Did LTC Vindman serve the country with honor?

7,375 Views | 54 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Get Off My Lawn
zannlaw
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LTC Vindman violated an order from his commander in chief by cooperating with the U.S Congressional House's impeachment investigation. However, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits government officials from interfering with a member of the military in communicating with Congress or an inspector general. Was LTC Vindman given a lawful order and did he represent the military with honor in all his actions pre and post testimony?

Statement from LTC Vindman's lawyer, David Pressman:
Quote:

Today, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman was escorted out of the White House where he has dutifully served his country and his President. He does so having spoken publicly once, and only pursuant to a subpoena from the United States Congress.
There is no question in the mind of any American why this man's job is over, why this country now has one less soldier serving it at the White House. LTC Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth. His honor, his commitment to right, frightened the powerful.
During his decades of service to this country, LTC Alexander Vindman has served quietly but dutifully, and he has served with honor. He came into the public eye only when subpoenaed to testify before Congress, and he did what the law demanded.In recent months, many entrusted with power in our political system have cowered out of fear. And, yet, a handful of men and women, not endowed with prestige or power, but equipped only with a sense of right borne out of years of quiet service to their country made different choices.
They courageously chose to honor their duty with integrity, to trust the truth, and to put their faith in country ahead of fear. And they have paid a price.The truth has cost LTC Alexander Vindman his job, his career, and his privacy.
He did what any member of our military is charged with doing every day: he followed orders, he obeyed his oath, and he served his country, even when doing so was fraught with danger and personal peril. And for that, the most powerful man in the world - buoyed by the silent, the pliable, and the complicit - has decided to exact revenge.
LTC Alexander Vindman leaves the White House today. But we must not accept the departure of truth, duty, and loyalty that he represents. In this country right matters, and so does truth. Truth is not partisan. If we allow truthful voices to be silenced, if we ignore their warnings, eventually there will be no one left to warn us.

Statement from the Secretary of Defense:
Quote:

"We protect all of our persons, service members, from retribution or anything like that. We've already addressed that in policy and other means," Esper told reporters at the Pentagon during a press conference with his Colombian counterpart.

Reports emerged early Friday that the White House would remove Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council (NSC) aide, from his role and that he would be reassigned to a position within the Defense Department.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/482073-esper-says-pentagon-protects-its-service-members-from-retribution-amid-reports
Rab1997
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Unless I'm missing something his career in the Army has not ended. He has not been discharged at this point. He was relieved from a special assignment.

Now is he a piece of crap...probably. As a member of the military I feel he showed stay apolitical. His job was to advice the President. I feel he crossed a line when he started collaborating with members of congress. If he had a problem with anything the Commander in Chief did he should have reported it to his chain of command. Not members of Congress.

For reference I'm a recently retired Special Forces NCO.
De Oppresso Liber!
artty
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

I feel he crossed a line when he started collaborating with members of congress. If he had a problem with anything the Commander in Chief did he should have reported it to his chain of command. Not members of Congress.

He did not collaborate with members of congress. He was subpoenaed by congress during their impeachment investigation thereby ordering him to testify before congress, which he did. His boss, Tim Morrison, testified too.

He did report problems to his chain of command, several times. Morrison and others corroborated this fact.

Both have been terminated from their positions, as have most other witnesses who provided testimony.

Post removed:
by user
Jak981
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LCOL Vindman was concerned enough about the call to report it to his chain of command. He responded to Congressional subpoena legally. He acted throughout in accordance with the oath he swore to support and defend the Constitution. Took courage, integrity and high moral character on his part.
Post removed:
by user
Jak981
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No problem. We can disagree and still be AG's and Americans. Gig em.
Post removed:
by user
CT'97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggiebrewer said:

Disagree

What do you disagree with? Everything in this statement is correct.

Quote:

LCOL Vindman was concerned enough about the call to report it to his chain of command. He responded to Congressional subpoena legally. He acted throughout in accordance with the oath he swore to support and defend the Constitution. Took courage, integrity and high moral character on his part.

Aggie1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
His career is over! If he chooses to remain on active duty he will be sent remote somewhere to serve out his career.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7981561/Donald-Trump-defends-firing-impeachment-inquiry-witness-Alexander-Vindman.html
Post removed:
by user
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Did he expect to stay on after the acquittals??? At least he wasn't working for the Clintons...
2004FIGHTINTXAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Vindman showed his true colors during testimony when he told a congressman to address him as "Lieutenant Colonel Vindman."
PanzerAggie06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The rabid left will portray him as a hero who stood up and fought the bad man. The rabid right will portray him as a political hack who stepped outside his prescribed role and is a traitor. The truth is someone where in-between.

Of course given the current social/political environment what the truth truly is will never see the light of day. People are too encapsulated in their own "truth" for that to occur. Perhaps, and this is unlikely, the day will come when we can view what he did through a clear and nonpartisan lens and come to a rational understanding of his actions.
Diyala Nick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If he personally would have held the same standard for the chairman of the joint chiefs or his direct boss that he did for the COC, then he did the right thing.

Was it legal or not and did he make the right call? I have no idea, nor do I care in the context of his character.
CT'97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Former commander coming to his defense.

Quote:

Retired U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Peter Zwack, who commanded then-Maj. Vindman from 2012 to 2014, said he wanted to "correct the record" about Vindman.

"He's obviously very bright, self-made,"

"We worked in a pressure-cooker environment in Moscow where you have to trust everybody," Zwack said. "You just have to trust each other, there's no in-between."

"I would trust Alex with my life," Zwack added, referring to Vindman by his first name.

2004FIGHTINTXAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CT'97 said:

Former commander coming to his defense.

Quote:

Retired U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Peter Zwack, who commanded then-Maj. Vindman from 2012 to 2014, said he wanted to "correct the record" about Vindman.

"He's obviously very bright, self-made,"

"We worked in a pressure-cooker environment in Moscow where you have to trust everybody," Zwack said. "You just have to trust each other, there's no in-between."

"I would trust Alex with my life," Zwack added, referring to Vindman by his first name.



I know plenty of turds who know the right people or brown nosed the hell out of some brass. Not saying Vindman is a turd, but his telling a congressman to address him as "Lieutenant Colonel" and some of his answers definitely gave a negative impression, at least in my view.

I'll give him this. He had some balls, but I also expect him to publish a book in the next two years.
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Did he listen in during Trump's Ukraine phone call as part of his job? Yes.

Did he inform his military chain of command about his concern that Trump broke the law during the call? Yes.

Did his chain take any action? No.

Did he only then inform Congress? Yes.

Did Congress issue a subpoena that he was lawfully bound to obey? Yes.

Did he testify truthfully? Yes.

Does he stand to gain professionally or personally from testifying? No.

Is an officer's oath to defend the Constitution or Donald Trump? ????.


74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

Vindman showed his true colors during testimony when he told a congressman to address him as "Lieutenant Colonel Vindman."
Not sure what this is meant to communicate. His correct address is Lt Col. He earned that. The congressman was being deliberately discourteous in not doing so. During my service, I felt the need on several occasions to remind civilians in government of my correct address. <shrug>
PanzerAggie06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
74OA said:

Did he listen in during Trump's Ukraine phone call as part of his job? Yes.

Did he inform his military chain of command about his concern that Trump broke the law during the call? Yes.

Did his chain take any action? No.

Did he only then inform Congress? Yes.

Did Congress issue a subpoena that he was lawfully bound to obey? Yes.

Did he testify truthfully? Yes.

Does he stand to gain professionally or personally from testifying? No.

Is an officer's oath to defend the Constitution or Donald Trump? ????.



I agree with all your bullets but this one. He very well could make a significant gain personally via his testimony. A book deal, which is likely, and the money that will come from him getting on the speaking circuit could very well make him a pretty penny. Not to mention if he makes the choice to become a pundit on one of the news networks. Vindman probably won't be to concerned with getting his military retirement. If he plays his cards correctly he could be set for life.
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Raw speculation.

What isn't speculative is that to be assigned to the NSC means he had a very strong military career going.

Highly unlikely he put in nearly two decades of hard work, including a combat wound, and then risked it for a mythical book deal.

I also doubt a serving officer crosses the President of the United States unless he is deeply convinced It is necessary and right.

Knowing, as the entire country did, that the Republican senate would never convict, it would have been so much easier for him to remain silent and walk away.
PanzerAggie06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As I don't know Vindman I'm incapable of truly understanding why he did what he did. It could be a situation where he perceived the actions of the President as being truly detrimental and decided that he had to act accordingly. Or, he could be one of those people who truly despises Trump with every ounce of his being and saw an opportunity to inflict damage. At the end of the day, he is the only one who truly knows why he took action.

While most of my fellow Officers were of the type not to take action to cross the POTUS I have a few in mind that, if given the opportunity, would have easily stepped into that s**t storm for personal reasons. Some would have done so because of their ethical/personal views while others would have done so simply because it would, in their mind, be beneficial to themselves. While this type of Officer is rare I believe they do exist.
bigtruckguy3500
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Panzer, I think you're using this hypothetical book deal as a way of justifying your views of Vindman.

I doubt I will ever be in such a position, but I can't imagine thinking "I could try and snitch to congress in the hopes that they subpeona me to testify against my commander in chief, who will most likely be acquited, and then hopefully he fires me as revenge, and I can eventually write a book about the whole ordeal and make a ton of money."

Is it entirely possible that due to circumstances that he ends up getting a book deal - I'd say yes.

Is it likely that the planned this to get a book deal - I'd say no.

If he doesn't write a book in a few years, will your opinion of him change?
PanzerAggie06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Outside of offering the possibility of why he did what he did, that being some degree of personal gain, I don't believe I've dived deep into my opinion of him. Simply because I don't really have one due to the whole situation being mired down with political rhetoric. So in that sense there really isn't an opinion to change. Now there might be some mild surprise if we never here from him again. He might not seek the book deal or speaking engagements but I suspect there will be some desire to clear his name so to speak.
CT'97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
While the exchange over requiring the congressman to refer to him as LtCol came accross on TV as self absorbed and in normal military circles wouldn't ever happen, in DC and around the pentagon I doubt anybody raised an eyebrow. It is quite common for congressmen/women to consider anybody below a GO to be a staffer and not worthy of a title.
I know of several instances where officers in congressional liaison offices as high as 06 simply stopped wearing uniform because they got more attention as "the expert from the pentagon" than as Col or Capt.
DogCo84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Perhaps I'm misguided, but my issues with his actions are based on the fact that he was objecting to what is arguably a POLICY decision on the part of the POTUS. I know that officers are now detailed all over the Executive Branch, but (IMHO) military officers should not be detailed to operate in any decision-making way in the highly political world of the office of the POTUS. They should be subject-matter experts at most--who provide information/opinions to actual elected/appointed decision-makers. Perhaps this was his role, but my problem is with a system that would put an (ideally) apolitical military officer in a position so affected by politics?

I also objected to his wear of the uniform to testify in what was essentially political theater. If he didn't wear the ASU every day at work, there was no real reason to wear it to testify--unless it was to somehow lend greater credence to his testimony? I felt the same way about Marine LTC Oliver North testifying in uniform re Iran-Contra.
Scoopen Skwert
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sleeper Cell
2004FIGHTINTXAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DogCo84 said:

Perhaps I'm misguided, but my issues with his actions are based on the fact that he was objecting to what is arguably a POLICY decision on the part of the POTUS. I know that officers are now detailed all over the Executive Branch, but (IMHO) military officers should not be detailed to operate in any decision-making way in the highly political world of the office of the POTUS. They should be subject-matter experts at most--who provide information/opinions to actual elected/appointed decision-makers. Perhaps this was his role, but my problem is with a system that would put an (ideally) apolitical military officer in a position so affected by politics?

I also objected to his wear of the uniform to testify in what was essentially political theater. If he didn't wear the ACU every day at work, there was no real reason to wear it to testify--unless it was to somehow lend greater credence to his testimony? I felt the same way about Marine LTC Oliver North testifying in uniform re Iran-Contra.


2004FIGHTINTXAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
74OA said:

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

Vindman showed his true colors during testimony when he told a congressman to address him as "Lieutenant Colonel Vindman."
Not sure what this is meant to communicate. His correct address is Lt Col. He earned that. The congressman was being deliberately discourteous in not doing so. During my service, I felt the need on several occasions to remind civilians in government of my correct address. <shrug>

I don't think the congressman was being deliberately discourteous. I believe he was addressed as "Mr. Vindman" by the congressman. I see no issues with being addressed as "Mr."
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

74OA said:

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

Vindman showed his true colors during testimony when he told a congressman to address him as "Lieutenant Colonel Vindman."
Not sure what this is meant to communicate. His correct address is Lt Col. He earned that. The congressman was being deliberately discourteous in not doing so. During my service, I felt the need on several occasions to remind civilians in government of my correct address. <shrug>

I don't think the congressman was being deliberately discourteous. I believe he was addressed as "Mr. Vindman" by the congressman. I see no issues with being addressed as "Mr."
Addressing a serving commissioned officer, on duty and in uniform, by anything other than his rank is inappropriate and, for those who know better, discourteous. The congressman knew what he was doing.
Hey Nav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Are Warrant Officers in the Army addressed as "Mister" nowadays?
2004FIGHTINTXAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
74OA said:

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

74OA said:

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

Vindman showed his true colors during testimony when he told a congressman to address him as "Lieutenant Colonel Vindman."
Not sure what this is meant to communicate. His correct address is Lt Col. He earned that. The congressman was being deliberately discourteous in not doing so. During my service, I felt the need on several occasions to remind civilians in government of my correct address. <shrug>

I don't think the congressman was being deliberately discourteous. I believe he was addressed as "Mr. Vindman" by the congressman. I see no issues with being addressed as "Mr."
Addressing a serving commissioned officer, on duty and in uniform, by anything other than his rank is inappropriate and, for those who know better, discourteous. The congressman knew what he was doing.

Agree to disagree. Been addressed as "Mr." plenty of times and have seen other officers addressed the same numerous times. Never crossed my mind once as it being discourteous.

If the congressman had said just "Vindman" or "Alex" then I would agree with you.

You also insinuated that the congressman meant to be disrespectful. That's an insinuation, which was addressed by another congressman when he asked Vindman if he always insisted civilians call him by his rank. See video below. Notice how Vindman also addresses the congressman as "Mr." (specifically the second time). I guess the congressman should have told him to call him "congressman" or "representative" since he earned it?



Hey Nav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Remember "don't call me ma'am". I was raised to say ma'am and sir. Oh well.

bigtruckguy3500
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Can't watch the CBSN video because it's blocked in the country I'm in right now, but I re-watched the video of him asking to be addressed as LTC, and I'm really surprised at how offended some of you are over it.

If a doctor was testifying before congress and was referred to as mister instead of doctor, and he requested to be referred to as doctor, would y'all be equally butthurt over it?
2004FIGHTINTXAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Offended is a strong word. Nobody's offended or butt hurt over it. Point is that it was unnecessary, a power trip, and petty. There was no intended disrespect and Vindman even admits that.

I'll go back to where Vindman calls the congressman "Mr," yet you don't hear the congressman correcting him over it.

Barbara Boxer was also ridiculous when she corrected the General.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.