David A. Daniel dad at POKERWIZ.COM
Tue May 18 20:38:06 UTC 2010

As a guy who was in the Marine Corps Reserve, Blumenthal knows full well
that he is not entitled to say that he was "in Vietnam". Someone who had not
been in the service(s) at all might make this mistake ("Yeah, my uncle was
in Vietnam", or the like) but not someone who was. He just flat out lied,
and has probably been lying, waffling and shuffling about his military
service for his whole political life.

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" Benjamin Franklin

-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
Bill Palmer
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: Vietnam


IMHO, this is hyperanalyzing a simple lie.

 The man tried to claim, imply, suggest, assert, or whatever, that he had
served in a combat zone, when he, demonstrably, had never done so.  And he
did it purely for poitical gain, to gain votes from those who would support
him on the basis of his supposed service to his country.  Why try to find a
million ways where he could have been making a truthful statement that was
simply misconstrued?

He would have been better advised to weasel word a claim of military service
as a veteran of the Vietnam Era, which does not require that service have
been in-country.

Bill Palmer

----- Original Message -----
From: "victor steinbok" <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:13 PM
Subject: Vietnam

> It's hard to escape last nights news of the flub in Connecticut, where
> Richard Blumenthal got caught exaggerating his service record. Or did
> he? There are three levels of claims, most appearing in the NYT, but
> also piled on by FNC. 1) On exactly one occasion, Blumenthal stated
> commented on "when he served in Vietnam"; 2) on several occasions one
> may deduce that he implied that he served in Vietnam, although he did
> not actually say it; 3) on one occasion he specifically stated "when
> we came back", which can be generally taken as "when we came back from
> Vietnam". Blumenthal's defense is that he misspoke. This apology, of
> course, applies directly to (1). I am sure this is not relevant to the
> political issue--or to FNC--but Blumental's defense on that point
> hinges on whether it was /at any point/ common (particularly in the
> Northeast) to refer to military service during the late 1960s and
> early 1970s as "serving in Vietnam" rather than "serving in/during the
> Vietnam War". I don't know it is true or not that such references were
> at any point common. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with this
> issue can enlighten me (and scores of journos). On the other hand, the
> perception of (2) and (3) is entirely colored by the color of the
> glasses one wears when looking at the remarks. Certainly, when one is
> predisposed to see a fib, it's easy to recognize it as such. However,
> this is hardly sufficient. When one is predisposed against
> "constructivism", any appearance of geometric constructions or legal
> constructs or constructive criticism will be viewed as incursions of
> "constructivism". When one is predisposed against "socialism", every
> mention of "society" or "social" or "welfare" will sound like
> "socialism". The same could be said about "imperialism",
> "environmentalism", "Big Business", etc. So I am more skeptical of
> anything being made out of (2) and (3).
> As to (1), what say the linguists?
> VS-)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society -


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2881 - Release Date: 05/18/10

The American Dialect Society -
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2881 - Release Date: 05/18/10

The American Dialect Society -

More information about the Ads-l mailing list