Republican vice presidential candidate, Sen. JD Vance, sparked controversy during an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash by accusing Minnesota Governor Tim Walz of lying about knowledge of his unit’s deployment to Iraq before retiring from the National Guard.
Breitbart reported that Vance confirmed that Walz had prior knowledge of his unit’s deployment when he decided to retire, disputing Bash’s interpretation of the timeline.
Vance accused Walz of deceit, suggesting he was aware of the impending deployment well before making his decision to retire. Vance is backed up by Walz's former associates who have revealed that Walz knew of the deployment before retiring.
"He [Walz] knew he was going to Iraq, he decided to quit, to retire, whatever word you want to use," Vance exclaimed. He further stated, “He lied about that. He said that when he decided to retire, he did not know he was going to Iraq. That is another untruth, as even his senior military officer said.”
According to Bash, Walz filed his election paperwork on February 10, 2005. This filing came one month before the Minnesota National Guard announced the possible deployment of around 2,000 troops, including Walz's battalion, on March 17, 2005.
According to Vance, one of Walz’s senior military officers indicated that Walz was informed as early as the fall of 2004 about the possible deployment. This claim contradicts Walz’s public statements at the time.
CNN reported that Walz, an active member of the National Guard since 1981 and previously deployed during Operation Enduring Freedom, had been vocal about his commitment whether or not his unit went to Iraq. In a 2005 press release, Walz acknowledged the possibility of his battalion's mobilization.
In his statements, Walz clarified, “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.” Yet, Vance insisted that Walz knew much more than he let on.
Walz ultimately retired from the military, and his unit was indeed deployed to Iraq later. During his campaign, Walz made public commitments to continue serving if called upon. Despite the looming deployment, he pursued his congressional campaign with fervor.
"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," Walz announced, underscoring his dual commitments.
However, another controversy arose over Walz’s retirement rank. Reports indicated he retired as a master sergeant (E-8), contrary to his claims of serving as a command sergeant major (E-9). This discrepancy added another layer of scrutiny to his service record.
During the interview, Vance stressed the importance of truthfulness in leadership, particularly in military service. He emphasized, "He knew he was going to Iraq, he decided to quit, to retire, whatever word you want to use." This insistence on Walz's foreknowledge aimed to challenge his credibility.
For his part, Walz remained insistent on his commitment to both his military service and his political campaign. "I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or in Iraq," he recounted, positioning himself as a dependable leader despite the controversies.
Walz’s campaign in 2005, bolstered by strong support, continued unabated despite these issues. "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," he stated.
In conclusion, Vance’s claims about Walz’s prior knowledge of the Iraq deployment have reignited debates concerning the governor’s military service.
Walz's dual commitments to his military role and political ambitions continue to be scrutinized, with each camp steadfast in their positions.
As voters weigh the credibility and integrity of military service records against political aspirations, the controversy serves as a reminder of the transparency and honesty expected from public officials. Whether Vance’s assertions will impact Walz's standing remains to be seen, but the discourse underscores the complexities of service and politics.
