Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Blumenthal Defense: I Didn’t Lie All The Time

    Blumenthal Defense: I Didn’t Lie All The Time

    We really are into dumb territory here, with the Democratic media machine defending Richard Blumenthal on the ground that Blumenthal didn’t lie about his service “in Vietnam” every time he spoke about the subject.

    The story line arises because earlier in the same appearance in which Blumenthal uttered his famous line about his service “in Vietnam” he also stated that he served “during Vietnam.”

    As if lying sometimes is excused because one didn’t lie all the time.

    Media Matters started the defense based on an AP report of the full video, attacking The NY Times for not noting the prior honesty:

    So why didn’t the Times include Blumenthal “correctly characterizing his service” in its version of the video? That’s awfully misleading, isn’t it?

    Markos Moulitsas, linking to Media Matters, adds “The New York Times apparently now flacks for the NRSC.”

    Greg Sargent, being a little more reasonable, agrees that Blumenthal’s conduct is not excused, but argues:

    Even if you don’t believe the longer video is exculpatory in any way, as The Times says, there’s no conceivable reason for leaving out the fuller context and letting readers make the call for themselves. It seems obvious that when dealing with a story this explosive, you would want to err on the side of more context, rather than less.

    This defense is a non-defense. I wonder if Blumenthal would excuse someone being prosecuted by his office for fraud because sometimes the person didn’t commit fraud.

    Putting aside the illogic of the defense, Allahpundit (with a link to the full video) notes that the defense is not even an exoneration:

    The key part comes right at the beginning. If he had said, “I served in the Marine Reserves in Washington during the war” and later said he’d served “in Vietnam,” that would have raised the question of whether he’d simply misspoken. As it is, there’s nothing in the first statement that would lead you to think he hadn’t been in-country; on the contrary, it reads like a textbook example of the sort of deliberate ambiguity the Times accused him of.

    I realize Blumenthal is in it to win it and is not going to throw away his chance for the Senate over mere mispoken words.

    I imagine Blumenthal with his campaign staff, watching the video play endlessly on television, saying something like:

    “Well, we’ll just have to win.”

    Update: One lesson Blumenthal and his media supporters apparently have not learned is that the cover-up can be worse than the crime. More information is trickling out which makes the Media Matters meme laughable (via HotAir):

    “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 occasion was the Stamford Veterans Day parade Nov. 9, 2008.

    The speaker was Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, as quoted by The Advocate.

    A trove of potential bulletin board material was unearthed Tuesday by Hearst Connecticut Newspapers from its archives quoting the once seemingly unflappable U.S. Senate candidate on his military record, one that he has been accused of embellishing.

    During a May 18, 2009, military board tribute to veterans in Shelton, Blumenthal was quoted by the Connecticut Post as saying, “When we returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse we encountered.”

    Related Posts:
    “I Did Not Serve In That Country, Vietnam”
    Say Bye-Bye To Conn. Senate Candidate Blumenthal (D)

    Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
    Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Van Halen | May 20, 2010 at 8:38 am

    Kudos to this excellent blog for staying on the Blumenthal story! Do not let up until the DNC feels enough pressure to finally move against Blumenthal. He needs to resign.

    Is it only liberal left Democrats who think that it's okay to lie, as long as you don't lie ALL the time?

    It reminds me of the liar riddle: there are two men, one of whom is a liar. When asked if he is the liar, they both answer, "No." Which one is the liar? Blumenthal's defense is exactly like the riddle, IMHO. A liar may tell the truth sometimes, but you don't know when. He is untrustworthy, because you can't tell when he is lying or telling the truth.

    Why would anyone stand up for this unfit attorney general who wants to be a Senator?! Truly baffling – right is wrong, wrong is right; lying on the Left is OK, but lying on the Right is HEINOUSLY WRONG; etc. The world turned upside down.

    This really isn't such a tough call. If you just review the litany of Blu's "Vietnam" references and read Chris Shays' comments, it's perfectly clear that Blu intended to leave numerous audiences over the years with the false impression that he actually served in Vietnam during the war. I SUSPECT that this didn't start out for Blu as a conscious decision to embark on a Big Lie, but rather began when he realized that certain people he spoke to mistakenly thought he was a Vietnam vet and he found that he could subtly feed into that impression without saying anything that would necessarily expose him as a liar and a fraud. But that was maybe 25-30 years ago. Since then, he has been before hundreds of audiences and spoken with thousands of people, including a great many people whom he had seen and addressed multiple times over the years. He probably figured, at a certain point, that the myth of his having served in Vietnam had become so well established within the circles he traveled that the safest and most convenient option was simply to own it and hope for the best.

    None of this (if true) makes him any less of a liar. He is a liar. He lied about being in Vietnam and he's lying now about how this was all simply a case of sloppy word-choice. Moreover, I think his defenders understand this perfectly well and are simply trying to hand-wave it away before the fallout does him in as a candidate.

    Milcus | May 20, 2010 at 10:57 am

    I think the reason that the they are defending him, and making up excuses for him, aside from the fact that he is a Democrat, is that there is no one else to run in CT. With Lamont running for Governor, there is no one, with name recognition and the money needed to go up against Linda McMahon, to step in and win the election for them.

    Adolph Hitler said this:
    "Tell a lie, make it big, keep telling it, and eventually people will believe it." (rough translation)

    Blumenthal followed the Hitler playbook and the media is now backing his play. Ok, he also followed the barack hussein obama program which is more or less the same thing – the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" sort of denials we heard from Bill Clinton — until the blue dress with the ejaculate on it was produced.

    Why would Democratic voters cling to this liar who is unfit to hold any office of honor or trust as someone who they would want to sit and vote in the US Senate????

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend