So… you would have me read that statement not only literally, but with an “everyone knows” added for good measure?
Yes, if “everyone knows” that **** means ‘shit,’ then why can’t “everyone know” that the statement isn’t literally intended to convey the idea that Democrats care absolutely nothing for the character of their nominees? That would be a bizarre claim indeed – that Democrats are vicarious sociopaths.
No, it’s obvious that the claim implied that, on balance, Democrats don’t care about character. On balance – when it’s weighed against reliable party voting.
In any event, why stand on this hill? Regardless of what that anonymous commentator meant, it’s now ultra-clear what I mean.
Look, I already said he probably won’t be prosecuted - and I personally don’t think he should be prosecuted. But the law says any medal - and since guys who went to Vietnam got a campaign medal and guys who stayed stateside in the Reserves didn’t - that means false claims of going to Vietnam absolutely involve false medal claims.
This is just my gut speaking, because I didn’t do the research, but it seems like there’s a difference, legally, between saying, “I fought in Vietnam” and “I have the Vietnam Service Medal”, with only the latter being actionable. By saying, “I fought in Vietnam”, you’re implying you have the medal, but you’re not claiming it.
I said that I don’t care. I am not a Democrat. I am an Independent. If you want to infer anything from my own statements, infer it about Independents, not Democrats. The registered Democrats I know all do care about character. I happen to disagree with the Democrats on this.
Incidentally, I haven’t exactly seen much concern for character among Republicans and conservatives when their leaders and spokespeople lie outrageously about Obama and the Democrats and liberals in general.
There is. The Stolen Honor law only applies to people fraudulently wearing uniforms and medals. It is not meant to prosecute the asshole at the bar trying to pick up chicks by saying he was in Special Forces. Moto is talking out of his ass on this one. His attempt to say that claiming to have served in combat at all is a de facto claim to have those service medals is just grasping at straws.
Blumenthal never even made an explicit claim to have served in combat. He only implied it, and blurred the line between being serving during the war and serving directly in it. He really was in the Marines, and he has made no specific claims to have been in combat or earned medals, so there is nothing prosecutable there.
Actually, the Stolen Valor Act as written makes it a crime to falsely claim, either verbally or in writing, to have been awarded a medal. So, if I were to say, “I earned a Purple Heart”, or if Mr. Blumenthal were to say, “I earned the Vietnam Service Medal”, either of those statements would be prosecutable under the law. You don’t actually have to fraudulently wear the medal.
But I agree with you that this case is a matter of implication and I don’t think he would be prosecutable. I do think the Connecticut Democrats should probably find another candidate, though. The nominating convention isn’t until the 21st.
He really was in the Marines but it was in the Marine reserves, and anyone who was of draft age in those days knows that joining some branch of the military reserves was a good way to avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam. Like other reservists, he did six months active duty which included two or three months of boot camp, and then was on inactive reserve for the remaining six years or so of his enlistment term.
And he didn’t “misspeak” (not that you said he did, Dio) unless you define misspeaking in the Clintonian sense, nor did he blur any lines when it came to his claim of having served in Vietnam. According to the NY Times article he flat out said in March of 2008: “We have learned something important since the days I served in Vietnam”.
And in speaking to a meeting of military families meeting in support for U.S. troops in 2003 he said: *“When we returned, we saw nothing like this.” *
And again in 2008 he talked about his service during the “Vietnam era” and said he remembered *“the taunts, the insults, sometimes even the physical abuse”. *
So he in effect dodged the draft by joining the reserves and then pretended to his constituency to have been a Vietnam veteran, even going so far as to claim in effect to have suffered insults and witness physical abuse upon returning.
I don’t which I find more irritating: his invented military service in Vietnam, or his claim to have “misspoken” when he was outed as having blatantly lied about it.
I think it’s also worth noting that he is still refusing to apologize, apparently in the belief that if he appears to believe he has nothing to apologize for people will be more likely to think his comments were “unintentional”, which of course is a whole new dishonesty in itself. It seems never to stop with this guy.
Still, in your second line it appears to me to be a clarification of his having served in Vietnam - as if he wanted to make sure people knew he was talking about Vietnan service when he spoke of having served.
That’s the hysterical thing about this. I don’t really see why Republicans care that he lied about his service, since they usually shit all over Democrat war veterans when they’re up for election anyway.
No: it’s not true that the law only applies to people fraudulently wearing uniforms and medals. Even a false claim of awards, speech and nothing more, is criminalized by the act.
As you say, since Blumenthal was in fact a Marine, and made no claims about medals, his conduct is not likely to be prosecutable. But even without wearing a uniform or a medal, a false claim about earning one is prosecutable.
As an example, Colorado resident Richard Strandlof didn’t wear any fake medals, but is currently being prosecuted for his lies about having won a Purple Heart and a Silver Star.
You could also take it to mean that we learned things in Vietnam since the days when he served in the military, though, yes?
shrug It’s spoken language transcribed by the NYT.
Obviously I’m not saying that this is what he really meant; I have no idea. I’m just saying that the meaning of the sentence isn’t as clear as is being claimed.
I like to imagine they do it with the taste of ashes in their mouths, because, as I mentioned above, it’s a really shitty thing to do.
I thought Kerry was a poor choice for President. But as I said repeatedly in 2004, his service was honorable and he deserves nothing but praise for the sacrifices he made while wearing this country’s uniform. He’s a hero.
Even those of us who supported him thought Kerry was a shitty choice for President. We just recognized that he was clearly better than the alternative.
I will admit that his passing resemblance to my mental image of Cicero made him much more palatable.
Speaking for myself, no, I wouldn’t. It’s an awkward phrasing that doesn’t really say anything on its own. Further clarification would be needed to know what he was talking about, and since none apparently followed I wouldn’t interpret his statement to mean what you suggest.
True but irrelevant. Also something that Bush defenders were loathe to admit when it was inconient to them.
I said that he never explicitly claimed to have served in COMBAT. Not everybody who served in Nam actually served in the shit. Al Gore, for instance, served in Vietnam during the war, but did not serve in combat.
Yes – an implication, not an explict claim to have served in combat.
What’s wrong with this? “Vietnam era vet” is the common designation for those who served during that war but not directly in it. Why can’t Vietnam era vets remeber taunts and inults, etc?
Irrelevant, but Bush did the same thing. At least Blumenthal didn’t desert.
He only implied the former, never claimed the latter, and neither of these is relevant to the Stolen Valor conversation. Trying to claim that “remembering taunts and insults” against returning vets is the same as falsely represnting oneself as even having been overseas, much less making a prosecutably false representation of having received specific medals is laughable.
To his credit. It wouldn’t be sincere, and it’s not like right wingers would ever accept an apology anyway (the truth is that they’re delighted about this, not offended), so fuck them.
When you really dive into the exact quotes, I see only one that could flatly be called a direct lie “…when I served in Vietnam…” He definitely was not looking to dissuade the perecption that he was a combat vet and tailored his words to fit that perception, but the bulk of it (with on exception that he can blow off as “misspeaking”) is implication and failure to correct misperceptions. It’s not like he’s been going around telling tales of firefights or anything.
Cast your mind back to last presidential election, when you publicly stated that you were strongly considering voting for Obama because of the clean campaign he was running, but eventually changed your mind.
You have no problem with me saying “running a clean campaign doesn’t mean **** to Bricker”, right?
