"Avoiding a Tour in Iraq" Walz: Serves 20 years, participates in Operation Enduring Freedom, awarded the Army Commendation Medal, retires honourably, re-enlists for another 4 years after 9/11 and finalizes retirement due to running for office fully achieving a rank of Master Sergeant.

"lucky to escape any real fighting" Vance: Corporal but really a glorified publicist (coined 'Sergeant Scribbles' in the article lol), earns the datta-boy Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal. After discovering there ain't no couches in the marines he leaves the service after only a single 4 year tour.

Clearly a viable and totally-not-wierd attack vector for Vance 🙄

I don't remember much of the Kerry campaign, but didn't he lean into his service record? The stolen valor argument is much weaker seeing as Walz has never claimed he's seen active combat.

Regardless, it's incredibly disappointing to see reputable news outlets bat for Trump just because the Dems have two ever so slightly left-leaning people on the ticket.

Bezos trying to keep his tax loopholes I see

This doesn't work very well when the top of your own ticket features someone who didn't serve in the military in any capacity whatsoever and probably has the thinnest skin of any US president in history.

But as long as Vance is out there lying on the campaign’s behalf, accusing a 24 year vet of “stolen valor” and “lying” about his service, anyone would be remiss not to note that Vance himself never saw combat. He spent his six months in theater as essentially a reporter. He was a public affairs specialist who spent his time writing articles about how Marines spent their days on base. In other words, a sort of Sergeant Scribbles, if you will. Actually corporal, but it doesn’t flow off the pen as nicely.

Corporal Couch-fucker

Vance and the two MAGAts who made the claims in the first place are full of shit. Walz filed papers to run for Congress on Feb. 10 2005. He retired from the military on May 16, 2005. His unit didn't receive an alert order for mobilization until two months later.

Records show Walz officially filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission on Feb. 10, 2005.

In March 2005, the National Guard announced a possible partial mobilization of roughly 2,000 troops from the Minnesota National Guard, according to an archived press release from Tim Walz for U.S. Congress.

"I do not yet know if my artillery unit will be part of this mobilization and I am unable to comment further on the specifics of the deployment," said Walz in the March 2005 statement.

The statement continued: "As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on. I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or Iraq," said Walz, who indicated at the time he had no plans to drop out of the race. "I am fortunate to have a strong group of enthusiastic support and a very dedicated and intelligent wife. Both will be a major part of my campaign, whether I am in Minnesota or Iraq."

The Minnesota Army National Guard told CBS News that Walz retired on May 16, 2005. CBS News has asked Walz to clarify when he submitted his retirement papers.

The Minnesota National Guard told CBS News that Walz's unit — 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery — received an alert order for mobilization to Iraq on July 14, 2005 – two months after Walz retired, according to Lt. Col. Ryan Rossman, who serves as the Minnesota National Guard's director of operations. The official mobilization order was received on August 14 of the same year, and the unit mobilized in October.

Having read them both, the Post does put a lot of focus on former colleagues, though I think they come across as having an agenda more than legit criticism. I don't really get the beef with the Times' coverage at all though. They cover literally the same points as TPM. No idea what leads them to say that the coverage is "more egregious and spurious than you’re probably able to imagine."

TPM:

The attacks aren’t just “like” the Swift Boat attacks from 2004. They’re literally the work of the same guy. Chris LaCivita was the strategist who ran the Swift Boat attacks in 2004 and cut the commercials. He’s now the co-manager of the Trump campaign.

NYT:

But Mr. Vance’s comments were also reminiscent of the “Swift boat” attacks in 2004 that effectively cast doubt on the military exploits of Senator John Kerry, then the Democratic presidential nominee. A key strategist behind those attacks, which helped doom Mr. Kerry’s bid for the White House, was Chris LaCivita, who is a senior strategist for the Trump campaign.

TPM:

The overriding point here is that Walz didn’t just say, well, I might get deployed. I’m outta here. It is well-documented that he was already planning to run for Congress, had been discussing with fellow guardsmen for some time whether he would retire as part of his plans to run for Congress and in fact had already announced his run months before he retired.

NYT:

But Joseph Eustice, a 32-year veteran of the national guard who led the same battalion as Mr. Walz and served under him, said in an interview on Wednesday that the governor was a dependable soldier and that the attacks by his fellow comrades were unfounded . . . Mr. Eustice recalled that Mr. Walz’s decision to run for Congress came months before the battalion received any official notice of deployment, though he said there had been rumors that it might be deployed.

Against Captain Bonespurs? Ha ha! HA HA HA! Get out of here with that shit. "Democracy dies in we're going to do some cheerleading for the dictator anyway."

This is the important part, "The attacks aren’t just “like” the Swift Boat attacks from 2004. They’re literally the work of the same guy. Chris LaCivita was the strategist who ran the Swift Boat attacks in 2004 and cut the commercials. He’s now the co-manager of the Trump campaign."

What is this headline? Fucking garble. Every word capitalized, reads like shit. All the headlines are written in this weird way lately

He lost the election because he made a lot of lofty promises with the energy and enthusiasm of a half eaten grapefruit.

It was just hard to be excited for the guy.

Meanwhile Dubya comes out and lies through his teeth and you knew it but boy he could work a crowd.

Neither the Post nor the Times' articles do what TPM says they do, though.

They both report (accurately) on what Vance said, and then both report (accurately) on why it is bullshit. The Post article maybe does a little more BoTh SiDeSing than the Times one, as it it is written in a manner to make it seem like the Harris campaign was being evasive. But neither gives any impression that Vance's claims were correct.