Tim Walz abandoned his soldiers when they deployed to Iraq

[highroller]

More lying.

“At least part of”

What ****ing weasel words.

 

[Objective Voice]

Except....it wasn't war-time. We haven't had one of those since 1945.

Well, the claim is Walz left the NG just prior to the war in Afghanistan kicked off, right? So, that makes it "war time". I could almost understand if it was his first or second tour OR he was going to re-up but decided against it once he learned that war was imminent and his next set of orders had him forward deployed to a hot zone, but Walz had 20+ years in service by then and was probably aging out. I'd have left, too after 20 years of honorable service - the timeframe when most military servicemen are due for retirement. There's no shame in that. Anyone trying to do so - especially if they've never served - is just an a-hole.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I say let the Gdumbass GOP keep digging their own grave. They're just pushing more voters to Harris/Walz.

 

[RF667799]

Concerned about timing of retirement is not retiring because of Iraq.

Again. That’s the lie.

Your position is that the timing of his retirement was just happy coincidence.

I believe the upcoming deployment played a part. Retiring before fulfilling his commitment- with resulting demotion- wouldn't have been necessary without the looming deployment.

 

[highroller]

So where we stand:

Since we can’t not know whether Walz didn’t not want to go fight in Iraq, the GOP is declaring him a coward and smearing him.

 

[Lutherf]

Oh no….an NCO retired after more than 2 decades of service to run for Congress.

I guess we should elect the draft dodger instead?




I don’t see how this is the “attack” MAGAs want it to be

The "24 years of service" thing is kind of overblown. he was in the National Guard and served one weekend a month plus 2 weeks a year. That's 36 days a year which, over 24 years, comes out to a little less than 2.5 years in uniform. There may have been other deployments for certain domestic emergencies so I'll be generous and give him 3 years in uniform. Did he serve? Yes. Did he serve in war? No. Did he serve 24 years? Well, he was on the books for 24 years but actually served less time than Vance did in his 4 years of active duty.

 

[highroller]

Your position is that the timing of his retirement was just happy coincidence.

I believe the upcoming deployment played a part. Retiring before fulfilling his commitment- with resulting demotion- wouldn't have been necessary without the looming deployment.

He also couldn’t run for Congress from Iraq. These are hard choices we all make in life. He filed to run in Feb 2005 for an election in Nov of 2006.

I probably would retire if I couldn’t commit to both.

 

[Objective Voice]

I say let the Gdumbass GOP keep digging their own grave. They're just pushing more voters to Harris/Walz.

Agreed.

The more they talk down about Walz' military service, the more they push veterans and their families away from their campaign and into the ballot booth for the Harris/Walz ticket.

 

[hooligan]

He also couldn’t run for Congress from Iraq. These are hard choices we all make in life. He filed to run in Feb 2005 for an election in Nov of 2006.

I probably would retire if I couldn’t commit to both.

Exactly. Guardsmen make decisions about whether or not to re-enlist or when to retire for all sorts of reasons. The reality is, unlike with Active Duty soldiers, their Army jobs are a secondary gig and not their "day job".

 

[RF667799]

Who says it was "necessary" to begin with?

Here's the timeline as we know it currently -


Walz files for his Congressional run in Feb 2005.

Walz says his unit is "in the bucket" for an upcoming rotation in March 2005: “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,” Walz said in the March 2005 campaign release.

Walz retires May 2005 - necessarily he would have had to submit his retirement packet prior to May 2005.

Walz unit is notified of deployment in July 2005.

Walz's unit pre-mobilizes to Camp Shelby in Sep 2005.

Unit actually deploys in March of 2006.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/07/politics/tim-walz-military-record-vance-attack/index.html

So he was retired well before the unit knew they would be deploying. Did he know a deployment was possible for his unit prior to retiring? Sure.

He admitted that his service interfering with his campaign run was a consideration for his retirement timing, citing the Hatch Act.

He could have run for Congress without retiring, but for the upcoming deployment.

I've already said I have no problem with his decision to retire at a time convenient to himself. I myself was prepared to refuse orders to Korea because I intended to ETS on schedule. And I caught some flak for that, from superiors and even some peers who had the perception I was "abandoning" my duty in some way.

Politically-minded, Walz was aware of and expressed some concern about the perceptions that might arise from the timing of his retirement.

I am amused by the Nothing To See Here tactics being taken by some.

 

[BirdinHand]

The "24 years of service" thing is kind of overblown. he was in the National Guard and served one weekend a month plus 2 weeks a year. That's 36 days a year which, over 24 years, comes out to a little less than 2.5 years in uniform. There may have been other deployments for certain domestic emergencies so I'll be generous and give him 3 years in uniform. Did he serve? Yes. Did he serve in war? No. Did he serve 24 years? Well, he was on the books for 24 years but actually served less time than Vance did in his 4 years of active duty.

This is a REALLY good look for MAGAs.

I think MAGAs should continue to attack Walz on his military career.

It seems to be REALLY going over popularly with veterans and average Americans.

 

[Allan]

He could have run for Congress without retiring, but for the upcoming deployment.

Conflict of interest.

 

[WorldWatcher]

He was aware his unit was going to Iraq, and that is at least part of what induced him to retire before his service commitment was satisfied.

Because...

..... ..... Wait for it...

..... ..... ..... ..... He was already running for Congress.

WW

 

[US&THEM]

The "24 years of service" thing is kind of overblown. he was in the National Guard and served one weekend a month plus 2 weeks a year. That's 36 days a year which, over 24 years, comes out to a little less than 2.5 years in uniform. There may have been other deployments for certain domestic emergencies so I'll be generous and give him 3 years in uniform. Did he serve? Yes. Did he serve in war? No. Did he serve 24 years? Well, he was on the books for 24 years but actually served less time than Vance did in his 4 years of active duty.

Holy shit, this is comical. How desperate does one have to be to post this drivel.

 

[hooligan]

He could have run for Congress without retiring, but for the upcoming deployment.

In theory, he could have run AND gone on the deployment. I doubt how effective his campaign would have been from the Middle East, however.

He decided to retire to concentrate on his political career. He retired before he KNEW his unit was going to be deployed. There's nothing to say he wouldn't have retired even if his unit wasn't "in the bucket", the Hatch Act applies whether you're deployed or not.

 

[hooligan]

Because...

..... ..... Wait for it...

..... ..... ..... ..... He was already running for Congress.

WW

He also didn't know his unit was going to Iraq when he retired. He knew it was possible.

 

[RF667799]

“At least part of”

What ****ing weasel words.

Oh. You're positive and have on your side the fact that it was just happy coincidence that led to such a fortuitous timing of his retirement, even at the cost of being demoted for failing in his commitment.

Being realistic isn't "weasel words". Don't worry. You guys will probably get your narrative in order eventually.

 

[hooligan]

Oh. You're positive and have on your side the fact that it was just happy coincidence that led to such a fortuitous timing of his retirement, even at the cost of being demoted for failing in his commitment.

Being realistic isn't "weasel words". Don't worry. You guys will probably get your narrative in order eventually.

How much did retiring as an E8 v E9 impact his retirement? How important is that difference to Walz' financial future?

You seem awfully quick to make assumptions about motivations.

 

[poweRob]

 

[RF667799]

Conflict of interest.

Members of the Guard and Reservists can run for and hold elected office.

 

[RF667799]

Because...

..... ..... Wait for it...

..... ..... ..... ..... He was already running for Congress.

WW

Which wouldn't be possible upon being called to active duty for a deployment.

 

[hooligan]

Members of the Guard and Reservists can run for and hold elected office.

They sure can.

It's not without impediments, however.

 

[craig]

Members of the Guard and Reservists can run for and hold elected office.

They are probably rethinking that now knowing MAGA will attack them.

 

[RF667799]

How much did retiring as an E8 v E9 impact his retirement? How important is that difference to Walz' financial future?

You seem awfully quick to make assumptions about motivations.

I don't see a speculation that his demotion was no big deal to him as negating the fact it was a demotion.

You guys are wildly spinning instead of just admitting he retired when he did to serve his own interests. I guess the perceptions Walz was concerned about are a real concern still.

 

[RF667799]

They sure can.

It's not without impediments, however.

Yeah...like an active duty deployment would bring the campaign to a halt.