JD Vance attacks Tim Walz's military service: 'Is this the best they've got?'

In brief...

• JD Vance has continued his attacks on Tim Walz, claiming he had lied about his time in the US military.
• Neither Vance or Walz has been in a war zone, despite both having served in different capacities.
• The News Agents have questioned whether this is "the best" Republicans have to criticise the Democratic Party.

What's the story?

JD Vance’s latest - and it seems only - attack line on Tim Walz is surrounding the Minnesota Governor's time in the US military.

The attack is twofold.

First, Vance has called Walz a liar for claiming he went to war when he in fact never saw combat. Vance's claims stem from a comment Walz made in 2018, he spoke about "weapons of war, that I carried in war" – when he was never in a combat zone.

"I thank you for your service," Vance said earlier this week.

"But you shouldn't have lied about it. You shouldn't have said you went to war when you didn't."

The Harris presidential campaign has stated that Walz "misspoke" when he made this comment.

The second attack saw Vance attack Walz for retiring from his unit (after 24 years service) months before the unit was deployed. Walz claims he didn’t know they were about to be deployed when he retired.

What has Walz said about his military service?

Walz enlisted in the National Guard, America's reserve forces, in 1981, when he was 17.

He was deployed across the US and other parts of the world, but was never on the front lines.

In 2001 he retired from the National Guard, only to reenlist later that year, following the September 11 terrorist attack on the Twin Towers. He retired for a second time, permanently, in 2005, two years after the Iraq war began, and after 24 years of service.

A month later, his former unit was informed it could potentially be deployed to Iraq.

Vance has said his retirement was to avoid being sent to the war zone.

Walz has also spoken with pride of his time in the National Guard, and following recent Vance comments of having "stolen valor" due to his war comment, he spoke of his pride of having served in the US military.

"I’m going to say it again as clearly as I can: I am damn proud of my service to this country, and I firmly believe you should never denigrate another person’s service record," Walz said this week.

How do Vance and Trump’s military service compare?

Vance also served in the US military but, like Walz, never saw combat.

He joined the US Marine Corps in 2003, and was deployed to Iraq in 2005, where he spent six months as a military journalist.

He later worked in a Public Affairs role, and retired from service after four years.

Donald Trump has never served in a military role, and while in college deferred four times from serving in the Vietnam War, initially found fit to serve, but later found unfit due to bone spurs in his feet.

What do The News Agents say?

Emily Maitlis describes Vance's comments about Walz as a Republican attempt to "make mischief" for the Democratic Party.

It comes after several weeks of positive headlines for the Harris and Walz campaign, and as the Democrats are set to continue dominating headlines with their annual conference next week.

Jon Sopel says the attacks on Walz's military service and the "misspoken" claim of carrying weapons to war is an attempt to undermine the Democratic Party's campaign, in a similar way John Kerry became a controversial figure when Barack Obama nominated Kerry to become Secretary of State in 2004.

Kerry had made claims about serving on secret missions for the US military, which were widely contested at the time.

"What they're trying to do is to replay that tactic to bring down Walz because they see him as too popular," Jon says.

"The problem you've got is that 20 years on, I mean, when Kerry was running in 2004 it was at the height of the Iraq War, and Americans were saying: "do we want to be there?"

"And therefore military record was seen somewhat differently than maybe it is today."

And considering Donald Trump's military history – or lack of – Jon questions whether it's a "good look" to make this a key topic in Republican election attacks.

Emily, however, admits that Vance's persistence around Walz's claims are a "partial win" for the Reds.

"JD Vance said this isn't about military record. It's about lying about your military record. And Trump never pretended that he had gone into the military," she says.

But she also believes he has “lost credibility” by focusing on the topic.

Jon questions if this is "the best" Republicans have got.

"He didn't know when he left that his regiment was about to be deployed, so therefore he did it in all innocence," he concludes.

Listen in full on The News Agents.