By MG Paul E Vallely US Army (Ret)
As America’s attention transitions from Ukraine to Israel’s security, voices advocating for compromise and peace in Ukraine are growing louder. Even Joe Scarborough from Morning Joe on MSNBC has had a sudden change from lambasting critics of Biden’s policy as Putin puppets to now calling for compromise and ceasefire. This shift prompts a critical reflection: had we listened to earlier pleas to come to the table and negotiate, might we have spared lives in Ukraine and conserved resources for allies like Israel?
I live in Montana, and my beautiful home has become national news because it is now likely the number one most crucial state for control of the US Senate in 2024. And so, I’ve been closely monitoring Montana’s federal delegation and how they’ve contributed to the discourse in Ukraine, and it’s a microcosm of the country at large. There’s a noticeable pattern among establishment figures like Daines (Republican), Zinke (Republican), and Tester (Democrat), who share the standard DC beltway point of view.
In contrast, Congressman Rosendale (Republican) stands out as a voice of prudence and grassroots sense, highlighting the absurdity of spending hundreds of Billions in Ukraine while we are fiscally bankrupt, the Pentagon fails its 6th audit in a row, and our southern border remains open. Speaking of the US Senate Race, candidate Tim Sheehy, who is challenging Jon Tester and is a Daines/Zinke recruit, alarmingly presents a particularly extreme and misguided foreign neoconservative policy far more radical than even neoconservative figures like Nicki Haley.
If this surprises you, I’m not talking about his new whitewashed comments. Tim Sheehy’s pre-candidacy comments on Ukraine weren’t shaped by the demands of winning over Montana’s America First crowd. His blunt stance – advocating for direct US military intervention against Russia – was alarmingly aggressive. “Money is not enough; we need to send soldiers, planes, bombs, and bullets to Ukraine,” he said on LinkedIn. A reactive and emotional policy instinct. Following such a path could have led us to a devastating and unnecessary military dilemma/quagmire with a heavy toll on American lives. Now, as a candidate, Sheehy has notably moderated his views. But this move begs the question: is this a sincere evolution or a calculated political pivot? Which is the real Sheehy – the one who spoke freely before his candidacy or speaks cautiously now?
Concerns arise once I consider his conflict of interest, reminiscent of Nicki Haley’s enrichment from military-industrial contracts after her UN service. Mr. Sheehy’s wealth is mainly derived from government contracts, some for drone vision systems. While I advocate for private sector involvement in equipping our military through merit-based contracts, Mr. Sheehy’s profiteering from foreign conflicts as a hawkish candidate for Senate is at odds with the principles of the America First agenda he now claims to profess.
Compare this to Congressman Matt Rosendale’s record, which is consistently more realistic and sensible. Rosendale has been a rational voice, calling for a foreign policy that judiciously considers and balances our security and fiscal needs. Rosendale’s perspective is clear: America cannot stretch itself thin globally, our budget is not limitless, and the current challenges at our southern border undermine our national strength. Our priorities are misaligned if we don’t address the southern border and prevent the bankruptcy of the federal government before we decide we should go to war with Russia, the largest holder of nuclear weapons in the world.
As a veteran and deeply invested in our nation’s security and prosperity, I find Congressman Rosendale’s vision for America’s role in the world closely aligned with my and President Trump’s America First vision. His realistic approach to foreign policy, prioritizing our national security while being mindful of our fiscal responsibilities, resonates with the core values many of us hold dear. It’s this kind of leadership that I wholeheartedly endorse. Rosendale’s focus on securing our borders and fiscal discipline is not just sensible; it’s imperative for the future of our country.
We need experienced leaders with cognitive skills who are Warriors in this battle to save and restore America. Folks like Matt Rosendale are essential in the Senate, where they can influence our foreign policy and national security dialogue. I strongly advocate that Rosendale enter the fray against Sheehy in the upcoming primary. Montana deserves a valid choice: a leader who will drain the swamp dominated by foreign policy wonks and a vision that reflects our state’s and country’s values and interests.
Join me in supporting Matt!
MG Paul E Vallely, US Army (Ret)
Chairman of Stand Up America US Foundation
Contact: suaus1961@gmail.co
As America’s attention transitions from Ukraine to Israel’s security, voices advocating for compromise and peace in Ukraine are growing louder. Even Joe Scarborough from Morning Joe on MSNBC has had a sudden change from lambasting critics of Biden’s policy as Putin puppets to now calling for compromise and ceasefire. This shift prompts a critical reflection: had we listened to earlier pleas to come to the table and negotiate, might we have spared lives in Ukraine and conserved resources for allies like Israel?
I live in Montana, and my beautiful home has become national news because it is now likely the number one most crucial state for control of the US Senate in 2024. And so, I’ve been closely monitoring Montana’s federal delegation and how they’ve contributed to the discourse in Ukraine, and it’s a microcosm of the country at large. There’s a noticeable pattern among establishment figures like Daines (Republican), Zinke (Republican), and Tester (Democrat), who share the standard DC beltway point of view.
In contrast, Congressman Rosendale (Republican) stands out as a voice of prudence and grassroots sense, highlighting the absurdity of spending hundreds of Billions in Ukraine while we are fiscally bankrupt, the Pentagon fails its 6th audit in a row, and our southern border remains open. Speaking of the US Senate Race, candidate Tim Sheehy, who is challenging Jon Tester and is a Daines/Zinke recruit, alarmingly presents a particularly extreme and misguided foreign neoconservative policy far more radical than even neoconservative figures like Nicki Haley.
If this surprises you, I’m not talking about his new whitewashed comments. Tim Sheehy’s pre-candidacy comments on Ukraine weren’t shaped by the demands of winning over Montana’s America First crowd. His blunt stance – advocating for direct US military intervention against Russia – was alarmingly aggressive. “Money is not enough; we need to send soldiers, planes, bombs, and bullets to Ukraine,” he said on LinkedIn. A reactive and emotional policy instinct. Following such a path could have led us to a devastating and unnecessary military dilemma/quagmire with a heavy toll on American lives. Now, as a candidate, Sheehy has notably moderated his views. But this move begs the question: is this a sincere evolution or a calculated political pivot? Which is the real Sheehy – the one who spoke freely before his candidacy or speaks cautiously now?
Concerns arise once I consider his conflict of interest, reminiscent of Nicki Haley’s enrichment from military-industrial contracts after her UN service. Mr. Sheehy’s wealth is mainly derived from government contracts, some for drone vision systems. While I advocate for private sector involvement in equipping our military through merit-based contracts, Mr. Sheehy’s profiteering from foreign conflicts as a hawkish candidate for Senate is at odds with the principles of the America First agenda he now claims to profess.
Compare this to Congressman Matt Rosendale’s record, which is consistently more realistic and sensible. Rosendale has been a rational voice, calling for a foreign policy that judiciously considers and balances our security and fiscal needs. Rosendale’s perspective is clear: America cannot stretch itself thin globally, our budget is not limitless, and the current challenges at our southern border undermine our national strength. Our priorities are misaligned if we don’t address the southern border and prevent the bankruptcy of the federal government before we decide we should go to war with Russia, the largest holder of nuclear weapons in the world.
As a veteran and deeply invested in our nation’s security and prosperity, I find Congressman Rosendale’s vision for America’s role in the world closely aligned with my and President Trump’s America First vision. His realistic approach to foreign policy, prioritizing our national security while being mindful of our fiscal responsibilities, resonates with the core values many of us hold dear. It’s this kind of leadership that I wholeheartedly endorse. Rosendale’s focus on securing our borders and fiscal discipline is not just sensible; it’s imperative for the future of our country.
We need experienced leaders with cognitive skills who are Warriors in this battle to save and restore America. Folks like Matt Rosendale are essential in the Senate, where they can influence our foreign policy and national security dialogue. I strongly advocate that Rosendale enter the fray against Sheehy in the upcoming primary. Montana deserves a valid choice: a leader who will drain the swamp dominated by foreign policy wonks and a vision that reflects our state’s and country’s values and interests.
Join me in supporting Matt!
MG Paul E Vallely, US Army (Ret)
Chairman of Stand Up America US Foundation
Contact: suaus1961@gmail.com
