"A few misplaced word."
That's how Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut's attorney general who is running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by the contemptible Christopher Dodd, described and tried to explain his repeatedly having falsely claimed to have served in the Vietnam War. According to even The Wall Street Journal, normally a stickler for properly using the English language, Blumenthal admitted "to wrongly saying he served in Vietnam."
The plain and simple truth is that Mr. Blumenthal lied. His lie was not accidental. It was deliberate and calculated, and it was repeated by Mr. Blumenthal a good many times. He is a liar.
Why is the simple fact not stated honestly in a blunt, honest, proper, and straightforward way?
Instead, Mr. Blumenthal gets away with referring to his "record of service." And it goes largely unreported that his voluntary service as a Marines reservist ensured that he would not be sent to Vietnam. Similarly, his record of earlier actions to avoid serving in Vietnam receive scant, if any, notice.
The English language is a wonderful tool for conveying facts and ideas in blunt, honest, proper, and straightforward ways. Yet we are being subjected to its employment to evade a simple and unmistakable fact. Why?
I submit that the blunt truth goes to the character of Connecticut's top law enforcement officer and the leading candidate for one of the state's two U.S. Senate seats. More importantly, what does it say about the character of Connecticut's voters, who, after having repeatedly chosen the contemptible Mr. Dodd as their senator, were preparing -- and still appear to be prepared -- to choose a similar character to replace him?
No comments:
Post a Comment