Longer Clip of Blumenthal's Speech Posted By McMahon

Ruh roh.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/Before-Blumenthals-Mistake-He-Spoke-Correctly-94267299.html

During the same speech where Attorney General Richard Blumenthal made the statement about his service record that put him under fire, he also said he "served in the military, during the Vietnam era."

The speech was made in March 2008 during a ceremony in Norwalk. A video clip from the speech posted by The New York Times shows Blumenthal saying he "served in Vietnam."

But a longer version of the video posted by Linda McMahon, his Republican opponent, also shows Blumenthal saying at the beginning of his speech that he "served in the military, during the Vietnam era." When it's posted is not clear, but the commenting on it started on Tuesday.

Emphasis mine

Also at:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005190039

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100519/us-blumenthal-vietnam/

So, The Times, once again, did not check the material it was given - it just ran with it. Acorn, anyone? Is this a new journalistic standard? Which version did McMahon give the Times? If the Times got the longer version, why did they not refer to the longer version?

Edited to add another link:

http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2010/05/blumenthal-and-vietnam-the-dir.html

Edited to add another link at the Plum Line:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/blumenthal_told_truth_on_same.html

Edited to add another link from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/may/19/us-politics-blumenthal-heywaitaminute

If he's going to say "I served in Vietnam", saying "served in the military, during the Vietnam era" is equally true.

Whether he simply misspoke or padded his resume, this isn't going to blow over anytime soon. Why do you think the Swift Boaters were so effective against Kerry? They were lying through their teeth, but they had extensive funding to spread their lies, and veterans of all political stripes take a dim view of vets who appear to be misrepresenting their trigger-time credentials.

that is completely different than serving during the Viet Nam era.

There is no confusion as to the difference - he clealy lied.

:)

Now really...don't jump down my throat...just playing liar's advocate for a moment.

but one who "served in Germany" should not be mistaken for one who "served during WW II".

There is a clear distinction.

Maybe they are referring to a time period or military campaign, rather than a geographical region.

Now its acceptable to say you served in WWII, even if deployed state side. WWII doesn't have an alternative reference to a specific geographical region. Vietnam does. Perhaps this is merely the case of people being confused by a scumbag politician, rather than a case of a politician being a scumbag?

nope - he clearly lied.

But . . . I will accept either "scumbag politician" or "political scumbag".

I imagine there's a precise and relevant difference between "I served during the Viet-Nam era..." and "I served IN Viet-Nam"

He will have a 5 point memo explaining this by the weekend

I doubt it. I also doubt they would state that they served in the PTO or ETO either if they hadn't.

story revealed just before an election, not a peep from the NYT.

Oh, and they held back the truth about no WMD in Iraq, --they didn't want to affect the election!

But barging in to nitpick on a Democrat (who has previously made clear in public that he served DURING Vietnam, not IN) days before a big vote? That's A-OK! Gotcha, dangerous Dem!

Let the Repukkkes run wild and pat them on the head. If a Dem is thinking about fudging syntax, HANG EM HIGH!