• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Richard Blumenthal misremembers his military record

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,005
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Candidate’s Words on Vietnam Service Differ From History

At a ceremony honoring veterans and senior citizens who sent presents to soldiers overseas, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut rose and spoke of an earlier time in his life.

“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. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the United States Senate, never served in 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.

The deferments allowed Mr. Blumenthal to complete his studies at Harvard; pursue a graduate fellowship in England; serve as a special assistant to The Washington Post’s publisher, Katharine Graham; and ultimately take a job in the Nixon White House.

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 joined a unit in Washington that conducted drills and other exercises and focused on local projects, like fixing a campground and organizing a Toys for Tots drive.
Click to expand...
Ouch. That's bad. Really bad.
Great scoop by the NY Times though.
 
There are several clips of speeches where he very specifically says he was in the reserves, did not go to Vietnam, but learned something during that time. I suspect he figured it was part of the public record & he didn't have to reiterate it each time; he probably should have said "served in the reserves during the Vietnam era" or something, but since he has already publicly noted his type of service, I don't think this is some attempt to cover up how he served.
 
I agree, he's disgustingly distorted his record.
However, from the standpoint of the VA and the military, he is indeed a "Vietnam era Veteran". He just left out the "era".
 
rwguinn said:
I agree, he's disgustingly distorted his record.
However, from the standpoint of the VA and the military, he is indeed a "Vietnam era Veteran". He just left out the "era".
Click to expand...

He didn't claim to be a Vietnam era vet, he claimed to have served in Vietnam.

"since the days that I served in Vietnam"

ETA: I guess I could claim to have played in the 1979 World Series since I was playing organized baseball at the same time as the World Series was under way.
 
Last edited:
MikeMangum said:
He didn't claim to be a Vietnam era vet, he claimed to have served in Vietnam.

"since the days that I served in Vietnam"

ETA: I guess I could claim to have played in the 1979 World Series since I was playing organized baseball at the same time as the World Series was under way.
Click to expand...

Yea, and i get SB rings since I was playing football when the Steelers were winning SB's.

Man, my life is so much fuller now.
 
MikeMangum said:
He didn't claim to be a Vietnam era vet, he claimed to have served in Vietnam.

"since the days that I served in Vietnam"

ETA: I guess I could claim to have played in the 1979 World Series since I was playing organized baseball at the same time as the World Series was under way.
Click to expand...

Drysdale said:
Yea, and i get SB rings since I was playing football when the Steelers were winning SB's.

Man, my life is so much fuller now.
Click to expand...
I'm NOT defending the *******.
Just pointing out that he, like 99.4% of all politicians, simply stretched the truth into the plastic region...
 
Tiktaalik said:
There are several clips of speeches where he very specifically says he was in the reserves, did not go to Vietnam, but learned something during that time. I suspect he figured it was part of the public record & he didn't have to reiterate it each time; he probably should have said "served in the reserves during the Vietnam era" or something, but since he has already publicly noted his type of service, I don't think this is some attempt to cover up how he served.
Click to expand...
You didn't read the story linked to in the OP, did you? It would be very hard to come to the conclusion you did if you had.
 
WildCat said:
You didn't read the story linked to in the OP, did you? It would be very hard to come to the conclusion you did if you had.
Click to expand...

Yeah...My first thought was, "slip of the tongue," because I figured no politician would be stupid enough to lie about something like that and expect to get away with it.

But if you read the article, it's not just the one quote. The guy's been using "ambiguously suggestive"* language about Vietnam for a while now.

* Couldn't think of any other way to put it, but I think my meaning's pretty clear.
 
rwguinn said:
I'm NOT defending the *******.
Just pointing out that he, like 99.4% of all politicians, simply stretched the truth into the plastic region...
Click to expand...

Yea, but he stretched the truth on a topic that is a big nono to stretch it on.

Especially when it sounds like he did everything he could to prevent being deployed.
 
Was he stupid enough to think nobody would call him on it?
I guess so...........
If it was once it could be a slip of the tongue, but when it happens on a number of occasions it's lying.
And yes, the usual "Democrats can do no wrong" gang will defend him, just like the "A Republican can do no wrong" gang will defend any idiocy by the Tea Party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom