About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

“Instantly disqualifying” -- unless you’re a Republican

May 19, 2010 12:35 pm ET by Jamison Foser

In the wake of yesterday’s New York Times article about Richard Blumenthal, The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder wrote that “Lying about it [military service], even exaggerating about it, is therefore instantly disqualifying.”  That, as I explained, isn’t always true -- it wasn’t disqualifying for George W. Bush, whose embellished military record didn’t much concern the news media.

Today, Bob Somerby provides another example of a non-disqualifying-exaggeration: current Republican Senator Lindsey Graham’s repeated description of himself as a Gulf War veteran, despite the fact that the closest he came to the Gulf was South Carolina, where processing wills for soldiers who did deploy to the Gulf.  Here’s Somerby:

What happened in 1998 when Graham, then a Republican congressman, was caught up in a much more extensive version of this mess? Graham had endlessly told the world that he was a “Gulf War veteran,” although his service during that period hadn’t taken him off the east coast. (The east coast of the U.S.) By the way: In Graham’s case, we weren’t discussing a single misstatement from a single, two-year-old speech; Graham had endlessly presented himself as a “Gulf War veteran.”

Graham should refer to himself as a ''Gulf War era veteran,” we were told—and that’s pretty much the basis on which this flame was allowed to blow out. The flap about Graham blew over quickly, helped along by this sage advice. The fiery young fellow was allowed to proceed with the important business of impeaching the president.

And today, some twelve years later? Of course! On page one, the New York Times indicts a major Democrat, complaining that he once said, completely correctly, that he served “during the Vietnam era.” The use of “era” solved Graham’s problem. Twelve years later, the same construction is used, by the Times, to define Richard Blumenthal’s “lies.”

A February 18, 1998 article in The Hill demonstrates further similarities between Graham and Blumenthal:

One of the newest members of the House committee that will decide whether President Clinton should be impeached for lying under oath has himself claimed that he was a Gulf War veteran , a claim disputed by military experts.

Despite repeated statements that he served in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was actually living out of harm's way at home in South Carolina, where he was processing wills and other paperwork for the Air Force during the entire course of the conflict.

On his official web site, Graham describes himself as "an Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm veteran." Other biographies he has written read similarly.

According to numerous military experts The Hill contacted, Graham has no legitimate claim to being called a veteran of the conflict.

But Graham says he never intended to mislead anyone about his military service. "I have not told anybody I'm a combatant," he said. "I'm not a war hero, and never said I was. I never intended to lie. If I have lied about my military record, I'm not fit to serve in Congress."

Indeed, when pressed for details over the years, Graham has freely acknowledged his domestic, non-combatant role after being called to active duty from the Air Force Reserves in 1990. "I never deployed," he said last week. "Half our unit went, half our unit stayed."

Yet almost all of the standard political biographies about Graham describe his military record inaccurately. "USAF, 1990, Pursian (sic) Gulf" is how Who's Who in America and affiliated biographical books list him. The Almanac of American Politics states that Graham "was called up to active duty and served in the Gulf War."

Although Graham said he is not responsible for the Who's Who entry and considers it inaccurate, he does acknowledge providing the information for his web site and other biographies that list him as a war veteran.

Keep in mind that a key aspect of the New York Times’ case against Blumenthal is that he failed to correct misleading media descriptions of his service.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by DellDolly (May 19, 2010 12:49 pm ET)
      4  
      Another apparent difference between Attorney General Blumenthal and Senator Graham is that Blumenthal, on multiple occasions, clearly stated that he did NOT go to Vietnam. He did so recently in a debate! Based upon what MMFA states above, Graham repeatedly and consistently described himself as a Gulf War vet until he was called out on it.

      On top of that, there's no indication, other than wild accusations, that Blumenthal was LYING about his military record. After all, if he were TRYING to lie about his record, why would he repeatedly tell the public that he was NOT in-country? He misspoke. That's not equivalent to lying.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by papajohn (May 19, 2010 12:54 pm ET)
      4  
      Meanwhile Bill Press (a supposed "liberal")was on MSNBC "The Ed Show" and on his own AM radio show on America Left trashing Blumenthal without question. Callers on his show that made the very same analogies as you did were summarily dismissed. Bill Press, of course features his "buddies" on his show from CNN (the place where Bill gets most of his "news") and Politico. He will never entertain callers that blame the media for the rampant misinformation planted into the heads of most Americans unless
      they are blaming Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. That's OK, but not CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC for their Corporate (Republican) propaganda. They are off limits as far as Bill Press is concerned. Then he wastes his audience time by inviting them onto his radio show to spew the same lies they spew on their cable and network shows over the tiny fraction of bandwidth devoted to virtually the only Progressive radio station in the entire country.

      Nice job Bill, helping the networks, newspapers, and the Republicans get another Republican into the Senate to help filibuster and block any progress for the people that there was any glimmer of hope to achieve.

      John
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jjamele2880 (May 19, 2010 1:05 pm ET)
           
        Bill Press is an insider hack who only knows for sure one thing- that he agrees with Obama on everything, even when Press has not examined the issue at all or knows why it's important. Oh, and he's in favor of a third party, never mind what it stands for or who it's nominees will be, because he just is. Press endorsed vigilante justice when discussing the KSM trial in NYC ("if he's found Not Guilty, just let people know which door of the courthouse he's going to exit from, the people of NYC will take care of the rest." In short, Press is a suttering, stumbling half-wit not to be taken seriously by sincere Progressives.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by goesto11 (May 19, 2010 1:16 pm ET)
      2 2
      I hate to sound a dissenting note here (actually, I quite enjoy it), but...

      Just because Lindsey Graham did something really outrageous, that doesn't mean Richard Blumenthal didn't also.

      Blumenthal clearly used ambiguous language to describe his military service, and he flat-out lied on other occasions. It's not a matter of semantics -- he's been dishonest by omission and commission.

      Let's not fall into the trap of "But Watergate was much worse!" We need a better point of comparison than the absolute worst.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Andy Kreiss (May 19, 2010 1:29 pm ET)
        3  
        Blumenthal clearly used ambiguous language


        That's how I heard it, could have been deliberate, could have been accidental. It surely wasn't at the level of, say, Bill O'Reilly's " I've been in combat!" remarks, but military service is a subject where public officials ( or anybody, I suppose) need to be pretty precise with their language.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (May 19, 2010 2:29 pm ET)
          2  
          I'm a bit let down by Blumenthal. Especially since I voted for him for AG of CT in 1990.

          He should have chosen his words more carefully. He was pandering to an audience which is what politicians do. But in the past, these kind of claims always made me angry.

          But, if I were a voter in Connecticut, (which is a possibility at some point in the future, but probably not before November) I'd vote for Blumenthal or any Democrat running if their opponent was a Republican.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Andy Kreiss (May 19, 2010 3:31 pm ET)
               
            Yeah, this is the out-of-proportion outrage that wingnuts use to back up the " he's gotta go!" stuff we were talking about before. To be consistent, they'd have to insist that just about every Republican over the past few decades "had to go".

            I heard Dennis Prager recently playing a clip where he "caught" Bill Maher getting some fact wrong about Brazil being off of oil. The tongue-clucking was hilarious, it was a complete condemnation of "teh left" that Prager harped on for days.

            I heard more factual inaccuracies in the ten minutes of Pragers show following his mention of the gaffe than I've heard from Maher in years, but that seemed to be OK with Prager.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by jjamele2880 (May 19, 2010 1:31 pm ET)
        1  
        As in all cases, I prefer to weigh the "crime" against the decades-long record of the candidate. If I lived in Connecticut, I'd give this "scandal" two glances and then move on, and vote for Blumenthal. In the end, the voter has to make a choice. Is what Blumenthal did worth six years of Senator McMahon or Senator Simmons? Not in my book.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bilbo_dies (May 19, 2010 1:50 pm ET)
        2  
        Blumenthal clearly used ambiguous language to describe his military service,

        Well, if that is a disqualifier then pretty much every congressman we have needs to step down. Any of them that have any type of military history are prone to exaggerate it. (it isn't right but; they do)

        As for good ole Lindsey, if he had served in Desert storm he would have an "Expeditionary Medal" for it.

        Since never left the states he probably doesn't eve qualify for the "Southwest Asia Service" medal.

        Gee, where do you draw the line???

        Report Abuse
      • Author by avedon (May 19, 2010 1:58 pm ET)
        1  
        Hm? I thought he said he was a "Vietnam-era vet", which is true. Vets who were actually in-country call themselves "Vietnam vets". Most people know the difference. (At least, in that generation, they do. Not sure what's happened since the Reagan adminstration started wrecking the public school system....)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (May 19, 2010 2:10 pm ET)
          1  
          One time he said that he was "in Vietnam".

          But yeah, lots of times he used that same type of description, that he served during the Vietnam era.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (May 19, 2010 2:08 pm ET)
        1  
        MMFA was NOT saying at all what you ascribe to them.

        Richard Blumenthal, first off, didn't do the same thing that Lindsey Graham did.

        Secondly, there's plenty of evidence that Blumenthal was not intentionally inflating his service.

        There is NO evidence that he "flat-out lied". None. Zero. Zilch.

        He said something that wasn't true. Not everything that wasn't true is a LIE though. A LIE requires intent to mislead. There's NO evidence that he had an intent to mislead. In fact, there were 3 things listed in the NY Times piece. One item was undeniably TRUE. The second is something that might mislead a listener but is STILL true. The third, where he said that he served "in Vietnam", is untrue. So, there's not "other occasions" - there's ONE time. And there's no evidence it's a lie.

        As I have pointed out before, there's a reason that MMFA uses the term "falsehood", not lie, and that's because most of the time, MMFA can't assert without any question the intent of the person who told the falsehood.

        In THIS guy's case, it's pretty clear that he had no bad intentions. How do we know this? Well, because in the SAME speech where the "in Vietnam" comment was said, he ALSO accurately portrayed his service! In addition, there's plenty of evidence that on numerous other occasions, he explicitly said that he never was in Vietnam!

        So, he DID say one thing that wasn't true. He said other things that people misinterpreted, and for those things it's perfectly fine with me to scold him. But it's not accurate or fair to state that he's been dishonest by commission.

        And it's REALLY unfair for YOU to portray MMFA as making a point they NEVER tried to make.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by sluggo (May 20, 2010 12:19 am ET)
        1  
        The issue is not who did what but how the MEDIA (hence the title of this web site) reports the news. Pointing out the contrast between how the media reported on and/or failed to investigate both Graham and Blumenthal is what this story is about.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by sluggo (May 20, 2010 12:25 am ET)
      1  
      Since most people consider the Times to be a source of news (unlike FOX, ABC, and CNN) this illustrates how the Times operates in this case. By ignoring Graham the Times is either:

      1. Trying to distort a news story into a propaganda story.
      2. Using their third-string "reporters" to write up stuff without doing even minimal analysis.
      3. Too lazy to bother.

      Since this story has been on the front page for more than one day the third option is likely out. Given that even the times can "do a google" and get information, the second option is out (assuming third-string Times "reporters" know what side of the keyboard to use; the bumpy side or smooth side).

      This leaves the first option. Watching the Times deliberately spin a news story into a propaganda story makes you wonder what other "news" stories the times has done this with.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.