Lies & Politicians....Sort of Like White & Rice

Politicians who use the blood and bravery of others to get elected are without a doubt members of the species known as Kerry Erectus Sapiens, or as they are more commonly known - "lizard lipped, lying, scum sucking, pinheads."

From True North comes news of one of these lovely lizard lipped individuals. Seems Congressman Tim Walz (D. MN1)has a tad of a problem with accurately portraying his military service. There is no doubt that he served honorably with the national Guard for 24 years and no doubt that he obtained the rank of Command Sargent Major - both significant accomplishments that we all owe him thanks for. However, his website states that "Walz enlisted in the Army National Guard at the young age of 17, and retired 24 years later as Command Sergeant Major. Before retiring, Walz served overseas with his battalion in support of Operation Enduring Freedom." Operation Enduring Freedom is the name of the Afghanistan operation, those who served in Operation Enduring Freedom served in a combat zone - i.e. they are combat vets.

The problem with the Congressman's statement is the last sentence - "in support of Operation Enduring Freedom." The term "in support of" is a vague term used in a lot of different ways in the military. However, at a minimum it usually means that the person was a part of the operation in some way, or was directly supporting the operation in some manner, and could be read, as it has been by many, to mean that the Congressman served in Afghanistan - which he did not.

Turns out that Congressman Waltz's idea of serving "in support of Operation Enduring Freedom" is being in charge of security at a base in Italy. Under that standard everyone in the military could lay claim to be serving "in support of Operation Enduring Freedom" - with the possible exception of those serving time at Leavenworth. If this was the only claim the Congressman made, then I would chalk it up to poor word choice - ambiguous at worst - and move on. But, it is not.

True North cites 3 media stories (two print and one radio) in which Walz was described as being a part of Operation Enduring Freedom - Walz never corrected those stories. Next Walz was called on his misleading statement by Tom Hagen in a letter to the editor of Winnona Daily News. Walz responded to this letter, but instead of clarifying that he did not serve in Afghanistan, he demanded an apology from Hagen - who I understand is serving his second tour in Iraq. Pretty bad, but again not a smoking gun. However, this 2004 photo is.


The Person on the right holding the "Enduring Freedom Veteran" sign is Walz before he was elected to congress. The sign - with no ambiguity - states that he is an Enduring Freedom Vet, which means he served in Afghanistan and is a combat vet. However, there is no dispute that the Congressman never set foot in Afghanistan, at least according to those who work for him.

So why is the good congressman claiming to be a combat vet when he is not? And why has he not clarified what he means by "serving in support of?" And why has he never corrected the news reports claiming he served in Operation Enduring Freedom? Perhaps it is easier to get elected if people think you are a combat vet?

We owe the Congressman thanks for his 24 years of military service. The fact that the Congressman achieved the rank of Command Sargent Major is a significant accomplishment in which he should take great pride. However, to claim that he is a combat veteran when he is not is inexcusable and tarnishes his significant accomplishments. Of more import, at least in my mind, is that he is using the blood and bravery of others to obtain an elected office - shame.