The Star Tribune is committed to correcting errors that appear in the newspaper or online. Concerns about accuracy can be directed to corrections@startribune.com. You may also call the main number 612-673-4414 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. and ask to be connected to the appropriate department.
Why is this important? Because Congressman Walz has never stated he served in Iraq. Surely the NRCC, Minnesota GOP, and Brian Davis/Dick Day will use inaccuracies such as this against Walz. The Congressman served our nation proudly and does not deserve to have his good record tarnished or exaggerated by shoddy journalism.
The trolls are out in full force at the Strib as well. Check the comments here!
smithjamese says:
Tim Walz has never served in Iraq and also NEVER served in Afghanistan. He spent his war on terrorism tour serving coffee in Vincenza, Italy. The Star Tribune continues to write this lie and has done so on almost every occasion, and of course Mr. Walz, the good weekend warrior that he is, never bothers to correct it. Once again, Tim Walz is not a war veteran of any kind and is not even authorized to belong to the VFW because he has never served in a combat zone. Just ask him.
Thousands of these "weekend warriors" have deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of operation to protect this jackasses right to call them "weekend warriors". Me thinks smith couldn't cut it on Active Duty.
Hugelats says:
You're either with us or against us in the war on terrorism, there is no middle ground. I highly recommend each of you read a book called "Why We Want to Kill You" by Walid Shoebat, a former terrorist. It's extremely enlightening about the Jihad/Muslim ideology. And those of you saying this war has gone on too long, examine our country's history: it took quite a while to get Japan back on her feet, or Germany back on her feet or South Korea. They weren't the economic powerhouses that they are today, or the centers of democracy that they are today, until years of effort and resources went into helping prop them up. This takes time. For the love of God I wish you civilians would stop letting the sensationalizing liberal media tell you how to think. And this knucklehead REMF and his typically democratic rhetoric: "A year ago, I was slogging away in the heat in Iraq," Sarvi told the convention..."and stumbled out into a star-filled night..." So where was he "slogging it away" prior to going out into the night? An office? This guy is full of crap and I as a military leader and veteran of 18 (and counting) years will most definitely not vote for him.
Knucklehead REMF? Gotta love those who discount anyone who serves our nation. I wonder if this guy would say the same about Joe Repya? At nearly 60 years old, Repya served as a senior liaison officer for the 101st Airborne in Iraq for 6 months, 10 months less than Sarvi served in theater. Would Repya be considered a REMF by hugelats?
And some more positive comments.
jpeiters says:
I was at the convention, and Sarvi seemed like a very strong candidate. I think he will relate well to the people of the 2nd Congressional district. He is down to earth, and I think people will respect his service to our country. Starting and continuing hopeless wars is not necessarily patriotic. Here is a man that was willing to put his own life on the line and put his family through deployment all for his country. How dare the conservatives (GW Bush, Cheney, etc.) who haven't shown any of that same courage/sacrifice question someone like Sarvi's patriotism? I don't think Republicans are even aware of what is going to hit them this fall. Has anyone seen GW Bush's approval rating in Minnesota? I am predicting 6/8 congressional districts will go DFL (Sarvi included) and Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer will defeat Norm Coleman as well...
Does that mean the 6th and 3rd remain GOP?
wesleydavey says:
The Republicans like to pat themselves on the back and tell everyone about their
core value of being fiscally conservative, yet one look at the huge budget
deficit created under Bush & Friends - including John Kline - shows what a
bunch of hypocrites they all are. What's worse is that the huge budget deficit
doesn't reflect the war debt. If Kline was a fiscal conservative he'd insist
that we at least partially pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but instead
he's quite content to pass the war debt on to the next generations.
Brandybuck says:
John Kline's Record John Kline doesn't represent Minnesota, our community or families. During the current 110th session of Congress, Republican Representative John Kline voted against: Reducing deficit spending, Improving homeland protection, Raising the minimum wage, Reducing drug prices for Medicare recipients, Reducing interest rates on student loans, Strengthening the Freedom of Information Act, Reducing dependency on foreign oil, Ending the Iraq war, Protecting employees forming labor unions, Protecting Federal whistleblowers who expose corruption, Rebuilding public housing for Katrina victims, Limiting executive pay in publicly traded corporations, Expanding protection against hate crimes, Protecting consumers from price gouging oil companies, Funding environmental protection, Acknowledging and addressing global warming, Funding the replacement of Minnesota's I 35 Bridge, Reauthorizing the HOPE program to repair public housing, Reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program. What Kline voted for? Funding the Iraq War.
Kline's record is not impressive...
1 comment:
I don't get the point.
Washington, Burr, Hamilton, Jackson and Grant served.
Franklin, the Adams family, Jefferson and Lincoln did not.
Where's the litmus test in any of that? Who cares?
Wellstone was cognizant of veteran recognition and issues. Is Kline?
The Walter Reed thing, the problem was recognized on the Bush Cheney watch, but is there a causal connection?
Carter served, Iran went theocratic during his term, he started the Afghan mujahedeen thing which Reagan escalated; and advanced Osama's learning curve.
Blame Reagan, or Carter, one more than the other? The Soviet experience in Afghanistan was a leading factor in the Soviet Union's disintegration. Salute Reagan, or Carter, one more than the other?
Gore served. Clinton did not. The Serb/Kosovo/Bosnia/etc. situation was defused during their presidency - vicepresidency. Would we be in Iraq as we are if the truth of Gore's winning the election had been recognized for what it was - if the Supreme Court had been polarized one vote the other way?
Where's it all matter, serving or not?
Why another litmus test? Why that as a litmus test?
Post a Comment