Blumenthal, et al: what does it mean to misspeak?
One thing I will never quite understand is this business of a person confessing that he/she misspoke.
You hear it all the time these days from public figures (actually, you increasingly hear it in private, too). Richard Blumenthal is only the latest, but his stance is quite typical:
“On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service and I regret that and I take full responsibility,” Blumenthal said Tuesday. But he described those remarks as “absolutely unintentional,” and said the mistake has only happened a Ttimes out of “hundreds” of addresses he’s given.
First, let’s take care of Blumenthal’s incidence argument: yes, he only lied a few times out of hundreds of addresses he’s given. But does a lie have to be repeated and completely consistent to be a lie? Of course not. And is it really plausible that Blumenthal’s reference to having returned from a Vietnam theater of war that he in fact had never entered could be “unintentional?” It hardly seems so.
The word “misspeak” has come to be an all-purpose coverup for the purpose of avoiding admitting the truth—which is that a person has lied. However, in using the word “misspeak” inappropriately, the person is telling another lie, or at least a coverup of the original lie. Here’s the definition of misspeak:
To speak or pronounce incorrectly: The lead actor misspoke his lines.
To speak mistakenly, inappropriately, or rashly.
Obviously Blumenthal is referring to the second definition rather than the first. He is claiming careless error rather than intention to deceive. And while some such claims are plausible (for example, Obama’s odd “57 states” faux pas could legitimately be described as such), some are not. One can make an error that’s a slip of the tongue or a little brain glitch, or even state something in a manner that’s ambiguous to the listener and thus misunderstood. But Blumenthal’s statements were none of these things.
The most unequivocal one was when he said “We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam.” Had he said instead, “since the days I served during the Vietnam era,” his words would have been a bit misleading and subject to misinterpretation for some listeners but technically correct (Blumenthal did serve in a Marine reserve unit during that time), and we would not be having this discussion.
But Blumenthal did not say that. And since the facts in question—where he served—are very much matters about which he had full awareness, he cannot claim ignorance.
But Blumenthal is just one example of a trend. “Misspeaking” is ever so much better than lying, and it’s the all-purpose excuse du jour. And while I have a certain amount of sympathy for those in the public eye whose every utterance is scrutinized for errors, and/or whose statements are regularly misunderstood and misinterpreted (and even misquoted), I don’t think Blumenthal falls into this category.
I would actually love it if the word “misspeak” would fall out of use. It’s awkward, for one thing. And it’s ambiguous (although for those who love it, that’s part of its beauty). Why not just say, “I made an error: I meant to say so-and-so and I actually said so-and-so” instead? Or why not (gasp!) say “I lied, and I’m sorry, and I won’t do it again.” That might actually be refreshing.
“However, in using the word “misspeak” inappropriately, the person is telling another lie”
I completely agree with this and it was in the back of my mind while reading the preceding paragraphs of your blog. Mispoke has become a soft synonym for “lie”. Perhaps the next step will be to address sexual indisgession in politics in the same way. A Congressman or political figure caught cheating on his wife can take much of the sting out of it by saying he was simply “mislaid”.
way we normal people use it or the way they use it?
the way they use it misspoke means i lied got caught but if i use a fancy word, and pc obeisance, i can get many of you morons to not conclude i was a liar and was cheating the same people (or now are we to argue liars do so to help others)
“On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service and I regret that and I take full responsibility,” Blumenthal said Tuesday.
I regret lying and I take full responsibility for lying. Is this intended as a substitute for an apology for lying? This is just an inappropriate response for being caught lying. NAd, as he was a marine, one must ask if this is the Marine Corps way?
Nonetheless, as Blumenthal is a liberal he is given a free pass to lie whenever the situation warrants. His base won’t be too put off by his lies and his poll numbers will most likely not suffer too drastically. Remember, liberals do not have standards, or honor, or shame, or even memory of their own misdeeds. We tend to look at these situations and deal with them as if the candidate were a conservative and, thus, embarrassed by being caught lying. We have the wrong frame of reference. Ours requires that we carry ourselves as gentlemen and ladies. Theirs requires only that they feel good about their good thoughts and excuses any wrongs they do in furtherance of their goodness. Remember, the Dope lies every time he opens his mouth and his acolytes just don’t care.
Hear, hear!
Another weasel word that I hate is “misunderstand,” as in “I’m sorry some people were so effing stupid and misunderstood me as meaning exactly what I said.”
It’s a sort-of apology, a way of being able to claim one apologized, but without actually having done so.
A close relative is the all-passive construction, as in “I’m sure if any offense was taken I’m sure it was not intended.”
Liberals have managed to completely shift the definition of morality to having the right views on their issues and away from individual behavior toward other individuals. If you have the approved view of race, poverty, homosexuality, war, capital punishment, big business, the environment and such issues, you are defined as a good person. Lies (Clinton), not paying your taxes (Geithner), bribes (Dodd), running a prostitution ring in your basement (Frank) and such are minor distractions. If you don’t have the correct views, you are a bad person. Blumenthal is thus a good person.
So the Times Square bomber misused fireworks, Jack the Ripper misappropriated a knife and Mama Cass Elliot misingested food.
Speaking as a US Air Force veteran, perhaps I can shed some light on this specific kind of “misspeaking.” Those who have served in the military are carefully taught about honor and the many protocols of military service. One does not, for example, ever wear an award that has not been earned, or having earned it, one does not pin on the ribbon prior to the designated effective date. And one does not, absolutely does not, ever, under any circumstance, claim for them self a rank or distinction that they have not earned. This is so because these distinctions are one’s visible resume, and in the military, lies cannot be tolerated as they can easily lead to unnecessary deaths.
If one has not earned the Ranger tab, for instance, one does not represent oneself as a Ranger. If one has not earned their “Budweiser,” one does not represent them self as a SEAL. If one has never served at a given installation or in a given country, one does not claim or even suggest that they have. And if one has not served in a war zone, one absolutely never claims to have done so, or even allows others to have the mistaken impression that they have (if they are aware of such misimpression) .
Perhaps the worst transgression of this type is to claim or suggest, or allow others to believe, that you have served in combat when you have not. There are even finer distinctions involved. If one served in a combat zone, but served in a support role and did not actually participate in combat, one is always careful to make that clear.
In this case, the facts are clear. We have a man who served stateside in the Marine reserves and never set foot in Vietnam, yet, clearly said that he did serve in Vietnam, on more than one occasion over many years, and on other occasions, again over many years, said things that would encourage or allow others to believe that he had, and on other occasions, did nothing to correct mistaken, published impressions about his non-service in Vietnam, again, over many years.
To veterans, to those who served honorably, and to the active duty military, there is no excuse, no explanation. No clever parsing of words or spin will help. Regardless of his political fortunes, Mr. Blumenthal has forever tarnished himself in the minds of those who matter most, first by lying, and most egregiously, by trying to minimize his lies, told under many circumstances over many years.
Ambrose Bierce
This retired Navy Chief says it this way:
The Son of a Bitch lied.
And my last name is Cook. Just to aggravated to wait to fill the whole damn form out.
mikemcdaniel
even worse…
Technically he is impersonating an officer…
And that technically, is a criminal offense…
if they want an explanation of why i think this is so, i apply the broadest use of officer, and the principal of cui buono… no one prosecutes kentucky colnels 🙂
the point is that i consider it impersonating such if the outcome of the application gains the person benefit.
so a person pretending to be an officer for an office party, halloween, etc… doesnt fall under this category… the idiot who buys a medal and wears it to a soho party, also falls short (despite such have been prosecuted)…
but the man, who even says he is a private third class when he wasnt, and gets a free meal at the diner, special consideration at the dmv, gets or presumes to get (making the offense not hinge on success, but its presumption) votes in an election and changes how people may regard them.
now, technically its wrong for the general population to have special regard, but that’s another issue (you deserve utmost respect, we all do, but special regard, no. however, if such is in the hearts of people on a personal level, there is nothing that should stop such fellowship and expression)
it is my opinion that he wasn’t carrying a Halloween idea too far… he at some point decided that wearing the mantel of a veteran, and especially a combat veteran, would be better for him than the truth (or not even examining that as a point in the first place)
he impersonated an officer with intent to receive benefit that was believed would accrue to the officer he wasn’t, and not the person he was.
to me this says he crossed more than just a lie line.
“Actors wearing our military uniforms always have something not within regulations that are WRONG, i.e., ribbons, shoes, etc.”
ie, everyone knows that they are not what they appear to be (or rather, everyone that cares to know or should know).
what did someone confide in him that they might not have?
A crime under /18 U.S.C. § 912
http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC00912.html
Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee
acting under the authority of the United States or any department,
agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended
character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing
of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than three years, or both.
oh… and who knows the bizarre permutations that might come in if he used the postage and mailed said to get gain…
“I would actually love it if the word “misspeak” would fall out of use. It’s awkward, for one thing. And it’s ambiguous”
“It’s ambiguous”. Yes, purposely so. It’s a popular verbal technique, in this case an attempt to qualify an intentional lie as merely a ‘mistake’.
Put in plain English; he’s telling another lie to lessen the impact of his first lie coming to light.
mikemcdaniel above is entirely correct. One does NOT forget where they served and what was involved. I don’t care how much time has passed, as it makes no difference.
I served in the USN from 69-73. The aircraft carrier upon which I served operated in a combat zone but I served in a support role and never saw actual combat. I served through two West-Pacs and never even saw Vietnam. (60 miles offshore)
I earned combat pay but would never presume to put myself in the light of those who went directly into harms way. Just as, invariably, those who saw combat and survived, do not place themselves in the same category as those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Those are the real heroes.
What Blumenthal has done goes far beyond revealing his unfitness for political office. His attempt to minimize the lie compounds it and, reveals that he’s unfit for citizenship because he’s demonstrated his unworthiness of the sacrifice, those fallen heroes made.
Of course many are unworthy, Blumenthal is now the new poster boy for that condition.
mikemcdaniel.
Excellent explanation of how it’s supposed to be done among men and women of honor.
Also, it’s so nineteenth-century.
Is it the case that actors wear something wrong with their uniforms on purpose, or do they just screw it up because they’re sillyvilians?
I recall Adm Boorda killed himself when his “v” device was called into question.
Further reporting indicated that the award was either justified or ambiguous, iirc.
Me four, Chief Cook, Mike and Geoffrey are correct. He lied, no way around it, no way, no how.
CWO4 (Ret)
The casualness with which the Dems, as a group, engage in serial lying, whether concerning military service or other life experiences, emanates from Obama and Biden, down through high profile cabinet members and members of congress, into the MSM and the “progressive” rank and file who don’t hesitate to reinforce it when possible. It’s tantamount to a mental disease particularly rife and endemic in the left-wing and islamic cultures of our world; the documented history goes on and on of a group that never quite learns the difference between right and wrong. For them the end justifies any means…
mikemcdaniel,
Great post! Unfortunately, fewer and fewer young people have any exposure to military culture and the absolute nature of honor. On “Cavuto” this afternoon, Neil made excuses for Blumenthal saying that he only lied a few times and that most of the time he told the truth about his service. Cavuto said people should get off his case and focus on the important issues. We’re doomed if he is representative of educated citizens.
Actors dont dress themselves, and so there is usually a military consultant there. however, getting it right is a lot harder than getting it wrong, and they will OFTEN just use what they think looks right. sometimes the sets and such have things similar to other things if you know history.
so its often a cluster you know what
but when the movie is trying to be real, or semi real, it may be with more thought to other things.
i think the reasoning may become clear when you read the statute and consider what they imagine soldiers do.
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C45.txt
United States Code Title 10 > Subtitle A > Part II > Chapter 45
§ 772. When wearing by persons not on active duty authorized
(f) While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or motion-picture production may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force.
soooooo… if they are a big production, like say, apocalypse now… you can be sure that since they are besmirching and affixing winter soldier falsehoods, they get around the problem by not dressing the soldiers.
that is by making them half naked screw ups, they avoid the laws qualification as to how the uniform must be portrayed. (this does matter since in a bigger production they may have help from the military to make their scenes, or get equipment in a shot)
so you WILL see a guy in green pants with his shirt off use the barrel of a gun for a ‘shot gun’, but you will never see a guy in uniform like in officer and a gentleman do the same.
so i think there are a lot of considerations that we the people dont care much about. in the case of movies, its ok… (sort of), in politics, its not a good thing at all
It all depends upon what your definition of “is” is.
Dear Richard Aubrey:
In movies and on TV, military uniforms tend to be, at best, approximated. The government will generally not complain, particularly as doing so will tend to provide publicity for people and ideals the military will generally not want to publicize. Thus do we see uniforms of the wrong color or pattern for a given military branch or time frame, etc. Low budget productions also have access to fewer costumes and props.
On higher budget productions, military advisors, sometimes even from the DOD are involved, but even so, strict attention to detail in terms of correct ribbons and badges is generally not observed as such things generally appear only as momentary flashes of color–fruit salad as it’s often called in the military–not subject to the kinds of closeups that would allow those who know to identify glaring mistakes.
Ultimately actors make mistakes such as putting their hands in their pockets (beaten out of recruits early and often), or making other obvious mistakes such as looking distinctly uncomfortable in their uniforms or handling their equipment as though they’d never laid eyes on it. To those who have actually worn the uniform, the mere appearance of such people screams “fake.”
This is, interestingly, one of the primary reasons liberals screamed so loudly about the sight of President Bush in a flight suit as he came aboard the carrier. Even though they probably didn’t understand it and couldn’t articulate it, he looked every inch the fighter pilot. He wore all of the equipment correctly and comfortably, his gait automatically adapted to the equipment, and he even held his helmet properly. He was able to do this because he was, in fact, a fighter pilot, unlike the appearance of Michael Dukakis in his infamous tank photo, or John Kerry trying to look macho holding a shotgun as though a snake had suddenly dropped into his arms. The sight of the real thing alarmed liberals, and for the opposite reason that the sight and sound of a fake alarms honorable men and women.
My kids (the oldest just turned 13; he doesn’t use this particular gambit often any more, thank goodness) use the word “accident” in the same sorta way: One is swinging a fist ever closer to another’s face, teasing with the threat of a punch. The threatened one makes an unexpected motion and the threatener’s fist makes contact. Waaaah! The punched kid runs to me: “Mom, s/he punched me!” The puncher follows swiftly: “I did not! It was an accident!”
In other words, “Although I set up the conditions to punch my brother/sister, even though I know I’m not supposed to, I didn’t actually intend to do it. His or her unexpected move is really what caused it. It wasn’t my fault!”
How VERY many times have I explained to these prevaricators that “accident” doesn’t mean “threat gone wrong” or “teasing gone too far,” but rather, “total lack of intention to harm or to threaten harm – I was swatting a fly/demonstrating a plane’s flight/whatever and didn’t realize s/he was beside me!”
How do you “misspeak” in the Blumenthal sense by accident? I say, “Why yes, I am related to the Queen of England!” and then, later, “Gosh, I don’t know why I said that; I certainly never meant to say I was related to the Queen of England. It just… popped out, somehow”?
mikemcdaniel
I imagined it was either carelessness or lack of priority, but the implication was that it might have been deliberate in order to avoid legal issues with unauthorized uni wearing.
Used to be, maybe still is, a business run by an ex-soldier named Dale Dye whose function is to take actors and make them look like soldiers, from weapon use to movement to how to wear whatever they’re wearing. Supposedly a pretty tough boot camp–in the context of actors.
Ran into a guy who claimed to be an ex-SEAL (I know, I know) who said his job was to teach the extras on JAG how to handle weapons competently.
At least, he was from LA, so there’s that….
Went to a fraternity reunion, classes of, say, 63-69, roughly. Surprised by two things; how many of the guys were still married to their first wives, which is to say women I’d known back then, and how many had served.
One guy, KC135 nav in SEA, remarked that, at a party, it takes fourteen seconds to spot the veterans. The implication is that way you can separate the sheep from the sheepdogs, just in case.
Democrats’ History of Dishonesty
Blumenthal’s blunder not the first time a Democrat has fabricated their service record
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4204217/democrats-history-of-dishonesty?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g4:r1:c0.000000:b34184116:z6
Texas trial lawyer William Dyer (Beldar) sums it up nicely in Blumenthal lies about lying …
If I’m looking at my son Adam and I call him by his older brother Kevin’s name, I’ve “misspoken.” If I say to him, “Adam, I served in Vietnam,” then I’m a liar.
–
Paul.
I’d expand that to “mistake”. Mistake is when I grab the wrong coffee cup. Negligence is when fail to look to see if the pot is empty and thus don’t make another pot in the break room.
Deciding to steal the petty cash is not a “mistake”. Nor is lying.
I agree wholeheartedly with the veterans who have spoken up here, on the subject of mistakes that military people Just Don’t Make. (I also thank you most profoundly for your service to your country.)
The reason that actors almost inevitably make mistakes, in their uniform decorations or mannerisms or whatnot, is because there’s no real penalty for doing so. When you’re actually in uniform, you’re never allowed to FORGET these matters, not for a second, and it becomes second nature very quickly.
(After my discharge from the Israeli Army in 1989, I’d leave a building and automatically clap my right hand to my left shoulder, looking for my beret. This went on for many months, and I felt sheepish every time. But there was no penalty for doing so… while previously, I’d seen harsh penalties indeed for failing to wear my beret out of doors. So it was quick to learn, slow to unlearn.)
I suspect many veterans have a hard time watching movies (or reading books) with glaring errors in military details. It’s distracting, and the civilians around us often don’t get what the big deal is about. This makes it all the more refreshing when a movie does get it right. (One of the few non-Israeli movies to get Israeli uniforms right, for example, was “The Little Drummer Girl”, and I have a soft spot in my heart for it, partly for that reason. On the other side of the fence — if you want to watch one of the many movies about the Entebbe rescue, and can’t get hold of the Israeli one, don’t waste your time.)
Back to Blumenthal — I think there is a not-terribly-common phenomenon of discharged military veterans who, with some degree of difficulty, are able to forget major parts of their service and training. They forget the rigid code of honor, the rules written in the blood of better men than yourself, the devotion and dedication to something so much bigger and nobler than one’s own petty vanities. The late unlamented Jack Murtha comes to mind… and I suspect that Blumenthal is cut from similar cloth.
It’s a great pity. The man was taught respect and honor… and apparently he no longer has it, even for himself.
DiB
‘scuse me, I messed up the link in my comment above. The movie I had in mind was Operation Thunderbolt, which I highly recommend on multiple counts. The Little Drummer Girl is also well worth your time.
(Note, by the way, that Klaus Kinski is in both movies — in the former as a Baader-Meinhof terrorist, and in the latter as a senior Mossad agent. It’s an interesting contrast.)
Funny, I was a REMF (and proud of it!) and I’ve never, ever, thought of exaggerating my service. If anything, I’ll put it down — “an all-expense paid vacation in Europe, courtesy of Uncle Sam” — rather than even slightly shading it toward anything like combat,or combat area service.
I guess I’ll never be a politician.
As far as the distinctions between those who served in various areas of a combat zone, I think it is well to remember this. There are about 250 pilots on an aircraft carier that may have as many as 3500-5000 crew on board. Those 250 pilots are useless without the efforts of all the others – plane captains, aircraft handlers, catapult workers, ordnancemen, cooks, CIC operators, etc. etc. It is a team and the crew are all deserving of combat pay and appropriate decorations for being in the combat zone.
The fact that shipboard crew don’t get shot at is a post WWII phenomenon. I remember one day at Yankee Station when the ship went to GQ because we had a bogey approaching from China. Our F-4s intercepted a Russian Badger that seemingly was just out testing our reflexes. For 45 nerve wracking minutes we had a taste of what the sailors must have felt during WWII when bogies were incoming. An aircraft carrier is not a great place to be when attacked by enemy aircraft. Lots of fuel, explosives, and other combustibles that can turn the place into an inferno in a hurry. The fact that we have had air superiority in every war since WWII has been a luxury for carrier aviation.
Same goes for those so-called REMFs in the Army and Marines. The main thing that makes us an effective fighting force is the ability to deliver the beans and bullets to the trigger pullers. I don’t care how skilled and brave you are with your weapon, without ammo and food you are not going to get far. Once again, anyone who served in a combat zone deserves the pay and the recognition. Think driving a truck full of supplies from Kuwait to Baghdad wasn’t a hazardous job? Or flying a C-130 full of ammo into Baghdad? Yeah, just serving in Iraq or Afghanistan is equivalent to living in a horrible climate under extremely demanding conditions. I thank God every day that we have men and women who are willing and able to do that – year after year.
I was in an Air Group that had very tough awards standards. In a six month tour there were two Silver Stars and four DFCs awarded. Some Air Groups that were at Yankee Station later had lower standards. Silver Stars and DFCs were awarded fairly copiously. It all depended on the philosophy of those on the awards board on the ship. One Admiral said that he could not give his pilots more money or leave, so he tried to make it up with a lenient awards policy. Thus not all awards were created equal. Fortunately, they didn’t ever consider dropping the standards for the Navy Cross or Medal of Honor. There is never uniformity of awards policie – it varies from unit to unit and time to time. Simillarly, there are “tight ships” and “loose ships.” I served on both and can attest to a preference for tight ships that put operational standards in the forefront. Spit and shine, well that’s okay, but too much emphasis there can cut down on operational capability.
Blumenthal is a lot like Kerry and Gore. They both puffed up their service records. Gore is a prime example of a dem that exagerates almost every feature of his resume. And gets away with it. The dems will close ranks behind Blumenthal and the MSM will let it die. On the other hand if it were someone like say, Clint Didier (presently running fopr the Senate in Washington State), we would never hear the end of it.