Ohio Sen. JD Vance slammed the timing of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s retirement from a more-than-two-decades-long military career as a means of avoiding a deployment to Iraq on Wednesday, calling it “stolen valor garbage” and testing a new line of attack on the newly minted Democratic vice presidential contender.

There is no evidence that Walz retired to avoid a wartime deployment, and it’s a move that may not work — Walz has faced similar attacks from opponents before during successful races for Congress and governor, in which he explained his Army record in detail but did not make it a central part of his campaign.

The attacks are reminiscent of the 2004 campaign to discredit the distinguished war record of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, who served in Vietnam and later criticized the war — an effort led by Chris LaCivita, now a senior adviser to the Trump campaign.

What remains to be seen is if the tactic will be as successful 20 years later, when the Republican presidential nominee evaded military service, and Vance, despite his deployment to Iraq, has no combat experience either.

  • @TheDemonBuer
    link
    591 month ago

    I am absolutely certain Walz did not retire simply to avoid deployment to Iraq. But even if he had, I would not hold it against him. Iraq was a BULLSHIT war that the United States had absolutely no reason starting. We invaded a sovereign nation under completely false pretences. It was illegal and immoral, similar to the illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

    • Flying Squid
      link
      281 month ago

      He did not, but he did speak out against the war in Iraq after he retired, as he should have.

    • finley
      link
      fedilink
      English
      281 month ago

      Of course he didn’t. His retirement was finalized several months before his unit was deployed.

      • @dogslayeggs
        link
        61 month ago

        Well, they did announce that his unit MIGHT be deployed in the next 12 months, and he filed for retirement very soon after that announcement. I’m not saying that was his reasoning, but there is an “opening” for attack.

        The dude spent 24 years in service. Even if that was his reasoning, I’m not going to begrudge a 42 year old deciding deployment to Iraq isn’t the best choice for him and his family. Hell, deploying a 42 year old to military service might not be the best choice for the unit since he wasn’t an officer.

        • finley
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Do you have a source for that claim?

          Because, according to the National Guard, he filed for his retirement a couple of months before his unit got their alert notice, and a year before they actually deployed.

          • @dogslayeggs
            link
            41 month ago

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

            " Walz filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission as a candidate for Congress on February 10, 2005. The next month, after the guard announced a possible deployment to Iraq within two years, Walz’s campaign issued a statement saying he intended to stay in the race.

            “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. "

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I mean, even if he did, it sounds like he had decades of service prior. So then, why care? It’s not like he didn’t serve. It’s not like he signed up for an easy job in summer of 2001 and then tried to get out of it or something.

      But also, why does military service or willingness to go die necessarily serve as a metric for abiliry to handle administrative governance and politics? Idiotic overall.