Tim Walz’ Military Record Redux
Some additional (and longwinded) perspective.
Matt Bernius’s post “Reviewing 5 Claims About Tim Walz Military Record” touches on several minor controversies about the presumptive Democratic vice presidential nominee, some of which I’d not seen before but the most important of which I had. I fully agree with Matt’s conclusion “I don’t think its stolen valor, but Walz has played it lose when referring to his service,” but have been steeped in the military culture most of my almost six decades and have a different perspective on many of the claims.
Some deck clearing first.
First, while I was only barely aware of him before his name surfaced as a VP candidate, I mostly like what I see. While I disagree with him at the margins on some issues, he seems like a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. While I roll my eyes at the lengths to which he goes to portray himself as an “Everyday Joe,” he seems like a decent guy. He’s qualified to be VP and, should it be necessary, to step up into the big chair. Given the alternatives, I’ll vote for the ticket.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, Walz being on the ticket will have almost nothing to do with my vote or that of any other American. In 2008, I wrote multiple scathing posts about the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate. I thought and continue to think that Joe Biden, the VP alternative on the other ticket, was more prepared to serve. I still voted for McCain. (While I thought about it much less, the same is true in hindsight for Lloyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle in 1988.)
Third, while I opposed him for all manner of reasons (my then-strong allegiance to the Republican Party first and foremost of them), I immediately and vociferously defended John Kerry against the smears of the Swift Boaters. While I thought his record of protests against the Vietnam War, including throwing his war medals over the White House fence and some smears against his fellow veterans before Congress were absolutely fair game, the “stolen valor” claims were outrageous and I said so early and often.
All that said, while I take @wr and others’ point that politicians stretch the truth about their past accomplishments as a matter of course, military service is a different animal. Among veterans and active duty personnel, there is simultaneously a fierce and often petty pecking order about who did what but an honor culture that reacts—even over-reacts—to claims to honors one didn’t earn. And Walz has clearly done the latter—and allowed others to do the latter—repeatedly.
Let me take the claims Matt lists in the order in which he debunks them.
Walz steals valor by wearing a special forces hat.
This is the first I’d seen of the charge and I largely agree with Matt that it’s not a big deal. He has frequently worn a camouflage baseball cap with the De Oppresso Liber crest of the U.S. Army Special Forces, the Green Berets. It was a gift given to him, as a Member of Congress, when he visited the 1st Group. Given that he’s never claimed to be SF, it’s certainly not a “stolen valor” issue.
That said: I wouldn’t wear the hat outside the context in which it was given. When presented with the hat, I’d have put it on and gotten photographed with the presenters. Depending on my reading of the room, I might have left it on. I would subsequently have put it on my mantle or wherever my SWAG was displayed and never worn it again precisely because I’d be embarrassed to give someone the impression that I’d been SF when I hadn’t earned that right.
More than a decade ago, I was part of a delegation from the Atlantic Council that did a distinguished visitor tour of the USS Eisenhower. We were all presented Eisenhower ball caps with scrambled eggs on the visor. I haven’t worn it since we left the carrier. While I suppose I have the “right” to wear the cap, most people seeing me in it would naturally assume that I had served in the Navy and been assigned to the Ike.
Similarly, I’ve been working for the Marine Corps since 2013. It would never occur to me to wear a hat, shirt, lapel pin, or anything else that said “U.S. Marines,” “USMC,” or the like on it because it might give the incorrect impression that I served in the Marines. (I served, but in the Army.) I have plenty of SWAG that says “Marine Corps Command and Staff College” and some that says “Marine Corps University.” Those, I’ve earned the right to wear.
Walz never deployed during the Global War on Terror.
Matt is right here: Walz deployed to his unit to Europe to backfill soldiers who had been deployed to war zones. That’s honorable service and more than most did. (It’s more than I did in terms of the GWOT.)
But, to me, “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war” goes well beyond puffery. It’s a goddamn lie. While it doesn’t cross the line into “stolen valor,” it’s awfully goddamn close. It’s, frankly, shameful.
And, frankly, in the broader context of GWOT, I would hesistate to describe going to Germany to relieve actual soldiers to go to actual combat as being “deployed.” It’s technically correct but gives a misleading impression that I think intentional.
Walz retired to avoid deployment to Iraq and, in doing so, abandoned his unit.
This is two claims, which I’ll dissect in order. Because it’s the most damning and prominent of the claims, I’ll devote the most time to it.
Matt presents the timeline that Walz’ defenders have put out and, to the best of my knowledge, it’s accurate. Unlike the previous case, Walz actually deserves some credit here: His press release announcing his candidacy for Congress acknowledged that he was aware that portions of his battalion would be deployed. But he’s shading the truth here, too.
First off, if a significant portion of the battalion is deployed, it’s a sure bet that the commander, command sergeant major (CSM), and primary staff will go with them. Walz was the CSM. So, it’s not like it was a random lottery he was avoiding.
Second, I’m reliably informed that the practice in those days for Guard units was to issue early warnings to the command team about probable deployments precisely so that people who didn’t want to serve—or were unfit to serve—could muster out before the orders came down. Unlike the Reserve, the Guard has a very long history of cronyism. For much of its history, it was a way to pretend to serve in the military without much chance of having to actually go to war. Additionally, during that period, there were severe manpower shortages, so Guard units allowed people who were medically and otherwise unfit to serve to stay on the rolls collecting (meager) paychecks and earning (rather significant) retirement pensions. (It should be noted, this would very soon change. The Guard would become an active reserve, expected to routinely deploy to combat. Walz retired at the tail end of the former era.)
Third and relatedly, the rules for dropping retirement paperwork Matt cites are correct now. They weren’t then. It was pretty easy for Guardsmen to get out of their contracts and, certainly, to retire.
Does all of this constitute “abandoning his unit”? I’m of mixed minds.
Walz had decided to run for Congress. While I’m sure his motives were mixed—he clearly has a lot more ambition that his “aw shucks” persona lets on—that’s a form of national service that’s arguably more important than serving as CSM of an artillery battalion. And, while he never went to combat, 24 years of service is, again, way more than most gave.
At the same time, I can understand why some in his unit—his commander and some of his subordinates—might feel bitter about their CSM dropping his papers in the run-up to a combat tour. The unit would lose men in the war and get many more wounded. If they felt abandoned, I wouldn’t blame them.
It’s worth noting that, unlike the Swift Boat smears, these charges seem to have been organic and to have emerged well before Walz’ selection for the VP bid. Again, I don’t think they’ll amount to much. But they’re not manufactured outrage, either.
Walz has misrepresented his rank, claiming to be a rank higher (Command Sergeant Major – E9) than his retirement rank (Master Sergeant – E8)
Here again, Walz is simply lying his ass off. He’s repeatedly claimed, in official publications, to have retired as a CSM. Kamala Harris’ introduction of him played up this rank.
In fact, as Matt notes, while he was promoted in-house to CSM (something that doesn’t happen in the real Army), he was in fact a Master Sergeant, the next lower* rank. He would have actually promoted to CSM had he completed (apparently, by correspondence) the Sergeants Major Academy. He did not do so before putting in his retirement papers.
It would be somewhat weasely but, in my judgment, acceptable, to say that he’d served as his battalion’s CSM. But to say that he’d achieved the rank of CSM, much less that he’d retired at that rank, is a goddamn lie.
In the real Army, by the way, selection for Sergeant Major is a very big deal. There are relatively few slots available and selection (as for Sergeant First Class and Master Sergeant) is by a centralized Army-level promotion board. In the Guard of Walz’ day, it was hand-picked by the local commander. So, from my perspective (which is likely not Walz’) it’s doubly dubious to claim the title. (Then again, I have trouble with his claim that he “served 24 years in the Army” when his entire career, save arguably the deployment to non-combat in Europe, was in the Nebraska and Minnesota Guard.)
***
All of that, though, is very Inside Baseball. Will there be some significant number of veterans who have hard feeling over Walz’ claims? Quite possibly. Will it matter in the election? I doubt it.
Relatedly, as Matt’s post notes some “bothsides” discussions on these matters, I want to note this graphic that I saw on the Facebook page of an esteemed former colleague as a way of comparing the military service of the two VP candidates:
It’s rather amusing at first blush but incredibly deceptive.
First, I’m sorry, 24 years in the National Guard of Walz’ day is not 24 years of real service. There was next to zero chance that we were going to call up a Guard artillery unit for combat. Second, as already discussed, he never attained pay grade E-9. He was an E-8 wearing CSM rank insignia—and assigned to the CSM billet—in a Guard unit. Third, all of the awards listed for Walz save the top two are what we call “I was there” medals and ribbons. They’re all for simply being in the Guard during certain periods of time or completing mandatory training. And, frankly, an Army Commendation Medal is a paltry top award, indeed, for a senior NCO.
Vance’s NAM is, simultaneously not all that impressive and the highest award a corporal is likely to achieve absent combat valor. And he actually received plenty of I Was There awards: “Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Letter of Appreciation (5th award), Meritorious Mast Certificate of Appreciation, and various Campaign and Service Medals.” That’s not bad for four years of service and, frankly, much more impressive to anyone in the know that Walz’ rack.
In fairness, some veterans will scoff that he was in public affairs rather than a combat arms billet. But he did at least carry a rifle in a place where he could be potentially called upon to use it. Walz, claims to the contrary, did not.
Army NCO ranks are a bit odd. At pay grade E-8, one can be a Master Sergeant or a First Sergeant. The pay is the same but the latter is more prestigious, as it’s a specific leadership billet: the senior enlisted advisor in a company/battery/troop. At pay grade E-9, one can be a Sergeant Major or a Command Sergeant Major. The former will serve in a staff role of some sort while the latter is the senior enlisted advisor at a battalion or higher formation. Making it more confusing, 1SG and CSM are billet-specific. So, as was the case with my late father, one can serve as a company 1SG and then subsequently be assigned to a staff billet and revert to the default MSG rank. Usually, but not always, one is allowed to retire in the more prestigious rank if they’ve served in it.
I appreciate the time you put into this, but you’re missing the forest for the trees.
In this instance the forest is that this whole thing is Swift-boating bullshit. The top of the GOP ticket is a literal fucking draft dodger and they want to make something out of a poorly worded sentence and the easily-debunked assertion Walz retired to avoid deployment? Give me a break.
Your post is about 100% more effort than this garbage merits.
Compare:
“Walz is simply lying his ass off. He’s repeatedly claimed, in official publications, to have retired as a CSM.” Per J Joyner.
“He held multiple positions within field artillery such as firing battery chief, operations sergeant, first sergeant, and culminated his career serving as the command sergeant major for the battalion,” Minnesota National Guard spokesperson Lt. Col. Kristen Augé told Yahoo News.
Right here is a great example the asymmetry of how we look at these two tickets. One get put under a microscope the other we just throw up our hands because there is huge firehose of nonsense to deal with so we let it all slide least we do nothing all day but factcheck a known liar and fabulist until we are utterly exhausted.
It’s interesting that we can split hairs by going down a long shaft, of a rabbit hole to find some fault, some inconsistency, something to criticize in the case of the VP pick while both the of the candidates on the Republican ticket have issues that dwarf any of this stuff.
Nether of the VP picks had a military career that anyone would write home about. Nether of them were in combat and even if they were, so what? What does any of this have to do with suitability for government service and leadership? The fact is Vance has on thing on his CV, he wrote a popular book. Now compare that to Walz’ CV. It’s not even in the same galaxy and yes right here at OTB we get two long posts nattering over the fine print of military service (which frankly I find vastly overrated). In any world the experience of leadership and competence of a 24 years in the National Guard trumps (no pun intended) a 4 year stint as a pencil pusher no matter where they are stationed.
I remember Republicans telling the exact opposite story claiming that GWB’s experience in the Air National Guard was superior to Al Gore’s stint in Vietnam in a role that was similar to Vance. No one is saying that Walz in a war hero. But if we are talking about leadership, and we are, Vance’s experience is of little use to evaluate his qualifications to lead. Full stop. All this other stuff is splitting hairs. Meanwhile Vance talks about Cat ladies and Trump wants more control over interest rates as president something he would deploy in service of Trump and Trump alone.
Yeah this whole conversation has hit it’s sell by date as far as I’m concerned and can be boiled down to this: Walz’ experience in the National Guard qualifies him for a leadership role and Vance’s experience qualifies him for Government benefits.
Give me one other example of Walz stating or implying that he served in combat and you may have a point.
Otherwise it’s just bullshit.
Wow. Just wow. A screed dripping with disdain, contempt and pettiness unworthy of its author. Must be West Point training combined with years of pointless university maneuvering that perfected that sneer.
We’re going to waste time here debating whether an incredible VP pick retired as E8 or E9? And the opponent VP pick did a 4-year stint in a press office and bugged out?
That’s the debate?
If this is the best they have against Harris, this campaign should go very well.
But we do need to avoid all this hand wringing over purity tests. Let’s just say “Very senior NCO” an move on.
James clearly has little respect for the National Guard and it comes through loud and clear in this post. Could there be any less respect shown for what sounds like a pretty good career in the NG for Walsh? Also, as I understand it, Walsh re-upped after 20 years of service when 9/11 happened. That should perhaps count for something, but apparently not.
Also, can we get even a tiny bit of context here? Vance has a track record of denigrating the service of others. Here’s noted radical Max Boot taking him to task for his attacks on Barry McCaffrey:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/21/jd-vance-attack-on-barry-mcaffrey-shows-decline-of-gop-ohio/
Vance has a track record for attacking the service of others for political gain, and the Trump campaign is run by LaCivita, who was responsible for the swiftboat attacks. That context matters a lot more than the inside baseball of the details of retirement in the Minnesota NG.
The difference between “served” as CSM and “achieved” CSM is narrow to begin with and even more narrow when assume,, correctly I suspect, that he was given the position on merit rather than just randomly given the rank. It appears the main reason he didnt really “achieve” the rank so he could retire at it because he didnt do the paperwork. In this I suspect you reveal that you were only ever an officer and are now an academic. Like it or not you think paperwork is important, and it is in many ways. However, among the enlisted, at least when I was in, and among us non-academics, ability and doing stuff is much more important than paperwork, especially considering that the military is flooded with paperwork.
I can see some of his unit being disappointed at his retiring before deploying to Iraq, however, I would think that countered by realizing he had retired at 20 years. He had clearly done his time and was moving on and only came back in due to 9/11. I think that after a year long deployment, given the option and especially if the had future plans, its not surprising that one would retire again.
While neither was a war hero and comparing the two is sort of stupid and we should be glad both were willing to serve to me the difference is that for Vance it was just a step on the way up. There wasn’t any commitment. Which is fine as I certainly did my first tour as a way to get out of near poverty and to get the GI bill. Later time was spent as maybe a career but didnt happen. Walz, OTOH, joined at 17 as early as possible and stuck with it for 24 years. It was a commitment to serve over a long period which had to be inconvenient even if not full time. I had several reservists working for me and we were military friendly but in some jobs the time commitments would make the job impossible.
Steve
Yikes. What a patronizing, disdainful sentence. I expected better.
This still seems like a speechwriter used the “rule of threes” in writing this sentence (which is why someone senior, including the person giving the speech, should read it for accuracy and correct any rhetorical flourishes that cross over into “nope, didn’t happen”). If we’re going to parse this, we need to apply this same standard elsewhere, starting with the lying jackass at the top of the Republican ticket. Let’s start with his suggestions that the school he was sent to to correct his poor behavior as a teen was somehow “military service.”
This whole “debate” has crossed over into the ridiculous. I’m officially done with this topic, it isn’t worth anyone’s time.
… not “lose”. That bothered me in Matt’s post and you copied it, without a (sic) or anything! Lol.
I don’t really have anything profound to add to this discussion. I am not a fan of fudging your CV, but I understand it’s a thing. We’ve certainly seen worse; I guess I’m just curious if every single sentence that Vance has ever uttered will be scrutinized to the same level of detail. (We’ve already covered enough of Trump’s lies to satisfy me for this lifetime, thanks.)
Trump, his minions, and his blog posting apologists think the Trump Campaign Team should be arbiter of who is black or not black, who is a good Jew or a bad Jew, and whether or not someone’s honorable military service was good or bad. Meanwhile, most of the rest of us want something better than that kind of mindset in our leadership positions!
James is right. This was not ‘stolen valor’ but it was a fair bit of bullshit. This is why you go with the truth and never claim more than you deserve. In fact, if you’re smart, you underplay it. Put opponents in the position of discovering that you are more than you claim, not less. I realize modesty has gone out of style, but exaggerated claims set you up for exposure. Particularly dumb when the truth is plenty impressive.
You just say ‘I did 24 years in the Guard. It was not combat, but it was useful service and I am proud of it.’ That creates zero risk and gains you ‘aw shucks’ modesty points.
Dr J, I’m not going to join the pile-on against you here. I understand your opinion* but as far as I’m concerned about the topic, this dog simply won’t hunt. Time for a deep breath, a resigned sigh, and a move on. But as always, YMMV.
* The tone here is very similar to the one my late stepfather – a WWII Pacific Theater airborne vet wounded several times – had about my friends who came back from Vietnam less than gung-ho about our country.
ETA, dang, I miss that edit button. But I’m so glad OTB and Co. are back!
@Franklin:
Ooof… Thank you for catching that “lose” vs “loose.”
@Flat Earth Luddite:
We are working on the edit button thing. Frustratingly they are actually there but are not “unhiding” for some reason.
@Rick DeMent:
Exactly!!! (And why, incidentally, Mikey was being conservative by saying Dr. Joyner’s effort was only 100% more than the topic warranted.)
@mistermix:
That’s the real story here, the story we, and the supposedly liberal MSM, should be talking about.
Once again, scum like LaCivita are executing Karl Rove’s strategy of attacking their opponents strength. And why do they do this? Because they have nothing else. They’d sure rather talk about the technicalities of whether someone with the stripes of an E-9 was really an E-9 than defend Vance’s thin record and public statements.
I appreciate that Matt and James bend over backwards to be fair to the other side, but sheesh, all things in moderation. And the other side ain’t going to reciprocate.
I thought it was slightly significant that every time Vance opens his mouth he trashes his oath to defend the Constitution. He’s working for a “post-Constitutional” party. Ergo, JD Vance is a traitor. A small but important detail when discussing Vance’s service to the country.
There’s nothing here. Unless there are dozens of clips of him talking about carrying weapons in war, he just misspoke while trying to make a point in the gun debate. Nobody pretends to have been in war once. Nobody lies a single time about a fake past.
It is true that the other side lies like they breathe, and a direct comparison with a very small number of very small lies, is unfair. Obviously. But not the point. You are judged by society’s standards, but also by your own. Society likely doesn’t care if you’re a virgin, but if you claim to be, and are not, then you’re judged. It is particularly dumb and dangerous to lie when you don’t have to.
I/we claim to have written 150 books. But we could very easily claim to have written more than 200, if we chose to claim as our own everything that went out under our name(s). There are 11 books in our early Ocean City series. We wrote the first 4. We count that as 4 not 11, the rest were ghostwritten. There are 28 books in our Making Out series. We wrote 8 and count that as 8, not 28.
150 is enough of an accomplishment. (If you don’t think so, try it.) 200 is not necessary. It would mean ignoring the work of our ghostwriters which would be uncool. (To use a technical term.) Always understate your accomplishments. It’s a good rule for life.
As others have, I am astounded by Joyner’s contempt for the NG.
Couple things to keep in mind.
20 years, plus rejoining for another 4 after 9/11, was a lifetime of service and commitment (starting at 17!).
Second, Walz suffered hearing loss from firing artillery that required surgery to try and rebuild/repair the bones in his ears that had been damaged to get back his hearing.
Third, after 7+ years of IVF to try and have a family, they have success and he ends up in Italy deployed for a year. Yeah, after 24 years of service, finally having a family and being away from them for a year I think he earned his retirement.
Fourth, my understanding is that basically all NG units were in the discussion about deployments after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. So did that mean no one could retire?
@Michael Reynolds: So you agree with Joyner that “First, I’m sorry, 24 years in the National Guard of Walz’ day is not 24 years of real service.” even after one loses hearing, spends a year deployed after finally starting a family after years of IVF and re-ups, after 20, for another 4 after 9/11?
Funny, I thought service included helping out in domestic natural and man made disasters not just in overseas wars.
Just wait until Walz suggests he coached his football team to a state championship when he was really just the defensive coordinator.
Weird there’s no mention of decaying demented grandpa’s promise to deport 15 million people if re-elected.
To be the most accurate, the MN NG did not “backfill” soldiers deployed to Iraq, but were sent to “augment” base security forces. The authors of the below are among Walz’s biggest critics but who are presenting the facts without emotional wording.
Paid letter: The Truth About Tim Walz, published in 2018,
@James R Ehrler:
I wouldn’t use the term ‘not real service,’ but then, I did zero service, so I’m not maybe the guy to make that particular call. My father did 20 years in the regular Army, including 2 tours in Vietnam. Would an equal number of years stateside in the Minnesota NG be the equivalent of his 20? No, of course not.
To me any good thing done for 24 years is impressive, and certainly 24 in the Guard is a good thing, an important thing, an admirable thing. He served his state and his country. So, claim that, proudly, but that lily does not need gilding. Because when you boast or exaggerate you are begging to be taken down a peg, and may leave your friends and allies having to scramble to defend you.
It’s not complicated: don’t lie.
@Michael Reynolds: Agree that it is not the same as spending 24 years in combat but it is also not nothing which is what, it appears, Joyner thinks.
Also note, as I mentioned above, that it was not all stateside. He was deployed for a year in Italy. Yes it is not under fire but it also was after he retired and re-upped, after starting a family and losing some hearing. It was not all camping on weekends in MN.
And, it was not
In related news, over at LGM Paul Campos discusses Trump’s nearly disastrous, and entirely imaginary, helicopter ride with Willie Brown in which Brown recounted how terrible Kamala Harris was. Campos notes that telling a complete sack of spit story like that would end Harris’ campaign. But with Trump it’s sacks of spit all the way down and nobody cares. But the difference between being an E-9 and temporarily being an E-9, now that’s news.
Also, too, WAPO has a story about Trump saying in his news conference he’d be open to restricting Mifepristone. In his remarks as quoted by WAPO, and the video, there’s no evidence Trump knows what Mifepristone even is, but WAPO retells it as a coherent policy statement.
@gVOR10: The media’s normalization of Trump should go down in history as the most egregious instance of journalistic malpractice ever recorded.
@James R Ehrler: Good post! I will note that, despite my issues with his résumé padding, Walz’s retirement from the National Guard is a big nothingburger for me. For the reasons you cited, in addition to the already-noted timing, it was a perfectly reasonable move at that point in his life. In fact, it’s turned out to be a great move for his fellow U.S. citizens.
Adam Kinzinger’s comments on the Walz swiftboating.
I got 2 words: Chris LaCivita. Nothing else need be said.
@Mikey: James may not still be all-in for Republicans the way he once was, but this post is evidence that he still has a visceral, knee-jerk dislike for the Dems.
Hmmm. When I was on active duty, it was not uncommon for junior officers to be assigned to senior billets. For example, when I left active duty I was an O3 filling O4 the Base Logistics Officer billet. So yes, on my resume I said that left active duty serving as the Base Logistics Officer.
In Walz’s congressional biography, it is stated:
“Walz enlisted in the Army National Guard at the young age of 17, and retired 24 years later as
Command Sergeant Major. Before retiring, Walz served overseas with his battalion in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom. Walz is the highest ranking enlisted soldier ever to serve in
Congress.” (https://www.congress.gov/115/meeting/house/105558/witnesses/HHRG-115-HA00-Bio-WalzT-20170215.pdf)
So he was an E8 serving in an E9 billet.
The crucial word is “rank.” Although I was a captain filling a major’s billet, I was still a captain.
However, the Military Times states that although Walz retired as an E8 because he never completed coursework to attain the rank of E9, he is the highest ranking enlisted service person to serve in Congress. (https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2036313/militarys-top-enlisted-position-now-has-distinctive-rank-insignia/)
Which is, frankly, surprising to me. No other E9s or E8s with earlier promotion dates? However, I have not discovered in information to the contrary.
As far the “I carried in war” statement. Speeches are emotional connections with the audience. (I myself gave a passionate, emotional speech in support of our local library the other night, and have gone over it in my head to make sure that what I said was not puffed up in the heat of the moment.) Sure, it would have better if Walz had said, “I carried in support of Operation Enduring Freedom,” but if this is the worse mistake he has ever made, he pretty much walks on water in my book.
The real issue, and the one I suspect that motivated Dr. Joyner’s choice of wording (“goddamn lie”, “lying his ass off”) is the fear that Walz will be successfully swift-boated. A defensive action would be to correct the record and apologize (if warranted, which I’m still not sure it is). Also, Walz is the VP candidate, not the presidential candidate.
Also, dear readers, articles that inflame get more readership than calm rational analysis. Everyone, please contribute so this hallowed blog is sufficiently funded to avoid financial worries for its publishers. It’s a treasure.
So thank you Matt Bernius and Dr. Joyner for focusing on Walz’s military career. But unless, some other military shoe drops, can we focus on issues that will make a difference in our Country’s future?
@Skookum:
Sidebar comment:
THANK YOU! 😀
Let’s be clear about what’s going on here- we are choosing to discuss this as if it mattered at all and it really more reflective of the media and how it is wired for the GOP (kind of like tampons in the boy’s bathrooms). From my perspective, I have to laud a 24-year guard duty career. Period. Though I’m curious about something – is it true that the regular army looks down on reservists? This is the first I heard of it since so many reservists were regulars.
If I told someone wearing a penn state hat they couldn’t because they didn’t graduate or because they weren’t on the football team, they’d quite right tell me to go pound sand.
It feels like this is more about social dominance; too many vets think they’re a higher level of citizen than civilians and the anger is really about a peasant acting insubordinate to the minor nobles.
We have a whole thread parsing details that only political nerds care about, and yet Trump MADE UP A STORY OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH yesterday.
One thing is not like the other. Focus back to the goofball liar at the top of the Republican ticket, please.
I would’ve reserved “goddamn lie” for a claim of combat myself. Everybody deployed in Europe during WW2 got to claim they were “in WW2” and about 90% of them never got shot at or shot at anyone.
Everybody agrees Walz was a CSM, but the problem is that he said he was a CSM? Do I have that right?
Weird.
@ James
So will we be discussing Trump’s deferments any time soon? Or perhaps we will just tack back to Harris’s privileged childhood instead…
Interesting point. Near as I can tell everyone who served in WW2 was considered a WW 2 veteran regardless of where you served, including never leaving the US. Now you arent considered a Viet nam vet or an Iraq/Afghanistan vet unless you served in country.
Steve
@Raoul: I opened up my phone so I could upvote your comment again. Hear, hear!
@steve:
I think I meant to comment on this the other day, my Dad considers himself a Vietnam Vet but he never actually put down boots in the jungle. As I have mentioned plenty of times on this site, he was in Turkey (a NATO thing I guess) during the conflict. He is not a talker, but I also know that he spent time at Norad (Cheyenne Mountain). He had access to Top Secret material (apparently so did my Mom, who never joined the military, who she says met my dad as a USO Volunteer in Turkey, yet my Dad said she actually had some clearances he did not and was able to eat in a battleships mess hall with folks in the Navy, I never did get more clarity on that little tid-bit of info from my Dad and Mom, but my Mom grew up surrounded by wealth, so there is more to the story that has yet to be told to me).
Finally, he mentioned he was put through a SERE program and well, he said no more regarding that piece of info. I have also seen pics of him wearing his uniform, so it is kind-of new to me that you are only considered a Vietnam Vet if you were in-country, maybe in all these years I misunderstood, and he was saying he is a Veteran, who happened to serve during the Vietnam War.
So if we are splitting hairs, Korean and Vietnam soldiers never went to “war” since technically Congress never declared “war” as required by the Constitution.
Hence they are veterans of “police actions” and should never state they served in an American declared “war”, no?
And as alluded to earlier, those swabbees in San Diego supporting the Pacific Fleet during WW2 weren’t part of the “war”?
@The Q: I don’t recall this clearly anymore, but I think it was only Black soldiers who didn’t qualify for full GI Bill benefits. Whether you were in Belfast, Calais, or San Diego was not as significant.
Let’s take a stroll down memory lane:
Conservative commentator and politician Pat Buchanan criticized Gore by saying, “Al Gore’s service was little more than a political gesture. His assignment as a journalist in Vietnam was far removed from the dangers faced by true combat soldiers.”
Conservative author and commentator Ann Coulter wrote, “Gore’s Vietnam record is a joke. He spent more time typing up reports than dodging bullets. It’s amazing how the media gives him a pass on this.”
@steve:
If he and his unit weren’t prepping themselves for an imminent fight while in Turkey they should’ve been. Deployment to Turkey to guard an airbase is far from normal for an NG unit, and right next door to the war, so that deployment was a role in Operation Enduring Freedom.
@DMA:
A bit melodramatic, no? James has too many nice things to say about Walz here — and about Biden and Harris elsewhere — for this to be true. The liberal commentariat here may be a overly sensitive to criticism of those standing between us and the rapist felon’s neofascism. Understandable given the stakes. But since Republicans are bound to make hay of questions about Walz’s military record — as it’s their bread-and-butter + they ain’t got much else — it’s useful to see the reaction of the kinds of anti-Trump conservatives Democrats hope to win this year.
If they’re like James, sounds like they’ll view Walz warily, but continue to support him and Harris. Because Trump, a dangerous patholgical liar, and Vance, a Putin-fluffing creep, are way worse.
This is the kind of stuff that will play with wavering voters already looking for an excuse to support Trump the excuse. So Rethuglikkklans will surely not let it go away, and the pundit class will play along per usual. They don’t have Biden to kick around anymore, so they’ll need something to do.
Just more evidence that the so-called Mainstream Media writ large is intimidated by constant Conservative criticism. This current Republican crew is well known for constant brokering in lies and dis-and-misinformation, yet they are presumed to be truthful.
Trumpian style has been normalized by an extremely lazy Mainstream Media. There is a big price to be paid for this.
@DK: no. Saying “war” instead of “wartime,” and James jumps straight to “THAT’S A DAMN LIE.” James’ reaction is way over the top, going from 0 to 60 in outrage in an instant, at the slightest misstatement. The idea that the R’s will seize on the slightest thing and so Dems have to be absolutely perfectly 100% of the time isn’t right, both because everyone is human, but also because even if the Dem never misspeaks the R’s will just make shit up, as they are wont to do. People are human and sometimes say the slightly wrong thing, and James has no time for this from the Dem side.
I see this as a nothing-burger. I don’t like Walz for his 2020 non-actions to stop rioting in MSP. Zero stolen valor here, maybe resume embellishment. I was Joint Officer (Navy Submariner here, and a Nuke) for 6 years so I know there are major differences in how the Services operate, like Army and USAF of retirement tenure can suddenly request retirement (shocked me the 1st time I saw it), while Navy and USMC minimum 6-months without major waiver at the 3-star level . I was involved in a “situation” where 3 USAF LtCols “retired” for incompetence in 2-weeks after they tried to get me and my USAF Colonel boss fired (Exec arrives in our office announcing, you are fired.- my boss looks at me and says, we don’t work for him, don’t worry)
As someone who worked with the Guard and Reserve (two totally different groups) back around 2000 on their deployments to defend the Arctic north, I mostly agree with Dr Joyner’s “then” comments. I had a friend (Major) at Guard Bureau when 9/11 happened and suddenly the Guard was no longer merely the political patronage system of each state rolling out to local disasters using Federal dollars (the commanding General is usually appointed by the Governor, except SC where it is elected! For awhile the VT of NH General was not recognized nationally as a General (not enough time, politically chosen), she had to show up as a Colonel outside her state). And then the head of the Guard Bureau became invited to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Besides GWOT, the other thing that kicked the National Guard into being more Federal (vice state) was Hurricane Katrina. Laws have since changed, but President Bush was prohibited from sending (he offered) outside Guard assistance unless requested by the Governor, who would then have to relinquish her control of her Guard. Folks blame Bush for not providing National Guard assistance from other states that he could legally do without the LA Gov’s request (legal catch 22). Sorry to upset your Katrina narrative regarding the Guard (not FEMA, that was FU).
I’m a retired Navy Force Master Chief who was a class 18 graduate of the Army Sargent Major Academy. Completing and graduating from this training academy is more than just a paperwork drill, and to imply otherwise is a slap in the face to the many soldiers, sailors and airmen that have achieved their deplima. Simply put, he was not retired as a CSM. That had nothing to do with his qualifications to be the VP pick, but does make one wonder about what else he is not being totally honest about. To me, this election is a comparison between what 4 years of President Trump did for our country, i.e., lower taxes, secure border, low or no inflation, no wars vs 3 plus years of President Biden and Vice President Harris where over 15 million migrants have invaded our country, inflation is driven thousands of U.S. citizens into poverty and almost destroyed the middle class, and war is breaking out around the world because of a void in American leadership. There is a lot I dislike about Donald Trump, but there is no comparison as to which administration has done the best job running our country. People who don’t vote for Trump just because they don’t like him are just hurting their family, themselves, and their country.
@Homer johnson: it’s me Homer commenting on my input. Sorry about not proofing Sorry about not proof reading my comments and misspelling Sergeant and diploma. Otherwise I stand by my comments.
@Bobert: Hey Bobert, compare to this in Newsweek:
“Army Lieutenant Colonel Kristen Augé, the state public affairs officer for Minnesota National Guard, told Just the News on Wednesday that the governor did not retire as “Command Sergeant Major Walz” in 2005, as stated on Minnesota’s official website, but as master sergeant “because he did not complete additional coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy.” A soldier who does not complete the requisite coursework is automatically demoted, according to Army regulations.”