No one is contending it was illegal for him to retire, just pointing out that he did the exact opposite of what he himself acknowledged would be his “responsibility” when he retired to “focus” on a congressional campaign instead. That requirement expressly says what the service member has to do “before entering active duty.” It’s a regulation that literally only applies to people who haven’t commenced active duty yet.
It would be his responsibility if he was still in the service when they deployed. He wasn't. It is a requirement for people under Section 4.2.2. If you read that section, the people covered by that section are: As he was none of those things, the notion that he was supposed to end his campaign according to this policy is false. Only upon being subjected to that section would that be the suggestion of the policy. Contrary to your claims, that section makes no claims about retirement for somebody not currently under that policy.
Correct, because he retired to avoid that responsibility. That’s what this thread is about. Good point. Upon a closer reading, I don’t think there was actually any policy impediment to him being a candidate, just a prohibition on engaging in campaign activities incompatible with active duty service. Which doesn’t seem to help the argument that he had to retire…
He has also stated things that unequivocally aren’t facts (that he carried guns in war, that he served for 25 years), and some things that are perhaps technically true but misleading (that he “served” and “deployed” in Operation Enduring Freedom - that’s the war in Afghanistan and most people interpret that to mean a deployment to Afghanistan, but he’s talking about a deployment to Italy).
No, this thread alleges that he stole valor and lied about his service. You are now radically shifting the goalposts. There would have been as soon as he was called into active duty. He would have needed to not engage in his campaign in any fashion. However, as he had not been called into active duty, he could retire, as he had served for 24 years and he was under no stop-loss order or any such restriction.
Have you been hypercritical of Trump for . . . * dodging the draft, citing BS bone spurs * saying avoiding STDs was his Viet Nam * saying his prep school = active duty * claiming he knows more than his generals * mocking McCain for being captured/tortured * calling U.S. POWs "suckers" * calling dead war heroes "losers" * asking a father at his dead son's grave "I don't get it. What was in it for them?" * telling Gen Milley he didn't want a veteran amputee near him in public again * not visiting U.S. troops oversees
The assertion that this thread is not about literally the exact thing the OP says is, I guess, interesting?
Walz knew deployment was a distinct possibility. And that if his unit was deployed before his retirement, his retirement would likely be delayed until the unit returned home. Plan A for Walz was retirement. But if his unit was deployed overseas before retirement, Walz had a plan B; which was train for a promotion. When Walz filed his retirement papers, he had no idea if he'd be still stateside when his retirement date came up. Fortunately for Walz, he was, and the deployment came 2 months after retirement. Had that order come a few months earlier, Walz would've deployed and likely gone up in rank during this time. The bottom line is Walz was honorably discharged, after 24 years of service.
Okay, so you are now claiming that you were off topic when you said he was "apparently a bit loose with the facts when doing so?" Look, the fact is that you can't run a campaign and be in active duty at the same time. He chose to continue his campaign after 24 years in the service and retired in a manner that was consistent with the rules and regulations of the military. Good luck, but this all seems quite desperate from a campaign that hasn't had footing in weeks. But perhaps you will be successful in convincing everybody that he is a really bad guy for only serving 24 years in the military honorably.
I can pretty definitively tell you he would not have gone up in rank. Assuming he had completed the educational requirements for his last promotion (and thus not been reduced back down), literally the only way he could go up in rank (without going to OCS, which he wasn’t going to do in Iraq) would be to become the Sergeant Major of the Army.
None of this is "damning", except the immense hypocrisy of Trump apologists, who clearly prefer personal insults and character assassination over discussion of actual issues. This thread is devoted to insulting a good man (by all accounts) who served his community well and served his country honorably for 24 years. Yet, you give a pass to the biggest LIAR this nation has ever seen, a POS who, after buying a fake deferment, has repeatedly mocked our captured and fallen war heroes. You're in denial about this, even though you ALL saw Trump mock John McCain publicly for being captured (and tortured for years as a POW). You must be so proud of yourselves. Fortunately, the American people outside Trump's shrinking cult know a good man when they see one and will see through the knee-deep BS.
No, a thread can be about more than one thing. But your assertion that it’s not about literally the only thing the OP discussed was a bit odd.
Okay, so the thread was about what I said it was about too. Okay then. So given that you started with an accusation of lying, it would be fair to say that you shifted the goalposts now.
You said the thread was not about whether he retired to dodge going to Iraq. It unequivocally was (that’s what nearly every single post in the thread, including the OP, is about). It may also be about whether he has exaggerated his service, but that doesn’t make your assertion that it isn’t about his retirement correct. In the interest of avoiding repetition I won’t give you the goal posts gif again, but I will tip my hat to your shiftiness.
"In March of 2005 his own congressional campaign had acknowledged that he was aware he might be deployed to Iraq . . . a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on.” Key words "might be" . . . . Or might not be. He had no way of knowing if or when. Key words "if called on". As it turned out, his unit was NOT called on until two months AFTER Walz retired. Despite this, you crucify him for cheap political reasons. Shameful hypocrisy.
1) Sergeant Major of the Army is not a promotion from Command Sergeant Major, it's a position. Technically they are the same grade of E-9. 2) You are wrong to state that literally the only way for him to go up in rank is OCS, because he could get a direct commission to become a commissioned officer, or become a Warrant Officer through several other avenues. Yes, it is nitpicky, but when you say "literally", you open yourself up for criticism by semantics.
Okay, so in conclusion, you accused him of lying, which you have been unable to demonstrate. You accused him of saying something in a speech yesterday. That was false. You accused him of making his military service a central piece of his identity. You have been unable to substantiate where he has done that and have failed to show him utilizing his service in any way that was either untrue or even misleading except one off-handed remark from years ago about how he was in a war when he was deployed to Italy to support the War in Afghanistan. So, in the end, his great crime was serving honorably for 24 years and leaving the service so that he could run for office. And this is worse than Vance leaving the service after 5 years a few years later (during the same war) to go to college. Okay. I return to my original contribution to this thread: this all seems quite desperate.
