SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (34329)5/20/2010 1:14:27 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Blumenthal Flanked by Another Phony During Non-Apology?

By Doug Powers on Veterans

**Posted by guest-blogger Doug Powers

Head on over to Doug Ross’s site and read about one of Richard Blumenthal’s supporters at yesterday’s non-apology.

Amazingly enough, it appears that Blumenthal addressed his “few misplaced words” about claiming to have served in Vietnam while flanked by veterans who supposedly still support him — and one of those men was William Joseph Trumpower (AKA Eliot Storm), who is listed on the POW Network’s Phony Vet Database.


Storm was even interviewed at the non-apology:

<<< Elliott Storm is a Blumenthal supporter. The campaign called him and asked him to show up; he called up his friends in the “Vet Pack” to join him, friends who, like him, travel around the country talking about ex-soldiers who contend with post traumatic stress syndrome.

Storm, who lives in Milford, wrote a book on the subject, called These Scars Are Sacred.

“If a man wore a uniform during those turbulent times, they were rejected and called ‘babykiller,’” Storm said at Tuesday’s event “People are still attacking veterans who served in Vietnam.” The Times story about Blumenthal’s service is a yet another example of that, he claimed. >>>


He was asked to show up? Wow, that’s like Mark Souder calling a press conference to discuss getting caught cheating on his wife and asking Bill Clinton to stand behind him in full support to lend the moment some sincere credibility and hope for a full recovery.

Ah yes, full integrity restored to the Blumenthal campaign!




.



To: Sully- who wrote (34329)5/21/2010 6:43:10 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Left defends as Blumenthal’s lies pile up

By: David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor
05/20/10 12:08 PM EDT

On the Left, there is a coordinated attempt now to blame The New York Times for Richard Blumenthal’s lies about serving in Vietnam. The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Media Matters (but Truth Doesn’t), and the Columbia Journalism Review are trying to put the best possible face on Blumenthal’s campaign of misdirection. Some of them point to this report from the AP or this fact contained within:

<<< A longer version of the video posted by a Republican opponent also shows Blumenthal at the beginning of his speech correctly characterizing his service by saying that he ’served in the military, during the Vietnam era.’ >>>

Except this is not strictly accurate. Blumenthal did not “correctly characterize” his Vietnam service. Yes, he was vague about it at the beginning, but in the same speech he got to specifics and said “I served in Vietnam.” A true statement about something does not cancel out a lie about the same thing.

That’s especially true now, as we discover that Blumenthal told the same lie on other occasions, like this one:

<<< “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.” >>>

And this one:

<<< “When we returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse we encountered.” >>>

Also, despite an affinity for calling newspapers to correct his middle initial, Blumenthal did nothing to correct the lore accumulating in Lexis-Nexis that was spreading about his supposed Vietnam service — a lore that others (like Chris Shays) noticed over time with dread.

Blumenthal’s lawyer-like response to the problem this week — “I may not even have seen” the articles, he said — is an attempt to construct an argument in the alternative. This mode of argument, while perhaps valid in formulating theories for legal cases, is utterly unconvincing in real life. (“I do not own a dog…but if I do, it did not bite you…and if it did, it was not my fault.”) It’s as though he is waiting to see if anyone presents evidence that he did see the articles mentioning his Vietnam service, at which time he will come up with a different argument.

“Vietnam-era service,” even outside Vietnam, is honorable. What is dishonorable is for Blumenthal to lie about his service in an effort to market himself more effectively as a politician — which is what he was doing in that video clip and on all of those other occasions.

It only makes it worse that as Attorney General, he showed absolutely no mercy toward businesses and individuals who employed milder deceptions.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34329)5/21/2010 9:32:04 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
Hat tip to unclewest:

What is the difference between US Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal and Jane Fonda?

Jane Fonda went to Vietnam.

.



To: Sully- who wrote (34329)5/23/2010 11:36:38 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
      [Blumenthal] did more than lie about his military 
service: He lied about lying. This is a special moral
pathology of the left.

Blumenthal and the Liars' Party

By Bruce Walker
American Thinker

Richard Blumenthal served in Vietnam -- or at least he told the American people that he did. According to people who know Blumenthal, his war record grew over the years. That hapless tool of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, the New York Times, found no less than eight articles between 2003 and 2009 in which Blumenthal spoke of his service in Vietnam. Now, it seems, the Connecticut Democrat politician did not serve in Vietnam at all. In fact, Blumenthal took extraordinary steps to avoid service in Vietnam.

Lying about military service is bad, but what Blumenthal said in response to the New York Times story is uglier.
In damage control mode, Blumenthal whined, "On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service, and I regret that. But I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to my country." Blumenthal, of course, did not "misspeak." He did more than lie about his military service: He lied about lying. This is a special moral pathology of the left.

Think John Edwards
, the man whom Democrats wished to be our vice president, the man who might have won the presidency in 2012. In October 2007, when confronted with allegations that he had had an affair with Rielle Hunter, Edwards said, "The story is false. It's completely untrue, ridiculous." In July 2008, Edwards admitted to having an affair with Hunter, but denied paternity of a love child with her, offering to take a paternity test. One of his staffers, Andrew Young, a married man with three children, said that he fathered Hunter's child. When confronted with a photo showing Edwards holding Hunter's baby, Edwards said "I don't know anything about the photograph; I don't know who that baby is." Then in January 2010, Edwards admitted to having fathered Francis Quinn Hunter with Rielle Hunter. Edwards denied the truth at every turn and attacked those who spoke the truth. The John Edwards story is not about marital infidelity. It is the surreal tale of pathological lying.

What would it have been like to have a pathological liar like Edwards in the White House? We need not guess; we know. On January 26, 1998, an angry Bill Clinton addressed the rumors of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. He looked straight into the television camera and said, "I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm not going to say it again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never." Clinton might have admitted the affair. He might have dodged the issue. He chose neither course. Instead, Clinton issued an adamant, clear statement denying his dishonesty and compounding his lies.

These lies of Blumenthal, Edwards, and Clinton are not the sort of lies usually bandied about in political battles. Their lies were not lies about health care, Iraq, global warming, unemployment rates, or any of the accepted free fire zones of partisan rhetoric. Honest people can differ on these sorts of issues. Indeed, arguments about these issues are the very stuff of political debates. The lies of Blumenthal, Edwards, and Clinton did not involve ideology or policy at all. Clinton was, as Bob Kerry once advised, a "very good liar" on policy matters, but that is something different. The lies of these four Democrats were wholly personal and self-serving.

The lies smell like John Kerry's repeated statements over many years about his service in Indochina
, in which he claimed that he spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia under Nixon (October 14, 1979); that he was on a gunboat in Cambodia on Christmas 1968 (March 27, 1986); that upon orders, he took his swift boat in Cambodia on Christmas 1968 (1992 AP story); and that he executed combat missions into Cambodia (May 2000). John Kerry never fought in Cambodia at all. Richard Nixon was not president in December 1968.

Was this just a mistake? Was Kerry's memory at fault? Kerry himself said that this 1968 Christmas in Cambodia was "seared in his memory." How did Kerry respond to being caught in blatant lies about his military service? His operatives coined the term "swift-boating" as a pejorative for those who destroy reputations by defamation -- even though what these veterans stated was true.

There is a pattern to this misbehavior. Blumenthal, Edwards, Clinton, and Kerry lied about their personal lives, hiding sins or inventing heroism. Each man was very specific in his false statements. All four of these men were lawyers, and three out of four were married to lawyers. Two of the four -- Clinton and Blumenthal -- were chosen as Attorney General for their home states, a position that should be held by scrupulously honest men.

All of these four lying Democrats are leftists. None of the four admitted their lies until they were caught. Even then, all four used lawyerly weasel words to cloud their clear dishonesty and attack those who discovered their lies. Is it worth noting that three of these four -- Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards -- were chosen by Democrats to run on their national ticket? Does it mean something that Blumenthal was intended to fill the seat of Chris Dodd, another leftist Democrat lawyer who was up to his neck in unethical behavior? Serial liars like these men are quickly known to their colleagues and co-partisans. That fact speaks as much to the party whose standard they bear as it does to the liars themselves. Which party? The Liars' Party.


Bruce Walker is the author of two books: Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie, and The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.

.