Blumenthal Walks On Backs of Those Who Served In Vietnam (Oliver North)

Fox News ^ | May 19, 2010 | Oliver North

[jazusamo]

You’re correct about some people inflating their service in every war. The difference now is the media and the Internet, they make it almost impossible to get away with and people like Blumenthal should know it.

[jazusamo]

Correct, I could not believe him standing up in a presser yesterday and try to vindicate himself by saying it was a slip of the tongue, it just doesn’t carry water.

[Maelstorm]

It looks like the media is trying to help Blumenthal out and help him parse words because he said he served in Vietnam and then he said served as a Marine during the Vietnam era later. The guy knew he had crossed the line that is why he came out and said he “misspoke”. You’d bet your bottom dollar that if a conservative Republican had said any such thing we’d never hear the end of it.

[ConorMacNessa]

I believe the Vietnam Era began in 1961.

Lamh Foistenach Abu!

[jazusamo]

Agree, the enemedia is going all out for Blumenthal. Hopefully there’s enough veterans in CT that he won’t get away with this.

[luvbach1]

I believe the Vietnam era began inn 1961.

For purposes of defining whether one is a Vietnam era veteran, I believe it began later than that (1965 I think). For instance, I have never been considered a Vietnam era vet by the Dept of Veterans Affairs (honorably discharged in Sept 1963).

[AlaskaErik]

I have always referred to myself as a Vietnam-era veteran, and only if it was germane to the conversation. I would never claim to be a Vietnam veteran, since all my duty stations during that time frame were CONUS. I did spend a year in Okinawa after the war, but again, that was in peace time. I served six years active duty in the Marine Corps and this Blumenthal makes me want to puke.

[jazusamo]

AMEN to that!

[ConorMacNessa]

I respectfully disagree:

"Whether service on a naval vessel in the waters off the shore of Vietnam constitutes service in the Republic of Vietnam for purposes of 38 U.S.C. § 101(29)(A), which de-fines the Vietnam era as the period beginning on February 28, 1961, and ending on May 7, 1975, in the case of a veteran who served in the Republic of Vietnam during that period."

This, from the VA website, would indicate to me that it began in 1961. I think you're a Vietnam-era vet.

Lamh Foistenach Abu!

[Constitutions Grandchild]

Well, you can’t fix stupid. Or arrogance either it seems.

[Non-Sequitur]

Blumenthal would walk on the backs of his own children to be a senator. Face it, this is not anything he’s ashamed of. He’s just annoyed he got caught.

[Ax]

This whole fiasco was totally unecessary. I would never impugn anyone’s honorable service, be it at Khe Sanh or (as a buddy of mine did) drive a general around some missile base in South Dakota for almost four years. As Rush would say, this guy opened the door and walked right into it.

[luvbach1]

"Whether service on a naval vessel in the waters off the shore of Vietnam constitutes service in the Republic of Vietnam for purposes of 38 U.S.C. § 101(29)(A), which de-fines the Vietnam era as the period beginning on February 28, 1961, and ending on May 7, 1975, in the case of a veteran who served in the Republic of Vietnam during that period."

Thank you for your answer. The definition above assumes service in Vietnam, or off its shore. I never left the state of CA during my period of service (1961-63) so I am not considered a Vietnam-era vet by the Department of Veterans affairs (VA) despite having served at that time. So we are both right.

[ConorMacNessa]

Thanks for the clarification - I guess I didn't read far enough.

Lamh Foistenach Abu!