This is very unfortunate, because clearly character is something that is desperately needed from at least one side in this election.
Character ... or verifiable Sainthood? The Cognitive Dissonance here is stunning. Trump is a convicted RAPIST and FELON, yet you guys are splitting flea hairs over an inference Walz has made about his rank at retirement.
My guy can have faults as big as a Sequoia, but your guy must be able to levitate on command is not a cogent argument.
interesting recount of events.
Despite the tone set in that letter, I have absolutely no problem with him quitting when he did. Personal choice and he didnt break any rules...especially if the war was something he didn't believe in (speculation).
On the other hand, the way he erroneously disclosed his position upon retirement - assuming the bit about the promotion was completely conditional and would essentially be void if he didnt complete his coursework is true - shows a lack of character. This is very unfortunate, because clearly character is something that is desperately needed from at least one side in this election.
On the topic of Walz and Stolen Valor ... be aware that I don't have a particular dog in this fight, other than despising anyone, R or D, ( in Canuckistan, C or L) who can provably be shown to have engaged in stolen valor. And ... "The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 stipulates that individuals convicted of this offense may be subject to a fine, a maximum imprisonment of one year, or both."
Previous posts of mine here were submitted including links to sources, for you to decide on your own as to their credibility (or lack of). And those publicly posting here on the topic all seem to find one way or another to twist whatever info has been offered - and twist it in a way that benefits Walz. Fine, I accept that not all sources may be interpreted in only one way - or may even prove accurate or inaccurate under close examination, even if those doing the examining are non-mil, and/or are very partisan on the topic. While my own posts do lean one way, its due to my gut feel that the truth of the matter is more likely to lean to one or more acts of stolen valor. I claim no specific expertise, other than what my own research skills unearth - or what my Xitter feed brings to my eyeballs - that upon examination (full read) I deem as credible.
And here is what has just arrived via Xitter - a first person account from an X user (Philosophic Warrior) - someone much closer to the reality than anyone here.
The commentary below is via Threadreader format - meaning that has been captured into an immutable form, should the original link (end of thread) on Xitter disappear.
Plenty of background worthy of a read - and then, a four page letter on MSG Walz, signed by Thomas Behrends, CSM (retired) and Paul Herr, CSM (retired)
If your views on Walz are already locked into 'defend at all costs', then skip this post of mine because no one cares about your source-free defense of Kamala's VP.
This is also likely the last post I'll make on the topic. My views on stolen valor are firm. The evidence presented here has me convinced Walz engaged in stolen valor.
interesting recount of events.
Despite the tone set in that letter, I have absolutely no problem with him quitting when he did. Personal choice and he didnt break any rules...especially if the war was something he didn't believe in (speculation).
On the other hand, the way he erroneously disclosed his position upon retirement - assuming the bit about the promotion was completely conditional and would essentially be void if he didnt complete his coursework is true - shows a lack of character. This is very unfortunate, because clearly character is something that is desperately needed from at least one side in this election.
I don't think you quite grasp what you've done here. I'll leave it for others to point out, should they choose to speak up.
Practice rather than preach. Make of your life an affirmation, defined by your ideals, not the negation of others.
Dare to the level of your capability then go beyond to a higher level. â Alexander Haig
busy day today ... catch all y'all on the flipside
The standard enlistment period for the National Guard is eight years. Walz served for 24 years â much longer than the four years Vance served in the Marine Corps. Trump, of course, famously avoided military service entirely during the Vietnam era because a podiatrist diagnosed the strapping young man as unfit, due to supposed bone spurs in his heels.
Walz left the Guard in May 2005 because he had decided to run for Congress. His unit did not receive a mobilization order until August of that year, and it did not deploy to Iraq until March 2006.
As he approached retirement, Walz indeed served as a command sergeant major â though he held that rank in an âactingâ status, having not completed all the coursework required for permanent promotion.
Walz was trained, carried and trained others on combat weapons, despite not seeing combat. Same thing applies to Vance.
On the topic of Walz and Stolen Valor ... be aware that I don't have a particular dog in this fight, other than despising anyone, R or D, ( in Canuckistan, C or L) who can provably be shown to have engaged in stolen valor. And ... "The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 stipulates that individuals convicted of this offense may be subject to a fine, a maximum imprisonment of one year, or both."
Previous posts of mine here were submitted including links to sources, for you to decide on your own as to their credibility (or lack of). And those publicly posting here on the topic all seem to find one way or another to twist whatever info has been offered - and twist it in a way that benefits Walz. Fine, I accept that not all sources may be interpreted in only one way - or may even prove accurate or inaccurate under close examination, even if those doing the examining are non-mil, and/or are very partisan on the topic. While my own posts do lean one way, its due to my gut feel that the truth of the matter is more likely to lean to one or more acts of stolen valor. I claim no specific expertise, other than what my own research skills unearth - or what my Xitter feed brings to my eyeballs - that upon examination (full read) I deem as credible.
And here is what has just arrived via Xitter - a first person account from an X user (Philosophic Warrior) - someone much closer to the reality than anyone here.
The commentary below is via Threadreader format - meaning that has been captured into an immutable form, should the original link (end of thread) on Xitter disappear.
Plenty of background worthy of a read - and then, a four page letter on MSG Walz, signed by Thomas Behrends, CSM (retired) and Paul Herr, CSM (retired)
If your views on Walz are already locked into 'defend at all costs', then skip this post of mine because no one cares about your source-free defense of Kamala's VP.
This is also likely the last post I'll make on the topic. My views on stolen valor are firm. The evidence presented here has me convinced Walz engaged in stolen valor.
Philosophic Warrior - @SRAlsultani wrote:
My purpose in writing this is to tell you what I know of CSM Thomas Behrends, who took the intended place of of MSG Walz as the BN CSM.
CSM Behrends is one authors of the letter outlining his understanding of the events surrounding MSG Walz, pre-deployment.
Moved to a new relevant thread from the J D Vance thread. Now all 4 have their own threads. . ScottFromWyoming wrote:
kurtster wrote:
Most of you are forgetting that Walz said in he* was in combat. Repeatedly from his first run as governor up until now. That is the lie. And a big one.
That is the stolen valor part. Evidently it only matters to a small few here.
*typo corrected
He didn't say it, you interpreted it. If we're at war and he was carrying a rifle (not a typewriter), he almost gets a pass when he says he carried that rifle in war.
Should have said wartime.
Yeah, you wish he said wartime, but he didn't. You're putting words in his mouth that are not there.
My bad, I miss paraphrased the statement. The actual statement is :
"We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war,” Walz, 60, can be heard saying.
That pretty much speaks for itself.
Walz was never in a war zone, let alone in combat as far as I can find out, yet he clearly states he was. As I interpret that statement.
Obviously everyone else's mileage on this one varies from mine.
