I was in Country.....with at least 5 deferments

[LarryW]

(fm Utah Bob) Am I just paranoidical?

You might be just a little paranoid, but it's OK....the big one eyed man eating monster standing right behind you is paranoid, too!

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Utah Bob

Bob rocks back in his chair, fingers pursed, and a tight grin on his face. "Excellent!", he whispers.

Something like this...???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKUOB...eature=related

[alright4u]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Saw the article.

What a poser POS.

I would work hard to defeat this guy if I were a CT resident.

TR

TS: This POS lives while 1LT Greg Harrigan does not.

[greenberetTFS]

I don't understand it.....I don't think I ever will !!!! Why do they do it?

Big Teddy

[LarryW]

I don't understand it.....I don't think I ever will !!!! Why do they do it?

Big Teddy

Sir, I think this may be the answer as to "why". The sonsabitches can't help themselves whenever they get around a source of attention. Just IMHO.

http://www.winning-teams.com/recognizenarcissist.html

FWIW, I can't understand it either.

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

Something like this...???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKUOB...eature=related

Who do you think they modeled Burns after?

[Richard]

Received this response from the VFW State Commander for CT.

I spoke out on the news and investigated the mayor and the democratic party rented the hall and the vfw did not know, the people standing behind were the marine corps league and American legion.

RICHARD DIFEDERICO
CT. STATE COMMANDER

I wonder if the VFW will implement some changes to their policies for renting their facilities after this fiasco?

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by Richard

[COLOR="orange"]
I wonder if the VFW will implement some changes to their policies for renting their facilities after this fiasco?

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

Funny you should suggest that.. In the earlier post the VFW Co stated the VFW does not get into politics,, only their PAC,, yet they didn't question the Mayor paying for the hall via the Dem. Party funding??

[Richard]

...the VFW Co stated the VFW does not get into politics...

That statement made me chuckle, too...especially when you look at why the VFW was founded in the first place.

Richard's jaded $.02

[Red Flag 1]

Originally Posted by LarryW

Sir, I think this may be the answer as to "why". The sonsabitches can't help themselves whenever they get around a source of attention. Just IMHO.

http://www.winning-teams.com/recognizenarcissist.html

FWIW, I can't understand it either.

He can't help himself.......probably has peter arnett on his staff for PR & speech writing, Lord knows....... peter would fit right in ........

RF 1

[Utah Bob]

the VFW does not get into politics

Oh no. Certainly not. Heaven forbid.

[greenberetTFS]

I don't know how you guys will take this,but down south here where a "yankee" like myself has been completely accepted by the guys in this VFW post I don't think it fair to judge all VFW's by this one in CT !...............

Big Teddy

[JAGO]

Now his campaign is telling the press the group of "veterans" who stood behind Blumenthal at the VFW said it all.....OMG! The reporter's e-mail and phone number are at the bottom of the article
v/r
phil

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Critics weigh Blumenthal's words
Neil Vigdor, Staff Writer
Published: 11:29 p.m., Tuesday, May 18, 2010

"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."

The occasion was the Stamford Veterans Days parade: Nov. 9, 2008.

The speaker was Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, as quoted by The Advocate.

A trove of potential bulletin board material was unearthed Tuesday by Hearst Connecticut Newspapers from its archives quoting the once seemingly unflappable U.S. Senate candidate on his military record, one that he has been accused of embellishing.

During a May 18, 2009, military board tribute to veterans in Shelton, Blumenthal was quoted by the Connecticut Post as saying, "When we returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse we encountered."
A year later at a Stratford Memorial Day event covered by the Post, Blumenthal dropped the "we" reference but didn't go out of his way to say that he never went to Vietnam.

"I am called general all the time in my role, but the highest rank I will ever have in life is as a sergeant in the United States Marines," said Blumenthal, who went on to comment how tough it was for veterans of the unpopular conflict to return to "taunts and jeers."

Blumenthal's critics claim that the Democrat's veiled references to serving in Vietnam, which the candidate himself qualified as rare and unintentional misstatements but now number at least five, establish a pattern of duplicity that calls his credibility into question.

"At one point I wanted to go up to him a couple of years ago and say, 'Hey Dick, you're giving the impression you were on the battlefield," said former U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., "I thought that might come back to bite him."

Characterizing him as a friend of "high integrity," Shays said Blumenthal made it clear earlier in his career that he served in the Marine Corps Reserve during the Vietnam era but not in the war itself.

"He evolved from being pretty clear about his service to being somewhat nebulous about it and really giving a false impression about his service," Shays said.

A spokeswoman for Blumenthal, who was the subject of a New York Times report Tuesday suggesting that he lied about his military record, contested claims that Blumenthal duped the public.

"Like I said, he acknowledged that on a few occasions that he may have misspoke," said Maura Downes of the Blumenthal campaign. "He used the word in instead of during."

Downes said the solidarity shown by veterans who attended an afternoon news conference in West Hartford with Blumenthal, who said he regretted the errors and took responsibility for them, spoke volumes.

"Of the thousands of veterans and armed services events that he's done over the course of his 20-year career, if you ask the veterans who were standing there today, they will tell you he has always been honest about his service," Downes said.
A spokesman for Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon, whose campaign took credit for planting the Times story, said Blumenthal cannot be trusted between his comments on his military service and decision to accept money from political action committees when he pledged not to do so on television.

"So clearly there is a pattern, typical of career politicians of saying one thing and doing another," said Ed Patru of the McMahon campaign.

Blumenthal's campaign says he never promised not to accept PAC money.

Former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., who is battling McMahon for the GOP nomination and earned two Bronze Stars in Vietnam, called Blumenthal's explanation unacceptable and demanded an apology.

A 2002 profile by the Associated Press, which obtained Blumenthal's military records through a Freedom of Information Act request, reported that he never went to Vietnam or performed active duty.

Blumenthal insisted in the article that he did six months of active duty with the Marines, studying administration and was classified as an "Admin Man."

George Jepsen, a former state Democratic Party chairman who is running for Blumenthal's seat as attorney general, said the explanation offered by his political ally is entirely plausible.

"When you're out speaking night after night and you deliver nearly thousands of speeches, occasionally in the moment you're going to misspeak," Jepsen said. "It's entirely human. I don't think at any time did he deliberately or knowingly create the impression that he served in Vietnam."

Jepsen had choice words for McMahon, who is funding her entire campaign from her vast World Wrestling Entertainment fortune.

"This is what happens when you have an opponent who has spent $16 million and has the power to drag a rake over every public moment of your now 40 year career," Jepsen said.

Blumenthal is not the first Connecticut politician to face allegations that he exaggerated his military record.

In 1984, Robert Sorensen, a Democratic state representative from Meriden, said he had fought in Vietnam when he hadn't.

A message seeking comment from Sorensen was left at his home Tuesday.

U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., a Blumenthal ally, said politicians have to be extremely careful with their words.

"Dick Blumenthal is a good friend who proudly served his country in the Marine Reserves and the people of Connecticut as Attorney General," Himes said in a statement. "As elected officials, we owe it to the people we represent to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and I applaud Dick for taking full responsibility for any misstatements he made."

Staff writer Neil Vigdor can be reached at neil.vigdor@scni.com or at 203-625-4436.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/defa...rds-491848.php

.

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by greenberetTFS

I don't know how you guys will take this,but down south here where a "yankee" like myself has been completely accepted by the guys in this VFW post I don't think it fair to judge all VFW's by this one in CT !...............

Big Teddy

True. The posts can be quite different.

But the statement by the national HQ that VFW doesn't get into politics is just silly.

[Richard]

Pretty good read - and the man is in deep kimche...

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

The Blumenthal Rules: Why should anyone give Richard Blumenthal a break?
William Saletan, Slate, 18 May 2010

Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut, has a problem. He's running for the U.S. Senate, and he's been caught on video implying falsely that he served in Vietnam. He'd like your understanding as he explains that he simply "misspoke" about his service. He'd like you to give him a break.

But Blumenthal has never given anyone a break. He has made a career out of holding others to the strictest standards of truth—and mercilessly prosecuting them when they fall short.

During Vietnam, Blumenthal went into the Marine Reserves and obtained several deferments to avoid the draft. But in 2008, he told an audience, "We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam." In 2003, he said of U.S. troops coming home, "When we returned, we saw nothing like this." In a report published Monday night, the New York Times reviewed other speeches and noted several patterns: that Blumenthal has often used "ambiguous language," that "he does not volunteer that his service never took him overseas," that he "describes the hostile reaction directed at veterans coming back from Vietnam, intimating that he was among them," and that he has never corrected news organizations (including Slate) that erroneously inferred he had served in Vietnam.

Today, Blumenthal rebutted the Times story. Let's look at the rules he has enforced on others over the last year or so and see how his rebuttals compare.

1. Beware those who exploit veterans. Last year, Blumenthal denounced "exploitive, poorly managed or even fraudulent fundraisers" who raise money in the name of veterans. He warned the public to donate only "to well-known organizations with a history of helping veterans."

Today, to dispel the allegations against him, Blumenthal stood in front of veterans at a press conference and boasted: "They've heard me again and again and again stand up for justice and fairness to our veterans."

2. Blurring is lying. Last fall, Blumenthal launched an investigation of food companies that put a "Smart Choices" logo on their products. He called the labels "potentially misleading" and decried marketing gimmicks that "blur or block the truth." Though the labels made no explicit claims, he protested that they "misguided" the public and sowed "confusion." He pledged to teach companies, through his investigation, that "labeling must be completely truthful and accurate without hype or spin." And he depicted the industry in the harshest terms: "Big Food has been feeding big lies to consumers about nutritional value."

Today, Blumenthal said he merely "misspoke" about his service, using the wrong preposition in a small and "unintentional" oversight.

3. Fudging is cheating. Two months ago, Blumenthal announced "a crackdown on companies that illegally misclassify employees as independent contractors." This wasn't a debatable distinction, he argued: It was an outrage and a crime. "Misclassification is cheating—plain and simple," he preached. "I will fight to stop companies from falsely claiming their employees are independent contractors. …"

Today, Blumenthal proudly declared, "I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country."

4. Failure to state the truth clearly is trickery. Last summer, Blumenthal won a $50,000 fine against a company that collected goods for charity. He blasted it for "prominently displaying charitable and service organization logos on its boxes while failing to state clearly that it keeps most of the proceeds." He called the firm an "imposter" and condemned its behavior as "reprehensible trickery."

In another case, Blumenthal sued a charity telemarketer for "failing to clearly and conspicuously state its name and its paid solicitor status." He argued that the firm had "listed its true name and solicitor status in barely legible print on the back of its mailing, effectively concealing its identity and purpose."

Today Blumenthal brushed away his inaccurate remarks about Vietnam as "a few occasions" compared with "hundreds" (including this one) in which he had told the truth.

5. Good faith is no defense. In March, a court agreed with Blumenthal that R.J. Reynolds had run misleading ads about a new tobacco product. The court concluded:

At bottom, although Reynolds' marketing of the Eclipse cigarette was ultimately misleading and deceptive because the support relied on was scientifically and medically insufficient, there was no "bad intent" and in fact a deliberate, indeed considerable effort to develop and sell a tobacco product which might potentially do some good for some smokers, and more likely than not do no additional, or different harm.

Did Blumenthal cut the company any slack for its good intentions and efforts? Not a bit. "The court rightly found RJR's ads deceptive and disingenuous, falsely stating that Eclipse is safer than other cigarettes," he charged. "I will continue fighting Big Tobacco's snake oil sales strategies that mislead consumers about the dangers of smoking. We will seek strong and significant sanctions against RJR in the upcoming penalty phase."

Now, in defense of his statements about Vietnam, Blumenthal argues, "My intention has always been to be completely clear and accurate."

6. No misrepresentation is too small to prosecute. Last fall, Blumenthal threatened legal action against a hotel and a musical performance company for calling their tribute show "An Evening With the Platters." He said it was "unclear" whether the company owned the rights to the Platters' name. After the hotel backed down and renamed its show "A Tribute to the Platters," Blumenthal declared victory but warned, "I will continue fighting to enforce Connecticut's truth-in-music law."

Today, Blumenthal accused his critics of nitpicking his record and missing the big picture.

7. You're responsible for monitoring things written by others that serve your interests. For more than a year, Blumenthal has hounded Craigslist to "scrub" and "rid" its site of porn and sex ads posted by users. Brushing aside the company's pleas that it can't police everything, he has subpoenaed documents and instructed the company to "immediately hire staff to screen for" offensive ads and images. Two weeks ago, he demanded: "Describe in detail the manual review process craigslist has created to screen posts in the adult services section, including … the number of individuals assigned to review postings and the name of any company craigslist has or will contract with to perform this function."

Today, when Blumenthal was asked why he had failed to correct erroneous reports that he had served in Vietnam, he replied: "I can't be held responsible for all the mistakes in all the articles—thousands of them—that are written about me."

8. Claims of virtue deserve investigation. In February, Blumenthal urged Connecticut authorities to "investigate the validity of claims by electric suppliers and generators about their reliance on renewable energy sources." Some companies, he observed, claimed to exceed (not just meet) the state's renewable-energy requirements, "and they advertise these claims in order to lure environmentally conscious consumers." While offering no evidence of deception, Blumenthal called on regulators to "investigate when companies claim to exceed these standards."

9. Hand over all your records. In his probe of the "Smart Choices" program, Blumenthal demanded "details about the consumer research and selection criteria," the "process and fees involved in administering the program," and any "role that major food manufacturers might have provided for the program." His subpoena to Craigslist was even more thorough, encompassing everything but the kitchen sink.

Will Blumenthal call for an investigation of himself? Will he hand over all records of his public statements about Vietnam? Will he show himself as little mercy as he has shown others?

Give me a break.

http://www.slate.com/id/2254214