J.D. Vance Melts Down Over Questions About His Military Record

[Logician Man]

Starting to think this J.D. Vance guy might be kinda scummy.

Misogynist J.D. Vance is to Trump as Sammy the 'Bull' Gravano was to mafia boss John Gotti, 'before' becoming a turncoat.

 

[BabaVoss]

Tim Walz is everything JD Vance is pretending to be.

.

 

[ClaraD]

Two other Sergeants Major in the Guard, from 2018 (so, before this whole Presidential thing) lay out the specifics.

It may also be worth noting that he campaigned for office based on his "possible upcoming deployment to Iraq" when he knew full well he was retiring and not going.

Again, it's not a direct lie. It's just.... dishonest.

This guy - a vet, and, GOP rep who voted to impeach Trump after Jan 6th, losing his seat as a result, has what I think is a likely take:

When you are in the military, you know you could be deployed at anytime...in February, when he filed to run for Congress, there was no deployment nor pending notification of one. You know damn well that if he had received notice of deployment, he could not retire.

 

[ClaraD]

Two other Sergeants Major in the Guard, from 2018 (so, before this whole Presidential thing) lay out the specifics.

It may also be worth noting that he campaigned for office based on his "possible upcoming deployment to Iraq" when he knew full well he was retiring and not going.

Again, it's not a direct lie. It's just.... dishonest.

This guy - a vet, and, GOP rep who voted to impeach Trump after Jan 6th, losing his seat as a result, has what I think is a likely take:

How is 24 years of service in the military shady?

 

[BabaVoss]

How is 24 years of service in the military shady?

These guys are twisting so hard. It's hilarious given Trump's bone spurs and JD Vance's unremarkable and brief military career. I thank Vance for his service, but denigrating a 20+ year veteran is unbecoming and downright sleazy in my book. That he partnered up with Lt Bonespurs should have made him NOT comment on anyone else's military career.

Walz did service. Lt Bionspurs and Vance are doing self-servioe. And therein lies the difference, for everyone to see.



.

 

[Callen]

In 2001, he signed a six-year reenlistment package. 2001 + 6 = 2007.

On 17 September 2004, Walz accepted a conditional promotion to CSM based on his agreement to serve at least two additional years upon completion of the Sergeants Major Academy, which he was slated to complete in 2005/2006 time frame. 2005 + 2 = 2007.

In early 2005, his unit received the WARNO that they were going to be mobilized for Iraq.

In March of 2005, he referenced this WARNO in his campaign literature, claiming that it was possible he would be going to Iraq, but, that he was "dedicated to serving his country, whether in Washington DC or Iraq", and making sure to highlight that he would be leaving his wife and (then) four year old daughter to serve overseas.

Then, on May 16th, 2005, he dropped, accepting demotion in order to retire early and before his unit was officially mobilized.




From the first cite, above, per two other Sergeants' Major from the Guard:

...On May 16th, 2005 he quit, leaving the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion and its Soldiers hanging; without its senior Non-Commissioned Officer, as the battalion prepared for war. His excuse to other leaders was that he needed to retire in order to run for congress. Which is false, according to a Department of Defense Directive, he could have run and requested permission from the Secretary of Defense before entering active duty; as many reservists have. If he had retired normally and respectfully, you would think he would have ensured his retirement documents were correctly filled out and signed, and that he would have ensured he was reduced to Master Sergeant for dropping out of the academy. Instead he waited for the paperwork to catch up to him. His official retirement document states, SOLDIER NOT AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURE.​

​

On September 10th, 2005 conditionally promoted Command Sergeant Major Walz was reduced to Master Sergeant. It took a while for the system to catch up to him as it was uncharted territory, literally no one quits in the position he was in, or drops out of the academy. Except him.​

Other congresscritters have served in the Reserves. He himself claimed in his campaign literature in March of 2005 that he would continue to serve. But... he decided he didn't want to.


Again, I'm not standing on a High Horse Screaming HOW DARE HE, or any of that business. This isn't a Stolen Valor issue (though I think it's clear he's been dishonest at times, through omission, comission, and deliberate vagueness). But reality does matter.

There is an inference on your part that his decision to retire and run for Congress was based on a desire to avoid deployment and it is offensive and insulting to his service to his country. There is nothing to suggest it was to avoid deployment, nothing at all. According to all the information he wrestled with the decision on how to best serve his country at his age for quite some time. What I bolded was an incorrect or perhaps misrepresentation on your part of what the article said. It was not Walz who mentioned leaving his wife and daughter behind, it was the Post who added that as a separate observation.

 

[j brown's body]

From the first cite, above, per two other Sergeants' Major from the Guard:

...On May 16th, 2005 he quit, leaving the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion and its Soldiers hanging; ​

"Maj. Gen. Randy Manner, U.S. National Guard (ret.), who oversaw overseas deployments, told The Fact Checker...that the Minnesota adjutant general has the final say and could have blocked Walz’s retirement if he thought it would have had a negative impact on the possible deployment.

A former top official in the Minnesota National Guard at the time, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid being entangled in politics, told The Fact Checker that there was no consideration of blocking Walz’s retirement."

Link

Politics can really complicates things.

 

[Allan]

Tim Walz is everything JD Vance is pretending to be.

.

And effortlessly.

 

[Visbek]

Walz would have been fully aware of the WARNO to prep to deploy...

No, he wasn't. He filed his papers to retire months before his unit was notified of an impending potential deployment.

There are no indications Walz served anything other than honorably. Though I can understand why members of his unit feel that he ditched them....

Some feel that way. Apparently, most don't.

attacking his service is kind of dumb.

It's very dumb.

For one thing, these issues were raised in Walz' race for MN governor, and it didn't work.

Next, at least two Republicans running for office have done far worse. J.R. Majewski outright lied about serving in combat in Afghanistan. (At least in that case, the RNC pulled support for him, though Majewski doubled down on his lies.)

And earlier this year, Steve Slaton lied about his service in Vietnam. He claims he saw combat, but his military records show nothing of the sort. He responded by... saying he was the victim of identity theft, which somehow distorted his military record? As far as I can tell, he's still receiving GOP support.

MSN

Hilariously enough, in 2023, the House GOP tried to block public access to military records. I wonder why?

House Republicans propose banning public access to service members' military records

The proposal comes after the Pentagon erroneously released the personal information of several Republican politicians who were current or former members of the armed forces.

www.nbcnews.com

Anyway. One of the two people running Trump's campaign is Chris LaCivita, who engineered the "Swift Boat" attacks on Kerry. He's obviously trying to repeat his greatest hits, and no one should doubt that he's behind this effort. I don't expect them to stop this idiocy any time soon.

Walz has also mischaracterized his service at times.

Apparently, no more than Vance. Oh, sorry, we're not allowed to examine the military records of Republicans running for office. My bad.

He emphasizes the "Deployed in support of Enduring Freedom" and held signs identifying himself as an Enduring Freedom Vet... without mentioning that he actually just went to Italy.

How does being deployed to Italy as part of Enduring Freedom mean he wasn't deployed in support of Enduring Freedom?

He claimed to have retired as a E9 when he had to take the demotion to E8 to get out.

No, he didn't "take a demotion to get out." He was promoted to command sergeant major. But since he didn't complete the additional coursework, he didn't qualify for that rank upon retirement.

He's pitched his schtick on gun control as "We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war." etc.

Walz has never claimed he saw combat. If that one line sufficient to attack someone's war record, then every veteran who runs for office would be ineligible.

Generally, it's not unfair to say he was clearly a dude who did his time, who didn't want to go to Iraq, and so he got out (which he could do), giving up a CSM retirement in order to do so.

Actually, it is deeply unfair to say that.

He served 24 years. He gave notice to retire months before his unit received notice. He didn't "give up" anything to retire. Unlike at least two recent Republicans, he never actually claimed he was in combat, or at the absolute minimum didn't double down on or fabricate unbelievable excuses when his lack of combat experience came to light.

This is just typical partisan hypocritical sniping. Welcome to 2024.

 

[Greenbeard]

...On May 16th, 2005 he quit, leaving the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion and its Soldiers hanging; without its senior Non-Commissioned Officer, as the battalion prepared for war. His excuse to other leaders was that he needed to retire in order to run for congress. Which is false, according to a Department of Defense Directive, he could have run and requested permission from the Secretary of Defense before entering active duty; as many reservists have. ​

The argument is that he could’ve asked for permission to stay behind in Minnesota to campaign instead of just retiring in order to do that?

 

[Bodecea]

So...where's the "meltdown?"



OH WOW HE REALLY MELTED DOWN AMIRITE?!

You need more Caps there.

Amirite?

 

[Pyrite]

And you can tell there's intense rage in his post. Definitely a total meltdown!
View attachment 67525630

“It’s easy to sit in the comfort and safety of a @CNN studio and trivialize the service of countless men and women who risked their lives. I served with some of the people mentioned in this thread. I miss them all very much. Shameful of @brikeilarcnn to slander an entire MOS,” Vance wrote in a post on X, referring to military occupation specialty.

`````````````

Quote the words you believe reflect "intense rage" and a "total meltdown".

 

[Questerr]

Call Vance what he was: a Fobbit.

 

[Bodecea]

And you can tell there's intense rage in his post. Definitely a total meltdown!
View attachment 67525630

Surely MAGAts have worn that pic down to a nub by now...................

 

[Logician Man]

You need more Caps there.

Amirite?

 

[beefheart]

 

[BlueTex]

Call Vance what he was: a Fobbit.

REMF

 

[CaughtInThe]

Who HASN'T maga pissed off??

 

[Questerr]

REMF

Not the same thing. REMF just means you are “rear echelon”, aka not combat arms. I was in Intelligence, so I was an REMF. But I wasn’t a Fobbit. I left the wire all the time on convoys.

 

[Hari Seldon]

1. Walz would have been fully aware of the WARNO to prep to deploy, and clearly intended to stay with the unit for longer than he did (as he accepted the extension + the school when he picked up Command Sergeant Major). Then his unit got the WARNO, and he decided he no longer wanted to stay in. Since he was past his 20 years, the Guard let him retire as a MSGT instead, taking the demotion in order to get out.

1a. That may not have flown in the Marine Corps, where we had some people straight up denied retirement for trying to pull similar stunts, but, the Guard is not the Active Duty USMC.

2. There are no indications Walz served anything other than honorably. Though I can understand why members of his unit feel that he ditched them, attacking his service is kind of dumb. This is (as someone else said) something that is going to only matter to a small slice of folks who both care and have the credibility to speak to it.

3. Walz has also mischaracterized his service at times. He emphasizes the "Deployed in support of Enduring Freedom" and held signs identifying himself as an Enduring Freedom Vet... without mentioning that he actually just went to Italy. He claimed to have retired as a E9 when he had to take the demotion to E8 to get out. He's pitched his schtick on gun control as "We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war." etc.

Generally, it's not unfair to say he was clearly a dude who did his time, who didn't want to go to Iraq, and so he got out (which he could do), giving up a CSM retirement in order to do so. He then became a politician, and, as politicians do, was willing to stretch the truth to paint himself in the best light that he could. Most of this stuff isn't lies - it's just deliberate exaggeration or leveraging vagueness to deliberately allow people to draw the wrong conclusion.

This isn't Stolen Valor. It's.... Somewhat / Mildly Exaggerated Valor?

It's also a dumb decision for a party led by Captain Bone Spurs from the the POWs Are Loser-Suckers battalion. If Walz was trying to run for office on a narrative based around his personal heroism (as Kerry did), then pointing out the discrepancies between that narrative and reality might be a worthwhile endeavour as America judges it's potential leaders, but, the discrepancy here between what Walz has claimed and reality is a lot more narrow and seemingly petty.

I thought it was General Bone Spurs. Greatest General ever.

 

[Airyaman]

Two other Sergeants Major in the Guard, from 2018 (so, before this whole Presidential thing) lay out the specifics.

It may also be worth noting that he campaigned for office based on his "possible upcoming deployment to Iraq" when he knew full well he was retiring and not going.

Again, it's not a direct lie. It's just.... dishonest.

This guy - a vet, and, GOP rep who voted to impeach Trump after Jan 6th, losing his seat as a result, has what I think is a likely take:

Which part is dishonest? That statement about carrying weapons of war in war? If he put that down in documentation sure, but if we're speaking about a one off speech? A moment of dishonesty unless otherwise proven.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Starting to think this J.D. Vance guy might be kinda scummy.

He's the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Callen]

Which part is dishonest? That statement about carrying weapons of war in war? If he put that down in documentation sure, but if we're speaking about a one off speech? A moment of dishonesty unless otherwise proven.

Dishonesty, infers a deliberate atempt to embelish his military history. Given the context of the spech it was hyperbole as he spoke to promote sensible gun safety to protect school kids.

 

[Mithrae]

No, he wasn't. He filed his papers to retire months before his unit was notified of an impending potential deployment.

A source would be nice, but probably true: I'm assuming that having signed up to serve until 2007 he couldn't just hand in two weeks' or even two months' notice to retire in May 2005. But that would mean that his 20 March 2005 press release (archived from timwalz.org) was even more dishonest. His campaign released a public statement announcing "that all or a portion of Walz's battalion could be mobilized to serve in Iraq within the next two years":

When asked about his possible deployment to Iraq Walz said, "I do not yet know if my artillery unit will be part of this mobilization and I am unable to comment further on specifics of the deployment."​

​

Although his tour of duty in Iraq might coincide with his campaign for Minnesota's 1st Congressional seat, Walz is determined to stay in the race. "As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on. I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or in Iraq."​

​

"I don't want to speculate on what shape my campaign will take if I am deployed, but I have no plans to drop out of the race. I am fortunate to have a strong group of enthusiastic supporters and a very dedicated and intelligent wife. Both will be a major part of my campaign, whether I am in Minnesota or Iraq."​

So you're saying that instead of making that press release while he was thinking about leaving service, he made that press release after he'd already filed papers for his imminent retirement. That's much more dishonest, in fact outright lies.

Note also the repeated emphasis on 'possibly' serving "in Iraq... to Iraq... his tour of duty in Iraq... for Iraq... in Iraq... or Iraq" - six times in five paragraphs - while his country of deployment "during Operation Enduring Freedom" is left entirely to the imagination in that press release, Italy probably not being at the top of anyone's thought process (though Iraq was probably on people's minds for some reason). That would just be the usual kind of political spin and 'truth-stretching,' scummy though it may be: But the rest of it was outright lies, asserting that there was any possibility that he'd be deployed to Iraq if - as you plausibly suggest - he had already filed his retirement papers beforehand.

 

[cpwill]

When you are in the military, you know you could be deployed at anytime...in February, when he filed to run for Congress, there was no deployment nor pending notification of one. You know damn well that if he had received notice of deployment, he could not retire.

Honestly, I don't have the specific regulations for Minnesota's National Guard. If you do, those would be interesting to see.

He signed up in 2001 to serve through 2007. When he accepted promotion to Sergeant Major in 2004, he again agreed to serve to 2007. He received the WARNO prior to his March 2025 announcement that referenced it, and attempted to garner positive attention by announcing he would be willing to serve in Iraq. Then he decided not to do so, and left the unit, instead. This required that he accept a demotion (from Command Sergeant Major down to Master Sergeant) to do, and he was clearly willing to accept a demotion to retire before the Unit got its mobilization orders in July (he quit in May), because, well, that's what he did.

That's the basic order of events. It's worth noting that the campaign doesn't seem to be disputing them, and has quietly edited his bio on their website, instead.

How is 24 years of service in the military shady?

I did not claim that it was, in fact, I argued:

2. There are no indications Walz served anything other than honorably. Though I can understand why members of his unit feel that he ditched them, attacking his service is kind of dumb. This is (as someone else said) something that is going to only matter to a small slice of folks who both care and have the credibility to speak to it.

What I also pointed out, however, was that:

3. Walz has also mischaracterized or allowed his service to be mischaracterized* his service at times. He emphasizes the "Deployed in support of Enduring Freedom" and held signs identifying himself as an Enduring Freedom Vet... without mentioning that he actually just went to Italy. He claimed to have retired as a E9 when he had to take the demotion to E8 to get out. He's pitched his schtick on gun control as "We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war." etc.

*the "or allowed to be" was a later add to capture things like leading journalists to conclusions that were inaccurate.

And then concluded:

Generally, it's not unfair to say he was clearly a dude who did his time, who didn't want to go to Iraq, and so he got out (which he could do), giving up a CSM retirement in order to do so. He then became a politician, and, as politicians do, was willing to stretch the truth to paint himself in the best light that he could. Most of this stuff isn't lies - it's just deliberate exaggeration or leveraging vagueness to deliberately allow people to draw the wrong conclusion. This isn't Stolen Valor. It's.... Somewhat / Mildly Exaggerated Valor?

It's also a dumb decision for a party led by Captain Bone Spurs from the the POWs Are Loser-Suckers battalion. If Walz was trying to run for office on a narrative based around his personal heroism (as Kerry did), then pointing out the discrepancies between that narrative and reality might be a worthwhile endeavour as America judges it's potential leaders, but, the discrepancy here between what Walz has claimed and reality is a lot more narrow and seemingly petty.

And cited another vet (and GOP congressman, who lost his seat because he was willing to vote to Impeach Trump after Jan 6th), who came to a pretty similar conclusion, which satisfies no tribal member (because it neither fully castigates, nor condones his actions):