“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.

















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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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???
But yeah, lots of times he used that same type of description, that he served during the Vietnam era.
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.
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.