2024

[a fan]

Exactly...he did not volunteer for that service, so we have no idea whether he'd have done so.

That's ridiculous. He enlisted after 9-11, when we had Marines in Iraq & Afghanistan.
He knew he'd almost certainly end up in a war zone. The only uncertainty was which war zone.

Again, you're misrepresenting my point, so eager to be "right".

He didn't volunteer for a specific operation, much less specifically combat, but I 100% agree with you that he was taking that risk that he'd be sent (not all were)...did he do it out of patriotism? I dunno, but I'm not going to question it, so my assumption would be positive on that as well as the other motivation he's said he had, to get out of his prior situation...but what I do reject 100% is his attack on Walz.

It's dishonest and all the more reprehensible coming from someone who did choose to serve.

And all the more gross when supporting someone who flat lied to get out of serving.

What are my choices ? Biden did not serve. Harris did not serve.

Your "choice" is to support both Vance and Walz for their service, instead of defending the R, and nitpicking the D. It's not that hard. But you can't even manage that.

Your precious political party comes before the men and women you served with. I don't get it, and I never will.

Nitpicking ? I defended Walz until .....

Yeah. "Until". Then you started throwing stones like a good little Republican toady, falling in line with what Trump tells you to do.

What did he claim that was a misrepresentation?

[Typical Lax Dad]

MEU...what is that?
I would think anyone in any unit could volunteer at any time.
Send a request to the bureau and see what they say.

He was assigned to a MAW (Marine Air Wing) which was part of a MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit).

You said what people did in the military after your time didn’t matter. You said you served when it mattered. Why are you all hung up on it?

I was answering a question. That's how you lie. I said I served when Russia was an actual threat to us.

No…..YOU said you served when it mattered. Stop lying. IT may have been in your signature until you realized how ridiculous it was.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Help Russia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/us/p ... crats.html

1. Russia is interfering again in the election to help Trump.
2. Acting DNI briefs lawmakers about the threat. Will Hurd freaks.
3. Trump finds out
4. Trump berates acting DNI
5. Trump replaces acting DNI with political stooge/ally
In the Senate, Moscow Mitch has Election Security legislation buried.

Ah Hah ! More evidence of Russian collusion. Launch Crossfire Hurricane II. Get Steele on the line.

That's just laughable trash. It doesn't matter if there's coordinated collusion, one-sided asking of help, or whatever. From your actions and stances, you're cool with Russia gaining influence among our various corporations and organizations, pouring money into elections, hacking into political parties and actual polling places, and doing what they want.

You stood against Russia when it mattered? It still matters. You do shame on your service.

This ain't the 1980's, and they aren't calling for their foreign policy. Russia has evolved and is working in today, whereas you're still operating in the Cold War. Old Salt, indeed.

This is a free country. The freest in the world, with unrestricted freedom of expression & unlimited, unfettered access to information.
If we allow ourselves to be influenced by Russian disinformation, it's because of our own laziness, stupidity & the failure of a politicized, useful idiot MSM.

The Russians can't match us militarily or economically. Trump has done more to counter Russia in 3 years, than the Obama reset did in 8 years.
Focus on what really matters. Gullible fools like you give them hope. If you're worried about foreign influence, you should look toward China & find ways to divide them from Russia, rather than push them together as allies.

Grow up. It's campaign season. Time for the Dems to reinflate the Rooskie boogeyman, because they have no other ideas.
Did the Russians help Trump in 2018, electing a House that impeached him ?

You're damn right I stood against the Russians when it really mattered. When they were a legit threat (w/ nuc tipped missiles in Cuba & in subs off our coasts), not some contrived excuse from a bunch of sore loser political hacks, happy to drive us into another Cold War for their partisan political advantage.

[Farfromgeneva]

I wasn’t paying close attention yesterday. Did Trump claim he was at Martin Luther King‘s I have a dream speech or did he claim he wrote it?

Both. And he counted the crowd there at around 2,700.

I did hear the part where he said that if MLK were still alive, he’d be a Trump supporter, you know, one of “my blacks.”

In his head he’s saying “my n***a!”

[old salt]

You're damn right I stood against the Russians when it really mattered.
When they were a legit threat (w/ nuc tipped missiles in Cuba & in subs off our coasts), not some contrived excuse from a bunch of sore loser political hacks, happy to drive us into another Cold War for their partisan political advantage.

Good stuff. I still stand by it.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Exactly...he did not volunteer for that service, so we have no idea whether he'd have done so.

That's ridiculous. He enlisted after 9-11, when we had Marines in Iraq & Afghanistan.
He knew he'd almost certainly end up in a war zone. The only uncertainty was which war zone.

Again, you're misrepresenting my point, so eager to be "right".

He didn't volunteer for a specific operation, much less specifically combat, but I 100% agree with you that he was taking that risk that he'd be sent (not all were)...did he do it out of patriotism? I dunno, but I'm not going to question it, so my assumption would be positive on that as well as the other motivation he's said he had, to get out of his prior situation...but what I do reject 100% is his attack on Walz.

It's dishonest and all the more reprehensible coming from someone who did choose to serve.

And all the more gross when supporting someone who flat lied to get out of serving.

What are my choices ? Biden did not serve. Harris did not serve.

Your "choice" is to support both Vance and Walz for their service, instead of defending the R, and nitpicking the D. It's not that hard. But you can't even manage that.

Your precious political party comes before the men and women you served with. I don't get it, and I never will.

+1,000,000. Disgraceful.

[MDlaxfan76]

Exactly...he did not volunteer for that service, so we have no idea whether he'd have done so.

That's ridiculous. He enlisted after 9-11, when we had Marines in Iraq & Afghanistan.
He knew he'd almost certainly end up in a war zone. The only uncertainty was which war zone.

Again, you're misrepresenting my point, so eager to be "right".

He didn't volunteer for a specific operation, much less specifically combat, but I 100% agree with you that he was taking that risk that he'd be sent (not all were)...did he do it out of patriotism? I dunno, but I'm not going to question it, so my assumption would be positive on that as well as the other motivation he's said he had, to get out of his prior situation...but what I do reject 100% is his attack on Walz.

It's dishonest and all the more reprehensible coming from someone who did choose to serve.

And all the more gross when supporting someone who flat lied to get out of serving.

What are my choices ? Biden did not serve. Harris did not serve.
I've said I'd prefer Senators Mark Kelly or Jim Webb, WP grad Mark Pompeo, or Navy JAG & Iraq vet Ron DeSantis. At least I know what Trump did during his 4 years as CinC, which I find preferable to what Biden did, when Harris claims she was in the room & the last person he talked to when making those decisions.

Did Biden or Harris lie to avoid service???

Come on, that should be disqualifying...if he'd at least come clean at some point and maybe said he regretted lying, maybe forgiveness and a second chance...but nope you support the liar...a guy who said men and women who sacrificed their lives in service were suckers and losers...

And here you have a guy who served 24 years.
And you repeat and even accept and support lies attacking his service...all because you're so full of anger and resentment and hate of Dems. Pathetic, really.

[old salt]

But last night I watched a revealing one of a guy who says he was Walz's immediate supervisor, who claimed that Walz "quit" his unit AFTER he learned that there was going to be a deployment...somewhere (they definitely hadn't been given actual orders, just a heads up that sometime in the next year (actually two years) they were likely to be called, so get your team ready)...and that he'd previously told him that he was staying with the unit...even after telling him a couple of months prior that he'd decided to run for Congress. mmm... The guy tried, rather disjointedly and unconvincingly, to take the interviewer through the timeline as if it proved why he was right, but what I heard was actually consistent with Walz's campaign's timeline that he'd decided to run for Congress and knew that was going to mean needing to choose to retire if NG duties were going to take him away from that effort.

The guy claimed that Walz had "gone around him" to be "allowed" to "quit". The interviewer eventually challenged the repletion of the word "quit"...the guy backed off that a bit, saying "that's how it came to me, that he quit". He claimed that it Walz was acting outside of protocol...I wanted the interviewer to ask him directly if he thought he actually had the power to deny Walz the right to retire and whether he'd have tried to do so...the guy seemed to say that Walz had that right after 20 years, but not clearly recognizing it wasn't the guy's call, it was Walz's. The one thing that seemed "new" was this guys' claim that Walz had told him that he was staying with the unit and then he was surprised that he had actually "quit"...the claim that he'd told him he was sticking through any deployment seemed really false to me...is it intentional lying or was it just this guy being somewhat addled?

One of my early reactions in the interview was 'wow, this guy was actually in some leadership position?' Really poor communicator, obviously partisan, but with a pretense of being calm...but not recognizing that his story didn't actually hold up.

Actually, it does hold up. Walz submitted his retirement just before a stop loss order would have prevented it.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/wal ... ailed-out/

It was late in the spring of 2005 when Tom Behrends, a farmer in his mid 40s with three kids, got the call from his superiors: The Minnesota National Guard’s 1st Batallion, 125th Field Artillery was being sent to Iraq. Tim Walz, the unit’s command sergeant major, had just resigned to run for Congress. Behrends was in line to take his place.

He’d need to talk with his family, Behrends told his bosses. He had a farm to run and his youngest child was still in elementary school. Because he wasn’t in the unit when it was activated, technically Behrends had to volunteer to go.

But Behrends told National Review it was clear what he needed to do.
“My first reaction was, I’m not going to let my soldiers down,” he said.

Behrends ended up spending 17 difficult months in Iraq with the unit. Among the unit’s tasks was maintaining a key supply route, keeping it clear of explosives. Three of his soldiers were killed and dozens more were injured during the tour, he said.

Although they were both first sergeants in the Minnesota Guard, Behrends said he didn’t really know much about Walz. While he couldn’t believe that Walz would quit on his soldiers ahead of a deployment, he didn’t say anything publicly for years. He said he would see news items and campaign materials about Walz that incorrectly identified him as a command sergeant major; Walz briefly held the rank, but retired at a lower rank, master sergeant, because he never finished meeting all the requirements, according to Minnesota National Guard records.

Behrends said he decided to push back after a friend said he’d met Walz, then a congressman, at a military memorial and identified Walz as a command sergeant major.
“I said, ‘Well, he’s not one. He dropped out,’” Behrends recalled telling the friend.
He said he started by writing Walz a “nice letter,” urging him to correct the record. He didn’t hear back. He sent letters to various departments in Washington. Ahead of Walz’s first run for Minnesota governor in 2018, Behrends and a colleague posted their concerns on Facebook. They reached out to “every radio station, every TV station, every newspaper in Minnesota.” But their efforts to expose Walz struggled to gain traction.

Flash forward six years. Behrends’s concerns finally received national attention after Kamala Harris selected Walz to be her running mate for her presidential campaign.

While Walz has long touted his 24 years of National Guard service for political advantage — one 2006 campaign ad identified him as a solider who “served for two decades” and who was “ready when they attacked” — the inconsistencies between what he said he did and what he actually did in the Guard have come back to sting him this week.

As recently as Thursday, Harris’s campaign was still identifying Walz as a “retired command sergeant major.” The campaign has since tweaked the record to say that Walz once served at the command sergeant major rank, according to Politico.

He’s also been accused of pumping up his record to falsely suggest he saw combat. In a video that Harris’s campaign released this week, Walz called for background checks for gun purchases and ensuring that “those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war.”

According to the Minnesota National Guard, Walz first joined the Guard in 1981 when he was living in Nebraska. He transferred to Minnesota’s 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion in 1996, and specialized in maintaining and operating cannons. He continued serving after September 11. In 2003, he mobilized with the 1-125th and was stationed in Vicenza, Italy, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He didn’t serve in Afghanistan.

A video from 2009 obtained by the Washington Free Beacon shows a veteran confronting Walz’s staff at his office, accusing the then-congressman of misleading voters into believing he deployed to Afghanistan by identifying himself as a “veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom.”

In February 2005, he filed paperwork to make a run for Congress as a Democrat in Minnesota’s first congressional district.

Having just returned from Italy, he likely did not expect to be called overseas again and assumed he could run for office while continuing to serve in the Guard.

“Instead, they dropped a bomb on us and said, ‘Okay, you are getting deployed again,’” Behrends said. “And then he had to scramble to figure out how the hell to get out of there so he could run for office and tuck his tail between his legs and stay back here.”

Jon Erickson, a retired chief warrant officer who was on battalion staff with Walz, said Walz retired after receiving a warning order alerting the battalion that it was likely going to be deployed, but before a stop-loss order was issued, which would have locked everyone in the unit into place so they could prepare to deploy. While Walz didn’t violate any military rules, the timing of his resignation was troublesome, Erickson told National Review.
“He agreed to take this position, to be the sergeant major. When you do that, you’re making a commitment. And when we get the warning order, you’re going to be deployed, he bailed out before the stop-loss order could go into effect,” he said. “There were guys in it who were killed in our unit, they probably would have chosen to do something different, too.”

Erickson said he had no reason to look down on Walz’s service before he abruptly retired. He called Walz an “affable guy, pretty friendly.” Walz related well to young soldiers, he said, and they seemed to like him. He called Walz a “competent” soldier.
“He wasn’t outstanding,” Erickson said. “He didn’t shine. I’d worked with soldiers that shined, they are exceptional. And he was not.”

Erickson said Walz’s decision to resign ahead of his deployment “says a lot about Walz as a leader.” But, in a way, he’s glad Walz did resign.
When it came to making decisions, he said, Walz was a waffler who would bend his words to try to make everybody happy. On the other hand, Erickson said Behrends, who took Walz’s place, was a stronger decision-maker and a “better choice for that position.”

“Behrends was an excellent addition to our unit in Iraq,” Erickson said. “I don’t think Walz could have done the job that Behrends did.”

Behrends and Erickson agreed that if Walz wanted to run for office instead of serving overseas, he should have retired immediately after filing his campaign paperwork. Because he didn’t, they said, he should have waited to run until he got back from Iraq.

Behrends also took issue with comments that Walz made when he was struggling to decide on whether he should call up the National Guard during the 2020 riots in the Twin Cities. Walz said that while some people may believe that “we’re going to have massively trained troops,” in reality “you’re going to have 19-year-olds who are cooks.”
Behrends countered that the Guard is “prepared to do anything, anywhere, at any time.”
He called Walz’s “cooks” comment “disparaging” and “absolutely ridiculous.” He said he had 19-year-old cooks serving with him in Iraq, and they “did a damned good job.”
“Here’s a big shoutout to all the 19-year-old cooks,” Behrends said. “I’d rather go to combat with you guys than him.”

Behrends also pushed back that his concerns are rooted in partisanship.
“This is about patriotism, not politics,” he said. “I don’t give a damn if you’re red, yellow, black or white or brown, or Republican or Democrat. If you’re in position and your country says we need you to go to war to take care of your soldiers, we’ve invested all this money in you, the taxpayers’ money all these years, and now it’s time for you to step up to the plate, and you bail, you’re nothing to me, then.”

[Typical Lax Dad]

But last night I watched a revealing one of a guy who says he was Walz's immediate supervisor, who claimed that Walz "quit" his unit AFTER he learned that there was going to be a deployment...somewhere (they definitely hadn't been given actual orders, just a heads up that sometime in the next year (actually two years) they were likely to be called, so get your team ready)...and that he'd previously told him that he was staying with the unit...even after telling him a couple of months prior that he'd decided to run for Congress. mmm... The guy tried, rather disjointedly and unconvincingly, to take the interviewer through the timeline as if it proved why he was right, but what I heard was actually consistent with Walz's campaign's timeline that he'd decided to run for Congress and knew that was going to mean needing to choose to retire if NG duties were going to take him away from that effort.

The guy claimed that Walz had "gone around him" to be "allowed" to "quit". The interviewer eventually challenged the repletion of the word "quit"...the guy backed off that a bit, saying "that's how it came to me, that he quit". He claimed that it Walz was acting outside of protocol...I wanted the interviewer to ask him directly if he thought he actually had the power to deny Walz the right to retire and whether he'd have tried to do so...the guy seemed to say that Walz had that right after 20 years, but not clearly recognizing it wasn't the guy's call, it was Walz's. The one thing that seemed "new" was this guys' claim that Walz had told him that he was staying with the unit and then he was surprised that he had actually "quit"...the claim that he'd told him he was sticking through any deployment seemed really false to me...is it intentional lying or was it just this guy being somewhat addled?

One of my early reactions in the interview was 'wow, this guy was actually in some leadership position?' Really poor communicator, obviously partisan, but with a pretense of being calm...but not recognizing that his story didn't actually hold up.

Actually, it does hold up. Walz submitted his retirement just before a stop loss order would have prevented it.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/wal ... ailed-out/

It was late in the spring of 2005 when Tom Behrends, a farmer in his mid 40s with three kids, got the call from his superiors: The Minnesota National Guard’s 1st Batallion, 125th Field Artillery was being sent to Iraq. Tim Walz, the unit’s command sergeant major, had just resigned to run for Congress. Behrends was in line to take his place.

He’d need to talk with his family, Behrends told his bosses. He had a farm to run and his youngest child was still in elementary school. Because he wasn’t in the unit when it was activated, technically Behrends had to volunteer to go.

But Behrends told National Review it was clear what he needed to do.
“My first reaction was, I’m not going to let my soldiers down,” he said.

Behrends ended up spending 17 difficult months in Iraq with the unit. Among the unit’s tasks was maintaining a key supply route, keeping it clear of explosives. Three of his soldiers were killed and dozens more were injured during the tour, he said.

Although they were both first sergeants in the Minnesota Guard, Behrends said he didn’t really know much about Walz. While he couldn’t believe that Walz would quit on his soldiers ahead of a deployment, he didn’t say anything publicly for years. He said he would see news items and campaign materials about Walz that incorrectly identified him as a command sergeant major; Walz briefly held the rank, but retired at a lower rank, master sergeant, because he never finished meeting all the requirements, according to Minnesota National Guard records.

Behrends said he decided to push back after a friend said he’d met Walz, then a congressman, at a military memorial and identified Walz as a command sergeant major.
“I said, ‘Well, he’s not one. He dropped out,’” Behrends recalled telling the friend.
He said he started by writing Walz a “nice letter,” urging him to correct the record. He didn’t hear back. He sent letters to various departments in Washington. Ahead of Walz’s first run for Minnesota governor in 2018, Behrends and a colleague posted their concerns on Facebook. They reached out to “every radio station, every TV station, every newspaper in Minnesota.” But their efforts to expose Walz struggled to gain traction.

Flash forward six years. Behrends’s concerns finally received national attention after Kamala Harris selected Walz to be her running mate for her presidential campaign.

While Walz has long touted his 24 years of National Guard service for political advantage — one 2006 campaign ad identified him as a solider who “served for two decades” and who was “ready when they attacked” — the inconsistencies between what he said he did and what he actually did in the Guard have come back to sting him this week.

As recently as Thursday, Harris’s campaign was still identifying Walz as a “retired command sergeant major.” The campaign has since tweaked the record to say that Walz once served at the command sergeant major rank, according to Politico.

He’s also been accused of pumping up his record to falsely suggest he saw combat. In a video that Harris’s campaign released this week, Walz called for background checks for gun purchases and ensuring that “those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war.”

According to the Minnesota National Guard, Walz first joined the Guard in 1981 when he was living in Nebraska. He transferred to Minnesota’s 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion in 1996, and specialized in maintaining and operating cannons. He continued serving after September 11. In 2003, he mobilized with the 1-125th and was stationed in Vicenza, Italy, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He didn’t serve in Afghanistan.

A video from 2009 obtained by the Washington Free Beacon shows a veteran confronting Walz’s staff at his office, accusing the then-congressman of misleading voters into believing he deployed to Afghanistan by identifying himself as a “veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom.”

In February 2005, he filed paperwork to make a run for Congress as a Democrat in Minnesota’s first congressional district.

Having just returned from Italy, he likely did not expect to be called overseas again and assumed he could run for office while continuing to serve in the Guard.

“Instead, they dropped a bomb on us and said, ‘Okay, you are getting deployed again,’” Behrends said. “And then he had to scramble to figure out how the hell to get out of there so he could run for office and tuck his tail between his legs and stay back here.”

Jon Erickson, a retired chief warrant officer who was on battalion staff with Walz, said Walz retired after receiving a warning order alerting the battalion that it was likely going to be deployed, but before a stop-loss order was issued, which would have locked everyone in the unit into place so they could prepare to deploy. While Walz didn’t violate any military rules, the timing of his resignation was troublesome, Erickson told National Review.
“He agreed to take this position, to be the sergeant major. When you do that, you’re making a commitment. And when we get the warning order, you’re going to be deployed, he bailed out before the stop-loss order could go into effect,” he said. “There were guys in it who were killed in our unit, they probably would have chosen to do something different, too.”

Erickson said he had no reason to look down on Walz’s service before he abruptly retired. He called Walz an “affable guy, pretty friendly.” Walz related well to young soldiers, he said, and they seemed to like him. He called Walz a “competent” soldier.
“He wasn’t outstanding,” Erickson said. “He didn’t shine. I’d worked with soldiers that shined, they are exceptional. And he was not.”

Erickson said Walz’s decision to resign ahead of his deployment “says a lot about Walz as a leader.” But, in a way, he’s glad Walz did resign.
When it came to making decisions, he said, Walz was a waffler who would bend his words to try to make everybody happy. On the other hand, Erickson said Behrends, who took Walz’s place, was a stronger decision-maker and a “better choice for that position.”

“Behrends was an excellent addition to our unit in Iraq,” Erickson said. “I don’t think Walz could have done the job that Behrends did.”

Behrends and Erickson agreed that if Walz wanted to run for office instead of serving overseas, he should have retired immediately after filing his campaign paperwork. Because he didn’t, they said, he should have waited to run until he got back from Iraq.

Behrends also took issue with comments that Walz made when he was struggling to decide on whether he should call up the National Guard during the 2020 riots in the Twin Cities. Walz said that while some people may believe that “we’re going to have massively trained troops,” in reality “you’re going to have 19-year-olds who are cooks.”
Behrends countered that the Guard is “prepared to do anything, anywhere, at any time.”
He called Walz’s “cooks” comment “disparaging” and “absolutely ridiculous.” He said he had 19-year-old cooks serving with him in Iraq, and they “did a damned good job.”
“Here’s a big shoutout to all the 19-year-old cooks,” Behrends said. “I’d rather go to combat with you guys than him.”

Behrends also pushed back that his concerns are rooted in partisanship.
“This is about patriotism, not politics,” he said. “I don’t give a damn if you’re red, yellow, black or white or brown, or Republican or Democrat. If you’re in position and your country says we need you to go to war to take care of your soldiers, we’ve invested all this money in you, the taxpayers’ money all these years, and now it’s time for you to step up to the plate, and you bail, you’re nothing to me, then.”

Your brain has been replaced with The National Review.

[old salt]

What are my choices ? Biden did not serve. Harris did not serve.

Your "choice" is to support both Vance and Walz for their service, instead of defending the R, and nitpicking the D. It's not that hard. But you can't even manage that.
Your precious political party comes before the men and women you served with. I don't get it, and I never will.

+1,000,000. Disgraceful.

I supported & defended Walz until his misrepresentation of his service became undeniable.

Since it did not involve courage under fire, I do not think it rises to the level of Stolen Valor.
He said that he had served "in war" & allowed the public to think he had seen combat & served in Afghanistan.

I agree with the soldier who had to replace him. He should have submitted his retirement papers when he filed to run for Congress, since he expected his unit to be deployed. That would have afforded his unit more time to replace him.

[a fan]

Your brain has been replaced with The National Review.

Pretty obvious that all Democrats who ever served their country in the military should be hauled out behind the barn, and shot in the head.

If it's sooooo bad to leave the military after 24 freaking years, why isn't Old Salt and the rest hammering anyone who served one day less than Walz did for being cowards, and running away from future deployment?

Vance sure as sh(t didn't serve for 24 years....they're going to hit him for quitting, right?

Welcome to RightWingIdiotLand....where now even military service is a bad thing.

Congratulations , and take a bow....you've found a place lower than rock bottom!

[a fan]

He said that he had served "in war" & allowed the public to think he had seen combat & served in Afghanistan.

Sure he did. Which is why you refuse to actually quote what he said, and in what context.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, Walz's story is what holds up.

He'd decided to run for Congress well before any "warning" about deployment, much less any "stop order" and let those around him know he was doing so. He resigned fully in keeping with his right to do so, after serving for 24 years, including already a deployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom that took him away from family and school. Before any stop order.

Would he have stayed in if he thought he could run for Congress while also continuing to serve in the NG? Maybe he'd have stayed in if he thought the two were still compatible, but overseas deployment simply isn't, regardless of where. So, that forced the decision to retire. He'd already made up his mind to serve in Congress if he could win that election.

These guys are trying to suggest that he had a duty to stay in, that he somehow breached his duty, despite having already served for 24 years, including re-upping post 9-11. And yet it's clear that he followed the rules and made his own call about the next phase of his life of service.

Pretty gross IMO.

So obviously partisan no matter the denials.

[MDlaxfan76]

He said that he had served "in war" & allowed the public to think he had seen combat & served in Afghanistan.

Sure he did. Which is why you refuse to actually quote what he said, and in what context.

And when we show the context and actual quotes, and what he'd already said publicly contemporaneously, all conveniently ignored.

Pathetic.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Yes, Walz's story is what holds up.

He'd decided to run for Congress well before any "warning" about deployment, much less any "stop order" and let those around him know he was doing so. He resigned fully in keeping with his right to do so, after serving for 24 years, including already a deployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom that took him away from family and school. Before any stop order.

Would he have stayed in if he thought he could run for Congress while also continuing to serve in the NG? Maybe he'd have stayed in if he thought the two were still compatible, but overseas deployment simply isn't, regardless of where. So, that forced the decision to retire. He'd already made up his mind to serve in Congress if he could win that election.

These guys are trying to suggest that he had a duty to stay in, that he somehow breached his duty, despite having already served for 24 years, including re-upping post 9-11. And yet it's clear that he followed the rules and made his own call about the next phase of his life of service.

Pretty gross IMO.

So obviously partisan no matter the denials.

Yup. OS is a disgrace, living in a cocoon of his own right-wing gaslight. Tearing down his erstwhile brothers in arms to prop up a disgusting venal grifter.

[old salt]

Your brain has been replaced with The National Review.

Pretty obvious that all Democrats who ever served their country in the military should be hauled out behind the barn, and shot in the head.

If it's sooooo bad to leave the military after 24 freaking years, why isn't Old Salt and the rest hammering anyone who served one day less than Walz did for being cowards, and running away from future deployment?

Vance sure as sh(t didn't serve for 24 years....they're going to hit him for quitting, right?

Welcome to RightWingIdiotLand....where now even military service is a bad thing.

Congratulations , and take a bow....you've found a place lower than rock bottom!

He self-servingly misrepresented his military service & got caught. He did not need to do it.
Context (from you) ...his misleading weasel words bit him in the ass.

[MDlaxfan76]

Your brain has been replaced with The National Review.

Pretty obvious that all Democrats who ever served their country in the military should be hauled out behind the barn, and shot in the head.

If it's sooooo bad to leave the military after 24 freaking years, why isn't Old Salt and the rest hammering anyone who served one day less than Walz did for being cowards, and running away from future deployment?

Vance sure as sh(t didn't serve for 24 years....they're going to hit him for quitting, right?

Welcome to RightWingIdiotLand....where now even military service is a bad thing.

Congratulations , and take a bow....you've found a place lower than rock bottom!

He self-servingly misrepresented his military service & got caught. He did not need to do it.
Context (from you) ...his misleading weasel words bit him in the ass.

Such a load of trolling BS. This was all aired fully back in 2006.
Tons of detail supporting Walz, contemporaneous to when the first effort to discredit him occurred.

He never actually misrepresented his service. What the attackers tried to twist as such was easily refuted by other, prior public statements that he'd made that clearly explained his service. Only someone trying to say he'd misrepresented could be 'confused', and Walz made immediately clear, before the election, what his actual service had been. And he beat the R in a supposedly safe R district with voters fully understanding his service.

Shame on you for lying about it.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, Walz's story is what holds up.

He'd decided to run for Congress well before any "warning" about deployment, much less any "stop order" and let those around him know he was doing so. He resigned fully in keeping with his right to do so, after serving for 24 years, including already a deployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom that took him away from family and school. Before any stop order.

Would he have stayed in if he thought he could run for Congress while also continuing to serve in the NG? Maybe he'd have stayed in if he thought the two were still compatible, but overseas deployment simply isn't, regardless of where. So, that forced the decision to retire. He'd already made up his mind to serve in Congress if he could win that election.

These guys are trying to suggest that he had a duty to stay in, that he somehow breached his duty, despite having already served for 24 years, including re-upping post 9-11. And yet it's clear that he followed the rules and made his own call about the next phase of his life of service.

Pretty gross IMO.

So obviously partisan no matter the denials.

Yup. OS is a disgrace, living in a cocoon of his own right-wing gaslight. Tearing down his erstwhile brothers in arms to prop up a disgusting venal grifter.

Yup, I try hard to give him room to self-correct after reflection but he's so bought into MAGA-think that any backing down is verboten. The lying is a feature not a bug for these guys.

[old salt]

He said that he had served "in war" & allowed the public to think he had seen combat & served in Afghanistan.

Sure he did. Which is why you refuse to actually quote what he said, and in what context.

I can't find a full video clip of what he said for you, but it's all over tv. You've had ample opporyinty to view it.

Context = he was in an animated rant about assault weapons & said (I paraphrase) we should not be allowed to have weapons like the ones he used "in war", implying that he had used weapons "in war".

Feel free to post as much of his acual text as necessary to establish the context to your satisfaction.

[old salt]

Your brain has been replaced with The National Review.

Pretty obvious that all Democrats who ever served their country in the military should be hauled out behind the barn, and shot in the head.

If it's sooooo bad to leave the military after 24 freaking years, why isn't Old Salt and the rest hammering anyone who served one day less than Walz did for being cowards, and running away from future deployment?

Vance sure as sh(t didn't serve for 24 years....they're going to hit him for quitting, right?

Welcome to RightWingIdiotLand....where now even military service is a bad thing.

Congratulations , and take a bow....you've found a place lower than rock bottom!

He self-servingly misrepresented his military service & got caught. He did not need to do it.
Context (from you) ...his misleading weasel words bit him in the ass.

Such a load of trolling BS. This was all aired fully back in 2006.
Tons of detail supporting Walz, contemporaneous to when the first effort to discredit him occurred.

He never actually misrepresented his service. What the attackers tried to twist as such was easily refuted by other, prior public statements that he'd made that clearly explained his service. Only someone trying to say he'd misrepresented could be 'confused', and Walz made immediately clear, before the election, what his actual service had been. And he beat the R in a supposedly safe R district with voters fully understanding his service.

Shame on you for lying about it.

Show us the clarifications he made. Send them to CNN, they have yet to air them.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/08/politics ... index.html