Richard Blumenthal "Misspoke"? He Wants To Be A Senator?

THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________

LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

Connecticut Attorney General and Democratic Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal says that he "misspoke" when he said he fought in the Vietnam war. Blumenthal has been the state's top law enforcement officer since 1991. But as is often said, in the age of Youtube and the internet a person can't hide or disavow statements they have made in the past. In 2008, this guy very clearly and precisely said: "when I served in Vietnam."

Blumenthal also said that "on a few occasions," I have misspoken about my service and I regret it." Really, a few occasions? He also said: "I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country." Blumenthal said that when he "misspoke, "it was" absolutely unintentional.He said they were a few misplaced words: "in" instead of "during."

A New York Times story said that Blumenthal repeatedly distorted his military service. The newspaper went on to say that Blumenthal intimated more than once that he was a victim of the abuse heaped on Vietnam vets upon their return home. There is nothing I can see that even resembles "accidental" when he stand up in front of hundreds of military families and says: "When we returned, we saw nothing like this - leaving the impression that he had once returned from Vietnam. He did not!

This guys insinuation that he served at combat service that didn't happen is a slap in the face and is total disrespect for the sacrifice for those who risked their lives. This folks, is a serious matter.

{CITE:) 2008, Connecticut Post story- While speaking to vets in Shelton, Conn., he said: " When "we" returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse "we" encountered."

Blumenthal received at least five military deferments and joined the Reserves to avoid being sent into combat.This puts him in a class with Dick Cheney. Those five deferments enabled him to stay out of the military between 1965 and 1970. During that time he went to Harvard, studied in England and snagged a cozy job in the Nixon White House and while in the Reserve he worked with the USMC "Toys for Tots" program.

Those men and women who fought and died in Vietnam didn't have any choice as to whether to serve. They had to go. It wasn't a voluntary army like today. But Mr. Blumenthal chose to continually get deferments rather than serve in Vietnam. If he really wanted to serve in Vietnam he could have, without a doubt. So he has no say or right to even infer that he was in Vietnam. A lie is a lie is a lie no matter how much you try to tell everyone you misspoke.

No one is impugning Mr. Blumenthal's service to the country.He like millions of others served in the military, that's a fact. He was a Marine. I and others recognize his service and have no quarrel with that. What I am having a tough time with is his alleged lying about where he served. He did not fight and serve in Vietnam.

His "misspoken" words, as he likes to call them are what I and other would call "lies". When a person who served in the military and then brags, embellishes and even confabulates their service by making statements that they served in a specific unit or theater or received a medal that they did not earn that is wrong. As example,there have been some military vets that claimed they earned a purple heart or bronze star etc., when in fact they did not and that is wrong. It should be noted that some of those vets that did misrepresented their military service was convicted and incarcerated.

In this case Mr. Blumenthal made the statements that he served in Vietnam, when he did not. And now, we have some Democratic lawmakers like Senator Christopher Dodd trying to tell the public what Mr. Blumenthal "meant" to say. Dodd says, What Blumenthal "meant to say", and then Dodd gives his impression of another persons actual statement.

What is this? Someone else telling the public what another person "meant to say?" Blumenthal said what he meant to say. Christ, he said it. He said it not once, not twice but a number of times. I submit that if a person makes a statement and wants to clarify that statement, the person who made the statement should be the one to clarify their own words. They do not need someone else saying "what he meant to say", blah, blah, blah.


It appears he, like some military veterans before him did embellish and elaborate a military service record " above and beyond" of what it really was. So, again, I submit that lawmakers and citizens are not claiming or denying that Mr. Blumenthal served in the U.S.M.C.,I personally commend him for his service but his embellishments relating to his service is what presents a problem for me.

People, I pose this to you: Here is a man that is an attorney. He deals in words and statements, every day, for a living. As an attorney, especially as the top law enforcement officer in his state his words are accepted and expected by the citizens to be clear, accurate and precise. The voters rely on this man to interpret words so as to enforce the laws of the state of Connecticut.

As an attorney he is sworn to tell the truth. Now there is a big question mark as to whether Mr. Blumenthal can be trusted. It's like him asking a witness on the stand " You lied then, so how can we believe you now?" "Were you lying then or are you lying now"? Over his legal career Mr. Blumenthal has probably asked those two questions of hundreds of people in the witness chair in a courtroom.

One misstatement can be seen as a mistake, but, as he says: "On a few occasions I have misspoken about my service," and now he follows that up with- "I regret it."

How many times is a mistake? Two, three, four? How many bites of the apple does one get before it is no longer a mistake. This man is an attorney that clearly learned the difference between the words "in" and "during" while studying law. Now,he regrets it. Only after the truth came out does he regret it. He even tries to rationalize his statements by parsing words like "in" instead of "during"


People that is why we little people seek out the advice of attorneys. We let them review complicated contracts, business dealing and criminal matters to search out each and every word for our protection. If I had an attorney that was so lose with words and failed to think before they made a statement, possibly in court, and then have him tell me that he just misspoke I would be concerned about the man's credibility. I guess we can say Mr. Blumenthal is taking a page from President Clinton's play book when he said something like: I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

The bottom line for me is that if Mr. Blumenthal on more than one occasion did embellish and go so far as to confabulate his military record, for whatever reason, can I trust him and his statements, speeches, etc., to be forthright and true without embellishment or exaggeration? I'd really have to give a lot of thought to this mans misleading claims. These misleading claims tell me a lot about this man's character. - And, that is my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.

Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com