Current events
- Thread starter rillaman
- Start date
Here's the guy who replaced Walz. Much to the dismay of stonedhead, his VP is not who he claims he is/was.
Says RW liars. I posted article from Military Times Mag, I don't think they would cover up.
Swift Boat Part Two. In your glee, did you check to see if a member of the Guard 50 or older would be sent into combat in any circumstance? Don't think it will work twice. Especially when JD was a reporter and not in combat himself. Who knows if that Billionaire Oilman is still alive, maybe he will poor millions into it again, or Elon.
If he is so crappy why are you and the rest of MAGA freaking and coming up with every conspriacy/lie possible?What a crappy pick for VP. Trump could still win in a landslide, if he can get back on message and proper tone.
Tim Walz’s ties to Communist China demand attention - Washington Examiner
Tim Walz has a longstanding and very close relationship with China. It deserves scrutiny for reasons of counterintelligence and national security.www.washingtonexaminer.com
The article you posted is clearly biased toward Walz and the left. Otherwise, why bring up Vance at all in an article about Walz. In addition, Vance has always been transparent about his military role. You rightfully call out RW crap but you lap up LW crap.
I don't like Vance at all but I have never seen anywhere that he embellished his military role. Regarding Walz, it looks suspicious that he left the guard right before the tour of Iraq. The most logical explanation for the timing was that Walz was looking for any reason to not go to Iraq. Any other explanation is less believable.
Last edited:
You must like Vance or dislike Walz as you go out of your way to dispute the Military Times article, and side with RW Swift boating. How old was Walz when his unit was activated? Over 50. Would he have been sent into combat? Vance is transparent about his military role? Does he say he never held a gun or fought in combat., but was merely a press conduit?
Alpha News, seems credible especially when no other legit news gives it credibility. Swift Boat two. Next is the junky lesbian that claims she had an affair with Harris.
It was military.com, a website devoted to military issues. Do you think it has more credibility because military is in the web address? The article has a clear left leaning bias.
I'm a part year residemt in Minnesota so more familiar with Walz than I care to be. Among the problems is when he thinks it suits him, he claims to have carried arms "in war".
DAMN, why wasn't he vetted? Especially when this was all raised before he ran for Governor? 🤪
It was an article from Military Times that is posted on that website. I guess it is more questionable than Alpha News, but that shows your leanings.
People in the other 49 states should be interested in vetting him now rather than taking Minnesota's word for it. Though as a VP pick it's less important than other things people should be worrying about in the 2024 election.
JD Vance attacks Tim Walz’s military record as election race heats up
Vance, who served as a correspondent in the marines, accused Walz of ‘stolen valor garbage’Observers suggested Vance was attempting to “swift boat” Walz – a reference to attacks on John Kerry, the decorated US navy Vietnam veteran and Massachusetts senator who ran for president against George W Bush in 2004.
Bush avoided serving in Vietnam but Republicans attacked Kerry regardless. The Republican operative (and wounded Gulf war veteran) widely credited with coordinating the effort, Chris LaCivita, now runs the Trump-Vance campaign.
It is not an article from the Military Times. It was written by Rebecca Kheel who works for Military.com. If you google her name, she comes up as a journalist for military.com.
J.D. Vance's 'Stolen Valor' Claim Against Tim Walz Is Total B.S.
Vance spoke on Wednesday as if he served more honorably than Walz, noting that he went to Iraq “I did it, I did what they asked me to do and I did it honorably,” he said The senator was deployed for six months in Iraq as a combat correspondent in 2005 as part of the Marines’ Public Affairs office. He — like Walz — never engaged in active combat and has stated that he was “lucky to escape any real fighting,” during his deployment.
Walz has spoken at length about his service in the past, and it’s not the first time his political opponents have attempted to diminish his service. The claim that Walz abandoned his unit to avoid fighting in Iraq was leveled against him in 2018 and 2022, during his campaigns for the governorship and reelection, largely by former state Sen. Scott Jensen and Thomas Behrends — a former National Guardsman who was deployed to Iraq after Walz’s retirement.
In 2022, former battalion commander Joseph Eustice, who served with Walz, told the Star Tribune that the accusations against Walz stemmed from ill-informed or “sour-grapes” soldiers who were passed over for promotions. “He was a great soldier,” Eustice told the Tribune. “When he chose to leave, he had every right to leave … The man did nothing wrong when he chose to leave the service; he didn’t break any rules.”
Vance also accused Walz of feigning a record in active combat: “[Walz] said — and he was making a point about gun control — he said, ‘we shouldn’t allow weapons that I used in war, to be on America’s streets.’ Well, I wonder, Tim Walz, when you ever in war?”
The senator actually misquoted Walz in his screed. In the clip Vance was referencing, Walz says that he “carried” weapons in war, not “used.” Given that Operation Enduring Freedom was a part of the post-9/11 War on Terror, and that Walz was deployed to Italy under it — and likely had a service weapon — the claim that he is engaging in “stolen valor” holds little water.
Not sure what your point is. I wouldn't suggest a person ever take a campaign or politician's claims at face value for anything. But they can be useful starting points in examining the reality surrounding their claims about themselves, or their opponents. On this topic, I've seen Walz claim to have been in war, and Vance claim to do what the military asked him to do.
Here, since this seems to be meaningful to you.
Rebecca Kheel
Rebecca Kheel specializes in covering Congress for Military.com, holding lawmakers accountable for how their decisions affect military personnel and veterans. She has covered the intersection of Congress and the military for nearly a decade, previously working as a defense reporter at The Hill. Kheel’s award-winning work has been recognized with the 2022 Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation Honorable Mention for National Defense Reporting and the 2023 Joe Galloway Award from Military Reporters & Editors, among other honors. Read Full Bio
Sure it is possible. However, it is much more likely he retired because he did not want to go to Iraq.
Is it possible that Vance had a change of political heart and became a Trumpist just when he entered politics? It is possible but I doubt it.
The most logical conclusions are as follows;
Walz retired because he did not want to go to Iraq.
Vance is a political opportunist who became a Trumpist to further his political ambitions.
Other explanations are possible but seem less likely.
They were both deployed during Iraq war, neither in combat. They both did what they were asked to do, Walz stationed in Italy, Vance a reporter for 6 months that admits that he never saw fighting. No issue or distinction except attempt at Swift Boating. You are sure that he retired to avoid combat, WITHOUT FACTUAL BASIS. Are you projecting?
I know who she is. I did my own research. She has a leftist perspective.Here, since this seems to be meaningful to you.
Rebecca Kheel
Rebecca Kheel specializes in covering Congress for Military.com, holding lawmakers accountable for how their decisions affect military personnel and veterans. She has covered the intersection of Congress and the military for nearly a decade, previously working as a defense reporter at The Hill. Kheel’s award-winning work has been recognized with the 2022 Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation Honorable Mention for National Defense Reporting and the 2023 Joe Galloway Award from Military Reporters & Editors, among other honors. Read Full Bio
From what I read, he went for additional training to get a higher rank. He retired before he finished all the training so he retained the rank before the training.
This set of circumstances would seem to indicate he was in a hurry to retire to avoid Iraq.
Yep. If you want to be an elected politician and do so successfully you have to represent yourself as being in line with the electorate. I find it interesting that people single out Vance so vehemently when he's in a cesspool of people with decades-long track records of bending whichever way the wind blows and saying whatever they think serves them in the moment.
Please show me where I made a claim regarding the reason he retired. I only pointed out that he has habitually claimed to have carried weapons of war in war.
Probably neither here nor there, but I'd heard he'd got the rank while going through the training but since he quit before completing it was returned to his prior rank, still not something that would be considered less than honorable or punitive from a discharge perspective.
I don't know why Walz retired and neither do you. There will never be any factual proof as to why he retired.
However, if you look at the circumstances around his retirement, the most likely explanation was that he did not want to go to Iraq. He was in such a hurry to retire that he did not finish his training for a higher rank.
Are there other possible explanations? Yes.
However, they are less credible but still may be true. From my perspective, I will stick with the most credible explanation until additional information proves otherwise.
Similar threads
