[Updated] Reviewing 5 Claims About Tim Walz Military Record
I don't think its stolen valor, but Walz has played it loose when referring to his service
Since his announcement on Tuesday, one of the lines of attack against Tim Walz is that he has misrepresented his military record to the point of committing “Stolen Valor.” Today, OTB commenter @Lucysfootball asked about the topic in the Daily Open Comments thread:
So this is the Walz quote that the right is attacking hoim with:
“I spent 25 years in the Army and I hunt. I’ve been voting for common sense legislation that protects the Second Amendment, but we can do background checks. We can research the impacts of gun violence. We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war,” Walz said in his speech, aiming toward voters who don’t want guns on the streets.
There are lots of military vets here, I’m wondering what they think of this quote?
Before I go any further, let me be clear: I have not served in the military and cannot comment on this from a military perspective. I have spent time over the last few days looking into this to try and disentangle what facts exist and then offer my perspective on how they are being interpreted.
Going back to @Lucysfootball’s comment, there are three primary attacks and two minor ones that have emerged to date. I am placing these in a rough order from the biggest claims to the smallest ones:
- Walz retired to avoid deployment to Iraq and, in doing so, abandoned his unit.
- Walz has misrepresented his rank, claiming to be a rank higher (Command Sergeant Major – E9) than his retirement rank (Master Sergeant – E8).
- Walz claimed to have been in combat (tied to @Lucyfootball’s quote).
- Walz never deployed during the Global War on Terror.
- Walz steals valor by wearing a special forces hat.
Here’s what the facts say (with some commentary from a range of people who have military experience). First, let’s get rid of the two minor ones:
Walz steals valor by wearing a special forces hat.
This is the most out-there one and pretty easily dismissed. The hat was gifted to him by a Special Forces unit when Walz was on the Congressional Armed Services committee. Here’s context from the Stolen Valor Xtter account (which is one of the sources for this article).
This argument is similar to saying that wearing a Yankee’s hat gifted to you by the team is the same as claiming you played for the Yankees.
Walz never deployed during the Global War on Terror.
This is easily proven false. During his final tour of duty with the Minnesota National Guard, Walz deployed to Europe in 2003 as part of the Global War on Terror (aka Operation Enduring Freedom). From the Washington Post:
Walz, asked by the oral history interviewer where his combat experience occurred, said initially that his unit — the 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery — had served “throughout the European theater with Operation Enduring Freedom,” the name the Pentagon used to describe the war in Afghanistan and other counterterrorism assignments. A Minnesota Army National Guard history of Walz’s battalion verifies that the unit deployed in 2003 to Italy, Turkey, Belgium and Britain in support of the war effort.
Walz clarified later in the interview that he and his fellow Guard members initially thought they would fire artillery, but later learned they would be assigned in Europe to backfill other U.S. troops who were going to war.
Now that the easily disproven claims are out of the way, we get into the thornier questions.
Walz claimed to have been in combat.
At no point in his career has Walz explicitly claimed to have been in combat or served in a combat zone. As I just noted, his one OEF deployment was to Europe. While it was in support of the Afghan war, he and his unit, never got closer to Afghanistan than Turkey.
However, he did make statements like the one @Lucysfootball noted which, intentionally or not, implied combat:
Walz: “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war.”
The phrase people have called attention to is “that I carried in war.” Walz did carry a standard-issue rifle at times during his service and he served during a war. He most likely didn’t carry it often during his time in Europe. From the Washington Post:
Thomas Behrends, a retired command sergeant major who also was on that deployment, said it was very clear that their unit was not going to war.
“He’s sugarcoating it to make it more than it was,” Behrends said. After 9/11, he added, the Air Force realized it needed to better safeguard its airfields and requested the National Guard to assist.
“That was the mission from the get-go,” Behrends said. “There was nothing ever said about going to combat.”
For context, Retired Command Sergeant Major Thomas Behrends is one of the two primary critics of Walz’s service. However, I think he has a point on this one. When the average person hears “in a war” they often interpret it as “in combat.” Military members clearly see it in similar terms, as our own @Steve, who is a military veteran, responded to @Lucysfootball today with:
I served during the Vietnam war but did not deploy there so I learned long ago not to declare myself a Vietnam vet.
In using those words Walz hammered home his view that AR-platform rifles are weapons of war. It would have been more accurate to say, “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in the National Guard, are only carried in war.” Rhetorically it doesn’t work as well. But that doesn’t excuse the ambiguity created by what he said.
Walz retired to avoid deployment to Iraq and, in doing so, abandoned his unit.
This claim isn’t so much one of Stolen Valor as it is, I guess, cowardess. At least that is the way that J. D. Vance has framed it:
“When the United State Marine Corps, when the United States of America asked me to go to Iraq to serve my country, I did it. I did what they asked me to do, and I did it honorably and I’m very proud of that service. When Tim Walz was asked by his country to go to Iraq, you know what he did? He dropped out of the Army and allowed his unit to go without him,”
[source: https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/07/politics/tim-walz-military-record-vance-attack/index.html]
Ultimately, this is the muddiest of all the claims due to timelines and a question of who did what, who knew what, and when did everything happen. Thankfully Task and Purpose has done great research into the timeline, so I don’t have to pull everything together:
- April 2004: Walz returns to Minnesota with the 1/125th after a year-long deployment as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in Turkey and Europe. Walz was stationed at Vicenza, Italy, where the unit pulled guard duty on friendly military bases, which may have been back-fill duty for active duty units deployed to Afghanistan. He was promoted to command sergeant major of the battalion soon after returning.
- March 2005: Walz’s newly-formed campaign for a Congressional House seat releases a press release that indicates Walz is aware of a possible but unconfirmed deployment, though no official orders have been announced. “The National Guard Public Affairs Office announced a possible partial mobilization of roughly 2,000 troops from the Minnesota National Guard,” the press release said. “The announcement from the National Guard PAO specified that all or a portion of Walz’s battalion could be mobilized to serve in Iraq within the next two years… When asked about his possible deployment to Iraq Walz said, ‘As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on. I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or in Iraq.”
- May 2005: Walz officially retires from the Minnesota National Guard after 24 years of service, according to documents posted online that appear to be his NGB Form 22, a Report of Separation and Record of Service. Walz previously retired after 20 years of service but returned to service after Sept. 11, he wrote in a Winona Daily News opinion piece, re-enlisting for four years. However, his NGB Form 22 indicates his “terminal reserve/military service obligation” date was September 2007.
One important thing to note here is that, like most jobs, you don’t just announce on the day you are leaving that you are retiring. While I couldn’t find a document that gave guidance for when to submit the request for retirement, I found the recommendations for Air Reservists and these mirror what I have seen people say about the National Guard (and most military branches):
Retirees can apply no earlier than 12 months prior to their retirement effective date. It is recommended that applications are submitted no later than 180 days prior (earlier the better) to their retirement effective date to ensure payment and/or benefits are received on time.
Assuming Walz followed a similar recommended timeframe, he would have submitted his retirement papers sometime in September 2004 (180 days before his retirement date). Theoretically, Walz could have known about the possible deployment as early as then, but there’s no evidence to back that up. Here’s Task and Purpose on that part of the timeline:
- July 2005: The 125th Field Artillery Regiment receives initial call-up orders and, that fall, deploys for training in Mississippi as part of the 34th Infantry Divisions’ 1st Brigade Combat Team.
- March 2006: The 125th deploys to Iraq, 10 months after Walz had separated from the unit. The unit will not return until September 2007.
Many details of Walz’s decision process remain unclear. The press release by Walz’s campaign indicates he knew a deployment was possible at least four months before the unit received official orders and two before he retired. But that timeline could have several missing pieces.
For one, such advanced ‘heads-up’ notice is commonly provided to senior leaders of deployable units, and can often change or fall through as Pentagon planners shuffle deployment plans a year or more ahead of time.
A second uncertainty lies in the May 2005 retirement date when Walz’s retirement became official. It likely came many months after he ‘dropped his papers’ to inform his chain of command he intended to retire, beginning the process.
So here’s the tl;dr: Walz had retired from the guard at the 20-year mark and then re-enlisted after 9/11. He served four years in the guard and was eligible for retirement. By that time, he was 40, married, and had a young child at home. He had already been deployed once in the Global War on Terror. He had also made the decision that he was going to run for Congress and was in the process of laying the groundwork for that. And, he most likely had filed to retire in the fall of 2004. Also if he had chosen to stay in until the unit was deployed, he would have had to wait until 2006 and would not have been able to run for Congress.
As Task and Purpose notes, even some Walz critics have said he was well within his rights to make this decision:
At least one soldier who knew Walz as well as any has defended him — despite not being a fan. Joseph Eustice, whose personal Facebook page today has anti-Walz posts, held the same job as Walz — command sergeant major of 1st battalion, 125th Artillery Regiment.
When the retirement controversy flared up in 2022, Eustice told local media that Walz fulfilled his duty.
“He was a great soldier,” Eustice told the Star Tribune. “When he chose to leave, he had every right to leave.”
Several other soldiers from Walz’s unit echoed that sentiment, including a former brigadier general.
Walz has misrepresented his rank, claiming to be a rank higher (Command Sergeant Major – E9) than his retirement rank (Master Sergeant – E8)
This is another case where the facts are clear, but the way Walz’s office has represented them isn’t very transparent. Starting with the facts from Military.com:
Walz enlisted in the Army National Guard in Nebraska in 1981 and retired honorably in 2005 as the top enlisted soldier for 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery Regiment, in the Minnesota National Guard, according to a copy of his records provided by the Minnesota Guard. He reached the rank of command sergeant major and served in that role, but he officially retired as a master sergeant for benefits purposes because he didn’t finish a required training course, according to the records and a statement from the Minnesota Guard.
Now we get to the representation issue. If we look at Walz’s biography on the Minnesota government site, it contains this passage:
After 24 years in the Army National Guard, Command Sergeant Major Walz retired from the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion in 2005.
Likewise, his congressional bio states:
Walz enlisted in the Army National Guard at the young age of 17, and retired 24 years later as
Command Sergeant Major.
Now we get into a topic I didn’t know anything about before two days ago (which, according to Xtter is just enough time to become a newly minted expert): Military Retirement Ranks. When you retire from the military, your retirement rank is used to determine benefits. At the time he retired, he had the provisional rank of Command Sergeant Major (an E9 position) and was serving in that role. However, he did not complete the coursework or the necessary service timeframe to be permanently given the rank, so his retirement rank is one lower, Sergeant Major (E8).
As with the “I carried in war” comment above, I think both bio entries are playing loose with the truth. What they said is technically true, we has serving in that capacity at the time of retirement, but don’t tell the full story. Simply put, I think there is weasel wording happening here.
[Update: In a true example of “bothsiderism” one of the Trump supporters who has attacked Walz is engaged in the same sort of weasel wording about their rank. In 2022, Ronny Jackson was investigated by the Navy for a number of issues and had his retirement rank reduced from Rear Admiral to Captain. His current Congressional website uses language very similar to Walz’s when talking about his rank:
In December 2019, after 25 years of distinguished service to his country, Dr. Jackson retired from the United States Navy as a Rear Admiral.
On Jackson’s Veteran’s issue page he also repeats the claim:
As a retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral with nearly three decades of military service I understand the commitment and sacrifices made by servicemen and servicewomen to serve our country. I am very in tune with their needs, and that of their families.
From the Texas Tribune’s reporting on Jackson:
But Jackson is no longer a retired admiral. The Navy demoted him in July 2022 following a damaging Pentagon inspector general’s report that substantiated allegations about his inappropriate behavior as a White House physician, a previously unreported decision confirmed by a current defense official and a former U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive personnel move.
Jackson is now a retired Navy captain, those people said — a demotion that carries significant financial burden in addition to the social stigma of stripped rank in military circles.
Despite the demotion, Jackson has continued to refer to himself as a retired rear admiral, including in statements released since the Navy reclassified him as a retired captain. Former president Donald Trump and other Republicans have also continued to publicly describe Jackson using his former rank; it’s unclear if they were aware of his demotion.
One would hope that the Trump campaign would be as concerned with this weasel wording and getting retirement rank correct as they are with Walz.]
But is it Stolen Valor?
From a lay persons perspective, while Walz is using weasel words, I don’t think it rises to my understanding of Stolen Valor (and definitely not to the level of the 2013 amended Stolen Valor act).
FWIW, this is reflected in the views of one Veteran with political experience who recently expressed his views on the topic. Former Republican Congressman Peter Meijer wrote the following take:
Gonna piss off everyone with this take, but what the hell:
I think Walz played fast & loose with his military bio to stay above water as his congressional district drifted right. He let audiences paint in their minds a deceptive picture. It was shady but not stolen valor. (1/5)Walz alluding to “weapons in war, that I carried in war” to give credibility to his pro gun control stance intentionally sought to paint this ‘deceptive picture,’ just like saying ‘deployed during OEF.’ But he didn’t claim unearned medals or lie about being in IRQ/AFG. (2/5)
Some earlier reporting bought the ‘deceptive picture’ I mentioned above, but that’s not Walz’ words. I’ve had reporters say/write that I was a Marine, or an Afghanistan vet. Trickier was ‘combat vet,’ which I didn’t claim but others have described. His burden to correct. (3/5)
I’d try to correct reporting on me- I definitely wasn’t a Marine, and though I spent 18 mos in AFG vs 9 mos in Iraq, fact is I was a civilian in AFG + not in uniform (tho in much more danger). Veteran of that conflict in a sense, but not in the sense ‘Afghan vet’ connotes. (4/5)
Whether the mobilization/retirement timing was coincidental or a dick move is something I think only the enlisted soldiers in his unit can say. I know one or two have spoken publicly it was a dick move, but I’d like to hear from a plurality to account for personal beefs. (5/5)
Unrelated to Walz, the ‘combat vet’ identifier has always made me wince. I wouldn’t correct if someone called me one but I’m not comfortable describing myself as a ‘combat vet.’ I served in a combat zone, regularly left the wire, was on a number of smaller bases, and took occasional on-base IDF (including at least one POI probably within a CAB-qualifying <100m). But to me, ‘combat vet’ implies firing a shot in anger, getting fired at, or frequently being in a position to potentially have one or the other happen.
If I described myself as a ‘combat vet’ it would create an inaccurate picture of my service- and even if I met a technical definition and the underlying facts are accurate, that’s still deceptive in my book.
Meijer would go on to add:
More information may come out that changes my view, but for the moment I’m aligned with Meijer. I don’t think this is a good look for Walz AND I also think this is being blown out of proportion for political reasons. That is, as I mentioned yesterday, normal politics. But I wonder if this is a great long-term play, especially when the Republican running for President was a draft dodger.
It is indeed shocking to learn that a successful American politician has on occasion not spoken with one hundred percent clarity on every issue of his background and has even sometimes used vague language without going out of his way to make sure every listener understood the exact truth.
Clearly this shows Walz to be completely outside the mainstream of American life, and he must immediately refuse his nomination to the office of vice-president.
I’m glad we could finally restore honesty and integrity to the campaign against… Donald Trump.
If you want to read more, here is an article from Minnesota Public Radio, dated 3 Oct 2018:
‘Citizen soldier’ Walz honed leadership in uniform
I don’t agree with Meijer that Walz played fast and loose. That implies intentionality and there was none of that happening.
Well, it didn’t take long for Chris LaCivita to bring the cesspool to the campaign, by attempting to ‘Swift Boat’ Walz. Back in 2004 John Kerry didn’t fight back to counter attacks on his militry service record, I suspect that Walz ain’t going to let that happen.
Of course this means that J.D.’s military service record is fair game too, not that I’m suggesting that J.D. has ever misrepresented his service record.
To praraphrase Michelle Obama, ‘when they go low, we need to consider going lower.’
Admittedly I’m a glass half empty type of guy, but I have a bad feeling about this. The Republicans are genius smears, they have Murdoch media led by Fox news to hammer it home. My first thought is to go back to ex-president bone spurs, but he’s teflon when it comes to things like that. Besides it keeps the issue alive.
Right, so the VP candidate with 24 years of service is being called into question by the VP candidate with 4 years of service.
So, 4 years of PR/comms work in a war zone > 24 years of service across multiple places?
And all of this to bolster the campaign of a draft dodger with bone spurs?
This stupidity needs to stop, right now. Saying “well, they have a point” or “he played fast and loose with facts” no, no, no, NO.
This is Swift Boat nonsense. Do not fall for it.
The retired before his unit deployed thing is a nothing burger (though it might not play that way with people who don’t know better). People retire/transfer all the time. People get hurt or have family care issues that crop up. Sometimes that happens before a deployment. Deployments were happening all the time. Almost any time someone chose to retire or EAS that wasn’t immediately after returning from deployment would have fallen into this category. When I went to Iraq I already had orders, cut two months before I got deployment orders, for a PCS that had a report not later than date that fell during my unit’s deployment. My PCS could have been canceled or delayed, but either no one cared enough to make that happen or someone thought filling the billet I was going to was more important than leaving me where I was. Contra Vance’s “my country asked me to go and I went” self sacrifice/bravery BS, neither he nor I was asked to do anything related to combat zone deployments. We were told.
I feel like if you made it sound one time like you may have carried a weapon in war all while you are talking about a larger issue relating to guns, it’s not a thing. Nobody blurs the line once on what they were doing in the military. He just misspoke. Not hard.
As for the National Guard stuff, the guy was deployed to Italy in a moment of insane paranoia and patriotism. That’s not war, but that’s not what most people (and almost all politicians alive at that time) did. JD Vance wrote press releases in Iraq and that’s way more of a thing than going to Italy but he didn’t see combat. Do we have to qualify that for him when someone says he was in the Marines? Is there an asterisk for being a PR guy in the Marines during war?
It’s not like either of these two guys is out there saluting like Kerry.
@Lucysfootball: @al Ameda: It seems to me that guys like Vance, Graham, DeUseless, and others who make a big point of “having served in Iraq”, in pretty safe jobs like cub reporter or JAG, are committing at least petty theft of valor.
Oh, is that what he’s peddling as a line now?
While we’re on the subject, then, of honesty and accuracy, let’s look at what he said IN HIS BOOK:
He can eff right off with his “I was asked so I went” crap.
I think that’s about right. It’s on the douche-y side and frankly I do not approve. But I can’t say I GAF really. Politicians gonna politic.
I could claim to have played a role in Watergate. True. But as I always hasten to add, it was a role measured in Planck units.
I’ll assume this was all known by the vetting team.
I do appreciate the post for educating me on the talking points, and I’d agree with your take. But let’s not spend too much time on the defensive. A couple of arguable but ultimately fudged phrases is not the equivalent to the avalanche of lies from the Trump/Vance ticket.
24 years in the National Guard, combat deployment or not, armed or not, should stand on its own as public service above and beyond what most people in this country give.
This is the mission statement from the National Guard website:
Even if the very most Walz did in his 24 years was fill sandbags for a flood or stand up walls for an emergency shelter, it would still be more than Trump has ever considered doing for community or country.
I think its one of those YMMV issues. He clearly, ahem, took liberties. And one can understand the overwhelming reaction of veterans.
And yet if its a D, its “politicians gonna be politicians.” (It depends on the meaning of “is,” anyone?) If its Trump, he’s a bald faced liar. “My inauguration crowd was the biggest ever.” Horror of horrors. Fainting couch please. Not to mention the stupidity and dishonesty of commenters here on Vance-the-Couch-Effer.
The selective outrage continues.
@Jack:
Thanks for bringing that up. I just updated the article to touch on a bit of “selective outrage.” It seems like some of Trump’s surrogates are currently taking some of the same “liberties” in their records.
In 2022, Ronny Jackson was investigated by the Navy for a number of issues and had his retirement rank reduced from Rear Admiral to Captain. His current Congressional website uses language very similar to Walz’s when talking about his rank:
If Republicans, including Jackson, are going to claim that Walz is misrepresenting his retirement rank, then they should go after Jackson as well. Jackson’s case is arguably more egregious, as he received a disciplinary demotion.
Here’s more on that:
So if you’re concerned about Walz and Stolen Valor, should we also be discussing how Trump and his favorite doctor are engaging in it as well? Or is that a case where only Republicans are able to get away with it.
@Matt Bernius:
I’m sorry, but the thought that Republicans would ever not be one-sided in their outrage made me laugh out loud. If Republicans didn’t have their epic capacity for shameless hypocrisy, they’d have nothing to talk about.
Who is J.D.s running mate again? Is he sure he wants to go with the “Walz lied” attack?
@Jen: I got no dog in the fight and thank both of them for their service. That being said, service in the National Guard (in my day, they were called “the weekend warriors” even in ANG TV ads) can compare unfavorably with full-time service for argument purposes. Especially given that National Guard service was a tool for avoiding the draft to Vietnam, again, in my day, and I’m 12 years older than Walz.
Four years in PR/comms in a war zone/24 years of periodic service on the outer edge of the mission area. I thank them both for their undistinguished service and ask that we move on to the next tempest in the next teapot.
Full disclosure – I served 23 years in the Navy, AF Reserve, and Air National Guard.
I think your analysis and sources are overall accurate. I would just add a couple of points:
– It’s not clear whether Walz was actually a CSM in terms of pay and benefits or if he was “frocked;” which means he was technically an E-8, but wearing the uniform and having the responsibility of an E-9. The Navy and Army do frocking – this is when someone is selected/approved for promotion, but it doesn’t become official until a later date. Frocked people can wear the new rank and have the authority of the new rank, but are not officially that rank until the bureaucracy goes through all the wickets. I suspect that Walz was a frocked CSM, which is why his retirement grade is E-8. I was in frocked status for up to several months for each promotion for my time in the Navy – the Air Force does not do frocking. I don’t think there is any firm opinion among vets about how to handle a situation like Walz after retirement – for example, if he wore his uniform at a function (which retirees are allowed to do), what rank do you wear? Anyway, that’s all very inside baseball and I don’t think it matters much or reflects poorly on Walz.
– If the NGB (National Guard Bureau) thought it was important enough, they could have stop-lossed his retirement. That was quite common in the mid-late aughts, at least in my experience. In my own case, my request for retirement was delayed by almost 8 months for banal bureaucratic reasons – the Reserve delayed it until the next fiscal year to ensure the force could meet its required total end strength. It was a bad recruiting year, so they delayed retirements to keep people on the books. The big wigs didn’t want to have to explain to Congress why they dipped below the threshold, so I served another 8 months. It is what it is.
– That said, Walz deploying was incompatible with his desire to run for Congress. You can’t run a campaign while in pre-deployment field training or on deployment. I would not be at all surprised if that wasn’t a factor in his decision to retire – ensuring his service would not hinder a campaign, and he was in a position to know that a future deployment for the unit was likely well before orders dropped. In my experience in the Guard and Reserve, we knew when the unit was next available for a deployment and even the projected location a year or two out. Deploying Guard/Reserve for Title 10 is tightly controlled with dwell times specified in law, so it’s not much of a mystery when the window opens.
– The thing is, I don’t think that is a knock on Walz at all. Once you’re past 20, you can drop papers to retire at any time – and indeed, he previously retired but came back after 9/11. CSMs are a dime-a-dozen and very coveted billets, especially in the Guard/Reserve, and his leaving just opened up the billet to someone else who would have been entirely qualified. He retired about six months before the pre-deployment training, which is plenty of time to get a new CSM frocked and in place. If Walz had retired that fall instead, or after deployment training, then that would have been a huge dick move. But six months before training and almost a year before the actual deployment? No big deal – There was zero negative effect on the unit.
– Finally, I don’t think people should get in a dick-measuring contest between Walz and Vance to advance partisan talking points. They both served and reportedly served honorably. 24 years in the Guard is not inherently more or less meritorious than four years of active duty in the Marines, IMO. Service people rarely get any say about when, where, and how they will deploy. I was on the hook during the entire GWOT, yet I never deployed to Iraq, only Afghanistan and Africa. In my time in drones, I “deployed” in the US and participated in combat ops supporting Iraq and other places from the safety of a US base. Ironically, I participated in more kinetic actions doing that than any of my deployments to actual combat zones. To bastardize Forrest Gump, the military is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re going to get.
One of the absolute greatest experiences of my legal career was fully briefing and arguing a motion to dismiss based on the difference between “&” and “and”. Opposing counsel and I wrote about 30-40 total pages of argument and argued in front of a judge for 30-45 minutes. I am surprised that we weren’t both thrown in a holding cell for an afternoon for doing that to the judge and other attorneys waiting to get their cases called. This is argument about whether he retired a Command Sgt. Major or a Master Sgt. is the same exact thing. Who. Gives. A. Shit.
Hypothetical. You get elected president and 30 seconds after you get sworn in you drop dead. You don’t serve a day as president. You know what your going to be called forever? President Matt. Same thing.
Ronny “Pill Queen” Jackson. I can’t stand that guy. He could be dropped in a hole and then the hole filled in with a dump load of rocks and I wouldn’t feel bad in the least. But, he managed to get himself promoted to Rear Admiral (which says more about the Navy than it does him) and he was a Rear Adm. when he retired. Does it matter than he subsequently had his rank knocked down? Other than it gives me something to laugh about him, not at all.
The only people that should care about this shit are Buttholes, Losers, and Lawyers. That’s the level this nonsense is on.
Now, since were all being pedantic freaks about this, I found a hilarious typo “cowardess”. Now, I highly doubt Mr. Walz was a cowardess. As punishment, you and Daddy Reynolds for his nonsense should have to sit down and write out:
At least 100 times. Chop chop, boys.
My sense is that only the Trump supporting vets will be outraged. He did deploy during the Iraq War, just not to Iraq. He did carry and train on guns. Of note, after retiring he came back on 9/11 after we were attacked at the towers. I think that says a lot about a guy approaching 40 and with a kid. I dont think anyone who was really in the military will care about the retirement thing and the claim to be a CSM. He clearly served as a CSM, he just didnt merit the title for retirement pay purposes.
His chosen date of retirement is fine with me. He had just gotten back from a year in Italy. Even if he wasn’t going to run for Congress, and he clearly was, at some point you realize the grind is too hard on your family. I had thought about making the military a career but after Desert Storm my wife gave me the ultimatum to choose either her or the military. I chose her (which I am sure she sometimes regrets).
Steve
@Jack:
More like selective non-outrage.
Most Trump supporters do not care that Trump ‘bonespured’ his way out of service in Vietnam. Nor do they care that he denigrated and demeaned John McCain for having been captured and tortured in a North Vietnamese prison.
But LaCivita has made a career bringng the cesspool to political campaigns, so I look forward to finding out that JD Vance, while serving in a desk job in Iraq, stole taxpayer-funded office and computer supplies. That seems to be equivlent to Walz’s ‘stolen valor.’
This. This is all that needs to be said.
@Jack: Meh…
Not even your usual mediocre false comparison as no one was feinting–unless it was hypoxia from laughing at Trump too hard. Outright lying is beneath you, or at least should be. Still, you were trying (very much so 😀 😛 ). You get a participation trophy. Good boy!!
This is bullshit.
The point that Walz was making had nothing to do with him being the person carrying the weapon:
If he would have said “that my buddies carried in war” his argument would have remained exactly the same. He wasn’t even making the point that he personally served in combat. (And it is far more likely than not that he did carry a weapon during his deployment.)
Despite all this, we’re dignifying some bullshit retort that deliberately misses the point with a serious response. Why? Are the panty-sniffing freaks held to a similar standard? Ha!
@Beth: I’d want to know more about the “and”/”&” dispute but won’t ask you to inflict it on the whole audience. If there’s ever an OtB gathering of the type LGM does occasionally, expect me to ask you about it.
But don’t kid a kidder. If you were President, you’d want Ronnie “Pill Queen” Jackson on your staff somewhere. Or someone just like him. And I TOTALLY get it, too. I might myself, and I’ve NEVER connected “drugs” and “recreation.” I took so much asthma medication in my childhood that I’d be dead right not if not for the emergence of albuterol and beclomethasone when I was 28 or 29. “Recreational drugs” is the same type of contradiction in terms as “honest politician” and “military intelligence” in my world.
I can’t and certainly don’t speak for all combat veterans but for myself this statement is pretty far down on the list of false claims and “stolen valor”. He should have said something like “while in the service of my country” or “while in uniform during time of war”. But the reason I’ll give him a pass on this is that this statement was not made to personally glorify his service but to bring attention to the real danger of weapons of war, large magazine, semi automatic rifles in the hands of civilians. That to me outweighs his exaggerated claim of service.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
Oh, I’d love to get my hands on U.S. Government level psychedelics. I bet those are great. Or at least clean. I hear government cannabis is terrible though. Lol, like the only thing about the Trump administration I understand is how Pill Queen did her work. She was the plug and good on them for that. And only that.
@just nutha: My father is a West Point grad, and served both active duty (as part of his academy commitment), and he continued serving for years in the National Guard, while also working for his country in a government job. I have the utmost respect for anyone who serves their country–military, government job, or by running for office. I chafe a tiny bit at the dismissive “weekend warrior,” because my dad spent a fair amount of time away from home, either TDY or other work. None of it is a cakewalk.
I AM pissed that Republicans are trying this garbage of slinging slime again.
And the hits just keep on coming:
“Did you know that Tim Walz served in Afghanistan?
In the book “Winning the Wellstone Way,” a book specifically endorsed by none other than Tim Walz, we learn that this warmhearted, genuine, avuncular candidate who won his election did so partly because he was a veteran who served in Afghanistan.
Walz, who was quoted in the book right after the claim he served there, went on to endorse the book.
The claim is very clear, and made just prior to a quote from Walz. There is really no ambiguity at all about the claim or Walz’s awareness of it. ”
But here, all people care about is “whataboutism.”
I’m not a Trump apologist. But almost all you all are flat out kneepad wearing sycophants for all things D. No matter the issue. (although in fairness I should acknowledge M Reynolds reference to “douchebaggy”) Like I said. Very selective outrage. Or one could say, grotesque partisanship and dishonesty.
My thoughts on Walz exaggerating his military record or not is that Trump is a rapist and felon who is unfit to work a fast food counter, let alone be president. Trump’s first presidency failed, he lost, then incited a terror attack on Congress admist an attempted coup and crime spree that included illegally retaining sensitive documents. Now he is running with an unqualified and creepy running mate, on his party’s extremist values that will reverse the great progress the Biden administration has made.
So. Harris-Walz and straight Democratic ticket it is.
tl;dr: Who cares? Never Trump.
@Jack:
Oh fuck off you dishonest clown. You worship the biggest liar – by orders of magnitude – in the history of this country. You don’t give a single small shit about anything but expressing your weak-ass bigotry-fueled, entitled rage and lining your pocket. Fraud. Hypocrite.
Trump is going to have his ass handed to him, and he is terrified. Be ready for more humiliation, Drew, because a Black woman is going to bitch-slap that senile piece of garbage with whom you so identify.
Double posted so I could correct a misspelling. Cuz no edit button.
And lest one thinks I’m truly too vitriolic.
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2024/08/08/trump-just-said-out-loud-what-everybody-in-washington-is-afraid-to-n4931475
This is the truth, as I pointed out to great criticism on this forum. I named Obama by name. wr couldn’t stomach the truth. And Aunt Nancy was in on it.
And before the weird and weak rationalizations and contortions come. There are two states of the world:
1. JB wanted the job. The party told us he was sharp as a tack. He was their man. And many in the party claimed Kamala was a ball and chain, a do nothing VP holding JB down. BO and NP strong armed. He couldn’t win. So they assassinated him politically. And not one American has voted for Kamala in the process. So much for muh-precious-democracy. A coup.
2. The man should have been ousted under the 25th. Incompetant to hold office. He should have, accordingly, resigned the office, not the campaign.
You can’t have it both ways. Its either undemocratic coup, or immoral refusal to address a profound governance issue.
But then, I’ve never known Democrat’s lust for power and control to get in the way of morals or good policy.
Let the harpoons fly.
@Jack:
Much like you have told us you have a lot of business experience, I have past experience with the publishing field. So let’s parse this little bit of pasta you threw up on the wall.
First, background on the book. It was published by the Wellstone Foundation. In 2005, Walz completed the two-and-a-half-day campaigns and elections crash course at Camp Wellstone, a program run by Wellstone Action, the nonprofit organization Mark and David Wellstone created to carry on the work of their parents, Paul Wellstone and Sheila Wellstone.
For those interested, you can get a PDF of the book here:
http://www.rulechangers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/WinningYourElectionTheWellstoneWay-1.pdf
Here is Walz’s endorsement:
It’s on page 1.
The key thing about endorsements is that they are often gotten before the book is finished. In many, though not all cases, the people giving the endorsement have not read the books. Sorry to flip your lid with that mindblowing news.
Ok, so onto looking at the passages in question from page 24:
This is really weak sauce.
Walz was clearly interviewed for the book. But nowhere in that quote did he say anything about serving in Afghanistan. That’s from the author’s write up of his bio. The book has five authors so there’s no telling which one wrote that.
When you get interviewed for a book or article, it typically takes anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour. If you’re working with a good author, they may send you a copy of how they condensed what you said into a quote for approval. Often that doesn’t happen (and I speak from personal experience). What I will bet you is that they didn’t send him a review copy of the chapter or the book and ask him to do a proofread.
This is a case of the authors getting facts wrong. I could have been as simple as Walz saying he deployed in 2004 to help support the Afghan war (which is accurate–see the main body of the article) and it was misinterpreted by the writer. It’s easy to do. This type of mistake happens a lot.
There’s no evidence that Walz made that claim or lied to the authors.
And the book hasn’t been updated since it was published in 2008. So again, I’m having a hard time seeing how this type of error in a very niche book constitutes “Stolen Valor.” And I am far more critical of Walz’s representation than a lot of the folks here.
@Jack:
Your cult leader is already backtracking on debating Kamala.
What a weak little man.
@Matt Bernius:
Jack/Drew isn’t so much ‘in business’ as he’s in M&A, mergers and acquisitions. His job is to destroy jobs while enriching the already rich. Even in that field I strongly suspect he fetches coffee.
@Jack:
Again, your lack of imagination to consider other scenarios (and the fact you are quoting PJ media as some type of thoughtful analysis–and you call us partisan losers, lol) really says more about you than it does about what happened with the Democratic party.
But hey, there’s a former President who–rather than campaigning–is writing fan fiction about Joe Biden surprising the Democratic national convention by taking back the ticket. It’s good to see he has an audience of at least one.
I’ll request you stop commenting about this on this thread–nice attempted hijack. If it makes you feel better I’m working on a post about Trump and the recent press conference. I look forward to your comments on it, which I am sure will contain absolutely no apologies.
@Matt Bernius:
Indeed. I/we blurb a lot of books. We actually read a much smaller number. And the number we read all the way through is smaller still. It’s about favors for editors, helping out the new kids, etc… An editor who just wrote you a fat check says, ‘can you blurb this book?’ What am I going to say, no?
To expand a bit, here’s my process on blurbs. I get a PDF from an editor. I read the first page to make sure it isn’t indecipherable crap. Then I go to the trusty adjective bin and pick out a ‘tour de force,’ and an, ‘unputdownable’ and a ‘will change your life.’ I have read exactly one YA novel cover-to-cover. Really. One. I write YA, I read history, historical fiction and the occasional mystery.
I attribute a good deal of my success to not knowing WTF other others have done or are doing.
This is indeed a whole lot of bullshit.
It doesn’t really matter how often he likely carried his weapon. His ARNG unit was assigned to a security detail, per the St. Paul Pioneer Press, or to “safeguard its airfields”, per the WaPo excerpt, so the unit likely carried weapons regularly. His statement regarding weapons of war being used only for war is fine. No need to expand on the bullshit premise.
It should be pointed out that Ronny Jackson’s demotion was in retaliation for refusing to lie and say that Trump was sick. Prior to that, he was trusted enough to be the personal physician to more than one President.
@joe: No. Jackson was demoted for mistreating subordinates and drinking and sleeping on the job.
@Beth:
I need more about this, Beth. Don’t be a cowardess.
@a country lawyer: Link:https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/us/politics/ronny-jackson-demoted-navy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Bk4.3Pis.J0mMSWu38eiG&smid=url-share
@Jack:
If you say so.
@joe:..Ronny Jackson’s demotion…
We are all waiting for a rebuttal from you to the evidence presented challenging your claim.
TFW the WSJ editorial page agrees with you assessment (and if anything is easier on Walz than you were):
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/tim-walz-military-record-national-guard-iraq-jd-vance-peter-meijer-59dbd84e?st=sfv6v4a96aarblx
@Jack:
Well I’ll be damned. About 74,223,975 Trump voters have said he same thing.
@Jen: Vance didn’t spend four years in a combat zone, he spent about six months. He was a combat correspondent, a public relations enlisted reporter, in a Marine aviation unit. He did serve four years in the Marine Corps.