Full Blumenthal video shows mutually inclusive statements concerning service

The Internet was buzzing last night and this morning about how the New York Times left out what Rick Green at the Hartford Courant refers to as the attorney general’s accurate account of his service in the same speech when he said he served in Vietnam. But Blumenthal’s remarks were mutually inclusive.

I’ve got an image that represents my opinion on this subject at the end of this post, but I just want to point out the attorney general did not contradict himself in videotaped remarks to senior citizens in 2008.

Mutually inclusive statements (they do not contradict and they can be used to support each other)…

Blumenthal: “I really want to add my words of thanks, as someone who served in the military, during the Vietnam era, in the Marine Corps.”

Blumenthal: “We have learned something very important since the days I served in Vietnam.”

If we are going to use first sentence by Blumenthal to prove he misspoke in the second sentence – using it as some sort of gotcha against the New York Times and the McMahon campaign – Blumenthal would have had to say something like this.

Not Blumenthal: I really want to add my words of thanks, as someone who served in the military, not in Vietnam, but during the Vietnam era, in the Marine Corps.

Blumenthal: “We have learned something very important since the days I served in Vietnam.”

The above are mutually exclusive statements. Both could not be true at the same time and could bolster the argument he simply misspoke in the second sentence at this event.

Blumenthal’s full remarks, courtesy the Linda McMahon Campaign YouTube channel.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNhzPBn3zP0

Update: As an added point, more misplaced words have been identified by other reports. Ed Morrissey at Hot Air wraps up some of them, but there are more reports out there. The examples are not exclusive to this one speech in 2008.

My current opinion is clear in the image (click to enlarge). Now, can we move on from all of this? Those of you who are trying to convince – really brow-beat is a better term – the Blumenthal supporters that the attorney general is a liar and disgraceful because of his statements and should not be in the Senate are barking up the wrong tree.

If you keep pounding and pounding, do you really think a light bulb is going to go off in someone’s head and they will “see the light?”

Same thing for those of you doing anything and everything to support Blumenthal by constantly bringing up George W. Bush and his service. It won’t work.

It’s all getting pretty old. If you want to take the lead to spread the word of conservatism – or liberalism, socialism, progressivism, or moderatism – you may wish to try the teach and mentor approach instead of the screaming and yelling approach.

6 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Tricky Dick Blumenthal is trying to deliberately blur the difference between "served in the Vietnam era" and "served in Vietnam".   Kind of like the way Democrats try to blur "anti illegal immigrant" and "anti immigrant", wouldn't you say?  Same playbook, different players.

     

    All the tape shows is him laying the ground work with the "during the Vietnam war", then pounding home the insinuation with the "served in Vietnam" statement.

     

    When it happens once, it could be construed as a slip.  After several times, it is deliberate.  Remember the old adage "fool  me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".

     

    He isn't fooling anyone.  Anymore.

    • Steve McGough
      Steve McGough says:

      DonO – thanks for commenting, but in the future you need to tell people what you are providing a link to. I will let this stand since I am familiar with the domain URL, but give more info next time.

      Also, don't expect anyone to click on a link you provide if you don't tell them what it is.

  2. Mark A. Cushman
    Mark A. Cushman says:

     

    <!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–> <!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –> <!–[if gte mso 10]>–>

    /* Style Definitions */

    table.MsoNormalTable

    {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";

    mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;

    mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;

    mso-style-noshow:yes;

    mso-style-priority:99;

    mso-style-qformat:yes;

    mso-style-parent:"";

    mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;

    mso-para-margin-top:0in;

    mso-para-margin-right:0in;

    mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;

    mso-para-margin-left:0in;

    line-height:115%;

    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;

    font-size:11.0pt;

    font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";

    mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;

    mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;

    mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;

    mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

    About 58 thousand US serviceman served during the Vietnam Era but their service was cut short because they were killed while Blowhard Blumenthal was wrapping toys in the good old US of A. At best, Blumenthal overplayed his record, inexcusably so!

    OOPS! I misspoke! A much greater amount than 58 thousand serviceman served in Vietnam during the Vietnam Era. I forgot the POWs, the wounded, MIAs, others, and even the bartenders served(drinks) at the officer's clubs in Vietnam during the Vietnam Era.  They were not wrapping toys in the good old US of A.

    • Mark A. Cushman
      Mark A. Cushman says:

      The font info did not appear prior to posting the message.  Please excuse the garbage.

Comments are closed.