A lawyer is trained to use words with precision. Depending, of course, on what your definition of “is” is.
Not all of them are entirely successful:
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.
It is not entirely contemptible to avoid military service when your country is at war. Attempting to wear the valor of those who did serve for your own political advancement is, however.
Update: Birds of a feather – One of the vets backing Blumenthal’s presser has a bit of his own history when it comes to embellishing the facts.
That’s one very good thing that’s come with the internet. Information like this gets around the world in the blink of an eye.
This person has discredited himself irredeemably and FOREVER. In the old days, he could say something like this at an event and almost no one would know about it (or be able to check his veracity in the first place).
A Murtha wannabe. I tried to elaborate over there on how he could be being smeared, but that does not appear to be the case at all. He’s actually saying things that I thought others might have put into his mouth. YouTube, for all of its faults, is going to bring a difference to politics, which the public can use (at least until the politicians figure out how to use it to sell their lies.)
But just to be clear: The outfit that broke this story is that favorite-of-liberals, the New York Times, after what appears to be some extended and very, very careful reporting. It was posted on their Web site last night (Monday, 5/18) and splashed 23 columns wide on the top right of the paper this morning (5/19), at least on the edition we get up here in CT. Every other outlet has just been picking up the NYT story. Unusual for the great Grey Lady of the liberal left to direct fire at someone who might thought to be one of their own. Sometimes they do what needs to be done.
While the Times did cover Blumenthal’s service in the enlisted reserves, they omitted mention of his boot camp class (most likely Parris Island). I had the previous impression that Blumenthal pere had continued service in the USMC reserves as an officer, but that may be misinformed.
For the record, my understanding is that Blumenthal’s son graduated from Harvard last year and was commissioned a USMC 2ndLT. I do not know whether his commissioning source was NROTC (cross-town at MIT), or via an OCS summer program. He was attending TBS aboard Quantico last fall. No update on MOS selection or posting since. I’d say thanks for his service are in order.
Nice try NYT butt-boy…the issue is Blumenthal pere a useless soon to be de-frocked dead duck wamnna-be… not Blumenthal fils… he deserves our sympathies. Best
PS,a small point… yesterday was Monday 5/17…today is Tuesday 5/18 …please note for future reference
Cory at posted about criticizing the NYT headline writer for this story for his reluctance to call a spade a spade. The headline is “Candidate’s Words on Vietnam Service Differ from Reality”–a bit of an understatement, and a missed opportunity to use the word ‘lied.’
I miss preview! Try that again:
Cory at BoingBoing” posted about John Naughton’s post” criticizing the NYT headline writer for this story for his reluctance to call a spade a spade. The headline is “Candidate’s Words on Vietnam Service Differ from Reality”–a bit of an understatement, and a missed opportunity to use the word ‘lied.’
In contrast to the NYT, their wholly-owned (but sometimes unwanted) subsidiary and northern republisher, the Boston Globe, rant the story thusly:
“Conn. AG misleads on his Vietnam service”
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2010/05/18/conn_ag_misleads_on_his_vietnam_service/
A little more courage and a little less mis-direction up there to the northward.
Why, in Connecticut of all places, would he claim to have served in Vietnam? The place is a Lib hotbed — he’d have gotten more votes by saying he only enlisted in the USMCR to duck the draft.
I went into the Navy on a reserve enlistment. It was called the 2×6 program – you went to Boot, and ‘A’ school, then 2 years in the Fleet, with a total obligation of 6 years. There was another program which the recruiters called the “Draft Dodgers” program – 4×10. You went to boot and ‘A’ school, then home, with a total obligation of 6 years. It was a rather popular program in 1972, as it had been for several years running.
BillT: CT may be a blue state (I know, I live here) but with a long history of defense contracts, military bases and educational institutions – CT has deep roots of respect for the military.
You are right – why in CT of all places? But not for the reason you believe – more for the reason that CT loves it’s warriors and what Blumenthal has done dishonors all of them.
Contrast the Blumenthal fabrications and current spin to the actual military record of one of his Republican challengers – Rob Simmons:
Rob’s public service career began when he enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1965 as a Private, and spent 19 months in Vietnam where he earned two Bronze Star Medals. Rob continued his military service in the U.S. Army Reserve as a Military Intelligence Officer, retiring as a Colonel in 2003 with over 37 years of active and reserve service.
No matter how much he tries to put his legalese to this – I don’t remember, I don’t recall – Blumenthal is going to face some fierce scrutiny for this.
The Hartford Courant – one of the most yellow papers in the region, perhaps 2nd only to the Boston Globe – is running a poll right now about the effect this will have on Blumenthal’s run for Senator.
53% say it will “torpedo his campaign”
We can only hope.
Kris,
I have to disagree with your comment “CT loves it’s warriors and what Blumenthal has done dishonors all of them.” I don’t see it like that. What Mr. Bluementhal has done dishonors only himself. He should withdraw from the Senate race and if he does not, the voters of Connecticut should soundly reject him.
AMS826 – I maintain that by claiming he served in Vietnam, Blumenthal insults those who actually did.
Other than that – I agree with you.
Avoiding going to ‘Nam just shows good sense, IMHO. A useless war with way too many casualties. Being run from the White House didn’t help, either.
That said, this guy is scum.
Blackeagle’s right. We bought the neighborhood ten years to prepare, and when the North Viets rolled west through Cambodia, they had no intention of stopping at the Thai border — until the advance elements didn’t report in…
Useless war? Ask Thailand and other neighbors.
More like squandered victory. Squandered by a Dem Congress.
Agree.
double agree
Triple Agree. Seventeen months in MACV-SOG and I certainly think it was a worthy effort.
Beware when slinging that dripping “useless war” paint brush too wildly… I would suggest that you do a helluvalot more research, and quantify your words, because the fellows (and ladies) of my acquaintance who served in Viet Nam don’t think that they served a lost cause, and they REALLY don’t hold in high esteem those who deliberately avoided service (as opposed to serving and lucking out in getting stationed somewhere other than in SE Asia Theater) -something about “shirking their duty” and other uncomplimentary descriptors…
Still a hot button, and, no, I’m not over it…
Not useless?
What came out of it that was useful? The knowledge that draftees make lousy soldiers? That fighters should have guns? That presidents should appoint a good general and then stay out of his way, rather than sticking their political oars in on matters they know not of?
Sorry, I don’t buy it. I fully appreciate the service folks gave in Nam, but I think it was a tragic waste.
Draftees make lousy soldiers? Sweet Jesus but you are an idiot.
Concur. Draftees made damned *good* ones. That said, only 25% of the troops who fought in RVN were draftees — the rest of us were volunteers.
The only tragic waste was Congress’ refusal to slam Hanoi into the ground when it broke the peace accords and rolled its armor south across the DMZ.
Well, yes mojo, it was a tragic waste – because it was wasted by the liberals – who threw away the stability we’d provided to the region after 1972 by refusing to fulfill our treaty commitments and respond to the North’s invasion of South Vietnam in 1975 with 15 armored divisions.
Not knowing the history of the war…. such elementary things as who sent 15 armored divisions into RVN…. is an indication of how accurate and thought-through your other statements are. The example I responded to was your off-the-wall and yes, idiotic, opinions of the abilities and valor of draftees.
They were never going to send 15 divisions in, Jeff. The political will was not there.
And thanks for that penetrating insight re: my mental state, Shaman. Any other opinions?
Mojo,
There were reasons that made sense at the time – first of all, we know that all the talk about Ho and his merry band of butchers being “nationalists first, communists second” is stuff and nonsense – they were true and faithful Soviet allies throughout the Cold War – i.e. we were opposing an aggressive, expansionist movement that worked very closely with Moscow. There was an international contest and the North was fighting for the other side (the South might have not been free, but life was almost certainly more decent there than in the Communist north).
If we had not delayed the North’s take-over of the south by over a decade, a unified Vietnam would have been perfectly placed to support insurgencies throughout the region (like in Indonesia where the Communist Party of Indonesia was very strong), and the Soviets would not have had to invest so heavily in that conflict (not including the soldiers and airmen they illegally had working with the Vietnamese) in ways that left them stressed but still committed to imperial adventures elsewhere (and as Soviet archives reveal, they were committed to such imperial adventures almost to the bitter end of the USSR).
As it was, the Vietnamese managed to turn Laos and Cambodia into satellite states. There were good (maybe not ultimately necessary) reasons for the conflict at the time (and none for the shabby way we treated those in the South who fought with us). We can’t re-run the experiment and see what would have happened to the Soviet imperial project had they won important and cheap victories in the early 60s, but given how the Soviets’ worst tendencies were reinforced by the costly, long-in-coming Communist success in Vietnam, it seems unlikely in the extreme that they would have become more moderate with an aggressive ally in southeast Asia.
Well said David
We had promised the RVN government material and air support in the case of an assault by NVA regulars. We failed to deliver. Wouldn’t have needed more boots on the ground, but CAS and BAI could certainly have been effective once you had armored columns out in the open.
Those fools believed Republican promises.
Japan, Korea and Taiwan have no more than 3 years to get themselves ready once the bottom falls out of the bag they were counting on. Not to put too fine a point on it but Thailand is screwed. Indonesia is going west. to Pakistan. Our CruDesGru will look a little pathetic about then.
Animal House, “you fucked up, you trusted us” springs to mind. Unlike Skippy, I’m finding that I won’t miss them much. It’s not like of any of them were there when one needed them. Their absence will scarcely be noted. Sucks to be them.
Me, I still laugh at the fears of China…..they hold trillions of $ of our debt. Sucks to be them. They’re going to conquer our position in Japan or PI or Guam. Good on them! Credit debt swaps are something we do.
Uhhhhhh! mojo. It was North Vietnam who invaded South Vietnam with 15 Armoured Divisions.
My point was that Richard Nixon was not going to send 15 US divisions to contest with the North. If they’d wanted to do that, Johnson could’ve won in a year or two. Nixon, no way in hell. The war was effectively lost at that point, and it would have been pointless slaughter. Paranoid as he was, Tricky Dick wasn’t that nutso.
As for the historical theorizing, I think China may have had some “input” as to the disposition their favorite Soviet client by the mid-60′s. All was not sweetness and light in red-on-red cooperation. Plus the fact that China and Vietnam were (and are) historical enemies. I don’t think the Sov plan would have worked out as they liked.
But, again, theorizing in absence of data. Nobody knows, it wasn’t to be.
Mojo,
But we are not theorizing in the absence of data – there was plenty of data at that time that the Soviets and Vietnamese were working closely together, that the PKI was a major threat to Indonesian stability prior to 1965, and that the Soviets were committed to causing as much mischief in Southeast Asia and elsewhere as possible.
Also it was hard prior to the mid 1960s to know just how much distance there was between Beijing and Moscow (likely as not there is a great deal that the Taliban, Al Q and Iran don’t see eye-to-eye on, doesn’t mean they aren’t enemies who will collaborate to hurt us). The problem with doing American diplomatic/military history is the temptation to assume that we can change how we responded and every other factor will be constant or not create a more dangerous international environment than the one in which we operated. Maybe we did error, but given later Soviet (and Vietnamese) expansionism the domino theory obviously reflected legitimate fears.
Getting slightly OT here, but its been said that:”We began the Korean War with a lousy Army and ended with a first-rate one, while we began the war in Vietnam with a first-rate one and exited with a broken one.” Most I’ve read (and with whom I agree) date the transformation somewhere in mid 1969 when the first of the drug-culture draftees begin arriving in-country in force and the “Black Power” movement began in earnest. I know that, for example, by 1971 there were some USAREUR Casernes in Germany that had areas where whites–officer or enlisted–walked with great peril even in day-time.
Which is why (adding to my post now in moderation) Edward King wrote his 1971 book: “Death of the Army: A Pre-Mortum.”
I found that book in the Library at Norfolk Naval Base while I was in college. Interesting read, that.
By the time my brother got Elvis old post in the late 70s (during the unlamented Jimmah Cahtah’s idiotic rule)the NCOs were afraid to issue live ammo at the small arms ranges. They didn’t know if it would be sent down range.
My brother had dreamed of being a tanker while I was in the Navy. When he got back from Germany, there was no way he was going to re-enlist.
One small note. While I was in flight school in ’76, all of the TACs were ‘nam vets, and all seemed a bit dispirited. I didn’t quite know what was up, but knew something was wrong. I understood what it was when my brother returned from Germany. Trying to uphold standards when the world is falling down around your ears is a hard thankless job.
Mr. Blumenthal can settle this quickly — He just has to post his discharge online.
There is a huge difference between ‘serving in Vietnam’ and ‘serving during Vietnam’.
I finished my service during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm – So I served ‘during’ but not ‘in’.
I just had the privilege of watching the presser live.
Ugh.
Lying sack of shit politician – but I repeat myself.
All he would do is defend his own service and his support of the troops. At the very end of his speech he said “I misspoke about my service”.
Legalese and poli-speak for “I lied and I’m not going to admit it even though it’s the huge elephant in the middle of the room, stinking up the joint.”
So for now it seems the lying sack of shit intends to stay in the Senate race. In the meantime, 58% of respondents to the Hartford Courant poll say it should torpedo his campaign.
I heartily agree.
Kris,
Could you perhaps save your outrage until after the Friday deadline for Dems to put in a new candidate? Would nay it be more fitting (and fun?) to have him roast over a slow fire between now and November?
David – I suppose you have a point. Except that CT has been roasting over a slow fire due to Blumenthal’s insufferable-ness. I just want to see his career be – over.
And as much as that dark little partisan part of my soul just wants to see the vast majority of dem politicians suffer the pains of hell before being squashed like loathsome insects at the ballot box, it really is in the Republic’s best interest that each side put forth its best candidates, since, if 2008 show’s us anything it shows you really can full most of the people some (important parts of the) time.
Probably not over it either, or just enough to want clean kills rather than intentionally slow ones. What’s so blooming hard about starting by saying “I did not serve in Vietnam.” I knew people who asked to go there, who did not get to go; and people who didn’t want to go there, who went. Uncle Sam decided, not those of us taking and following orders. Stand up, Marine. If you’d taken your lumps today, you’d have had a chance. Now you’re running, and that’s a losing proposition in the kind of fight when people are willing to stab you in the back. Stand and hold, damn it. Or “Murtha” will be the least of what we call you.
I was one who wanted. When they handed me my “dream sheet” at Newport I was still 17 and there was a note that anyone under the age of 18 could not go to ‘nam. Supposedly because Jerry “The Beaver” Mathers was killed over there. That wasn’t true, but that was the scuttlebutt at the time.
Anyway, the treaty ending our involvement was signed the following February anyway, so most of the “fun” was already over.
..to the extent that he DID actually serve a spell in the USMC Reserve, i salute his service..
..as for the rest of it, don’t ignore the possibility that it could just be that he’s a dick.
And yet more from the NY Times – they are digging deeper still:
Gradual Growth of Blumenthal’s Military Claims – http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/nyregion/19veterans.html?hp
I am surprised at the Times – would have thought that Blumenthal to be one their buddy-types.
I have seen and heard Blumenthal at great length, always grabbing a mic or camera to proclaim his latest defense of the people of CT.
What has always bothered me was that his press pitching was really about him – not about the issue. It grated. A lot. For a long, long time.
So it is good to have him called to count.
Here is another local take on Blumenthal pere, from a CT blogger:
Norm Pattis: “A limp Dick” http://normpattis.blogspot.com/
He screwed up big time.
Having a bit part in that cruel, bungled, and divisive war, I long ago gladly put all that experience away in my mind. And I expected it to stay there. Unfortunately the Vietnam War is still being fought, rhetorically. Indeed it may never go away either, being re-fought just like our Civil War, long after the original true combatants are long gone.
At the time I truly believed in the “Domino Theory” and the exigency of our actions in Vietnam. But I now longer believe. And all the “We ‘coulda’, ‘shoulda’, ‘woulda’ and ‘if-we’s’ of today cannot change anything about the war, one iota. Nor does it bring back the 58,000 + American men and women who served valiantly and died there. Knowing what I know today, I probably should not have volunteered, and should have dodged the draft like most of my contemporaries.
Those who avoided Vietnam never troubled me. I hold no animosity toward those who did not go. However, my blood boils about some individuals’ later actions.
Dodging the draft was one thing. I had little problem with that. But years later when those dodgers by virtue of deferments or connections ironically become ardent hawks and armchair warriors – especially in positions of political authority – I reel in disgust.
I am also disgusted with Blumenthal (even though he is a Democrat like me). His news conference was impressive, but not convincing. He knew what he was saying. I have seen far too many otherwise respected people play with words to make them sound like they were “in Vietnam,” or REMFs who make themselves sound like Audie Murphy.
But my greatest disgust is with the Stolen Valor posers and imposters. They seem to be proliferating as never before. Some continue, even after being exposed. Thankfully the Stolen Valor law was passed. But the imposters, from the minor to the major offenders seem to proliferate. We cannot change the war’s outcome, nor bring back the dead. But we can expose those who steal their valor.
They are thieves who steal from those far better than they. What they do is tantamount to spitting on the graves of some of my friends.
Flit,
I really don’t mean to be impertinent or to argue in my spare time, or even to contradict what you’ve written (nor is this meant as simply a cheap shot – I don’t in all earnest use “I honor your service” as an occasion to cover myself before I insult your judgment) but have you read any of the new scholarship on the Soviet Union and the Third World? When I am arguing something that sounds like the “domino theory” (but it isn’t, since one has to take into account not only Moscow’s intentions but those of not-entirely-controlled proxies – i.e. they might share a similar ideology and direction of policy making but there is no monolithic unity) it is not simply to rehash old arguments, but to take into account things that we now can know about the Soviets and their allies. It seems to me this should matter a great deal when judging US policy (I understand how, assessing the costs can make one take that evidence into account and still believe our intervention was misguided, like in Iraq).
And even if “the domino theory” was wrong, policy makers with experience informed by the 1945-1960 world (and what had happened from 1933-45 in Europe) were not simply fools for believing it even if they did, as you argue, get the math wrong (to a terrible cost) in Southeast Asia.
Murtha is a poor comparison; he did serve in combat in Vietnam, even volunteered for it. I suppose the “wannabe” is correct, but I meant it to be as to be a politician. Sorry.
Do I drastically misunderstand the domino theory? The way it was taught to me in school was that if South Vietnam fell then *poof* the entire world would suddenly be communist. This of course is just indicative of how bad our public school system is since that’s patently ridiculous. Upon doing a little of my own research the fear seemed to be that over time select neighboring countries would also fall since they were also facing serious communist near insurgency, namely Thailand and Indonesia. And to a lesser degree the impact of the loss of those on the Philippines was a concern, which istelf had a history of Leftist insurgency. By the time the Vietnam war was over Thailand and Indonesia had secured their insurgencies, particularly brutally so in Indonesia admittedly.
But it would seem that Laos and Cambodia were two dominoes that did fall wouldn’t it? What if no stand had been made and a stronger North Vietnamese communisty party allied with an emboldened by easy success Moscow were able to topple Thailand and Indonesia and block off the Sunda and Molucca straits during the cold war, the lifeline of oil into Asia? (North Vietnam had a large role in Laos and Cambodia, and was even a large supporter -with arms and other supplies- of communist insurgency and regimes in Latin America in the late seventies and early eighties.)
The strawman version of the domino theory seems to be occassionally trashed to prove someone’s bona fides here and there, yet I see almost no discussion of what would seem to be the more sober and cogent fears, nor the real world implications of the fall of Laos and Cambodia.
Prowler,
I think the criticisms of the domino theory that is most cogent – which I was not attempting to trash (presuming your referring to my discussion as an “effort to establish my bona fides” – if not, sorry for coming across as touchy)- are first, that the idea that there was something like a plan directed by Moscow is wrong-headed. Fair enough, but that is something of a cartoon version/straw man – and it doesn’t get at the deeper dilemma faced by Western policy makers during the Cold War (similar to the one we face now). Rather than a plan there was a Communist sensibility and inclination toward boundless opportunism – witness (what I referred to in my earlier post and you rightly point out) as the fall of Laos and Cambodia and what would almost certainly have been stepped up local support for the PKI.
The bigger strategic objection I imagine, runs along the lines of “so what if Laos and Cambodia fell” (or Angola, Ethiopia, etc) – how ultimately does that change the global balance of power (just as the Germans held Norway and Denmark to the end of the war – didn’t really make much of a difference, non). To what extent was the Soviet’s (and their satellite’s) opportunism counter-productive? In some ways a lot, in that the Soviets stressed their own system to support more and more revolutionary movements – BUT, it seems to me that a place like Indonesia in the pro-Sov scales with the Straits of Malacca and all, might have helped the Soviets reach a tipping point of influence. I can’t document that, of course, because the worst thing about deterrence is, if it works, there is no way of knowing if it was necessary. The Soviets and most of the world’s Marxists/Maoists regarded us as the bastion of world imperialism when we were (for the most part) undermining the French and British colonial empires in the 40s and 50s and when we were fighting in Vietnam in the 60s and early 70s, so at the least we can know that we didn’t “make things worse” by intervening.
David
No, wasn’t meaning you. No worries about feeling touchy. I wasn’t even born when Vietnam ended and realize there are a lot of guys on this blog who personally bled in that war and so in spirit I try to tread lightly on the subject even if I fail in writing style to convey that.
I grew up in a liberal part of LA and in discussions on the Vietnam war the universally accepted bottom line was that the domino theory was just a neanderthalically boneheaded idea that was so wrong on the face of it (hence the strawman versions which are pretty lame) only dumb grunts who liked to fight for no good reason like Eisenhower could have believed in it and since it was the root cause of the war (likely correct on the latter point) so maligning it was the key to discrediting the whole war.
And an interesting answer, thank you.
Re: the Domino Theory. It does seem abundantly clear to me (though I was grade school when Nam ended) that our self-declared opponents, those people calling vocally and publicly for the death of the West, Capitalism, and Democracy, and willing to blow up neighboring countries in the pursuit of that aim… those people there on the other side sure seemed to believe in it.
Seems to me if your neighbor is a crazed whackjob given to waving a rifle and yelling for the overthrow of all the other houses on the street, it doesn’t matter that his plan isn’t actually practical or won’t ultimately work, or that there are a few houses between yours and his… it only matters that he’s a crazed whackjob that’s waving a rifle and shouting at you.
You served honorably as a member of the Marine Corps Reserve? Fine, so did I. Kudos to you.
You intentionally chose the Reserves so as to avoid serving in Vietnam? Ok, I get that. No biggie.
You lie about your service so as to garner sympathy and support and to ingratiate yourself with your veteran audience, then tell more lies about how you “can’t remember” what you said or who you said it to? And you a lawyer who knows the exact value and meaning of the words you say? Nope, Uh-uh. Ain’t buying it. Now you’re just a lying sack of shite who should be given a sound whipping and sent back home with your tail between your legs.
For the record, I served during Desert Storm, OIF and OEF, but have set to actually serve in any of them.
grrrr… should be “but have YET to actually serve” in the aforementioned campaigns.
“JD Says:
May 18th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Kind of like Woody Allen propping up Roman Polanski. Bags of a feather douche together…”
Just love this comment from the ‘This Ain’t Hell’ website linked in the update.