There are several ways to splice the story, but when Walz submitted his retirement request, he was still a CSM. Rank insignia right there on his uniform. Go ahead and check the timeline if you wish.

1. I'm not performing mental gymnastics. I'm just clarifying what seems to confuse you. I know the National Guard because I was in the California National Guard for decades, myself. A Guard soldier can retire at will after completing at least 20 years of service. However, when you retire, you don't get to retire at your highest rank unless you've held it for at least two years. That MN Gard officer is saying that Walz didn't retire as a CSM/E-9, but rather a MS/E-8. Walz was a CSM. At the moment his retirement took effect, he was a Master Sergeant. Both are true.

2. Saying he "carried weapons in war" isn't the same as serving in combat. Wars come and go, and one's place in them isn't always in combat. During the first Gulf War, I was in Texas, and we had our weapons, even though I didn't leave that state. Soldiers in my neighboring unit deployed to Iraq. They never saw combat, either. We all carried our issued weapons during that time. However, Walz's statement that those M-16 rifles have no business in civilian use, is just as true.

Quality Dress Maker

It's no lie to say he was a Command Sergeant Major. Newsmax hypes up that he was retired as a Master Sergeant, but that demotion didn't happen until after he was retired. You don't get to keep the rank in retirement unless you've held it for over two years. Those are just the rules.

And Walz never said he was in combat. He did serve in time of war, though, and even if his post was in Italy and not Afghanistan, it's still a wartime post. Everybody in the Army carries a weapon, probably an M-16A2 or M-4 carbine. And his point was that military-grade weapons aren't suitable for civilian use. I agree.

its getting really bad in the states i am from canada its getting as bad as the usa will the bible says it would be this way we are living in the end times

Moscow's aim is to prevent the outbreak of a wider Middle East conflict.
Also, it's not in the interest of Iran to militarily attack Israel as a retaliation over the killing of Haniyeh, which if happens, will only play into Netanyahu’s hands.