‘Tim Walz Reenlisted After 9/11’ Is The Latest Lie About His Military Record

 

Image Credit

Just like claims that he served in war, or retired as a command sergeant major, the story Walz tells about reenlisting is not true.

When Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz was introduced as Kamala Harris’ running mate, the campaign presented him as a bona fide patriot, a career National Guardsman who retired as a command sergeant major after 24 years of faithful service to his country, including a deployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Walz enlisted two days after his 17th birthday in April 1981. As Walz tells it, when the planes hit the Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001, the attack compelled him to reenlist in lieu of his 20-year retirement, to carry out his patriotic duty to serve his country in a time of war. He then retired in 2005, years after his service obligation for retirement was satisfied.

But in fact, just like claims that he served in war, or retired as a command sergeant major, the story as Walz tells it is not true.

Serving in Combat and Rank

Walz is a serial fabulist. On Aug. 6, the same day Harris announced Walz as her choice for running mate, the Harris campaign posted a video on X in which Walz stated, “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war.” Turns out Walz “misspoke.” To put it in more natural terms, he lied. On day one, the first video of Kamala Harris’ vice-presidential candidate released by the campaign contained within it a blatant lie about his military service that stepped right up to the line of what most military veterans would consider to be stolen valor.

The campaign’s pathetic explanation — that “In his 24 years of service, the Governor carried, fired and trained others to use weapons of war innumerable times” — did little to assuage the spidey senses of millions of normal people.

Other stories about Walz’s service began to fall apart under the enhanced scrutiny. He did not retire as a command sergeant major — he retired as a master sergeant, because he left before fulfilling his contractual obligation to complete the Sergeants Major Academy, a requirement to hold the rank to which he was conditionally frocked in September 2004.

Reenlisting after 9/11

My initial reaction to the narrative that Walz reenlisted after 9/11 out of a sense of patriotism was confusion, as his date of enlistment was April 1981 and one would expect, absent unusual circumstances involving extensions or breaks in service, his 20-year retirement date would have been April 2001 and any reenlistment or extension would’ve had to have been executed in April, months prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

So I looked into it. On Nov. 2, 2009, Walz sat down with a historian from the Library of Congress Veterans History Project to memorialize his service as a military veteran. During the course of Walz’s description of his service to his country, he related the following regarding his decision to reenlist after the 9/11 attacks:

My 20 years was actually, ironically enough, up that week of September 11, 2001, because of the time I had off and made up, so I reenlisted like, I think, the vast majority people did with a real uncertainty but wanting to with a real sense of wanting to do something.

That was a lie.

But there’s more. Three years earlier, in response to a letter to the editor of the Winona Daily News written by Tom Hagen, an Iraqi war combat veteran and former colleague of Walz in the 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery of the Minnesota Army National Guard, in which Hagen questioned Walz’s decision to retire within two months of receiving a warning order for his battalion to deploy to Iraq, Walz wrote the following:

After completing 20 years of service in 2001, I re-enlisted to serve our country for an additional four years following Sept. 11 and retired the year before my battalion was deployed to Iraq in order to run for Congress.

That, too, was a lie. Both of those quotes have been exclusively linked in news media stories as citations to support reporting that Walz “reenlisted after 9/11 when he could have retired, having reached 20 years of service in 2001.” If you Google “Tim Walz reenlisted after 9/11,” you’ll find pages upon pages of publications parroting the story Walz has told since his retirement in 2005. It’s not true.

CNN’s Dana Bash, during an interview with GOP vice-presidential candidate J.D. Vance, repeated the Walz lie as follows: “Governor Walz served 24 years — he even stayed after he could’ve retired because of 9/11 — more than the country asked of him. Do you honor his service?”

Walz did not complete 20 years of service in September 2001. He didn’t “stay after he could’ve retired” because he wasn’t eligible to retire.

According to Walz’s Report of Separation and Record of Service, he was put on “ING” — Inactive National Guard — from Dec. 1, 1989, to July 12, 1990, a total of 7 months and 12 days of inactive service. Walz was reportedly teaching school in China during that period.

The Report of Separation also denotes a discrepancy between his “Total Service for Pay” and “Total Service for Retirement Pay.” That difference is 7 months and 12 days.

Had Walz wanted to retire after 20 years of service, he would not be eligible to do so until at least 7 months and 12 days after his enlistment anniversary date of April 8, 1981, barring further breaks in service or failure to acquire training and participation points to meet his annual obligations.

This would have put his eligible retirement date at Nov. 20, 2001, at the earliest — more than a month after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. At a minimum, Walz was blatantly lying in his Library of Congress Veterans Project interview about being eligible to retire, “ironically,” the week of Sept. 11, 2001.

But there’s more.

In response to media inquiries regarding the confusion around Walz’s service record, Army Col. Ryan Cochran, Minnesota National Guard’s Director of Manpower and Personnel, released the following information to the media on Aug. 13, 2024:

Media Members-

“Governor Tim Walz received his notification of eligibility for retirement on August 3, 2002. He was promoted to sergeant major (E-9) on September 17, 2004. and immediately began serving as the command sergeant major for the 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery while his packet was submitted to the National Guard Bureau to appoint him to command sergeant major (E-9). Once approved by NGB. he was laterally appointed to command sergeant major (E-9) on April 1, 2005. He retired from the Minnesota National Guard on May 16, 2005. Our records do not indicate when he made his request to retire. Leadership reviews and approves all requests to retire. He was administratively reduced to master sergeant (E-8) on May 15, 2005, because he did not complete all required U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy coursework.”

Take note of the first line — “Governor Tim Walz received his notification of eligibility for retirement on August 3, 2002.” This date apparently reflects additional service requirements in addition to making up his inactive time in China.

Walz would have been aware that he wasn’t eligible to retire “the same week as Sept. 11, 2001,” nor even the same year.

He simply wasn’t eligible to retire in 2001. The story we’ve been told by Walz, the Harris campaign, and the media is riddled with lies and misrepresentations of his service. He has, in two short weeks, proven to be an inveterate liar.

Release His Military Records

As is always the case when one leads with a lie, the question that needs to be answered is obvious — what else is he lying about? Will Bash and the hundreds of publications that perpetuated this lie correct the record and inform the public that the National Guard has refuted Walz’s characterization of the circumstances of his reenlistment?

Reporters with any sense of journalistic responsibility will want to ask Walz to either release all of his military records or at least reveal the date of his reenlistment in 2001 and the date he submitted his retirement papers in 2005.

Did he reenlist before (in his anniversary month of April) or after 9/11? Did he extend his service in April 1991 to cover the time he needed to retire at 20 years? How many years did he reenlist for? Did he receive a bonus for reenlisting and, if so, did he pay back the portion of the bonus for the time he cut off when he retired early?

What’s clear is that the Walz we were introduced to weeks ago — the soldier who reenlisted after 9/11 out of a patriotic duty to serve his country at war, who carried weapons in war, who deployed “in support of Operation Enduring Freedom” and retired as a command sergeant major — bears little resemblance to the Walz we have come to know later.

The retired command sergeant major is now a retired master sergeant. The patriotic reenlistment after 9/11 when he could have retired is now a mandatory reenlistment in 2001 after failing to meet his service requirement to retire after 20 years. The war veteran who carried weapons in war in support of Operation Enduring Freedom is now a soldier who deployed to Vicenza, Italy, to pull guard duty on front gates and crosswalks.

Walz said that he’s proud — “damn proud” — of his military service. But it’s clear that Walz’s pride is reserved for the noble service of the imaginary retired sergeant major, combat veteran he created for sale to the public — we’ve heard a lot about that guy. He doesn’t seem to have a sliver of pride for the real Walz — the retired master sergeant who left his unit two months before his only opportunity to serve his country and lead his troops in war. He hid that Walz from the public for two decades.

There will be more — it’s inevitable when dealing with a compulsive liar. What remains to be seen is whether or not the media has any interest in seeking answers to the obvious questions surrounding the legend of retired Master Sergeant Tim Walz.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/08/21/tim-walz-reenlisted-after-9-11-is-the-latest-lie-about-his-military-record/