Tim Walz embellished his military service record

[Bradskii]

Just so I'm understanding your viewpoint here..

You're not. If Trump had done what Walz had done and I'd read what members of the services in this thread had explained about what Walz did then I'd support Trump as avidly as I have supported Walz. Period. And I'd appreciate that you accept that I am being absolutely genuine in saying that.

 

[probinson]

You're not. If Trump had done what Walz had done and I'd read what members of the services in this thread had explained about what Walz did then I'd support Trump as avidly as I have supported Walz. Period. And I'd appreciate that you accept that I am being absolutely genuine in saying that.

OK.

So do you think it's acceptable for Walz to misrepresent himself as "retired Command Sergeant Major"?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Yes.

Nooo.... There's a huge difference man, huge difference.

I could do what he did in Italy, seriously. I could never do what an Iraqi war vet or an Afghanistan war vet did...

The service itself is commendable. His service allowed a soldier to fight in the war who would otherwise be doing security work.

Both are necessary, but the two are not the same.

As for weapons of war, in the state of Virginia you cannot go dear hunting with the weapon he carried because it's not powerful enough to guarantee the kill, according to Virginia.

It's not really a weapon of war, if you can't kill a deer with it and those weapons are not what our soldiers carry into war, therefore not "weapons of war".

Do you want to know what those guns are called in my house? Barbie dolls for grown men... That's what they are. What they are not is weapons of war...

 

[probinson]

I would like to pose this same question to @RDKirk :

In your opinion, is it accurate to say that veterans who served in support of Operation Enduring Freedom from Italy are equally veterans of that operation as the soldiers that were deployed to the frontlines in Afghanistan?

 

[Fantine]

I guess it takes more than one misrepresentation (if true) for me to distrust someone.
I'm sorry.
But I do distrust people when they have defrauded striving students with a fake university, cheated the state I lived in for 40 years out of $500 million in taxes, encouraged and championed an insurrection to overturn an election...I won't go any further.
I just wanted you to know that character is a primary issue for me, that I do my research, and that I would never support anyone from either party whose character was questionable. I hope you feel the same way.

 

[JosephZ]

Nooo.... There's a huge difference man, huge difference.

All who have served, whether it be a support role or a combat role, are equals.

 

[probinson]

I guess it takes more than one misrepresentation (if true) for me to distrust someone.

I guess time will tell how much this "one misrepresentation" (that has been repeated Walz's entire political career) affects the military and veteran vote. I have no doubt opinions will be split, but I'm also pretty sure there are going to be a fair number of active military and veterans that are going to take issue with Walz misrepresenting his military rank.

 

[Bradskii]

OK.

So do you think it's acceptable for Walz to misrepresent himself as "retired Command Sergeant Major"?

That's the position he held when he retired. All the details of his service is known. Where he went, what he did, how long he served, when he retired. What he was when he retired and what grade he was classed as to earn his retirement. He's never hidden anything and it's all there for everyone to see.

I don't often agree with what @Vambram says (in fact, I don't think we've ever agreed on anything) but I suggest that you read his honestly worded post about concentrating on Walz's policies and his politics and take his advice. Because all you are doing is holding up Walz to be compared with others. The 'others' obviously being Trump. Do I have to explain to you how dumb that is?

Personally, I find it frustrating to deal with this in the forum. Even clicking on a thread titled 'Tim Walz embellished his military service record' makes me wince. Because it highlights the level at which US politics is at. Please...get back to the policies and the politics and what your side has to offer in comparison to the other.

 

[RDKirk]

How so? Walz supported Operation Enduring Freedom from Italy.

That's exactly what makes Walz a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom.

So are you saying that people who were deployed to Italy and never saw combat in Operation Enduring Freedom are equal to veterans who were deployed to the frontlines in Afghanistan?

Walz is a "veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom" in the same way I'm a veteran of the Vietnam War. We both got National Defense Service Medals for those wartime periods. I can say I'm a "Vietnam Era Veteran." I would not, however, say I am a Vietnam veteran because I supported the Vietnam war from Thailand, and I don't have the campaign medal and other decorations that would indicate I was actually on the ground in Vietnam. In the same way, Walz can say he's a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom, but he should not imply he actually had boots on the ground in Afghanistan.

"Equal" is more civilianese useless debate. Nobody has said that, and it's a point that means nothing in this context. We make the same oath, then go where we're told to go and serve how we're told to serve.

Edit: Also, I can't join the Veterans of Foreign Wars, although I am a member of the American Legion. I can visit the VFW as a guest of my cousin, however.

 

[probinson]

That's the position he held when he retired. All the details of his service is known. Where he went, what he did, how long he served, when he retired. What he was when he retired and what grade he was classed as to earn his retirement. He's never hidden anything and it's all there for everyone to see.

As RDKirk has pointed out, there is a difference between "served as Command Sergeant Major" and "retired as Command Sergeant Major". In case you missed it, the Harris campaign stealth-edited Walz's biography page today.

Before:

After:

This would seem to be a tacit admission from the campaign that there is indeed a difference between saying you "served as" something vs. calling yourself "Retired Command Sergeant Major Walz", which Walz has done throughout his entire political career.

 

[probinson]

Walz is a "veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom" in the same way I'm a veteran of the Vietnam War. We both got National Defense Service Medals for those wartime periods. I can say I'm a "Vietnam Era Veteran." I would not, however, say I am a Vietnam veteran because I supported the Vietnam war from Thailand, and I don't have the campaign medal and other decorations that would indicate I was actually on the ground in Vietnam. In the same way, Walz can say he's a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom, but he should not imply he actually had boots on the ground in Afghanistan.

"Equal" is more civilianese useless debate. Nobody has said that, and it's a point that means nothing in this context. We make the same oath, then go where we're told to go and serve how we're told to serve.

Thank you for your thoughts. I used the word "equal" because I couldn't think of a better word. I did not mean to imply there are "levels" of veterans.

So would you say it would be more accurate to say that Walz was an "Operation Enduring Freedom era Veteran" to ensure that there is no confusion with someone thinking he had boots on the ground in Afghanistan? This seem to be the complaint of the veteran that spoke with Walz's staffer in the 2009 video I posted earlier in this thread.

 

[Fantine]

I am sure the military and vets will remember who "had their backs" in his 12 years in Congress, with a lengthy track record of supporting veterans and military.
He was a co-sponsor of laws reforming the VA Healthcare system, working as a bipartisan, leading the Veterans Committee, serving on the Armed Services Committee.
He retired from the Guard to become their champion, their voice, their advocate.

I am sure he is concerned, as I am as an elderly disabled vet's wife, to see what Project 2025 foresees for vets.

Desert Storm and Gulf Vets: Project 2025 thinks you all are applying for too many disabilities not "directly connected" to your service. Exposed to burn pits? Have PTSD? Kiss the possibility of medical care or compensation for these illnesses goodbye.

 

[Bradskii]

As RDKirk has pointed out...

I guess you're not going to take that advice. Ah well...

 

[probinson]

I guess you're not going to take that advice. Ah well...

I guess you don't want to have a discussion in earnest on this topic. Ah well....

 

[RDKirk]

Here is a video from 2009 of a veteran confronting one of Walz's staffers regarding stolen valor, showing him that Walz falsely claimed he was a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Let me point out that the law on "Stolen Valor" refers very specifically to someone who wears unauthorized medals and decorations.

 

[RDKirk]

Earlier in the thread, I posted a few videos and images of Walz referring to himself as "retired Command Sergeant Major". Is that accurate, in your opinion?

I would have carefully said, "I was serving as a Command Sergeant Major when I retired."

 

[RDKirk]

I would like to pose this same question to @RDKirk :

In your opinion, is it accurate to say that veterans who served in support of Operation Enduring Freedom from Italy are equally veterans of that operation as the soldiers that were deployed to the frontlines in Afghanistan?

Yes, they are "equally veterans of that operation."

 

[probinson]

I am sure he is concerned, as I am as an elderly disabled vet's wife, to see what Project 2025 foresees for vets.

Desert Storm and Gulf Vets: Project 2025 thinks you all are applying for too many disabilities not "directly connected" to your service. Exposed to burn pits? Have PTSD? Kiss the possibility of medical care or compensation for these illnesses goodbye.

Notwithstanding that Project 2025 is not anyone's official policy, can you point me to where this is at in the document? Since you put the words "directly connected" in quotes I assumed that this phrase must appear. So I went to the website and searched the document for that phrase and found nothing. Can you help me out and point me to where this is located in the document?

 

[Bradskii]

I guess you don't want to have a discussion in earnest on this topic. Ah well....

Not any longer. I'll still call in to see what actual service members have to say. But I'm not interested in anything else you have to offer.

 

[Vambram]

I am sure the military and vets will remember who "had their backs" in his 12 years in Congress, with a lengthy track record of supporting veterans and military.
He was a co-sponsor of laws reforming the VA Healthcare system, working as a bipartisan, leading the Veterans Committee, serving on the Armed Services Committee.
He retired from the Guard to become their champion, their voice, their advocate.

I am sure he is concerned, as I am as an elderly disabled vet's wife, to see what Project 2025 foresees for vets.

Desert Storm and Gulf Vets: Project 2025 thinks you all are applying for too many disabilities not "directly connected" to your service. Exposed to burn pits? Have PTSD? Kiss the possibility of medical care or compensation for these illnesses goodbye.

Project 2025 isn't the topic of this thread. Also, Trump has denounced Project 2025 and many of the plans in that project have virtually no chance at becoming law.