SSG (Join to see) - As someone stated of a similar ethnicity as LTC Vindman - they just have a fat looking face but are not overweight. But of course people who don't have a legit argument always go to someone's looks.

I guarantee a lot of LTCs in the Army probably don't max their PT test and probably have failed the ACFT diagnostics...js.

No argument just making an observation, yes I have seen plenty of officers barely pass and I have seen some who went beyond the standard. Served with a 1LT who could run the 2 mile under 10 and barely sweat.

I didn't care much either way about Vindman's uniform. What bugged me was the blog post by his last Army Boss, and the General he reported to, about Vindman's denigrating comments about the US to NATO allies. Vindman is a political slimeball. That is why he is a problem. His Ukrainian language skills are what saved him from the riff years ago.

LTC North was supporting his chain of command, Vindman undermining his. That's what makes his testimony different. Had Vindman actually had evidence that The CNC had done something wrong, then his testimony would have been justified. Army Values include having the moral courage to stand against unlawful orders and unethical behavior. Instead, the only thing Vindman really testified to was that he disagreed with the CNC and that he does not like him. Fair enough, but in the military, leaders make decisions, subordinates carry them out, unless there is a ethical reason. If you think you have a ethical reason to disobey and order or disparage your CoC, you had better be right. In actuality all Vindman did, was to smear his CNC. Liking the Boss is not required.

Vindman had a position as an advisor and he expressed. He is not the President and thus "shut up and color"

No aid was withheld. Ukraine President said he did not feel or hear quid pro quo. END OF STORY.

I listened to Vindman's testimony; it was opinion and nothing of substance. I agree, and I too have a problem with someone in his position commenting the way he did. He inserted himself into a political matter where we, as military advisors, have no business. As an LTC (or any officer in the political arena), we are to advise and recommend not set policies or standards for allies or anyone else to follow when dealing with the Commander and Chief. I HAVE LARGE ISSUES WITH A FIELD GRADE OFFICER TRYING TO CREAT POLICY OR DICTATE WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS TO HIS ALLIES. In his testimony, Vindman's smugly answered/testified that "The president did not use his prepared talking points." As if there was something wrong with that or that the president had to adhere to his guidance. Like the president or not, the president outranks our most senior leaders, sets policy, and he can use whatever talking points he wants with another world leader. It not up to an 05 to tell him what to say, not say... and get hurt, offended, or act like his authority was Circumvented.

We as military officers DO NOT SET FOREIGN POLICY AT ANY LEVEL Field Grades, Flag, or General Officers!! His own testimony was he felt the president's actions would not reflect well politically. But when asked, he could not cite any laws broken or illegalities during the phone conversation. He has put himself in a position to set US Foreign Policy and didn't like that the president challenged his authority or changed the direction he was steering policy. That's not the military's job. As long as they're lawful, our job is to follow the order of our senior officers and "Commander and Chief." If we don't want to or can't then, we need to get out, move on, or retire. I haven't liked all our "Commanders and Chief," but I know/knew to either follow orders or get out. Now he's hiding behind a whistleblower to protect himself and turn in his Oak Leaf's for an Eagle. I would bet if a closer look were taken, he's leaked classified information (definitely while discussing the matter with his dad, but probably other times as well). However, leadership will be reluctant to investigate because he's acting like he's a part of this whistleblower complaint. Had he shown proof of a crime, I would support him. However, his testimony showed contempt and arrogance, not evidence of a crime. The president can use whatever talking point he likes, and being the US president no matter who he talks to, he's automatically speaking from a position of authority and has the upper hand during most any negotiation. This fact alone can be twisted to accuse EVERY former president and ANY future president of bribery, and extortion. No president should give up the US's authority in any negotiation unless it benefits the country. I don't care what president is in office; personal dislike is not a reason to disregard orders or remove them from office — not the last president, not this one, not a future one. I didn't always agree with the previous or this president's policy, but if it is a lawful order, we must follow orders, not try and be a part of a coup, make our policy, or disregard orders. Some our fellow officers have become arrogant and full of themselves. They have forgotten we serve; we don't dictate or create foreign policy, we execute it.