Posted on 08/23/2024 10:02:37 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
“each advocated for Walz to take ownership of his misstatements”
They’re not misstatements - they’re premeditated lies.
Anyone not fully with the leftists would be given *zero* opportunities to correct a lie.
What is alleged about it? The Minnesota Army National Guard has the records to prove it. Walz was reduced in rank at retirement. His commanding officers all acknowledge that it happened.
-PJ
Regards,
yes and no.
He was promoted and/or frocked to CSM. Was he ever paid at that rank?
If he was ever paid as an E9 he might have a case. But if was never paid as an E9 he is a lying SOB.
What I, as a civilian, don't understand is: Why?
95% of all ordinary citizens (voters) have no idea about any possibly differences between a "Sargeant Major" and a "Command Sargeant Major." It would have zero influence upon our voting behavior.
So why would he bother "inflating" his rank?
If I claim that I am an "Emeritus Adjunct Professor" rather than an "Associate Professor" - who cares (except for that tiny fraction of the population who knows the difference)?
Regards,
The top of the enlisted rank structure is the three E9’s, master gunnery sergeant, sergeant major, or sergeant major of the Marine Corps if he had completed additional coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy. But he never was an E9 due to the failure of that course work.
If he was the ranking enlisted member of the unit for a while if there were no E9’s at the site, he could have filled the position to do the work only. It doesn’t constitute a promotion. So it is possible he was working in the position, but was not the rank to be a permanent E9. Happens all the time especially with deployments and paperwork. This is one of the reasons so many troops get a promotion and immeditely get a PCS, permanent change of station. So he is not being up front with the grade even if he was doing the work. He didn’t qualify for E9. So if he said he was, even though he did the work, he’s lying.
wy69
******************
Interesting, and good point.
1) Perhaps Walz doesn't understand that, and after being in the NG, thinks it is just common knowledge that the rank is more important?
2) Perhaps some deep-seated psychological thing for Walz (daddy issues?) that he has to lie to himself on how important he is?
3) Maybe the CCP pays their agents based on the rank they hold in the USA?
4) He is a pathological liar, and lies about EVERYTHING!
It was lying, not mis-stating. He probably did get paid as CSM for a while when he was still active, but he knew his retired-CSM was never effective because he never completed the full requirements to remain CSM. He is a retired E-8.
Further, an apology is not going to “enhance” his status - that’s just wishful CNN thinking.
No, he didn’t get E9 pay. He was frocked, which means he got to wear the E9 insignia conditionally, but not the pay. He failed to complete the conditions for E9 so he was demoted once he cut and run. It’s wrong for him to go around claiming he’s a retired E9. That is deceptive.
I served in the roll of a leading first class PO in the navy. Although, I wasn’t the senior first class in the division. I didn’t introduce my self as the leading 1st because there’s no extra pay or regard given other than responsibility of the position. I was E-6 and so was the lazy azzhole who couldn’t do the job. I served in the Vietnam era. I’ve never been there. Submarines didn’t operate up the rivers there. I am not a Vietnam Vet. It’s a matter of truth, honesty, and honor. Walz is a liar. IMO.
Okay...thanks for the info. Sounds like he really was just ‘selected’ for the ranking but, as you say, not official. It is LYING, then IMO.
The bottom line is that at his level he knew and knows better than to go around touting that CSM stuff. It’s lying.
[USAF 68-76, 6 years 11 months OCONUS]
True. Thanks for your service. We survived. Some didn’t. May they all RiP. Regards. 71 to 78. MM1(SS).
Thanks!
I'm "out of the loop" and so just "spit-balling," here. Also don't want to tread on anyone's toes who thinks that I am belittling the concept of "stolen valor" by suggesting that, for much of the population, "Command Sergeant Major" vs. "Sergeant Major" is a "distinction without a difference."
My theory: The distinction looms large in Walz's imagination. He's not doing it to impress anyone else or to garner votes; rather, he's a narcissist doing it because, to him, it's important.
Regards,
Does anyone here know if the term brevet is still current in military parlance?
I've heard of "Brevet Colonels" and "Brevet Captains" - but a "Brevet Command Sergeant Major?!"
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.