Friday, July 17, 2009

They can't ignore you if you show up in person

Since I have yet to receive a phone call or email back from Congressman Walz's office about the still unexplained photo of him claiming to be an Afghanistan veteran, I decided to visit his office in person. On Wednesday, Travis Quinlan and I went to Walz's office in Mankato. Travis served with me in Iraq and lives in Mankato, and was the guy who made me look old in the Vets for Freedom commercial. And to avoid any he said/she said confusion, we took a video camera.

Here's the video, and I will say that Travis and I definitely don't have a future in Hollywood.

But we did get three interesting admissions from Rick, the staffer we spoke with.

1) The Walz biography could perhaps cause confusion about Walz's military record.

2) Rick has repeatedly had to correct the impression the Walz is a combat veteran.

3) Rick lied straight to my face when he told me he knew nothing about the photo or the blog post.



Rick's lie is revealed at 5:12 on the video.

"And you're from Owatonna?"

I didn't catch it until we were walking out, and then I reviewed the whole video to make sure. Travis and I never said where we were from. We introduced ourselves each time as 'constituents and Iraq War vets'. So somehow, Rick knew where I live, even though he said he had never seen the photo before nor seen my blog post from last Monday. How could that be?

The Sitemeter button on the right of my blog not only tracks how many visitors to a blog, but who is visiting. Since I posted on Congressman Walz on Monday, there have been over a dozen visits from 'house.gov', each over 5 minutes long. Now, I suppose you could point out that there are 435 members of the House and dozens of staffers for each one that could have visited this blog from the server at 'house.gov'. But is it reasonable to think that none of them work for Congressman Walz?

It is clear to me that Rick knew exactly who I was when we spoke with him. Rather than be up front and honest about that, he choose to play dumb and pretend he had never heard of me or the photo or the issue with the Congressman's website.

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for a response from Congressman Walz or anyone in his office. Even a simple 'we're looking into it and we will get back to you' would be better than the silence now emanating from Congressman Walz.

11 comments:

BATS RIGHT, THROWS RIGHT said...

Your photo link does not show Walz holding the phony sign. Just a glitch I'm sure.

BATS RIGHT, THROWS RIGHT said...

Never mind, The glitch was on my end. You need to pan to the right to see Walz holding the phony sign.

danbrome said...

Holy crap, you guys are desperate!

Political Muse said...

Given that you are using an official military email address to post attacks on veterans and the commander in chief, is this blog sanctioned by the United States Army?

Is the use of official military email for partisan political purposes allowed?

Dave Thul said...

My blog contains my personal opinions only.

But it is interesting that among all of the negative comments and emails I have gotten on this story, none have tried to deny anything.

Apparently if you can't deny the truth, you try to change the story.

Political Muse said...

Well Dave, I have been wondering why you are using an official military email address to attack the commander in chief since April:

http://liberalinthelandofconservative.blogspot.com/2009/04/quick-question-for-true-north.html

long before you began this story so how about you answer my questions first:

Why are you using an official military email address to post on a partisan political blog?

Is the use of official military email for partisan political purposes allowed?

Could you direct me to rule or regulation that allows you to use your official military email in this manner?

Do you find it at all inappropriate? How would you have reacted to an official military email address being used to attack conservative veterans or a conservative President?

BATS RIGHT, THROWS RIGHT said...

Walz has definite pattern of trying to mislead voters.

"served overseas with his battalion in support of Operation Enduring Freedom."

could have easily been changed to

"served overseas in Italy with his battalion in support of Operation Enduring Freedom."

BATS RIGHT, THROWS RIGHT said...

PM, while isn't that typial of a conservative to shoot the messenger.

Did you have anything to day in defense of Congressman Walz, or are you just trolling to try to change the topic?

BATS RIGHT, THROWS RIGHT said...

Dave, moonbat-troll danbrome left this comment over at Minnesota Democrats Exposed:

Congressman Tim Walz is the highest ranking enlisted soldier ever to serve in Congress'

That is a fact, documented in countless places on the internet."

***

That led to this response:

Tower left college in the summer of 1943 to serve in the Pacific theater during World War II on an LCS(L) amphibious gunboat. He returned to Texas after the war in 1946, discharged as a seaman first class, and completed his undergraduate courses at Southwestern University, having graduated in 1948 with a bachelor of arts degree in political science. Tower worked as a radio announcer for a country music station in Taylor, east of Austin, during college and for some time afterward. Tower, however, remained in the Naval Reserve and achieved the rank of Master Chief Petty Officer retiring in 1989

http://www.answers.com/topic/john-tower

Command Sergeant Major – E9
Master Chief Petty Officer – E9

(http://www.militaryfactory.com/ranks/index.asp "

***

http://walz.house.gov/bio.shtm states this: "Walz is the highest ranking enlisted soldier ever to serve in Congress."


You know far more than me about military ranks. Is Tim Walz laying sole claim to a title that he actually shares with the late Senator John Tower?

Swiftee said...

Well Dave, you've put the issue right up in the Congressman's grill.

Now it's up to him to clear the record and be honest about his service.

The Democrat party really has enough frauds in their ranks, they won't miss him at all.

Anonymous said...

A Master Chief Petty Officer is an E-9 but is not a soldier, so the statement on the Walz website is correct since it states 'highest ranking enlisted soldier' and not highest ranking enlisted member.