Surber begins by reviewing Vindman's actions in testifying before Congress in defiance of a direct order from the CINC. It's interesting for those who, like me, lack knowledge of military law. Surber also goes into the issue of whether Vindman acted as a spy in seeking access to material for which he had no need to know as well as in seeking to alter an official transcript. Clearly, if Vindman then cooperated with others in seeking to present this to Congress, there could be a criminal violation.
But don't stop there, because Surber then pastes in an extended twitter thread by a Lt. Col. Jim Hickman who had direct experience of Vindman interacting with the Russian military during the Obama years--specifically, in 2012. The thread by LtCol (retired) Jim Hickman is quite revealing. It suggests that there may be many other unpleasant surprises to come for Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and company (I've formatted for readability):
Vindman, who was a Major at the time, was sitting in one of the classrooms talking to the US & Russian Soldiers, as well as the young Officers & GS Employees about America, Russia, & Obama. He was apologetic of American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated or worldly, & really talked up Obama & globalism to the point of uncomfortable. He would speak w/the Russian Soldiers & laugh as if at the expense of the US personnel.
It was so uncomfortable & unprofessional, one of the GS employees came & told me everything above. I walked over & sat w/in earshot of Vindman, & sure enough, all was confirmed. One comment truly struck me as odd, & it was w/respect to American's falsely thinking they're exceptional, when he said, "He [Obama] is working on that now." And he said it w/a snide 'I know a secret' look on his face. I honestly don't know what it meant, it just sounded like an odd thing to say.
Regardless, after hearing him bash America a few times in front of subordinates, Russians, & GS Employees, as well as, hearing an earful about globalization, Obama's plan, etc...I'd had enough. I tapped him on the shoulder & asked him to step outside. At that point I verbally reprimanded him for his actions, & I'll leave it at that, so as not to be unprofessional myself.
The bottom-line is LTC Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far back as 2012. So much so, junior officers & soldiers felt uncomfortable around him.
This is not your professional, field-grade officer, who has the character & integrity to do the right thing. Do not let the uniform fool you...he is a political activist in uniform. I pray our nation will drop this hate, vitriol & division, & unite as our founding fathers intended!￼
Hickman later corrected the time frame of this event, 2013 instead of 2012.ReplyDelete
Seems not too far afield from Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter who murdered 13 and wounded 32.ReplyDelete
Hasan has "Soldier of Islam" and insignia affixed to the business card he handed out on introductions. As is often remarked--Hasan was a "known wolf." Known to authorities due to his conduct and associations.
There have been a few comments lately--including by me--re the state of the military these days, but that example, dating from 2009, shows that things have been going wrong in the military for a long time.Delete
My niece was an Army doctor doing her internal medicine residency at Walter Reed, with a 6-month rotation in psychiatry, while Hasan was on the psychiatry staff. Found him "strange" to say the least, but not much interaction. It's clear that Army Medical Corps discipline and military protocol is lax, seen as an unnecessary burden to providing medical care.Delete
Like much of government, a significant portion of the military appears as a jobs program, with seat warmers and time-servers whose employment works against the mission and purpose of the unit.
Before she deployed to Iraq, she said she'd never taken so many pregnancy tests (she was already a mother), apparently, as pregnancy was the common reason/excuse for females to avoid deployment. Sending those pregnant home from war zone deployment was costly--and resulted in a personnel shortage where there was no slack.
"costly--and resulted in a personnel shortage where there was no slack."Delete
But that's not the point, right? As I've said, anyone who wants to understand government needs to watch the brilliant Yes, Minster/Prime Minister TV series. It was meant as satire but comes across now as reality TV.
Outstanding series! It couldn't be repeated today because no one in entertainment appears capable of a non-partisan political show. It makes fun of both the politicians as politicians and the bureaucrats in the bureaucracy, without taking a idealistically Labor/leftwing or Tory/rightwing perspective.Delete
And 30 years later, it stands as timeless commentary--even if satire. I own it, and watch it again ever few years. Cheers.
Same here. In fact, we're just starting our next rewatch.Delete
I am so glad you got this! Surber really is terrific at picking up these details… Those of us who thought Vindman was sketchy from the word go are finding our that our ESP is in good working order.ReplyDelete
Really not surprising. Not anymore.Delete
Mark Hemingway has a great article at The Federalist based on Vindman’s use of the term “interagency consensus”, citing previous use of the same term, which appears to mean “we have to approve what the President does”. Hemingway points out that the President’s platform, for which he was elected, included getting out of Syria. Hemingway says it better than I.ReplyDelete
(Note: He does not come down hard on Vindman. Rather his thrust is that “interagency consensus” concept. “A bureacrat consensus versus a duly elected president”...
I read that. Someone else pointed out that Vindman claimed that Trump was undermining "US foreign policy," i.e., Deep State policy. Same idea. This is all about policy disagreements.Delete
Interestingly, according to the NYT, veterans very much favor Trump's policies.
WaPo: “[Vindman] was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy...”Delete
Clarice Feldman puts it this way:ReplyDelete
The Ukrainian-born witness may well have a distinguished military career or not. It doesn’t matter to me, but clearly wearing his uniform and medals to the hearing and circulating his opening statement, suggests that he and the committee hoped sentiment and one-sided reportage would disguise what was clearly the carefully vetted “unfounded and unsupported” opinion of a functionary who confused his role and that of the chief executive.
I've been working my way through Lee Smith's book today and 'enjoying' its many revelations...really too many to count, as well as the discovery of some very distinguished sources!ReplyDelete
I'll make one observation now. In it, Devin Nunes flat out calls Comey a liar and a crooked cop. And backs it up. Based on the evidence presented it will be very surprising (to me) if Horowitz does not make a criminal referral of Comey.
I'm not finished with the book quite yet but I can say at this juncture that the case Smith makes for a criminal conspiracy...he calls it a 'paper coup'...at the highest levels of our government to 'depose' Donald Trump is overwhelming as far as this reader is concerned.
Nunes is one of the real heroes, considering how much he had to deal and that he never stopped digging. You can tell that he knows a lot more that, if he were a Dem, he'd get away with leaking.Delete