Reply to She picked Tim

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "She picked Tim"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The campaign just changed Walz’s biography on their site from “retired Command Sergeant Major” to “served as a command sergeant major”. [/quote]

I still don't understand what the difference is. [/quote]

Walz was provisionally promoted to Command Sergeant Major but was required to complete some coursework. He ended up retiring without completing the coursework. Therefore, he reverted to his previous rank. So, Walz served as a Command Sergeant Major and was still a Command Sergeant Major the day before he retired, but he retired as a Master Sergeant (if I recall correctly). 
[/quote]

The coursework is called the Sergeant Major Academy in El Paso TX. Walz either refused to attend or dropped out. I have seen a source that stated Walz dropped out of the Academy.

Once Walz either refused to attend the academy or dropped out, his promotion was terminated and he no longer had the right to be referred to as SGM or CSM.

Where are you sourcing the information in your post from? Link?[/quote]

I have been reading a number of sources for two days. That was mostly off the top of my head. The Washington Post today reported that he did not revert to his previous rank until the day before he retired. 
[/quote]

If you refuse to attend your slot at the Sergeant Major Academy (you will get a date to attend the Academy when you make the E9 list) you cannot be referred to as a SGM or CSM. If you accept your date to attend the SGM academy and then cannot complete the academy and graduate, you are still a E8 Master Sergeant. You aren’t a SGM or CSM until you graduate the academy.

Walz isn’t being truthful and clueless media is either covering up for him or ignorant themselves.

Walz knows better and is being allowed to lie about his military service because he is an elected official. [/quote]

The Minnesota National Guard issued an official statement saying that Walz had served as a CSM and had the right to say that he had served as one. 
[/quote]

But his rank was always E8 Master Sergeant. He never graduated from the Sergeant Major Academy in TX. He can say he served as a CSM temporarily but he never attained the rank of E9 SGM and retired as an E8 Master Sergeant. Saying Walz made the SGM list is the truth. Saying he served (for how long?) as a CSM is the truth. But saying he was a CSM is a lie and he’s lying. He either dropped out of the SGM academy or refused his slot.

Walz also said he carried a weapon in war. That’s not true, either.[/quote]

We understand the distinction.  And the Harris/Walz campaign has had their wrist slapped and corrected to "served as a CSM" which the Minnesota National Guard spokesman says is legitimate for him to say.

And he has corrected himself about the weapon of war quote, saying he did carry a weapon of war, but not in war or combat.

So, if you are this worked up about these slips, then I guess you are also upset that Vance has embellished himself, through his Hillbilly Elegies, too.  Vance claims to have come from Appalachia and grew up poor raised by a single mother who was a alcholic.  The only part that was true was that his mother was an alcoholic and that his father had disappeared while he was growing up.  The truth is that his grandparents were originally from Appalachia, but by the time he was born, had moved to suburban Cincinnati.  Yes, his mother was alcoholic, but she didn't raise him and only occasionally visted him.  He was raised by his grandparents, not in poverty, but in fairly typical middle class suburbia.

So, he has tried to give the "poor boy from Appalachia" woe-is-me story for years, but in reality, he was not.  That's at least as big, if not bigger, distortion of the truth as Walz claiming he was a retired CSM instead of an acting CSM who did not complete CSM training before retiring as a Sergeant Major.  Or carrying a weapon of war, but mistakenly saying he had carried it in war, when he had carried it in service, but not in combat or war.

In truth, neither man's embellishments really are significant enough to make as much of a deal over as people are making them out to be.  They are details that were embellished, were caught and both have corrected.  Time to move on.  Neither one's emblishments are going to make or break either candidate or ticket.  And neither are particularly important.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics