Staff Reports
Accusations against Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, claiming he is guilty of “stolen valor,” have been met with passionate backlash from veterans attending the Democratic National Convention. Despite the fervor from some on the right, many veterans consider the charges against him a laughable attempt to score cheap political points. They characterized the allegations as fabrications, dismissing them as “nonstarter” rhetoric from what has increasingly become a desperate Republican playbook.
With Walz set to take the stage for his vice presidential acceptance speech, his military service has become a topic of scrutiny. Allegations swirl that he does not accurately represent his military accomplishments, particularly regarding his rank upon retirement. While Walz’s supporters assert that he retired as a command sergeant major, Republicans are busy concocting narratives that suggest he was demoted for benefits reasons, particularly since he left his unit a mere months before they were deployed to Iraq.
.@Tim_Walz leans into military service at DNC as veterans rebuff ‘stolen valor’ attacks https://t.co/XlQjoFe6Fe
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) August 22, 2024
The political battlefield is heating up, with individuals like Senator J.D. Vance charging Walz with fabricating his military history and even alleging he abandoned his comrades. Vance calls into question how someone who left his unit right before deployment can lay claim to brave service in combat. According to Vance, every veteran understands the dishonor of abandoning one’s post, and he is eager to highlight this alleged betrayal every chance he gets. The irony of a rhetoric-rich attack on “stolen valor” while casually neglecting the truths of military careers is not lost on keen observers.
In contrast, several military figures, including retired generals and sergeants major, have rallied around Walz, dismissing these attacks as little more than “political crap.” Their support speaks volumes. After all, when over 99 percent of Americans are avoiding military service altogether, denouncing someone who has served 24 years in the National Guard seems to reek of unintended hypocrisy. It’s a fair point that Vance, in his zeal to attack Walz, could take a moment to appreciate that fewer than one in a hundred Americans wears the uniform, making these attacks appear both petty and misguided.
The contention with Walz extends beyond Vance’s accusations. Critics have raised eyebrows at a past comment from the governor regarding gun violence, which many interpreted as an inflated representation of his military service. The governor’s comments, positing ownership of weapons analogous to those used in conflicts, were taken by some as misleading when his actual deployment experience did not involve direct combat. Yet, in today’s political climate, politicians of all persuasions are held to throttle expectations on accuracy, provided it furthers the elected ambitions of the party in question.
Despite the left’s insistence that Walz’s military record is above reproach, a significant number of Republican lawmakers have launched a letter campaign to denounce him for “egregious misrepresentations.” While Democrats attempt to defend Walz’s service, it’s hard not to notice that defense has less to do with the core issue of valor and more about preserving electoral prospects. Meanwhile, shining comparisons are drawn between veterans like Walz and other public figures, conveniently ignoring those with dubious military records altogether, along with their treatment of veterans while in office. To call the contrast between true service and political pretense “clear” would be an understatement—it’s less a debate and more of a diversion.
