J.D. Vance melts down over questions about his military record
J.D. Vance melts down over questions about his military record
Despite lobbing the same questions at Tim Walz, J.D. Vance lost it when pressed about his own military service.
Despite lobbing the same questions at Tim Walz, J.D. Vance lost it when pressed about his own military service.
Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance seems perfectly happy to dish out criticism of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz over his military record, but he just can’t take it.
Vance blew up at CNN anchor Brianna Keilar on Thursday, after she called Vance an “imperfect messenger” to criticize Walz over his military service.
“At what point did military service become a liability?” Keilar asked rhetorically on CNN’s Inside Politics. “I also think that J.D. Vance as a messenger on this may be an imperfect messenger.”
Vance served a single four-year enlistment in the public affairs section in the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, and according to his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, the Republican nominee was “lucky to escape any real fighting.” Still, that hasn’t stopped Vance from accusing Walz, who served with the Army National Guard for 24 years, of exiting the service before his unit was deployed to Iraq.
You're viewing a single thread.
“When were you ever in war?” Vance demanded at a Michigan rally on Wednesday. “What bothers me about Tim Walz is this stolen valor garbage. Do not pretend to be something that you’re not.”
How do you consistently fuck up this bad every time?
It does look like Walz misspoke years ago when he was making a point about how some weapons only belong in war and not anywhere else. I don't think it's that big of a deal to make, especially coming from someone else who also didn't see combat but more importantly doesn't seem to understand that service is far more than combat.
I don't think that's a misstatement at all. Nobody needs an M2 Browning in their backyard, as cool as they are.
If Walz did say "the weapons I used in war..." then he did misspeak a little - even though I get why as it's a more powerful word choice when arguing about gun control.
How is that misspeak? Even if you're not in active combat you still train to be able to use weapons of war. Its not like COs never touch a weapon again in their service.
Of course, but "I used in war" has a different implication than "I trained with for war" for example. It's splitting hairs, but they are struggling to find an angle on Walz.
Easy, it's called being a republikkklown