Like Scott Lemieux and Nate Silver, I foolishly trusted the New York Times bombshell about CT attorney general Richard Blumenthal. I jumped immediately to the question of what should be done about Blumenthal assuming he lied about his military service. It’s very easy to assume the worst about politicians, but sometimes (probably not too often) their denials and explanations can be valid.
Colin McEnroe at the Hartford Courant has a useful summary of the flaws in the original Times story. Two things that strongly suggest, to me, that there may be a lot less here than the Times made out:
1. In the same 2008 Norwalk speech in which Blumenthal claimed to have served “in Vietnam,” a clip of which the Times posted with its original story, he also said he “served in the military, during the Vietnam era,” which is accurate. Now, why would someone say two different things, one true and one false, during the same speech? Doesn’t it seem at least plausible that the untrue statement was, as Blumenthal says, a misstatement and not a conscious lie? I’m not denying that Blumenthal wanted people to associate him with Vietnam veterans. Even the strictly true statement that he served “during the Vietnam era” is a little weasely, considering he got several deferments and never saw action. But politicians say things that are a little weasely all the time. Blumenthal would not be the first politician to say something that’s true while hoping that the audience inflates the truth in their own minds. The Times made him out to be a serial liar, not a slightly weasely politician.
2. McEnroe has interviewed a slew of Connecticut reporters, to see if any of them were under the impression that Blumenthal had served in Vietnam. If, as the Times suggested, Blumenthal’s service in Vietnam was part of his “public biography,” the reporters covering him would have probably believed that he had served overseas. Some did, as the Times reported. But most of those interviewed by McEnroe did not. One photographer says that Blumenthal “implied” he had served in Vietnam, but that is consistent with a weasley but strictly true statement like “I served in the military, during the Vietnam era.” Different reporters believing different things is also consistent with weasely but strictly true statements. Some reporters seem to have made the leap Blumenthal wanted people to make, and others didn’t.
In response to criticism of the Times for not posting the full clip of the 2008 speech, a Times spokeswoman said this:
The New York Times in its reporting uncovered Mr. Blumenthal’s long and well established pattern of misleading his constituents about his Vietnam War service, which he acknowledged in an interview with The Times. Mr. Blumenthal needs to be candid with his constituents about whether he went to Vietnam or not, since his official military records clearly indicate he did not.
The video doesn’t change our story. Saying that he served “during Vietnam” doesn’t indicate one way or the other whether he went to Vietnam.
First, there was no “long and well established pattern” evident in the original article. The 2008 speech was the most damning piece of evidence. As the article stated:
Sometimes his remarks have been plainly untrue, as in his speech to the group in Norwalk [in 2008]. At other times, he has used more ambiguous language, but the impression left on audiences can be similar.
That’s perfectly fair, but the fact that the same ambiguity exists in the Norwalk speech is worth mentioning, no?
Again, I don’t want to argue that Blumenthal is off-the-hook. He clearly wanted people to believe something that wasn’t true. But lying is different than fudging, and I can’t really get worked up over the latter.
Final note: we all need to beware the bloggification, or what you might call the Politico-cization, of the news. If traditional news outlets want to maintain their snooty attitude towards online outlets, which admittedly prize speed over complete accuracy and fairness, they need to really nail stories like these.
Photo credit: Wikipedia