With the New York Times coming out with more instances of Connecticut Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, inferring his active military service was in theatre (on the ground) in Vietnam, as opposed to simply serving during the conflict - it seems, Mr. Blumenthal will be forced to face a little more music, beyond his half-hearted, photo op of a mea culpa. But, you may not want to hold your breath, waiting for him to pop his head out of the ground again, during the rest of this controversy.
Blumenthal is a lawyer and by extension, a wordsmith. We have to assume that he knows the value of particular word placement in anything he says. We have already seen instances, since this story broke, of how Blumenthal and his people went back to news reporters when they felt the words were not just right, in a given article about or concerning the Attorney General. We can see him practicing his craft when, in his news conference to respond to the charges the word "lied" is deftly replaced with the word, "misspoke".
I contend that these instances, of Blumenthal's play on words, in speaking of his military service were far more calculated then he'd have the public believe. One very important thing to consider, is that these examples of misspeaking, by Blumenthal - examples that are growing in number as the days pass...seem always to be found in formal addresses to a group. So far, references to his false contention of serving in Vietnam aren't coming from off the cuff remarks. They are being found in prepared speeches. Words that are not spoken extemporaneously but, are first written - then presumably reviewed and possibly rewritten and reviewed again, before being spoken. Plenty of time for an intelligent and honest person, in tune with his own truth, to possibly say, "Hey, these words here and here should probably be changed, so as not to give any wrong impressions." That didn't seem to be the case and what we have seen is a cute, back-and-forth, between Blumenthal's historic fantasy and fact, when he speaks of his military service. Over the years, he has substituted the word during for in, when referring to that service.
When you look at the words used by Blumenthal, both in those cases where it can be said he'd given a false impression of his military service, during Vietnam and when he was more clear about his service being stateside - one might see something intentionally provided by the speaker of those words, for himself. An out.
Blumenthal has already used the 'wrong word' defense, in suggesting the innocent use of the words in Viet Nam, instead of during Vietnam. But, as the examples of his, "misspeaking" pile up and forces him to defend himself further - I predict that again, no apology will be forthcoming, should he choose to address these claims again publicly, since he's already dug himself in. I also predict that the next strategy will be, for Blumenthal to say that his references were of the Vietnam era, overall. When speaking of himself, he was speaking, contextually of Viet Nam in the larger sense. "In Viet nam" was referring to the time itself and not about Blumenthal, himself. Surely, not about him, he'll say. "Because we all know the truth is, I didn't serve my military time in Vietnam."
The master of word play will continue playing the game. Since, more and more it seems, for those in public life...furthering a political career will trump integrity or answering for a lack, thereof, every time.
No comments:
Post a Comment