According to his official Report of Separation and Record of Service, he re-enlisted for six years on September 18th, 2001. However, in his response he says that he re-enlisted for four years, conveniently retiring a year before his battalion was deployed to Iraq. Even if he had re-enlisted for four years following Sept.11, his retirement date would have been September 18th, 2005. Why then did he "retire" on May 16th, 2005, before his supposed four-year enlistment was up? And he makes it sound like he "retired" a year before his battalion deployed to Iraq; when in reality he knew when he "retired" that the battalion would be deployed to Iraq.

Tim Walz is an American coward, plain and simple. He betrayed his word, his contract; he betrayed his men. He committed the ultimate act of betrayal, and that is irrefutable. It is beyond offensive to those of us who not only served our country but who had the honor and privilege to serve with our brothers and sisters in combat. //

SeekingRationalThought
8 hours ago
Well said. Having never served, I won't accuse Walz of cowardice. That is for veterans like the writer above, not the likes of me. However, remember this. If Walz, as the senior enlisted in his unit, was willing to abandon his troops, and his responsibilities to them, for personal gain (Congress), what isn't he willing to do for personal gain?