Staff Reports
The saga of Tim Walz, the freshly minted running mate for Kamala Harris, just took a nosedive into the world of embellishment. This coming from a CNN fact-checker, no less, who spotlighted the governor’s dubious claims about his military service. While Walz touts a 25-year tenure in the Army, the veracity of his battlefield bravado is now under scrutiny, and it looks about as credible as a three-legged dog in a race.
The core of the issue revolves around Walz’s muddy language regarding carrying weapons in combat. CNN’s Tom Foreman pointed out that while Walz might have served during a time of war, he never actually found himself dodging bullets or engaging in combat. Instead, his deployment was a cushy gig in Vicenza, Italy, a far cry from the chaos of Afghanistan or Iraq. The governor’s attempts to conflate his service with that of actual combat veterans is a more egregious stretch than any yoga session could handle.
Woah. CNN fact checks Tim Walz for lying about carrying weapons in war
“There is a difference between being involved in a time of war, and actually being in a position where people are shooting at you… that is absolutely false”
— TV News Now (@TVNewsNow) August 7, 2024
This isn’t just a matter of semantics; it’s a prime example of political posturing. Walz’s remarks about protecting the Second Amendment while implying he served on the front lines allows for some serious strategic misrepresentation. The campaign spin machine has already jumped into action, casting him as a staunch defender of gun rights, despite the fact that he’s been seen straddling the fence when it comes to gun legislation and rights.
It’s hard not to sniff a whiff of political opportunism here. Walz’s claims about the weapons he “carried in war” are as hollow as a chocolate Easter bunny. One would think that a man with a military badge of honor wouldn’t feel the need to exaggerate his accomplishments. Yet, with Harris’ history of elevating her running mates based on questionable merit, it seems Walz is just following suit. Too bad for him, however, that his track record is being dismantled by none other than a major liberal media outlet.
Adding insult to injury, another veteran, Command Sgt. Maj. Thomas Behrends, recounted how Walz bailed just before his unit got deployed to Iraq. This paints the picture of a politician more interested in the perks of military service than the grind of genuine combat. In stark contrast, Senator Vance from Ohio, who actually did partake in a combat tour, pulled no punches in calling out Walz’s alleged “stolen valor.”
When the news cycle spins out stories like this one, it’s important to look behind the curtain. Walz’ defenses are flimsy at best, and even the Harris campaign’s attempts to justify his claims reveal a lack of substantial evidence. With all the Democrats are contending with—from rising inflation to rampant crime—a faux warrior in their ranks is the last thing they need. But here he is, putting a shiny veneer over a less-than-stellar record and filtering through the political circus with every available spin.
As the election cycle roars ahead, the American voter will need to wade through all this muck to discern the solid ground from the quicksand. Walz has already demonstrated that he’s not afraid to stretch the truth when it suits his needs. The question now is how this will resonate among those who truly understand what it means to serve in the military. In the end, the judgment may not fall entirely on Walz, but rather on Harris, who willingly aligns herself with such questionable claims.
