Walz's Stolen Valor EXPOSED

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: watchitburn

In order for Walz to retire in May 2005, he would've needed to file his paperwork in 2004. His unit didn't have any indication that were deploying until 2005.

You can apply for retirement up to a year before. You don't have to. Depending on the circumstances, sometimes you can drop your paperwork and be out in a few months, especially if you're already well over 20 years as he was.

You're completely out of your element in this discussion. I know you haven't a shred of human decency but maybe you should leave this one to knowledgeable people. Defending stolen valor is a new low, even for you.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: watchitburn

In order for Walz to retire in May 2005, he would've needed to file his paperwork in 2004. His unit didn't have any indication that were deploying until 2005.

So he should be blamed for not predicting the future?

What if he hadn't retired? He still probably wouldn't have deployed. The training he needed to complete requires a year a Fort Bliss. He also may have been deemed undeployable due to ear surgery he had performed in 2005.

Would you be disparaging if he was unable to deploy for either of those reasons?

It's cute the way you like to try talking knowledgably about things you don't know. There's a thing called combat unit rotation, where military units are placed on a schedule to deploy on a rotational basis. A unit that rotates to the rear already knows approximately when they will go back. As a senior NCO I can pretty much guarantee he knew when it was prior to filing his retirement.

As far as the training goes, deployment is prioritized over any training, period.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

The info I'm relaying comes from Guardsmen that were enlisted at the time. The turnaround time on retirement paperwork was 180-days minimum.

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: watchitburn

In order for Walz to retire in May 2005, he would've needed to file his paperwork in 2004. His unit didn't have any indication that were deploying until 2005.

So he should be blamed for not predicting the future?

What if he hadn't retired? He still probably wouldn't have deployed. The training he needed to complete requires a year a Fort Bliss. He also may have been deemed undeployable due to ear surgery he had performed in 2005.

Would you be disparaging if he was unable to deploy for either of those reasons?

It's cute the way you like to try talking knowledgably about things you don't know. There's a thing called combat unit rotation, where military units are placed on a schedule to deploy on a rotational basis. A unit that rotates to the rear already knows approximately when they will go back. As a senior NCO I can pretty much guarantee he knew when it was prior to filing his retirement.

As far as the training goes, deployment is prioritized over any training, period.

That's a great point too. I'm not sure how it was back then, but when I was serving in the Air Force, the Army's deployment schedule was practically clockwork.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I've known of fast-tracked retirement in less than 30 days, it happens.

a reply to: Moon68

Many Airline Pilots were getting their FAA medicals revoked for claiming 100% disability from the military. Basically lying one way or another, lying they weren’t claiming disability on the FAA form, or caught lying to claim disability through the military. Many were Chairforce desk jockeys that never were injured or saw combat that claimed ptsd from it.

originally posted by: Moon68
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I've known of fast-tracked retirement is less than 30 days, it happens.

My medical retirement was very fast, although that's obviously a different circumstance. Bastards had me in limbo about whether I was or wasn't gonna be forced out for the better part of a year. Once they made their decision, they wanted me gone yesterday. I don't remember exactly how long, but it was around a month.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: watchitburn

In order for Walz to retire in May 2005, he would've needed to file his paperwork in 2004. His unit didn't have any indication that were deploying until 2005.

So he should be blamed for not predicting the future?

What if he hadn't retired? He still probably wouldn't have deployed. The training he needed to complete requires a year a Fort Bliss. He also may have been deemed undeployable due to ear surgery he had performed in 2005.

Would you be disparaging if he was unable to deploy for either of those reasons?

It's cute the way you like to try talking knowledgably about things you don't know. There's a thing called combat unit rotation, where military units are placed on a schedule to deploy on a rotational basis. A unit that rotates to the rear already knows approximately when they will go back. As a senior NCO I can pretty much guarantee he knew when it was prior to filing his retirement.

As far as the training goes, deployment is prioritized over any training, period.

That's a great point too. I'm not sure how it was back then, but when I was serving in the Air Force, the Army's deployment schedule was practically clockwork.

During the GWoT, it was strictly followed. Desert Storm was too short to implement it but my unit was training and prepping to go nearly 2 years prior to the declaration of war.

The gun control comment and when he dropped out I honestly dont care about because arguments can be made on either side. (though no way he wasnt aware it was coming being at the command level, its still scuttle butt)

The rank though he is either a retired E9 or E8 and its in his paperwork in black and white, just because he sat the seat for a while doesnt mean he retired as one and doesnt give him the right to claim it if he never got out of provisional status.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
The gun control comment and when he dropped out I honestly dont care about because arguments can be made on either side. (though no way he wasnt aware it was coming being at the command level, its still scuttle butt)

The rank though he is either a retired E9 or E8 and its in his paperwork in black and white, just because he sat the seat for a while doesnt mean he retired as one and doesnt give him the right to claim it if he never got out of provisional status.

That’s exactly right. He needed to stay on two years after being promoted to retire at that rank, he didn’t, so when he quit it voided his promoted rank, so he retires at his prior rank. He knew damn well that’s how it worked but decided to lie about it instead. Even though it’s a technicality, it’s their rules and that’s the way it is, period.

Walz could solve this right away by showing his 214.

Here’s a form showing his service time extension was until Sept 18, 2007
alphanews.org...

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

The info I'm relaying comes from Guardsmen that were enlisted at the time. The turnaround time on retirement paperwork was 180-days minimum.

You of course have proof of this in the form of some kind of official statement from the Guard or records from that time, right? You know more than people who served and know how this works?

Otherwise shut the # up. You don't know what you're talking about. You're relaying political spin because you're a maggot. You're defending stolen valor for political purposes, you unrivaled piece of #.

And yeah, go ahead with your childish comeback about me being angry. What are you, 12? You get excited that you being such a worthless excuse for a human being angers people? You're damn right this issue angers me. Grow the # up and turn off the political blinders for 2 seconds.

originally posted by: Moon68
Where I work there's a guy that had a 22 year "career" as a drone tester in the Guard. He served honorably 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year, retiring as an E-8. He spent that entire 22 years in S. Dakota in his hometown. This guy also has an impressive list of commendations and medals, some for combat service that he never participated in. Oh, and did I mention, he retired with a 100% disability rating for PTSD? Yeah, there's monumental pieces of sh*t in all walks of life, including the military. The company I work for pays a lot of lip service to veteran hiring but there's a multitude of flappy sack soy bois here that get to claim veteran status that are just plain scum. As a vet myself, I reserve the right to call out that BS when I see it.

Ribbons can be very misleading because they have specific meanings. I have two GWOT ribbons despite never having set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan. One simply means I was in the service during the GWOT. That's the only requirement to get it. The other means I deployed in support of GWOT. You don't have to have done a combat tour to get that one. I got it for deploying to Qatar, where I did fuel aircraft that went into combat. Those ones are easy for the pieces of # to pass off to people who don't know as signifying they served in combat.

I've also got a Nuclear Deterrence medal. No idea where I earned that when it showed up I actually went to personnel to ask them about it because I thought it was a mistake and I didn't wanna wear a ribbon I hadn't earned. They got back to me a few weeks later and said it was legit and I should wear it, but didn't give me much of an explanation for it. I think I got it for some secret squirrel aircraft I refueled, but I'm still not sure.

a reply to: Moon68

Well, Moon, the difference between you and Welched is that you understood what your duty was and met its requirements. BTW, -thank you- for that.

Cheers

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Oh I know. I'm with you. He absolutely abandoned his troops.

I was addressing her comments about people avoiding the Vietnam war draft.

We're on the same page with that. I did not know that the Biden/Harris administration rehired, with back pay, the 8,000 bad apples in the VA Healthcare system that Trump fired then suggested services may need to be cut for veterans because the VA Healthcare system was over budget.
wow, where the hell is the press. The press is really awful and is public enemy #1

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Walz could solve this right away by showing his 214.

I have a copy of mind beside me, and it clearly shows my rank at date of separation. I'm not saying he is anything either way, but with all the questions, he should show his evidence, or admit to being a liar. There really isn't an option c.

According to records by the National Guard, the 1st Battalion of the 125th Field Artillery received an alert order on July 14, 2005, – two months after Walz retired. The mobilization order came in August and the unit mobilized in October.

ABC

Typical Democrat media dishonesty. This paragraph is meant to mislead readers into thinking the alert order, which came after he retired, was the first indication his unit had that they'd be deploying. That's absolutely false.

originally posted by: Vermilion

Here’s a form showing his service time extension was until Sept 18, 2007
alphanews.org...

That appears to just be his reserve obligation. It's normal when you get out to still be eligible to get called up as a reservist in time of war for 2 more years.

What's interesting on there is his date of rank. 1 Apr 05, the month before he retired. If he put in his paperwork to retire back in 2004, I highly doubt the Army would have even started him down the path to Command Sergeant Major, knowing he didn't have enough time left to fulfill the obligations.

Anyone Army that can comment on that?

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

According to records by the National Guard, the 1st Battalion of the 125th Field Artillery received an alert order on July 14, 2005, – two months after Walz retired. The mobilization order came in August and the unit mobilized in October.

ABC

Typical Democrat media dishonesty. This paragraph is meant to mislead readers into thinking the alert order, which came after he retired, was the first indication his unit had that they'd be deploying. That's absolutely false.

They keep moving the goalposts.
First they claimed August.
Then July.
Then politico drops an article after 10pm last night claiming he dropped his retirement papers in February “about a month before reports emerged that the Minnesota National Guard might be deployed.”
They site zero sources for this new found info. 🤡
Hogwash.
www.politico.com...