italy, during the conflict. A professional group, the National Military Intelligence Association, gave the unit an award for outstanding service, according to a revised résumé posted on Kirk's Web site Saturday.
The association's Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor Award celebrates "the exceptional achievements of an outstanding Naval Intelligence career professional," but the citation in 2000 contains no mention of Kirk and instead designates the entire Intelligence Division Electronic Attack Wing at Aviano.
Kirk, whose campaign has emphasized his military service as a reservist, similarly misstated the award during a House committee hearing in March 2002. In a remark recorded by C-Span, he said, "I was the Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year," an achievement he depicted as providing special qualifications to discuss national security spending.
Anonymous, thanks for that information.
I wonder why it appears that award is only given to individuals but that that time it was given to the whole unit...
maybe it was a total misunderstanding on Kirk's part.
If it wasn't, he needs to be shown for lying as Blumenthal is...by the way, it doesn't help to do "tit for tat" at my blog because we aren't a blog which only slams the Left, but thanks for the information.
"GOTCHA" and "TIT FOR TAT" doesn't do much good for our country, although it CAN if people are warned about Blumenthal (and Kirk, if it truly applies, let's see what the media makes of it, I'm betting that since he's a Republican, it'll be a much higher pitch than Blumenthal's media coverage has been but at least Blumenthal's name might be in those pieces slamming Kirk, that would help! And, of course, if the media doesn't shred Kirk apart, then this is bunk or not worth mentioning because they'll always go much more after the Republican for even the slightest indiscretion) before they vote.
I forgot to sign that last post, Z. Sorry. Didn't even realize it till I came back to see if there were any responses.
Definitely NOT a matter of tit for tat only an enrichment to our understanding that things of this kind seem to "go with the territory" in politics.
You're probably right about the unequal treatment these men are likely to receive in the media, but that was not my point particularly, since I think most of us here now take that kind of thing for granted. We KNOW the media is biased and deliberately unfair -- thanks in part to your vigilance and keen perception.
Anyway, my point was that corruption and this matter of partisan use of "opposition research" runs all across party lines and has polluted the ENTIRE system.
I see all these various items as pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. When all the pieces are in place, I'm sure we'll se the ugly faces of Disingenuousness, Malice and Cupidity.
~ FreeThinke
Funny! I had never heard of Kirk till his name appeared in scandal.
POLITICS!
A filthy business.
~ FT
Post a Comment