Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Blumenthal lies about lying
If I'm looking at my son Adam and I call him by his older brother Kevin's name, I've "misspoken." If I say to him, "Adam, I served in Vietnam," then I'm a liar.
Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut, is running to replace Chris Dodd in the U.S. Senate. He definitely is proving himself to be Dodd-like, and much like Dodd's Democratic Senate colleagues Tom Harkin, Hillary Clinton, and, of course, John "Christmas in Cambodia" Kerry — as a bald-faced pathological liar.
Anyone who has repeatedly referred to himself as being among Vietnam War veterans "returning" to the U.S., anyone who has said "back when I served in Vietnam" — when in fact he did not serve in Vietnam, ever — cannot possibly have simply "misspoken." That one could make such a mistake innocently, even once, is impossible; that one could allow such a mistake to remain uncorrected is almost inconceivably, and certainly irrationally, dishonest. Rather, when Blumenthal repeatedly insists that he merely "misspoke" with no intention to deceive anyone, then he's lying again, as blatantly as possible, by denying that he was lying before.
My scorn for this lying ass-clown, this scum-stain masquerading as a man, also extends to every single willfully self-delusional Connecticut voter who votes for Blumenthal if he indeed tries to continue his misbegotten political career.
UPDATE (Mon Apr 18 @ 3:45pm): I commend to you, and associate myself with, AllahPundit's remarks.
Note: Trackbacks are moderated and do not appear automatically. They're also spam-filtered. Feel free to email me if yours didn't go through. Trackbacks must contain a link to this post. TrackBack URL for this entry:
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Blumenthal lies about lying and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
Gee, Beldar, why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us what you really think? (/sarcasm)
As the son of an Army Command Sergeant Major and the father of a Navy officer, and who would have served voluntarily during the Vietnam era but for a medical condition, I agree wholeheartedly.
Thanks for your comment, ExRat. I wrote the first draft of that post after watching the scumbag's press conference, and I had an irresistible compulsion to either blog about my feelings or take a shower.
Maybe this is a generational thing in part. I did not serve in Vietnam. I graduated from high school during the month that the last choppers left the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. They were still running the draft lottery every year, even though they weren't drafting anyone. The war, the draft, the pros and cons of serving, the arguments for and against and about the war, the POWs, the KIAs and the wounded, the demonstrations — these things are all abstractions for, say, my two sons, but certainly for any American male between my age (born 1957) and Blumenthal's (born 1946), it is utterly impossible that any of us could ever have a moment's doubt about whether we had or had not "served in Vietnam."
You would think that the failure of Swiftvets for Kerry to get their man elected might have given this poseur a hint that the pathetic show this afternoon will not save his worthless butt. Tar and feathers would be too good for him, and I think most VN vets would agree. I do feel sorry for red-jacketed props at the VFW this afternoon. They allowed themselves to be cynically used, and from all appearances were goaded to do so by the "good works" Blumenthal performed for veterans while trying to gain votes by exaggerating his identification with their service.
His attempt to equate 6 months active duty boot camp and training plus five and 1/2 years in civilian life (going to meetings once a month and serving two weeks acdutra per year) with a year in RVN and serving two to six years additional active duty is total BS, and IMHO will not fool most of us who did serve.
(4) Antimedia made the following comment | May 18, 2010 11:02:02 PM | Permalink
I am a Vietnam era vet. I use that term to distinguish myself from my brothers who served in theatre during the war. I lost a dear cousin to that damn war. His name is on the Wall.
I take serious offense to any asswipe that claims he served in Vietnam when he did not. First of all, it's a slap in the face to every one of us who served but never went to Vietnam. Apparently our service doesn't measure up to his standards of acceptable service, so he chooses to belittle our service in an asinine attempt to elevate himself.
Second, it is an outrageous insult to those who did serve in Vietnam, many of whom will go to their graves with memories that no human should have.
Finally, it an unforgivable slander to those who not only served in Vietnam but gave their last full measure of devotion in that cause.
Men like him should be summarily dismissed from office and live the remainder of their lives as outcasts not suitable for interaction with Americans.
(5) GaryC made the following comment | May 19, 2010 3:04:28 AM | Permalink
Jim Hoft at GatewayPundit has a truly ironic twist on the story.
If it can be confirmed, I will be astonished if Blumenthal can recover.
(6) Gregory Koster made the following comment | May 19, 2010 1:19:32 PM | Permalink
Dear Mr. Dyer: I've tried to learn, without success, if Dick is any kin to Sidney Blumenthal. If so, that would explain this shameless behavior.
It's also telling that Dick felt he had to lie this way even in a notoriously blue state such as CT. Shows the basic fraudulence of the Left, bawling that the military services are fascist, but grabbing at the cloak (though never the substance) of authenticity when needed for votes. So too, with (thank you Gary) his supporters, also frauds. It never works, but the Left still thinks that because it has the old line press in its pocket, it can suppress any broadcasting of the discovery of fraud. How wrong!
(7) Gregory Koster made the following comment | May 20, 2010 2:17:58 AM | Permalink
Dear Mr. Dyer: Every time I feel safe in denouncing SLATE as a yellow rag preserved with lies and swindles, SLATE trips me up. E.g. publishing Will Saletan's cannonade that (I hope) will blow Blumenthal's electability apart.
(8) Mike Myers made the following comment | May 21, 2010 10:55:02 AM | Permalink
Oh well, what the heck. I may as well throw another log on the fire that is now roasting Blumenthal's political backside.
I refer you all to today's editorial in the Wall Street Journal, "The Other Blumenthal Scandal". It details Blumenthal's misadventures and abuse of power in his 19 years as Connecticut Attorney General. Blumenthal acted like an "Eliot Spitzer Light"--but that was due simply to the fact that in the smaller state he had fewer targets to abuse. The Competitive Enterprise Institute ranked him as the worst Attorney General in the United States. Read the editorial and find out why.
The comments to this entry are closed.