Tim Walz embellished his military service record

[Larniavc]

I don't think I would feel good about saying that I was promoted, because I didn't do the things required to merit that promotion.

That would be standard practice on any resume I should hope.

 

[Arcangl86]

As the only non-commissioned military officer ever to serve in Congress, he was a strong powerful voice for his colleagues--even the ones who are bad-mouthing him now.

This is not true. He was the highest ranking NCO to serve in Congress, but there have been other enlisted Congressmen. Off the top of my head, the easiest example is JD Vance.

 

[RDKirk]

He just happened to retire in the middle of his stretch (instead of finishing it) right after being told he was being called up to serve in a war he was protesting?

Yeah.... I'm not buying it. It's just not plausible.

He was 'way past "his stretch." He was in a period of his career when the military wanted him to retire. This is where the Guard is unlike regular Army: An old guy sitting in a position is actually preventing someone else from being promoted to that position. That's a bit how it also works in the regular service at a distance, but it's not so locally obvious as it is in the Guard and Reserves. There were specific individuals he was blocking from promotion...they knew who they were and he knew who they were.

I could have still been active duty as we slid into the Iraq War. But knowing what I knew regarding the WMD claim, it would have been a tough decision to stay in. I was standing up and screaming at the television screen during Powell's speech to the UN. The DIA blatantly leaked information that Rumsfeld was lying. The commandant of the Marine Corps disagreed with Rumsfeld's invasion plans and retired. The Chief of Staff of the Army took his disagreement public...and got fired and retired (Rumsfeld didn't even show up at his immediate subordinate's retirement ceremony). You may not have noticed, but all the "class of Vietnam" generals did retire in the run-up to the Iraq War.

When the old military heads start bailing out of a war that the politicians are pushing...y'all ought to pay attention.

 

[RDKirk]

No, he retired, after 24 years of honourable service, before the orders came through to go overseas. Well before. And ye gods, he went straight into public service.

Within the military, there is a distinct bright line about that kind of thing that is generally recognized.

When you get the deployment order, you go. I've never heard anyone disparage someone who had a legal way out of combat before his unit got the deployment order. It's like military women getting pregnant: Got pregnant before the deployment order...okay. Got pregnant after the deployment order...not okay.

People over retirement age are expected to retire...the ones who still have continued promotion chances know who they are, but really, you're expected to retire. There is some younger guy who needs that leadership slot in deployment to enhance his own promotion chances...that additional combat medal isn't going to do the old guy any good.

Walz had been "frocked" to the CSM position, but he had to take the CSM correspondence course to lock it in. He'd also have to take that deployment. By retiring when he did, he actually gave the guy behind him in his unit (one of the ones choosing to badmouth him now) the opportunity to get that position.

Walz did nothing disreputable.

 

[Hazelelponi]

He was 'way past "his stretch." He was in a period of his career when the military wanted him to retire. This is where the Guard is unlike regular Army: An old guy sitting in a position is actually preventing someone else from being promoted to that position. That's a bit how it also works in the regular service at a distance, but it's not so locally obvious as it is in the Guard and Reserves. There were specific individuals he was blocking from promotion...they knew who they were and he knew who they were.

I could have still been active duty as we slid into the Iraq War. But knowing what I knew regarding the WMD claim, it would have been a tough decision to stay in. I was standing up and screaming at the television screen during Powell's speech to the UN. The DIA blatantly leaked information that Rumsfeld was lying. The commandant of the Marine Corps disagreed with Rumsfeld's invasion plans and retired. The Chief of Staff of the Army took his disagreement public...and got fired and retired (Rumsfeld didn't even show up at his immediate subordinate's retirement ceremony). You may not have noticed, but all the "class of Vietnam" generals did retire in the run-up to the Iraq War.

When the old military heads start bailing out of a war that the politicians are pushing...y'all ought to pay attention.

So if they didn't actually want him why give him all those classes and act like he was going to be there for a while? they knew his age...

This makes no sense... You don't sign someone up for all this and then push them out to retire, you wouldn't do it in the first place.

 

[RDKirk]

So if they didn't actually want him why give him all those classes and act like he was going to be there for a while? they knew his age...

This makes no sense... You don't sign someone up for all this and then push them out to retire, you wouldn't do it in the first place.

It's a passive-aggressive kind of thing. They encourage you to "Be all that you can be," but they do expect you to realize when you've become all you could be...and get out.

That hits most people in the Air Force as soon as they reach retirement time in service. They know both their chances of continued advancement...and also whether they even want continued advancement. Most people over retirement time have been thinking for some time about what they want to do with the rest of their working lives (half of which still lies ahead of them). If you're merely enlisted or just a field grade officer, you know you're not going onto the board of some major Washington thinktank.

The fact that Walz announced a decision to go into politics so quickly after military retirement suggests he'd been thinking long before then that he wasn't doing any more good for the country in uniform as an enlisted man.

 

[Bradskii]

When you get the deployment order, you go. I've never heard anyone disparage someone who had a legal way out of combat before his unit got the deployment order. It's like military women getting pregnant: Got pregnant before the deployment order...okay. Got pregnant after the deployment order...not okay.

I've got no experience of the military (if I'd moved to Australia earlier I might have been drafted for Vietnam). But in matters like this I rely on guys like you who are or have served in some capacity. But I can see the logic in what you say there. When you are actually ordered to go and you find some way out, then...I might twice about the guy. But he didn't. He'd served his time - more time than might have been expected and wanted to run for public office. And people disparage him for that? It's a lifetime of service.

Walz did nothing disreputable.

Quite right. The only ones who are being disreputable are the ones spreading this junk and the ones repeating it. I read of one of his fellow soldiers who said that Walz was an honourable man who he liked a lot and described him as an exemplary soldier. But he didn't like his politics.

Now there was an honest man. Why can't those with different politics take the same attitude and show some respect? As McCain did with Obama.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm sitting here thinking about this.

I'm a middle-aged E-8. I have an opportunity to make one more promotion, get a bit more retirement pay. I'd just be doing what I'm doing now and get a little bit more rah-rah in my retirement ceremony, but really, the world after my retirement won't give a fig about me retiring as an E-8 or an E-9. I'm affecting nothing.

Or...I can retire now and run for Congress. If I can run for Congress right now, why wouldn't I want to get started on that right now? Why would I wait another two years to get on with the new phase of my life where I can do much more good for my country?

That's rather more of an option for someone in the Guard or Reserve than someone in the regular service. Those guys have actually continued to be a part of their community the entire time, so they have a natural base from which to run for office, even as enlisted members.

 

[Postvieww]

And as has been shown in this thread, it is the spin doctors who are distorting the truth, not Gov. Walz.

He lied about the length of his reenlistment and the rank he retired at. Nothing in this thread has refuted those facts. There may have been a lot of spin but the facts remain .

 

[RDKirk]

He lied about the length of his reenlistment and the rank he retired at. Nothing in this thread has refuted those facts. There may have been a lot of spin but the facts remain .

Eh, E-8 or E-9...pretty insignificant.

I'd like to see what his DD-214 says, but, eh, E-8 or E-9 is a shallow issue. He was an enlisted guy, a sergeant. It's not like a three-star general claiming to be a four-star general...it doesn't "buy" anything in the civilian community. But then, there certainly are three-star generals who got frocked to four stars in their final assignment, quietly retire with three stars...and still claim that fourth star in their civilian world contacts. Nobody checks, nobody knows, nobody really cares.

And "lied about the length of his reenlistment" just leaves me with a question mark. When you're already over retirement age, "lied about the length of his re-enlistment" isn't really a thing. Over retirement age, you're basically enlisting for "as long as you feel like staying in up to four years."

Staying in the military over retirement age is like working past Social Security full retirement age.

 

[KCfromNC]

He lied about the length of his reenlistment and the rank he retired at. Nothing in this thread has refuted those facts. There may have been a lot of spin but the facts remain .

Yep, that's the sort of spin doctoring the previous post mentioned.

 

[Arcangl86]

Eh, E-9 or E-9...pretty insignificant.

I'd like to see what his DD-214 says, but, eh, E-8 or E-9 is a shallow issue.

And "lied about the length of his reenlistment" just leaves me with a question mark. When you're already over retirement age, "lied about the length of his re-enlistment" isn't really a thing.

He claims he re-enlisted for 6 years but ended up leaving 4 years into it. Is a re-enlistment binding the same way an initial enlistment is?

 

[RDKirk]

He claims he re-enlisted for 6 years but ended up leaving 4 years into it. Is a re-enlistment binding the same way an initial enlistment is?

When you're over retirement age, no, it's not binding at all. As I said earlier, the military actually wants you out anyway. The only thing that would bind you is some other action that commits you to some years of further service, such as a promotion or certain in-residence schools. If he'd actually been permanently promoted to E-9 (rather than just being frocked to it to fill a position), he'd have had a further commitment.

 

[Postvieww]

Yep, that's the sort of spin doctoring the previous post mentioned.

Really! Can we deal with actual facts here. Walz also never carried a gun in combat unless there was some conflict in Italy that didn’t make the news. The campaign is well ahead of some of the posters on this thread who are defending this stolen valor. They are now trying to figure out how to clean up this mess. Diversion is not an effective tactic in covering Walz’s embellishments.

 

[Arcangl86]

Really! Can we deal with actual facts here. Walz also never carried a gun in combat unless there was some conflict in Italy that didn’t make the news. The campaign is well ahead of some of the posters on this thread who are defending this stolen valor. They are now trying to figure out how to clean up this mess. Diversion is not an effective tactic in covering Walz’s embellishments.

He never claimed he carried a gun in combat. He claimed he carried it in war, which is true.

 

[Bobber]

I found this conversation from a few of you in the military but have different thoughts on it quite interesting. I guess it could be said there will be a certain amount of traction Trump's campaign will get from this.....how much remains to be seen .

One thing I wonder about though. If it were Trump this was about would the Pro Walz group here still be saying the same thing? You know the media would be roasting him alive over it....so what about you? Would you stand in defense of Trump like you have Walz?

And don't say Trump would never serve in the military to dismiss the question.....hypothetically if he did.

 

[Postvieww]

He never claimed he carried a gun in combat. He claimed he carried it in war, which is true.

That is part of the problem here. Any thinking person knows the implication was that he was a combat veteran to help his political resume. He claimed he retired as a Command Sergeant Major, he did not, he served as one and because he did not complete his sign up commitment he did NOT retire as one. He abandoned the men under his command when he learned he was to be deployed. Those are facts. He served and that is honorable but lying about that service is dishonorable and he will have to answer for it in this campaign. All of the spin to cover his embellishments only show a lack of credibility,

 

[childeye 2]

In 2018, the following open letter was written about Tim Walz military service record. You can find the original here.

The Truth About Tim Walz​

Tim Walz has embellished and selectively omitted facts and circumstances of his military career for years.​

​

We, retired Command Sergeants Major of the Minnesota National Guard, feel it is our duty and responsibility to bring forth the truth as we know it concerning his service record. So, we have put together a timeline of his service post 9/11. To the best of our knowledge, this information is completely true, having been verified by all those who served in positions with first hand knowledge of the facts and circumstances of his service and departure from the Minnesota National Guard. Many of the dates and time frames are from his official discharge document and the reduction order reducing him to Master Sergeant.​

​

On September 18th, 2001 Tim Walz reenlisted in the Minnesota Army National Guard for six years.​

​

In early 2003 he was selected to attend the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy. The non-resident course consists of two years of correspondence coursework, followed by a two-week resident phase at Fort Bliss, Texas. When a Senior Non-Commissioned Officer accepts enrollment in the course, they accept three stipulations. First, they will serve for two years after graduation from the academy, or promotion to Sergeant Major or Command Sergeant Major, whichever is later. Second, if they fail the course they may be separated from the military. Third, they will complete the course or be reduced to Master Sergeant without board action. Senior Non-Commissioned Officers initial and sign a Statement of Agreement and Certification upon enrollment. The State Command Sergeant Major or Army National Guard Command Sergeant Major counsels the soldier and certifies that the senior Non-Commissioned Officer understands their responsibilities. These stipulations are put in place because the academy is a college level school, the military invests a lot of taxpayer money in the student. The military needs to ensure they will get the return on investment that the taxpayers deserve.​

​

In late summer of 2003, First Sergeant Walz deployed with the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion in support of Operation Enduring Freedom to Italy.​

​

The mission was to augment United States Air Force Europe Security Forces doing base security for six months. In no way were the units or Soldiers of the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion replacing any units or military forces so they could deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.​

​

After the unit's return to Minnesota in the spring of 2004, he was selected by high level Command Sergeants Major to serve in the position of the Command Sergeant Major of the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion.​

​

On August 5th, 2004 he was photographed holding a sign at a protest outside a President Bush campaign rally in southern Minnesota.​

​

On September 17th, 2004 he was conditionally promoted to Command Sergeant Major. The conditions had been outlined to him when he was counseled and he signed the Statement of Agreement and Certification. If the conditions are not met, the promotion is null and void, like it never happened.​

​

In early 2005, a warning order was issued to the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion, which included the position he was serving in, to prepare to be mobilized for active duty for a deployment to Iraq. Between the time the warning order was given and his "retirement", he told the Brigade Command Sergeant Major not to worry, that he would be going on the mission. It appears that was a lie.​

​

On May 16th, 2005 he quit, betraying his country, leaving the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion and its Soldiers hanging; without its senior Non-Commissioned Officer, as the battalion prepared for war. His excuse to other leaders was that he needed to retire in order to run for congress. Which is false, according to a Department of Defense Directive, he could have run and requested permission from the Secretary of Defense before entering active duty; as many reservists have. If he had retired normally and respectfully, you would think he would have ensured his retirement documents were correctly filled out and signed, and that he would have ensured he was reduced to Master Sergeant for dropping out of the academy. Instead he slithered out the door and waited for the paperwork to catch up to him. His official retirement document states, SOLDIER NOT AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURE.​

​

On September 10th, 2005 conditionally promoted Command Sergeant Major Walz was reduced to Master Sergeant. It took a while for the system to catch up to him as it was uncharted territory, literally no one quits in the position he was in, or drops out of the academy. Except him.​

​

In November of 2005, while the battalion trained for war at Camp Shelby, Mississippi, it received an offer from retired Master Sergeant Walz. He offered to fund raise for the battalion's bus trip home over Christmas that year. The same Soldiers he had abandoned just months before, trying to buy their votes.​

​

The 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion was deployed for 22 ½ months in 2006-2007. During this time, they were restricted by Army regulations and could not speak out against a candidate for office. In November 2006 he was elected to the House of Representatives. He claims to be the highest-ranking enlisted service member ever to serve in congress. Even though he was conditionally promoted to Command Sergeant Major less than eight months, quit before his obligations were met, and was reduced to Master Sergeant for retirement. Yes, he served at that rank, but was never qualified at that rank, and will receive retirement benefits at one rank below.​

​

You be the judge.​

​

On November 1st, 2006, Tom Hagen, Iraq War Veteran, wrote a letter to the editor of the Winona Daily News. Here are a couple of sentences from the letter: But even more disturbing is the fact that Walz quickly retired after learning that his unit -southern Minnesota's 1-125 FA Battalion - would be sent to Iraq. For Tim Walz to abandon his fellow soldiers and quit when they needed experienced leadership most is disheartening. It dishonors those brave American men and women who did answer their nation's call and who continue to serve, fight and unfortunately die in harm's way for us.​

​

Here is part of Tim Walz's response: After completing 20 years of service in 2001, I re-enlisted to serve our country for an additional four years following Sept. 11 and retired the year before my battalion was deployed to Iraq in order to run for Congress.​

​

According to his official Report of Separation and Record of Service, he reenlisted for six years on September 18th, 2001. However, in his response he says that he re-enlisted for four years, conveniently retiring a year before his battalion was deployed to Iraq. Even if he had re-enlisted for four years following Sept. 11, his retirement date would have been September 18th, 2005. Why then did he "retire" on May 16th, 2005, before his supposed four-year enlistment was up? And he makes it sound like he "retired" a year before his battalion deployed to Iraq; when in reality he knew when he "retired" that the battalion would be deployed to Iraq.​

​

The bottom line in all of this is gut wrenching and sad to explain. When the nation called, he quit. He failed to complete the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy. He failed to serve for two years following completion of the academy, which he dropped out of. He failed to serve two years after the conditional promotion to Command Sergeant Major. He failed to fulfill the full six years of the enlistment he signed on September 18, 2001. He failed his country. He failed his state. He failed the Minnesota Army National Guard, the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion, and his fellow Soldiers. And he failed to lead by example. On top of that he failed to uphold the seven Army Values: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless-Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage.​

​

Traitorous, fraudulent, and shameful.​

​

​

Signed,​

​

Thomas Behrends​

Command Sergeant Major (Retired)​

78739 320th Ave​

Worthington, MN 56187​

​

​

Paul Herr​

Command Sergeant Major (Retired)​

12435 Old Highway 169​

Hibbing, MN 55746​

As soon as I read "slithered" out the door, I knew it was propaganda.

 

[Postvieww]

I found this conversation from a few of you in the military but have different thoughts on it quite interesting. I guess it could be said there will be a certain amount of traction Trump's campaign will get from this.....how much remains to be seen .

One thing I wonder about though. If it were Trump this was about would the Pro Walz group here still be saying the same thing? You know the media would be roasting him alive over it....so what about you? Would you stand in defense of Trump like you have Walz?

And don't say Trump would never serve in the military to dismiss the question.....hypothetically if he did.

You hit the nail on the head, just watch for the diversions from your question to attack Trump.

 

[JosephZ]

One thing I wonder about though. If it were Trump this was about would the Pro Walz group here still be saying the same thing? You know the media would be roasting him alive over it....so what about you? Would you stand in defense of Trump like you have Walz?

If there were false allegations of gross misconduct or false claims being made about his service record, then yes, I would defend him in the same way I would any fellow veteran that is being harassed in such a way.