Democratic vice-presidential candidate Gov. Tim Walz faced significant criticism this week after his claims of carrying weapons "in war" were challenged by a prominent fact-checker.

Washington Post chief fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, along with other analysts, debunked Walz's assertion implying a presence during combat, highlighting the absence of any evidence that Walz served in a war zone during his military career, as Fox News reports, a situation made worse by claims he retired from the military early in order to avoid deployment.

Walz, who has served in the Army National Guard, was fact-checked for a statement he made in 2018, in which he claimed to have carried weapons of war "in war."

This claim, made during a town hall meeting focused on gun control, resurfaced recently when a video clip of the event was circulated by the Harris campaign on social media.

Kessler Examines Walz's Military Records

Kessler, tasked with investigating Walz's military service, analyzed the records obtained through an open records request by MPR News.

According to these records, while Walz received recognition for his proficiency in sharpshooting and hand grenades, there was no indication that he had ever served in a combat theater or carried weapons in a war zone.

Kessler's findings were clear: Walz did carry weapons of war, but not in combat. "There is no evidence that Walz served in combat," Kessler wrote in his analysis, pointing out that Walz had not explicitly claimed combat experience but had implied it through his statements.

Harris Campaign Admits Walz Misspoke

As criticism mounted, the Harris campaign acknowledged that Walz had "misspoke" regarding his military service.

In a statement, the Walz campaign emphasized the governor's respect for American military service, reaffirming his commitment to regulating weapons of war. The statement also thanked GOP vice presidential nominee JD Vance for his service, while contrasting their views on gun control.

The Walz campaign stated, "Governor Walz would never insult or undermine any American’s service to this country -- in fact, he thanks Senator Vance for putting his life on the line for our country. It’s the American way. In making the case for why weapons of war should never be on our streets or in our classrooms, the Governor misspoke."

Republican Criticism of Walz's Statements

Despite the clarification, Walz's comments drew sharp rebuke from Vance and other Republican figures. Vance questioned the authenticity of Walz's claim, asking when Walz had ever been in a combat zone.

"Well, I wonder, Tim Walz, when were you ever in war? When was this? What was this weapon that you carried into war?" Vance asked, further stating that Walz "has not spent a day in a combat zone."

Vance's criticism was echoed by other critics throughout the week, adding to the pressure on Walz to clarify his military service record. The controversy has reignited debates over the accuracy of claims made by political figures, particularly regarding their military service.

Additional Fact-Check By CNN Correspondent

Adding to the scrutiny, CNN correspondent Tom Foreman conducted a separate fact-check, reaching similar conclusions to Kessler's. Foreman confirmed that there was no evidence suggesting Walz had ever been in a combat position, noting that some of Walz's language could be perceived as misleading.

"There is no evidence that at any time Governor Walz was in the position of being shot at, and some of his language could easily be seen to suggest that he was," Foreman reported. "So that is absolutely false when he said that about gun rights out there."

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding Gov. Tim Walz's military service claims has sparked widespread debate and criticism.

While Walz's campaign acknowledged that he misspoke, the scrutiny from fact-checkers and political opponents has put the issue at the forefront of the vice presidential race.

As the discussion over gun control and military service continues, Walz's statements serve as a reminder of the importance of accuracy in public discourse.