Skip to main content

View Diary: CT-Sen: NY Times blows Blumenthal story (230 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Veteran is not a confusing word. (14+ / 0-)

    And "active duty" is not any more clear in addressing the crucial question of whether someone ever saw service in a combat zone.  The only ambiguity here is how much a sell-out is the NYT.

    Where was the NYT with our former president's shameful military record?

    Centrism is just a code word to make corruption seem the "sensible" alternative to principles. -Robobagpiper

    by geomoo on Wed May 19, 2010 at 03:48:30 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I beg to differ. (0+ / 0-)

      "Vietnam Era Veteran" is defined as a person who:

            * Served on active duty for a period of more than 180 days, any part of which occurred between August 5, 1964 and May 7, 1975, and was discharged or released with other than a dishonorable discharge;
            * Was discharged or released from active duty for a service connected disability if any part of such active duty was performed between August 5, 1964 and May 7, 1975; or
            * Served on active duty for more than 180 days and served in the Republic of Vietnam between February 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975.

      (If you have a gov't-issued definition, be my guest).

      And there are many reasons to believe that Blumenthal was never on "active duty".

      One is his selective service record.

      Another is a quote from his good friend, who's sticking up for him:

      It was well known, among Marines, particularly, that Blumenthal was in the reserves because "there's a lot of kidding back and forth between active-duty Marines like me and Marine reservists like Dick Blumenthal," VanDerheyden said.

      So based on the facts, I don't know how Blumenthal can be a veteran.  Do you?

      •  The Department of Veterans Affairs considers him (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        itsbenj, karenc, GN1927, kefauver, think blue, wwjjd

        to be a veteran.  That's good enough for me.
        source

        The Pre-Discharge Program is a joint Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense (DoD) program that affords service members the opportunity to file claims for disability compensation up to 180 days prior to separation or retirement from active duty or full time National Guard or Reserve duty (Titles 10 and 32).

        Apparently, they consider the meaning to be so obvious, that they never bother to give a definition on their website.

        And I'll repeat, the crucial question of whether he's a veteran, a question I find to be not subject to serious debate, is whether or not he actually served in Vietnam.  Even wrt that question, the definitions you give are not definitive.  I actually happen to have a campaign ribbon from Vietnam, and the closest I came to combat was seeing kids throw rocks at our buses as we went to drink on the beach the one day I spent in Da Nang.

        I'm not sure why you even bring this up.  This is not ambiguous.  Blumenthal quite plainly defined the nature of his service.  The NYT, otoh, has been found out to be less than forthcoming in a couple of different ways.  Now we find reporter after reporter making clear that the man never misled about his record.  I'm not sure what value you see in splitting these hairs.

        Centrism is just a code word to make corruption seem the "sensible" alternative to principles. -Robobagpiper

        by geomoo on Wed May 19, 2010 at 04:25:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I respect your comment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          geomoo

          and I won't belabor the point (though I don't concede it).

          I just think that we as liberals/progressives should stick to the facts, and what I see instead here is a lot of denial and distortion because it's our guy and we want him to win.  This doesn't make us better activists or better able to talk to people whose support we need.

          There's zero tolerance for insincerity right now.  Look at Specter (I became a Democrat so I would be reelected), McCain (I never said I was a maverick), Gordon Brown (she's just a bigoted woman).

          Blumenthal admitted that he "misspoke" a few times.  Not just once.  Not because a reporter made a mistake. Not because stupid people misunderstood.  If he accepts responsibility, why is everyone here denying it for him?

          My guess is that Blumenthal was deliberately sloppy because it suited him.  He's not responsible for reporters' errors, but he is responsible for correcting them.  And if in one speech he made statements that were both accurate and inaccurate, it's not a "lie" to say that he was inaccurate.

          We can't fight for half-truths.  That's something I learned in the war the hard way.

          Did I say "in the war"?  Silly me, I meant "during the war".

          •  Respect returned. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            karenc, think blue

            You know more about this than I.  I still don't think the definition of veteran is at issue, but the rest is an appreciated education.

            As to the zero tolerance policy--I wish that had been in effect in the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns.

            Incidentally, my brother the paranoid schizophrenic is fond of calling himself a Vietnam era veteran.  He received his news of the war from inside a submarine.  It's especially galling to see self-righteous war-lovers disrespect Kerry before claiming an undeserved mantle of war hero.  Even worse is that at least pretending to military service is a prerequisite for elected office.

            Centrism is just a code word to make corruption seem the "sensible" alternative to principles. -Robobagpiper

            by geomoo on Wed May 19, 2010 at 09:38:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site