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
0
0
0
On LTC Vindman and the "Interagency," but Mostly on Vindman - Ricochet
You can read Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman’s opening statement for his 29 October Congressional testimony here. First on Vindman, then the Interagency, then more on Vindman. Full disclosure: I hate the fact that Vindman is in my cohort. He has to be junior to me, but he’s a Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) in the United States […]
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
He reported the hearsay. He admitted that when questioned. Not facts hearsay.
(0)
(0)
SSG Elyzabeth Cromer
He reported first hand knowledge of a phone call he was required to listen to as part of his job, that is not hearsay. Hearsay is when your girlfriend tells you she saw heard that the Commander beats his wife, and you report that to the IG.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
First off that fuck face was a foreigner and should have never been allowed to be an officer, secondly his demeanor how he carried himself while he was on trial was appalling he acted very unprofessional ....
(0)
(0)
SSG Dave Johnston
SFC Barbara Layman I was referencing the comments he made concerning his testimony to congress about the "phone call"... where he admits to making parts of it up... One has to wonder if maybe... he still had some allegiance to his former homeland vs. America... then there is this act of insubordination that borders on 18 USC 2384...
https://newspunch.com/vindman-thought-trumps-policy-was-advised-ukrainians-ignore-potus/
https://newspunch.com/vindman-thought-trumps-policy-was-advised-ukrainians-ignore-potus/
Vindman “Thought” Trump’s “Policy” Was Wrong; Advised Ukrainians to Ignore POTUS
Alexander Vindman testified that he thought President Trump was wrong in his policy with Ukraine, so he decided to tell Ukrainians to ignore POTUS.
(0)
(0)
SFC Barbara Layman
SSG Dave Johnston - STILL, has absolutely nothing to do with the original issue. He was referred to as 'a f foreigner' which HE IS NOT.
The one has nothing to do with the other. He came to the US at the AGE OF 3 years. I'm presuming - a leap I'm sure is possible - that he held no allegiance to a nation he left before indelible memories could be formed.
So, he admitted to embellishing his transcript - that has little to do with the FACT initially discussed - his citizenship.
The one has nothing to do with the other. He came to the US at the AGE OF 3 years. I'm presuming - a leap I'm sure is possible - that he held no allegiance to a nation he left before indelible memories could be formed.
So, he admitted to embellishing his transcript - that has little to do with the FACT initially discussed - his citizenship.
(0)
(0)
SSG Dave Johnston
SFC Barbara Layman - You do comprehend that some individuals, naturalized citizens of the US, do in fact still have an affinity towards their country of birth; and that some nations do not recognize the US Naturalization process, ergo giving the individual "Dual" citizenship... Think of it this way The "Oath of Allegiance" for citizenship is like wedding vow... "forsaking all others"... Some hold to it,,, others play around...
(0)
(0)
SFC Barbara Layman
SSG Dave Johnston - EVEN SOME native/natural born US citizens whose family has been here for more than 2 generations will, for whatever their reason, turn on this country.
The issues you raise have nothing to do with the original point and are based on assumptions without basis of fact. What other nations do has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Do you not know what it means to ass u me?
I spent my entire career of 30+ years basing decisions on fact, not conjecture, not assumptions, not rumor. I do the same here.
Bring SOLID EVIDENCE that the LTC deliberately schemed to undermine the US Constitution you MAY have an argument.
Until then, I'm done with this dead horse.
The issues you raise have nothing to do with the original point and are based on assumptions without basis of fact. What other nations do has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Do you not know what it means to ass u me?
I spent my entire career of 30+ years basing decisions on fact, not conjecture, not assumptions, not rumor. I do the same here.
Bring SOLID EVIDENCE that the LTC deliberately schemed to undermine the US Constitution you MAY have an argument.
Until then, I'm done with this dead horse.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962)
(0)
(0)
COL Ramon Nadal
According to regulations and the UCMJ". Not responding to a Congressional subpoena would be a violation of a legal order issued by the Congress in accordance with its constitutional responsibilities.
(2)
(0)
CPL Brian Trail
COL Ramon Nadal I agree with you sir, I was just reading a lot of other comments about LTC Vindman and things people were saying, so I thought I would just post the oath we all took.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
COL Ramon Nadal - True, not responding to a Congressional subpoena would be a violation of a legal order, but it has to be seen in the context of a then officer ignoring his chain of command (his immediate supervisor testified that he was hearing Vindman's "concerns" for his "discomfort" from the media and the testimony in Congress) and "connecting" with his political cronies in order to stage the "show" in Congress with a purely political agenda. Vindman himself testified that he altered the text record of the call so it would fit his narrative. So I would suggest that arguing about "not responding to a Congressional subpoena" is a deviation that takes away form the point that CPL Brian Trail is apparently making by posting the oath.
In particular, Vindman testified that he altered the text record. Vindman also testified that he advised foreign leaders to ignore the request of the President. Vindman did this because he felt "discomfort" with the way foreign policy, in this particular case, was being carried out by the person in charge of making foreign policy (which was not staffer Vindman). So VIndman admitted to a violation of the UCMJ, to not dealing with this through his chain of command, to lying (altering the text record) and even claiming to have gone to the IG, although that happened only AFTER the hearings and in a bid to claim an unwarranted "whistleblower" status so he could avoid the consequences of his actions (which is not how the process works).
Clearly, there is enough in his own testimony - in his own words before Congress - to demonstrate that Vindman did NOT honor his oath. This, essentially, is why the whole thing fell apart. Vindman's political "connections" allowed him to walk away free of consequences for his UCMJ violation, his failure to honor the Oath and his unwarranted disclosure of classified information. So I see the reference to the oath as apropos.
In particular, Vindman testified that he altered the text record. Vindman also testified that he advised foreign leaders to ignore the request of the President. Vindman did this because he felt "discomfort" with the way foreign policy, in this particular case, was being carried out by the person in charge of making foreign policy (which was not staffer Vindman). So VIndman admitted to a violation of the UCMJ, to not dealing with this through his chain of command, to lying (altering the text record) and even claiming to have gone to the IG, although that happened only AFTER the hearings and in a bid to claim an unwarranted "whistleblower" status so he could avoid the consequences of his actions (which is not how the process works).
Clearly, there is enough in his own testimony - in his own words before Congress - to demonstrate that Vindman did NOT honor his oath. This, essentially, is why the whole thing fell apart. Vindman's political "connections" allowed him to walk away free of consequences for his UCMJ violation, his failure to honor the Oath and his unwarranted disclosure of classified information. So I see the reference to the oath as apropos.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Was he correct or wrong on what? There were a lot of issues surrounding the LTC.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Did he follow the correct procedure in reporting? Was his testimony hearsay? Did he commit perjury? Is a retiree still subject to the UCMJ and if so, does his op-ed's statements against our elected official constitute a violation to the UCMJ? What would you do Sir?
(1)
(0)
SSG Dave Johnston
Vindman “Thought” Trump’s “Policy” Was Wrong; Advised Ukrainians to Ignore POTUS
Alexander Vindman testified that he thought President Trump was wrong in his policy with Ukraine, so he decided to tell Ukrainians to ignore POTUS.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google