Who will Harris pick as VP? It’s Walz!!

What else have you been smoking?

 

This is from Vance: "When Tim Walz was asked by his country to go to Iraq, you know what he did? He dropped out of the army and allowed his unit to go without him"

Do you think the provided timeline validates that positioning?

 

I do. And there’s about a 15 page thread about it.

 

isn't that what made Helen Hunt jump out a window?

 

Which part?
That thread simply proves he was demoted because he didn’t finish the required education.

It also shows a video of him claiming he carried a weapon of war into war which again military records show he didn’t.

He ran on serving in Iraq but was never there.

I fail to see any of this “debunking” you speak of.

 

I’m saying the thread doesn’t debunk most of the allegations…

 

Because there are a few instances a year where a non viable fetus could kill a mom. I am against government being involved in this decision. I am a small government libertarian. I have no idea how to describe what the Republican Party is now.

 

I am disappointed in that. You are an enigma.

The alert order to his old battalion was issued in July, months after he retired. Did the country recall him to service at that time?

 

The National Guard Public Affairs Office put out a statement saying his unit was likely to be deployed in March. His congressional campaign put out a statement in March expressly acknowledging that had occurred and saying that, if his unit was deployed, it would be his responsibility as CSM to not only prepare them for battle but also go and lead them. In April his appointment to CSM was denoted in his records as having occurred. In May he retired.

The only real defense to the allegation that he ducked being activated and deployed by retiring is the semantics game of saying “he was already retired before the official deployment order was issued,” while ignoring the fact that he was clearly aware months earlier that a deployment was almost certainly upcoming - it was concrete enough that the National Guard had already issued a public statement saying it, and his own campaign had already acknowledged it.

 

What are the other allegations?

Regarding him bailing on his duty?

 

The NGPAO put the statement in March 2005 that sometime in the next two years, Walz's unit was likely going to be deployed. Walz retired three months after this NGPAO statement in May, 2005. And again, the Reserves state retirement paperwork should be submitted between 6 and 9 months before retirement date.

So unless Walz got special treatment and was able to retire in 3 months time without filing the proper paperwork, his retirement paperwork was already filed before the NGPAO statement. Walz also knew that regardless of his desired retirement date, if his unit was deployed before said date, he'd be obligated to go with his unit on deployment, and the DOD would postpone his retirement. But that's not what happened. The order to deploy came a full two months after Walz retired.

So unless there is proof Walz got special treatment and was allowed to retire, honorably no less, within three months of filing paperwork, there is no evidence Walz retired to avoid going to Iraq.

 

The one about his rank would probably get a “partially true” from a fact checker. It’s apparently accurate to say he served as a CSM (although it’s not clear for how long since his discharge records show him as having been promoted to that position a month before he retired, although his public statements both then and now suggest he had been, or claimed to have been, in the role longer), but claims that he retired as a CSM are not accurate.

The claim that he “served in” or “deployed during” OEF may be technically true, but is misleading at best. OEF was Afghanistan, and most people would understand that as meaning he went to Afganistan, but he’s talking about spending a year in Italy.

 

Russian disinformation bot.

 

'Semantics' you say.

A contemporaneous press release by Walz stated the public affairs office warned of a "possible partial mobilization of roughly 2,000 troops from the Minnesota National Guard"..."all or a portion of Walz's battalion could be mobilized to serve in Iraq within the next two years."

That hardly seems like saying his "unit was likely to be deployed" and the imminence that is required for the cowardice accusation.

I consider there to be an impasse between us. Enigma.

 

Although it's speculation my assumption is that his National Guard Unit was deployed to backfill for a regular Army unit that had been based in Italy and was deployed to Afghanistan. He never actually claimed that he was deployed to Afghanistan.

 

He should release paperwork showing when he put in for retirement then. Ought to be easy enough to put that to bed.

I’m willing to bet he won’t, because his campaign’s public statement in March implies he was planning on going to Iraq. There’s also this, which suggests all these conversations were occurring in 2005 after they knew the deployment was likely: Tim Walz went above senior sergeant to secure retirement in 2005

If I had to bet, my money would be on his retirement paperwork having gone in after that March statement his campaign put out about the potential deployment.

 

He can say he served as CSM but he was definitely demoted though not because he necessarily did anything wrong. More or less didn’t check a box (education requirement)

He is on video saying he carried weapons of war in war. The last time we had men fighting a war in Italy was ww2 last I checked. That needs to be called out.

Regarding possible deployment and if he left his battalion to go without him, I don’t see enough information about it.
There is an article about it while he was running for congress that his battalion might be called up. But not sure what the result of that is yet.

 

Walz had to plan to go to Iraq. If his retirement date was in May, and the announcement that the unit was likely to be deployed to Iraq in the next two years, then Walz had three months of a possible deployment. Ask anyone who has ever been in the Reserves. You get that notice you may be deployed, you prepare to leave.

Now, the Army has very specific requirements to retire. It's a journey, not a destination. Why would Walz be allowed to cut the retirement line and retire in half the time as the Reserves would want? Why would the DOD allow it?

 

According this this article, Walz could retire anytime he wanted given his service. The commander had to sign off. The retirement request could be denied if the unit was mobilized, which it hadn't been.

What to know about Gov. Tim Walz's military record and Sen. JD Vance's accusations of 'stolen valor'.

 

He claimed to carry a weapon of war in war.
Yet he was never actually in war.