Blumenthal should have pulled a Sestak

[PADEMJES12]

Richard Blumenthal, who was caught "misspeaking" about his military service should have pulled a Sestak and said that anyone who questions his military service is a person employing swiftboat type tactics.

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/05/17/nyregion/1247467839994/blumenthal-says-he-served-in-vietnam.html

He should not of released his records, which include multiple deferments, like Sestak refused to release records to clear up allegations of being relieved of duty for poor command climate, stated in a July 2005 Navy Times article. I wonder why he didnt just do what Sestak did and not release them, then question those who take issue with his claim as swiftboaters? Seems like a real good candidate. How did the GOP get this guys service records????

If he released them, ive gotta give the guy that much credit unlike Sestak who could have easily released them to solve the matter once and for all. Maybe he released them a long time ago. Nonetheless, i wouldnt ride the guy too hard, as he did serve in the Marine Corps Reserves.

[brooklynite]

1. Not a prayer of working...

Too much recent video on Youtube of what he said

[PADEMJES12]

2. yes but at what point did they get ahold of his records?

i dodnt know much about this other than the news headlines. seems like a great candidate.

[MH1]

5. I'm sure there are public records of who served where

and certainly there are others who can attest to it.

Just as many have attested to Sestak's honorable service record, that Specter tried to trash.

It was swiftboating in Specter's case because SPECTER LIED TO TRASH AN HONORABLE VETERAN.

In Blumenthal's case, if he said he 'served in Vietnam' when everyone knows he didn't and in fact he has said so many times, than he made an error. The question is whether it was misspeaking or a deliberate lie meant to mislead people about his service.

[PADEMJES12]

6. how did specter lie, when the 2005 Navy Times article

substantiates his claim? The article was published well before Sestak ran.
Im glad you take such interest in my posts :) We should become DU friends.
Heck if I was Sestak with his excellent Navy record, id jump to release it.

However, such an insistent refusal, when capable of clearing up the matter
by a very simple act... is highly suspicious.

[MH1]

8. No the Navy Times article does not substantiate his claim.

As a veteran, I am appalled at the bullshit smears you people post. You have no f***** clue about the military, military records, or how that would be used politically - no matter what was in them or not in them.

John Kerry's experience is a case in point. Even today, scum say he didn't release his records, when he did .... but they claim there was something wrong with how it was done. And when they were released, they picked on an ugly photo and bad grades at Yale ... not anything substantive ... but the point is there is trivia that can be used to distract.

And, no record will by any means 'clear up the matter'.

A source within the Navy Department said there were no allegations of misconduct on the part of Sestak. Rather, he said, the move is being made because of poor command climate.

Anonymous source? Check.
Ambiguous negative statement? Check.
Clear statement that there were no allegations of misconduct? Check.

This was just a character assassination, period. With nothing to back it up. There is no reason for Sestak to release his private military records.

I do think, however, that EVERYONE who publicly calls on any veteran to release 'his military records', should release their own military records. If you didn't serve in the military, how about all your job performance reviews and all your educational transcripts, for a start?

[PADEMJES12]

12. Im not running for public office!

However, you do know there were sources within the Navy that said otherwise. I can put their statements up too.
Do you want me to?

[PADEMJES12]

7. will you help me try to find rep. sestaks records?

[MH1]

9. Where are YOUR military records?

[PADEMJES12]

10. im not at issue... nice try to deflect the point

[MH1]

13. Yes, you are. You want to publicize someone else's records, publicize your own.

[PADEMJES12]

16. one small problem...im not running for public office

nor running around crying foul, when i have the ability to confirm that
with the key primary source

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Sestak did not need to, its was common knowledge and then some

[PADEMJES12]

4. common knowledge about what?

[MH1]

11. Common knowledge that he was a hardass and took politically unpopular positions

with respect to defense funding reallocation - as his former boss had specifically asked him to do. A new boss with different politics comes in and Sestak is shown the door, with a little vague attempt at justification other than "we don't like the answers he came up with".

Dude, you need to face that Sestak is the nominee. Whether you are a Specter supporter or a Toomey supporter, I think you're going to need to get over it on this board.

[PADEMJES12]

14. im not a toomey supporter. hes nuttier than squirrel terds.

I have some things im highly suspicious about but could be cleared up if i could see the records
instead of "he said, she said"

[MH1]

15. What could possibly be in the records? It's been stated there was no allegation of misconduct

so what is the point? What could possibly be there, that would negate 31 years of honorable service, high rank, a Harvard PhD in political economy, and a solid track record as a Congressman for the 7th district? (For anyone reading this who doesn't know, Sestak skated to re-election in 2008. That says something.)

Toomey actually has said he won't pursue this.

However, his minions surely will try. But they won't get any traction. They'll just be an annoyance and minor distraction, like this post.

I just wonder how many minions Toomey has at DU.

If you're not one of them, why not accept the fact that Sestak is the only alternative at this point, and stop wasting time on this nonsense, and instead share information that might be of use in beating Toomey?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. There may be some comments in his fitreps that he is trying to hide

Also complaints by civilians about hostile work environment etc would not be in there directly.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Self delete

[PADEMJES12]

19. shush for a sec, im asking progressiveprofessor

common knowledge about what progressive professor? Its ok, dont be intimidated by MH1.
Common knowledge about Blumenthal or Sestak?

[TlalocW]

20. I pulled my Sestak once

Was out of the gym for a couple of weeks.

TlalocW

[daviddiano]

21. The issue is honesty and credibility

Sestak is running a "holier than thou" campaign where he's basically claiming to be more honest, accountable, etc. then everybody in Washington. A lot of this "honor" he's attributing to his 31-year career which he portrays as unblemished.

The FACT is that multiple news organizations have talked to multiple, credible sources and confirmed the accuracy of the Navy Times report. The Philly Inquirer even used the word "confirmed". The sources are NOT anonymous to the reporters protecting their identities.

The reason it's relevant is because if it is shown that Sestak lied about the reasons he left, the entire house of cards he's built around his "honor" will fall apart. Sestak's already given three different excuses since we met him in 2006.

1) He was let go because he opposed the Iraq War.
2) This was a routine change of personnel with a new commander wanting his own people.
3) This was a "political" hit because of his positions on fleet size, and "changing the Navy".

The behavior attributed to Sestak in the Navy Times article is completely consistent with how he has treated BOTH his campaign and congressional staffers since he became a "civilian".

Which makes more sense?
1) Joe was a great boss in the Navy with high morale among his men.
Then a false news story said he was a bad boss.
Then he became a bad boss (like the one in the "false" article) after he left the Navy.

2) Joe always was a bad boss and still is.