Governor Tim Walz has been under considerable pressure over his military and political record over the last week or so.
Of all people, Hillary Clinton is coming to his defense. She is someone who has had to defend herself against false claims she has made about her own record.
Talking Points…
- Hillary defends Walz
- Hillary's false statements
- Analysis
Governor Tim Walz has been under fire since almost day one of the announcement that he would be Kamala's VP. These are not made-up attacks but legitimate attacks against Walz for having overstated his record while in the service.
Again, nobody would have ever said anything had he just been honest about his record and not phrased his comments to suggest he served in war zones, but that is what he often did. For instance, during one speech, he talked about a deployment, then segued into a moment he experienced on the tarmac at Bagram while not telling the crowd he was in Bagram as a member of Congress, not a soldier.
As I am sure you know by now, he initially stated that he retired as a command sergeant major, which was untrue, as well as saying that he carried a weapon in war, which he never did. The Democrats and the media have been defending him religiously, but we all know that had this been a Republican making such claims, it would be on the front headlines and websites of every major publication. In fact, several outlets tried to downplay Vance's service to defend Walz, only Vance never misstated his service.
Enter Hillary Clinton, who does not have the best history on this front. Hillary posted on X on Monday to defend Walz, stating:
"Tim Walz served honorably for two decades. Then he joined Congress and worked to pass a new GI bill that helped fund the college educations of millions of veterans—among them, JD Vance."
Nobody is denying that Walz served for more than two decades. What is being challenged is the lies he told about his rank, about carrying a weapon in war, and suggesting he served in Afghanistan.
Hillary has some experience in making false claims about dangerous encounters in her career. While Hillary was serving as our First Lady during the Bill Clinton administration. In March 2008, Hillary, while appearing at George Washington University, stated:
"I remember landing under sniper fire.
"There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
Her claim was fact-checked by the Washington Post, which checked more than 100 news reports at the time of her arrival, and there were zero reports of sniper activity at the time that Hillary landed. She then offered a half-hearted apology in retracting the story. During her primary race for the presidential election, she stated:
"I did make a mistake in talking about it, you know, the last time and recently. So I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I'm human, which, you know, for some people, is a revelation.
"This is really about what policy experience we have and who's ready to be commander in chief. And I'm happy to put my experience up against Senator Obama's any day."
You have to love how she deflects away from her honesty to go after her political opponent on policy experience. She literally lied, claiming she had come under enemy fire, yet she somehow tried to turn it into a positive by attacking Barack Obama, who eventually went on to win the nomination.
I don't understand why these people cannot admit a mistake and move on. I don't want to hear that he misspoke, either. He needs to wake up to the fact that he purposely posted something that was untrue. He needs to say that he should have reminded people who thanked him for serving in a war zone that he never actually served in a war zone. He needs to say that sometimes he was wrong for suggesting at times during speeches that he served in a war zone. That, I would respect. I don't respect stealth editing and Harris' campaign coming out to defend him rather than Walz actually stepping up to admit what he did.
