442
442
0
LTC Vindman retires, was he right or wrong? What about the second and third order effects?
Aside from the usually partisan (and superficial) comments regarding LTC (R) Vindman, is there a lesson to be learned here? We had a sitting US senator holding up promotion for 1000 senior officers to allow for his promotion. Whistleblowing. Polarizing politics and the politicalization of the military seems to be here for the duration. While the retired could easily just take pot shots from Ft. Living Room, here's my question. How can currently serving members truly remain apolitical? In a world where one callus post can end your career, use some judgment if you elect to weigh in. Was he right? Would you have done the same? Was he dead wrong?
Aside from the usually partisan (and superficial) comments regarding LTC (R) Vindman, is there a lesson to be learned here? We had a sitting US senator holding up promotion for 1000 senior officers to allow for his promotion. Whistleblowing. Polarizing politics and the politicalization of the military seems to be here for the duration. While the retired could easily just take pot shots from Ft. Living Room, here's my question. How can currently serving members truly remain apolitical? In a world where one callus post can end your career, use some judgment if you elect to weigh in. Was he right? Would you have done the same? Was he dead wrong?
ar-BB17s1rL
Posted from msn.com
Lessons Learned
Political Correctness
Congress
COL
Social Media
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 285
4
4
0
First let's not forget Vindman went around his chain of command . Second LtCol Vindman had a hard time taking orders . And third he put politics over his position as a military member .
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
He should have reported his concerns up his chain of command and stayed out of the political arena. Retirees can still face UCMJ action. He wont since Biden won, but he could have and very possibly should.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
I think that his motivation really should be questioned. Watching his testimony was excruciatingly painful for many reasons. I found it hard to believe he was unbiased, and that is never a good look for the military, especially when his position was in the political realm. As was suggested in one comment, he should have been brought back to his post for his and the military’s protection! I disagree, in that, his actions were his, and when you make a stand, you must be held responsible for the fallout. Perhaps, his chain of command should have had a meaningful conversation with him prior to making a choice to testify to begin with. I also believe he was walking a very thin line of slandering the Commander in Chief, never a good idea, never a reason to earn a promotion, and Vindman did a huge disservice to those soldiers that were actually busting ass and waiting for much deserved promotions.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
There is no place in uniform to be a political hack or stooge. He should have been charged with an article 88 violation and court martialed sans retirement. That wouldn't have happened though because every two star general and above in DC got their stars under the most corrupt administration in US History. The Obama/Biden Criminal regime. When I served under them and the Clinton Crime family I kept my mouth shut and they committed actual crimes.
(4)
(0)
SPC Mark Marquette
Are you a lawyer? What actual crimes besides Bill's randiness urged on by a mature, more...OK, he lied! Wow! ONCE? You DO know that dump told over 30,000 DOCUMENTED lies? Give it up!
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
traitor, democrat stooge, liar, and unbecoming of a senior officer. just too further his career. wat a tool, he deserves a dishonorable, too bad its not the old days cause then it would be a firing squad. then to p**** out and blame trump, wat a pathetic POS. if u cant handle the heat, then stay out of the oven.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Ummm just realized he was born in the Ukraine, Soviet Union, USSR. Sleeper agent maybe?
(4)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
Perhaps; but he came to the USA when he was three. I suppose his parents could have been, but it seems unlikely as (I THINK) they were Jewish and actually fled the Ukraine sue to the Russians.
(1)
(0)
SPC Mark Marquette
Wow! Brilliant! wHY did no one else ever consider this! The has a Purple Heart, etc., fighting for the US - NOT Ukraine or Russia.his brother also was an officer.
Who would benefit from him ignoring Trump's threats? Russia? But Vindeman is Ukranian, not likely to help Russia.
Who would benefit from him ignoring Trump's threats? Russia? But Vindeman is Ukranian, not likely to help Russia.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
He did his duty by saying something when he saw something. A trait that sometimes seems non-existent most days. He felt an injustice and did something despite of who or what it was about it. Like said the failure was on the behalf of the DoD not acting on his behalf and allowed him to get run over by the politicians.
(4)
(0)
Cpl Roman Makuch
Problem is he didn't see anything, he admitted under oath that he had hearsay, nothing else.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
"He did his duty by saying something when he saw something." Not really. As others have stated, he saw NOTHING. Therefore, he didn't "do his duty". Instead, what he did was decide to become a political hack for people with an agenda in exchange for his "5 minutes of fame".
Even your own narrative admits he didn't KNOW anything. That's why you describe it as "He FELT..." (emphasis added). And you are right. Blinded by his own ambition and desire for recognition, he created a "feeling" about something imaginary. There was never anything there. So much so, that it all came to nothing. The transcript of the call, which reflected what actually happened, let the poor political hack light himself up so he would go up in flames.
He blew it... and he knew it. That is why, under interrogation, HE said he had nothing. So although he CLAIMED he saw "something", when push came to shove and he came face to face with the possibility of being punished for perjury, he opted to tell the truth and ADMIT that - in fact - he had nothing... because he saw nothing. And, of course, having seen nothing (by his own admission), there was no "doing his duty" at all. When he was outed as a liar, the DOD could not act "on his behalf"... because there was nothing there to "defend" or "act on behalf of". The man admitted he lied. And he wasn't "run over" by politicians. HE actually SOUGHT THEM OUT! He wanted to ally himself with them in order to fulfill his delusions of grandeur. If he got run over, it was all his own doing.
Given the facts of the case, I would respectfully submit that you have not included anything factual in your post. You may well have presented an impression which you have (and that, in and of itself, is OK... as long as you realize it is just that... an impression), but it bears no relationship to the facts of the case. Perhaps if you dig in to the actual facts you might change your impression.
Even your own narrative admits he didn't KNOW anything. That's why you describe it as "He FELT..." (emphasis added). And you are right. Blinded by his own ambition and desire for recognition, he created a "feeling" about something imaginary. There was never anything there. So much so, that it all came to nothing. The transcript of the call, which reflected what actually happened, let the poor political hack light himself up so he would go up in flames.
He blew it... and he knew it. That is why, under interrogation, HE said he had nothing. So although he CLAIMED he saw "something", when push came to shove and he came face to face with the possibility of being punished for perjury, he opted to tell the truth and ADMIT that - in fact - he had nothing... because he saw nothing. And, of course, having seen nothing (by his own admission), there was no "doing his duty" at all. When he was outed as a liar, the DOD could not act "on his behalf"... because there was nothing there to "defend" or "act on behalf of". The man admitted he lied. And he wasn't "run over" by politicians. HE actually SOUGHT THEM OUT! He wanted to ally himself with them in order to fulfill his delusions of grandeur. If he got run over, it was all his own doing.
Given the facts of the case, I would respectfully submit that you have not included anything factual in your post. You may well have presented an impression which you have (and that, in and of itself, is OK... as long as you realize it is just that... an impression), but it bears no relationship to the facts of the case. Perhaps if you dig in to the actual facts you might change your impression.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
LTC Vinman was right. If the action of a superior put in jeopardy the integrity of the position as well as the office he had an obligation as a leader to speak to the truth. This is not an issue of mishearing or being unaware of what is occurring, he is a subject matter expert with a history of the understanding of the region. Holding up the promotions though impeding the ability of others to advance and was not the best response, lent integrity to the process. On the flip side had it simply been that others were offered promotions the concern becomes the validity of all promotions and the concern that promotions are not based on merit but favor.
We all took an oath to the country and not an individual.
We all took an oath to the country and not an individual.
(4)
(0)
SSG Dave Johnston
1st Lt Mark Marshall - I believe that 18 U.S.C. 2384 answers the "sedition" question... Under Article II, Section 3, (the "take Care" clause) any President has a duty to ensure that no US Law was violated... So, what was questionable about the phone call? A "lowly" LTC Liaison Officer may question the orders or policy of his CIC, even disapprove them but... He does not have the privilege, right, or duty to inform the Host Nation to ignore the Presidents policies in regards to the Host Nation... Any and all of his questions should have been directed through the Ambassadors office.
(1)
(0)
COL John Hudson
LTC Vinman had a Chain of Command that he completely ignored in favor of putting himself in a public spotlight so far out of his lane it was embarrassing. Had he entered my Inspector General office to voice his concerns, my first question to him would have been, "Have you brought this to the attention of your Chain of Command?" That Oath we take is to the principles of a Constitution that provides for a "Commander in Chief" (President of the United States). Any person holding that position has a legal right to remove or reassign ANY Commissioned Officer for cause (regardless of his/her expertise or understanding) and is the individual all Commissioned Officers ultimately report to. LTC Vinman gambled and lost. (read history = President Truman (Civilian) fired War Hero General Douglas MacArthur).
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Our senior military leadership is in deep, deep trouble, because if/when Biden wins, he will be forced to purge the military of decent officers who may have tried to do the right thing, but are perceived as complicit or enablers. What the military senior leadership typically does, is a month before the election, they play a game of musical chairs bd backstabbing, to make sure they survive into the next administration. Don’t believe it? In October, look for an uptick in “provocations” by traditional enemies and press releases by military spokespersons about threats that don’t really exist, but show the military isn’t responsible for the politics they may have willfully participated in...they just want to keep us safe.
(4)
(0)
SSG Dave Johnston
Didn't President Obama do the exact same thing; purge the DOD of Service Members that disagreed with him???
(0)
(0)
SSG Dave Johnston
List Of Military Elite Purged And Fired Under Obama
Here is the list of our military elite who have been purged or fired under Obama: Commanding Generals fired:
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
CPL Kenneth Servello Jr
SSG Dave Johnston that's the thing. Folks are posting this because they "heard" it somewhere..that's what got vindman ..his lying.
(0)
(0)
SFC Barbara Layman
CPL Kenneth Servello Jr - "again...post proof." of what?
It would be most helpful if you were to copy and paste the comment to which you refer so that a person fully understands your query. Else the questions are 'blowing in the wind.'
It would be most helpful if you were to copy and paste the comment to which you refer so that a person fully understands your query. Else the questions are 'blowing in the wind.'
(0)
(0)
SGT J M Porters
Remember when you tell the truth. You do not have to remember because the truth always stands! I love this one "The high priests conspiring with the Jewish Council looked high and low for evidence against Jesus by which they could sentence him to death. They found nothing. Plenty of people were willing to bring in false charges, but nothing added up.................... ’” But even they couldn’t agree exactly." Mark 14:53-54-62 If they will lie on Jesus. What make you think men will not lie on each others for polical gain! Just Guard your words for once they are spoken it is hard to take them back.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google