'Thin gruel': WSJ editorial page slaps down GOP attacks on Tim Walz's military record

Republicans this week have been lobbing attacks on Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's 24-year-record of service in the National Guard -- but the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page is decidedly unimpressed.

Writing about the campaign to accuse Walz of "stolen valor," the editors make the case that Republicans would be better off training their fire elsewhere in the Minnesota governor's record.

"The charges leveled so far about his military service look like 'thin gruel,' as our friends at the New York Sun put it," the editors contend. "J.D. Vance has accused Mr. Walz of 'stolen valor' despite his 24 years in the National Guard because the Minnesota Governor didn’t deploy to Iraq with his unit. Before his political career, Mr. Walz rose to the highest enlisted rank of Command Sergeant Major. He retired in May 2005, shortly before the unit was notified in July 2005 that it would be deployed to Iraq. Fox News reports that the Pentagon says Mr. Walz put in his retirement request several months earlier, though it’s fair to ask if he was aware of the possible Iraq deployment."

ALSO READ: Harris has figured out Trump’s greatest liability

The Journal also took apart claims that Walz has been falsely inflating his military rank.

"Mr. Walz has also been accused of lying about his record because he retired one rank below Command Sergeant Major," the editors contend. "But that seems to have been a bureaucratic issue since to retire at that rank required longer service in the role and coursework he didn’t complete. So he retired at a lower rank, but there’s no doubt he had reached the higher position while active."

The editors finish by emphasizing that there is nothing in Walz's military record that warrants serious criticism and urges the GOP to attack him in other areas.

"The U.S. military is a volunteer force and only about 1% of the population serves in uniform. Mr. Walz and Mr. Vance both served their country," they conclude. "There are other and better reasons to oppose Mr. Walz’s candidacy."