Washington Babylon — June 1, 2010, 10:19 am

“It has been a tremendous honor to have served”: Congressman Gary Miller’s Vietnam Odyssey

[Editor’s note: After this item ran, Miller’s office contacted Congress.org (and apparently several other publications cited below) to correct the misinformation about his military record.]

Congressman Gary Miller of California has a long and checkered history of ethical run-ins since being elected to the House of Representatives in 1998. For those keeping score at home, please consult this report from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which has rated him as one of the most corrupt members of Congress.

It turns out that Miller, who is on the Republican leadership team as assistant whip, also appears to have seriously inflated his military background. He hasn’t done so in as grand a manner as Richard Blumenthal, but the situation raises serious questions about his honesty (as if there weren’t enough already).

According to his bio page at Congress.org, which is published by the CQ-Roll Call Group, Miller served in the military between 1967 and 1968. The same information about Miller appears on a variety of other websites, including at the American Legion and Project Vote Smart, where it specifies that he served in the U.S. Army.

The Vietnam War was at its peak during the 1967-1968 period; to claim that you served during that period offers the suggestion that you saw combat or were at least deployed overseas, in the same way that saying you served in the Army in 1943 to 1944 would suggest World War II experience.

Miller never got anywhere near Vietnam. According to his military record, he spent about seven weeks in boot camp at Fort Ord, California between early-September and late-October 1967, at which point he was discharged.

What was Miller doing during the War? His biography states that he attended Mount San Antonio Community College between 1968 and 1970, founded several housing and realty companies that latter year, and got married in 1972.

“Congressman Miller volunteered to the U.S. Army and was Honorably Discharged due to medical reasons within a matter of months,” Jessica L. Baker, a spokeswoman, said in an email reply to questions about the matter. “While we cannot control what other websites say about Congressman Miller’s military service, the official website for the House of Representatives states that Congressman Miller served in 1967. (You can see this by visiting the following link).

So it seems, based on Baker’s reply, that a variety of websites have chosen, for reasons unknown, to simply make up information about Miller’s military service. And there’s nothing Miller’s office can do to stop them.

However, Congress.org says it receives all of its biographical information directly from the offices of elected officials. Project Vote Smart says that it collects data “from the candidate or elected official’s website” and that every candidate for office “is sent a copy of our biographical form” when they receive the group’s “Political Courage Test,” which asks for the candidate’s stance on a host of issues. Miller gave a detailed reply to Vote Smart’s Political Courage Test in 2008 so presumably he and his office supplied and reviewed his biographical information at the time.

Miller’s military service is also described in a biographical item about him that appears on the website of Mount San Antonio Community College, which in 2003 named him Alumnus of the Year. “In 1967, Congressman Miller joined the United States Army and served his country during the Vietnam War,” it says. Who, if not Miller, told the college that?

In 1996 and 1997, Miller had a seat in the California State Assembly. His biography in the official guide to members for both of those years says he served in the Army between 1967 and 1968.

Then there is Miller’s entry in “Once a soldier…Always a soldier, which is published by the Association of the United States Army and highlights military veterans in Congress. The foreword, written by retired Brigadier General Hal Nelson, described the book as being about a “particular set of legislators” who serve “as a testament to selfless service to our nation.”

While it is limited to telling the story of those currently serving in Congress who have roots in the United States Army, it can be seen as one chapter in our nation’s history stretching back to the days of the Continental Congress. The leaders who forge our laws have always been among those who have put their lives on the line in military service.

“It has been a tremendous honor to have served in the U.S. Army,” Miller wrote in a comment that accompanied the section about him, which said he was a private in 1967. “The American people owe their freedom and liberties to those who serve in the armed forces. They are indebted to those who have made the ultimate sacrifices for their country in previous world conflicts.” He added, “The leadership skills which I experienced in the U.S. Army allow me to take the lead on issues which promote a stronger defense.”

This is a far more dramatic statement than those made by members of congress featured in the book who actually fought in world conflicts. And other members who never saw actual combat were more forthcoming about that fact. To take just one example, Georgia Congressman Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. wrote:

I am proud of my association with the Army. My military service ended sooner than the Army and I had planned when the discovery of a health condition led to an early Honorable Discharge. Nevertheless, I continue to be guided by the lessons that I learned as an Army ROTC Cadet in the classroom and on the drill field, in boot camp at Fort Benning, and while attending advance officers’ training.

It looks like either Miller and his office have misrepresented his military career for many years or his old college, the California Assembly and the American Legion, among others, have embellished Miller’s military career on their own. Incidentally, Miller’s official website makes no reference at all to his military service. I have been told it did, until his office received questions about the subject a few years ago.

I sent spokeswoman Baker a few follow up questions last Friday. Here they are:

What were the medical reasons [leading to his discharge]? Can you disclose or add to that?

I have seen a number of places that refer to his service between 1967 and 1968…Why doesn’t your office correct this misinformation, since it seems you know it’s out there?

Has Congressman Miller ever claimed on his own official website or elsewhere that he served between 1967 and 1968? Where do you suppose all these websites got their information from?

Perhaps there were sound medical reasons why Miller left service, though that wouldn’t account for the misinformation about his length of service. Whatever the answers, Miller should offer some explanation.

If I hear back from his office, I’ll update this story.

Share
Single Page

More from Ken Silverstein:

Commentary November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm

Shaky Foundations

The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

From the November 2013 issue

Dirty South

The foul legacy of Louisiana oil

Perspective October 23, 2013, 8:00 am

On Brining and Dining

How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2018

The Bodies in The Forest

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Minds of Others

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Modern Despots

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Before the Deluge

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Notes to Self

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within Reach

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Minds of Others·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Progress is impossible without change,” George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944, “and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” But progress through persuasion has never seemed harder to achieve. Political segregation has made many Americans inaccessible, even unimaginable, to those on the other side of the partisan divide. On the rare occasions when we do come face-to-face, it is not clear what we could say to change each other’s minds or reach a worthwhile compromise. Psychological research has shown that humans often fail to process facts that conflict with our preexisting worldviews. The stakes are simply too high: our self-worth and identity are entangled with our beliefs — and with those who share them. The weakness of logic as a tool of persuasion, combined with the urgency of the political moment, can be paralyzing.

Yet we know that people do change their minds. We are constantly molded by our environment and our culture, by the events of the world, by the gossip we hear and the books we read. In the essays that follow, seven writers explore the ways that persuasion operates in our lives, from the intimate to the far-reaching. Some consider the ethics and mechanics of persuasion itself — in religion, politics, and foreign policy — and others turn their attention to the channels through which it acts, such as music, protest, and technology. How, they ask, can we persuade others to join our cause or see things the way we do? And when it comes to our own openness to change, how do we decide when to compromise and when to resist?

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Within Reach·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a balmy day last spring, Connor Chase sat on a red couch in the waiting room of a medical clinic in Columbus, Ohio, and watched the traffic on the street. His bleached-blond hair fell into his eyes as he scrolled through his phone to distract himself. Waiting to see Mimi Rivard, a nurse practitioner, was making Chase nervous: it would be the first time he would tell a medical professional that he was transgender.

By the time he arrived at the Equitas Health clinic, Chase was eighteen, and had long since come to dread doctors and hospitals. As a child, he’d had asthma, migraines, two surgeries for a tumor that had caused deafness in one ear, and gangrene from an infected bug bite. Doctors had always assumed he was a girl. After puberty, Chase said, he avoided looking in the mirror because his chest and hips “didn’t feel like my body.” He liked it when strangers saw him as male, but his voice was high-pitched, so he rarely spoke in public. Then, when Chase was fourteen, he watched a video on YouTube in which a twentysomething trans man described taking testosterone to lower his voice and appear more masculine. Suddenly, Chase had an explanation for how he felt — and what he wanted.

Illustration by Taylor Callery
Article
Before the Deluge·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the summer of 2016, when Congress installed a financial control board to address Puerto Rico’s crippling debt, I traveled to San Juan, the capital. The island owed some $120 billion, and Wall Street was demanding action. On the news, President Obama announced his appointments to the Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera. “The task ahead for Puerto Rico is not an easy one,” he said. “But I am confident Puerto Rico is up to the challenge of stabilizing the fiscal situation, restoring growth, and building a better future for all Puerto Ricans.” Among locals, however, the control board was widely viewed as a transparent effort to satisfy mainland creditors — just the latest tool of colonialist plundering that went back generations.

Photograph from Puerto Rico by Christopher Gregory
Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner
Post
CamperForce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

After losing their savings in the stock market crash of 2008, seniors Barb and Chuck find seasonal employment at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Cost of a baby-stroller cleaning, with wheel detailing, at Tot Squad in New York City:

$119.99

Australian biologists trained monitor lizards not to eat cane toads.

Trump tweeted that he had created “jobs, jobs, jobs” since becoming president, and it was reported that Trump plans to bolster job creation by loosening regulations on the global sale of US-made artillery, warships, fighter jets, and drones.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today