Walz's Former Superior: Yes, Walz Quit Because His Unit Was Deploying to Iraq, and He Went Over My Head to Get Someone to Approve the Breaking of His Contract

More of that Stolen Valor Garbage.

According to Walz's Command Sergeant Major, Walz had signed a six year contract when he re-upped in the National Guard in 2000. When he was notified that his unit would be mobilized for Iraq, he put in for retirement, despite having two years left to serve on his contract.

His superior denied his request -- so Walz went up to two levels of command above to get someone to grant his quickie retirement (and breaking of his contract).

Why would someone let him out of the contract?

I don't know, but remember, in 2004-2006, the Democrats' big plan for defeating Bush and the Republicans was to recruit lots of people who could claim a military background, so they could challenge the Republicans' notions of patriotism.

And it just so happened that as soon as this coward was let out, he declared he was running for Congress.

Did that motivate a politically-minded superior to give him a Get Out of War Free pass?

Watching this CNN cow fight this guy on every single noun and verb is a chore.

She just keeps insisting he "had a right to retire" despite being under contract -- and despite there being a Stop-Loss order throughout the military blocking people from retiring.

COATES: Is your concern that it's -- oh, go ahead. I do want to ask this question quickly, Sergeant Major, and I appreciate your time, but is your -- [crosstalk] -- concern about the manner in which he did not speak to you or his decision to retire, which he, as we've talked about, he would have been entitled to do, which causes the most concern? Because that is the focus that so many people are wondering about, whether he has done something wrong in service or done something personally to offend you.

JULIN: No, he did something wrong in service, as I stated before. He knew the policies and procedures and how we go to leadership and address issues or discuss issues and concerns out there. Again, backing up, he had told me, no, I'm going forward, we're going to go with the battalion, and go from there. So, I'm under the believing, he told me he was going forward. I'm underneath that believing that he's going forward. He went around me, which he should have addressed it with me so he could help me with some things out there.

COATES: Sergeant Major, this was really -- excuse me, I don't want to cut you off, sir. Finish your point, please, Sergeant Major.

JULIN: He went around me. And the fact is that there's a possibility he probably would have realized. I would have probably said, no, it's too late, you're going forward, because we'd already received our notification of sourcing. And there's one other little point out there that people say, well, he hadn't been notified yet. Yes, he had been notified.

Now, there's another step out there. It is what's called stop loss. Ninety days prior to the actual deployment, we received our orders. And at that time is what's called stop loss, where if you're in a position, you're going forward irregardless, unless there's some really major or process --

COATES: Hmm, okay.

JULIN: -- that gets you out from not going on the deployment itself. So, there's that window of opportunity there. People say, well, he never knew he was going forward. Yeah, he knew he was going forward. Had he gotten his orders yet? No. At that time, he had not.

He has repeatedly insisted he served in either Iraq or Afghanistan (or both):

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 03:22 PM

| Access Comments