There has been a lot of spin by state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, his devout supporters, and even some media about Blumenthal misleading the public about his military record.
Blumenthal insists that it was a only a few misplaced words that got him into trouble and he did not intend to have people think he actually served in Vietnam.
Some in the media even say that Blumenthal is in the clear because in some of his speeches where he said he served IN VIETNAM he also said he was a Vietnam ERA veteran.
But to many who listened to his speeches, they were convinced that he actually was in Vietnam where the bullets were flying.
This is what former Courant news photographer Bob MacDonnell said on my Facebook page about the issue:
“I photographed several military homecoming ceremonies where AG Blumenthal made similar speeches to the one in the NYT video.
“Based on those examples, I was a bit surprised that he had not served in the war. I can’t recall his exact words, he may well have said he served in the reserves during the Vietnam war, which would be accurate, but to me the implication was that he served in the war.
“Based on his political skill and media savvy, I think his words were chosen carefully, to at least blur the lines if not mislead, as George suggests.
“Because of his popularity, I think he was allowed to walk that fine line, and occasionally cross it, leaving at least some with the impression he served in Vietnam. If John Rowland, for example, had the same military background and made the same speech, how long before a humbling story about his actual service, deferments and exaggerated claims was written?”
He was not alone. Former U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, who attended countless of chicken and peas functions with Blumenthal, said Blumenthal kept embellishing his military record to the point where he also considered warning his friend to tone it down.
Its not unusual for politicians to embellish their military records. Unfortunately Blumenthal is the Attorney General with the responsibility to go after companies that embellish their products. Makes it a little harder when he repeatedly sought to change his personal history and hide the fact that he did his best to avoid going to Vietnam.
Reporters in Connecticut also got the wrong impression.
The Greenwich Time reported this week that it found the following section in a 2008 story that included Blumenthal’s claims:
After the band played the national anthem and Marines raised the American flag, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Stamford’s parade was the best in the state.
“I wore the uniform in Vietnam and many came back . . . to all kinds of disrespect,” Blumenthal told the crowd. “Whatever we think of war, we owe the men and women of the armed forces our unconditional support.”
The following is from the New York Times Monday article that broke the story:
“In at least eight newspaper articles published in Connecticut from 2003 to 2009, he is described as having served in Vietnam.
“he 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.”
Folks, its up to you to decide if these were simply misspeaks or misrepresentations.
To help those who were too young to be around during the Vietnam war, I have an analogy. If one lived in Hartford, Connecticut all their lives, is it simply misspeak to claim in a speech that you are a native of Connecticut and you had lived in Stamford.
Stamford is in Connecticut, just like every man and woman who served in the military from 1963 to 1975 served DURING the Vietnam War. If you didn’t live in Stamford you can’t honestly say you did. And if you weren’t among the half a million who actually served IN Vietnam, you also can’t claim to have been in the actual war.
There is a wonderful piece in the NYT giving some context to why politicians tend to lie about their military service.
This whole Blumenthal story has screwed up my perceptions about Vietnam Vets. This not to say I’ve lost my belief that the Vietnam War was a travesty against God, Country, a HUGE waste of human life/national wealth and another example in a long string of Neo-Con, Chicken Hawk, War Profiteering conflicts that are ruining this Great Nation.
Funny thing, but if one really thinks about it… Jane Fonda was in Vietnam longer than Blumenthal, lol.
But I couldn’t help but think is THIS story REALLY important during this time of mass Tribulation and oily corruption.
My problem is caused by those silver spoon so-called journalists presenting this story… Did Blumenthal say “I served IN Vietnam” or did he say “I served DURING Vietnam”? This whole thing presents a problem for me personally.
There’s this homeless guy on the streets I’ve been giving money to for years. Has HE been misrepresenting himself? He has a cap and cardboard sign that identifies him as a Vietnam Vet… (PLEASE HELP) I’m buying him a black Sharpie marker so he can clarify his position IN or DURING.
Of course the REALLY sad, disturbing part of this story is this man is obviously mentally ill, smells like pee and is probably using my coin donations to buy cheap fortified Wine products. If Blumenthal wants to REPENT for misleading his constituency maybe he should go out and use his Family wealth to help his fellow Vietnam Era Association members who are down and out!
concerncitizens.blogspot.com
I’m sorry but he flat lied and more than once. There likely will be more qoutes and video clips in the days to come as the Stamford Adocate is now reporting. He has forever lost my respect.
George don’t you think he should flat out resign? I know he’s worked for vets and vet rights and heck shouldn’t every public official? This is beyond the pale. As you point out he should hold himself to the same standars he has held others.
Actually, I’m more upset with the claim that he “misspoke” than I am about the original embellishments. It seems clear that Blumie has been inconsistent, sometimes he tells the truth and sometimes he embellishes it. Why can’t he just say he got a little carried away and stretched the truth and apologize for offending people who really did serve IN Vietnam? Why does he persist in trying to claim innocence? That is more offensive to me than the original lie.