The Next President is...

[brickhistory]

So an Army LTC appears before the House inquiry today in full dress uniform despite him working in civvies in his job at the NSC.

And his apparent testimony is that he had "concerns" about President Trump's phone call to the Ukrainian President and what it might do to bipartisan relationships between the US and Ukraine.

 

Is that how it works now?  O-5s get to make/wreck national policy?  Wish to sh1t I'd known that...

 

 

 

edited to add:  Remembered Marine LtCol Ollie North of Iran-Contra fame and also of the NSC after I wrote the above, so I answered my own question.

Edited October 29, 2019 by brickhistory

[dream big]

5 hours ago, brickhistory said:

So an Army LTC appears before the House inquiry today in full dress uniform despite him working in civvies in his job at the NSC.

And his apparent testimony is that he had "concerns" about President Trump's phone call to the Ukrainian President and what it might do to bipartisan relationships between the US and Ukraine.

 

Is that how it works now?  O-5s get to make/wreck national policy?  Wish to sh1t I'd known that...

 

 

 

edited to add:  Remembered Marine LtCol Ollie North of Iran-Contra fame and also of the NSC after I wrote the above, so I answered my own question.

The optics and questionable ethics won’t matter to the left.  This man makes Orange man look bad and that is all that matters.  To them he is a hero.  

[CharlieHotel47]

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/23/why-retired-military-officers-need-to-shut-up-about-politics/?fbclid=IwAR2W14sK-4DU-9aScaoUsH8YvNTYoWS2iIRBLNfu7azrE9TKYfzgJoKNFRU

The armed forces should remain APOLITICAL and the most trusted government institution by the public. Sadly, the ole army colonel who is now a hero for the left, is doing the opposite. Either declare a candidacy and run for office, or retire... once he is all used up by the left, I am sure he will get a book deal on how wearing the uniform gave him some high moral ground on public policy. Stop the politicization of the military!


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[pawnman]

On 10/22/2019 at 7:13 AM, Ghost of James Post said:

Part of me is like, yeah the public doesn't fully conceptualize the cost of such an overhaul, which would be vast (to say nothing of the already $1 Trillion a year we spend on healthcare) The other part of me sees this line of attack/rhetoric as disingenuous. Where were people arguing over the costs of OEF/OIF and our attempts to pacify the greater middle east? Where are the people arguing over the cost of maintaining a world-wide empire and garrisoning the entire planet? - At this point, we just sort of take that for granted. If you're going to bring economics into the equation, it shouldn't be selectively applied (not saying you do this … but in general, it is).

Me.  I'll argue that.  We could pull out of a number of bases in the Middle East and save a shit ton of money.  We could close bases in the US and get the ones remaining back to 100% manning, and increase the morale at the same time (can you imagine if we closed Cannon and relocated all those guys to places like Hurlburt, Ellsworth, hell...even Dyess?)

I'll argue that we've been wasting a ton of money, people, and resources in these never-ending wars in the Middle East.  I have no idea what the hell we're still doing in Afghanistan.  I have no idea why we thought it was a good idea to execute airstrikes in Libya.  I'm still scratching my head at the idea that Syria was worth the first salvo of JASSM in combat.  

So...maybe I'm in the minority, but I am absolutely willing to argue the cost of maintaining a world-wide empire, both in terms of military spending and foreign aid.
I'm also willing to argue it isn't an empire.  An empire would result in a net gain being returned to the home country.  Our model seems to be predicated on paying for everyone else while getting basically no tangible returns out of it.

[BFM this]

On 10/29/2019 at 4:03 PM, brickhistory said:

So an Army LTC appears before the House inquiry today in full dress uniform despite him working in civvies in his job at the NSC.

Active duty who works at the NSC or a part timer that works at the NSC as his day job?  There's a difference.

And yeah, in the case of the former, I’d expect him to show up in uniform if told to report front and center, regardless of his UoD at work.

Edited November 1, 2019 by BFM this

[Sim]

LTC Vindman. Just another lefty hating America

[mcbush]

You guys are ridiculous. In what universe are some guy’s tweets more credible than the sworn testimony of a Purple Heart-winning career military officer who works at the NSC? 
 

Call me naive if you want, and sure, the PH and other trophies don’t really add to his credibility per se, but this guy doesn’t deserve to be crucified and have his patriotism called into question just for trying to do his j-o-b.

[Disco_Nav963]

2 hours ago, Sim said:

LTC Vindman. Just another lefty hating America

Citing a thread by some rando begging to be RTed by Pensacola's retard congressman Matt Gaetz and a Q-Anon conspiracy theorist? Yeah, that's credible.

[DirkDiggler]

3 hours ago, Sim said:

LTC Vindman. Just another lefty hating America

What’s the matter with you?

[drewpey]

4 hours ago, Sim said:

LTC Vindman. Just another lefty hating America

Regardless of the dude's views, I'll never understand anyone whose identity is so wrapped up in their military service that they need to put it in their twitter handle.

[GKinnear]

7 hours ago, drewpey said:

Regardless of the dude's views, I'll never understand anyone whose identity is so wrapped up in their military service that they need to put it in their twitter handle.

Everyone I know who does (Twitter, Gmail, etc) is retired Army. Interestingly, I don't see the same from USMC...

[brickhistory]

12 hours ago, mcbush said:

You guys are ridiculous. In what universe are some guy’s tweets more credible than the sworn testimony of a Purple Heart-winning career military officer who works at the NSC? 
 

Call me naive if you want, and sure, the PH and other trophies don’t really add to his credibility per se, but this guy doesn’t deserve to be crucified and have his patriotism called into question just for trying to do his j-o-b.

And there's the rub.

His job or his opinion regarding American foreign policy.  There's debate about which he's testifying to.  As a minion, he's supposed to carry out the legal wishes of the elected President.  

If he does, in fact, think POTUS did something illegal, then he has an obligation to step forward.  If he simply disagrees with the foreign policy of this Administration, which according to the limited, available press reporting, then he's a partisan in uniform.

I don't question his patriotism even if it's the latter case (which is what I think).  

Pretty sure Big Army would have preferred he not be highlighting his uniform since it greatly contributes to the view of politiciization of the military.

[drewpey]

49 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

And there's the rub.

His job or his opinion regarding American foreign policy.  There's debate about which he's testifying to.  As a minion, he's supposed to carry out the legal wishes of the elected President.  

If he does, in fact, think POTUS did something illegal, then he has an obligation to step forward.  If he simply disagrees with the foreign policy of this Administration, which according to the limited, available press reporting, then he's a partisan in uniform.

I don't question his patriotism even if it's the latter case (which is what I think).  

Pretty sure Big Army would have preferred he not be highlighting his uniform since it greatly contributes to the view of politiciization of the military.

The rub is someone thought there was a problem and is using the proper channels to voice their concerns.  This is what we should all want on either side of the aisle, and I'll take hundreds of dudes testifying in uniform over one Reality Winner thinking the only way to voice their concern is to jeopardize national security.  One of the golden rules...don't make it hard to do the right thing.

[brickhistory]

1 hour ago, drewpey said:

 One of the golden rules...don't make it hard to do the right thing.

Indeed.

So you assume he's doing the right thing.  "Maybe" is all I can get to.  He's got his views regarding US policy towards Ukraine and, according to reporting, "expressed concern that the President's policy differs from the interagency's."  Guess who's "opinion" matters in that case.

He either gets a medal or a court-martial in the public's eyes.  Which means it's political.  Which is a bad thing to associate with our military.

 

[Disco_Nav963]

3 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Indeed.

So you assume he's doing the right thing.  "Maybe" is all I can get to.  He's got his views regarding US policy towards Ukraine and, according to reporting, "expressed concern that the President's policy differs from the interagency's."  Guess who's "opinion" matters in that case.

He either gets a medal or a court-martial in the public's eyes.  Which means it's political.  Which is a bad thing to associate with our military.

 

I think the rub is that the military is inherently political, but isn't supposed to be partisan, and people often mistakenly conflate the two. Every time a service chief or a legislative liaison goes to the Hill for budget stuff, it's political. When we make tactical, operational, or strategic choices, it's political. War is politics. Clausewitz etc. etc. The issue is when you mix service with promoting a partisan candidate or cause.

Likewise, impeachment is inherently political (see Federalist 65) but isn't intrinsically partisan. The founders naively thought political parties wouldn't become a thing but a decade before the first partisan presidential election (Federalist Adams vs. Democratic Republican Jefferson in 1796) they wrote impeachment into the constitution on the theory that the competing ambitions and different constituencies/time horizons of a non-partisan House (elected by the people every 2 years) and Senate (elected by state legislatures every 6 years) would equip them to keep a chief executive from abusing his power. They didn't anticipate a lot of trends that subverted that structure: the evolution of political parties, direct election of Senators, indirect popular election of the President (i.e. EC changing from a deliberative body to a ceremonial body that ratifies the results of 50 statewide presidential elections), mass media, and a series of presidents (Andrew Jackson, Teddy, Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Reagan, etc.) shifting the CG of the political parties away from their congressional wings and toward their presidents/presidential candidates. So today members of Congress are incentivized to stick by THEIR president in any impeachment proceeding, lest they offend their primary voters, and so much for competing ambitions between the executive and legislative branches... And impeachment is seen as partisan like everything else Congress does, e.g. budgeting/appropriations, oversight, confirmation of appointees, etc.

All that being said, just because the budget is politicized doesn't mean the CSAF doesn't show up to testify in favor of the Presidential Budget. He's just supposed to say "Vote to fund this because the AF needs it to fulfill the NDS and execute our OPLANs," not "Vote for this to send a message that President Trump supports making our military great again and to own the libs." Likewise, if a military member gets subpoenaed to testify to what they know in an impeachment inquiry, well, they kind of have to do so. As long as it's "I saw this and heard this on this date, and then this happened, etc" and not "I Colonel So and So say Trump has to go. Medicare for All." And if it's service protocol that you testify in uniform, then you testify in uniform. 

Those who are talking about Vindman substituting his judgment/views over those of the head of the executive branch... Well, they would be right if we were talking about the "high criminalization and misdemeanoring" of mere policy differences. But we're not. Presidents including Trump have disagreed with the consensus of their interagency process before. Presidents including Trump have blurred the org chart before, e.g. Obama making Dick Holbrooke his Afghanistan/Pakistan guy in lieu of working through his ambassadors to those countries, = not all that different from Trump making Jared Kushner his Middle East Peace Czar or even in this case having EU Ambassador Sondland work Ukraine issues. What is new and different here is asking a country to play ball with someone outside government, Rudy G, as your personal attorney and representative of your reelection campaign, in order to receive aid that was lawfully appropriated by Congress. The key factors in the allegation are that appropriated funds were being withheld until Ukraine cooperated with Trump's personal representatives in promoting false stories about a political opponent. If Trump had said through Taylor, Sondland, Pompeo, the State Department janitor, or anyone else on the federal payroll, "I will oppose and/or veto future funding for aid to Ukraine until my Justice Department tells me you are cooperating with it's investigations into XYZ," that's in the realm of policy differences. When you circumvent your ambassadors and attorney general, and say "Get with my private lawyer and coordinate a public statement saying you're investigating Joe Biden for something that didn't happen and that you're investigating yourself for the DNC hack that my intelligence and law enforcement agencies all say the Russian Soviets did, or you can't have the money Congress appropriated and I signed into law," that's a potential abuse of power. (And remember, the Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional back during the Clinton years, so the president does not have carte blanche to not spend appropriated funds.)

A much shorter comparison: Disagreeing with your own appointees about the wisdom of selling arms to Iran to encourage Hezbollah to release hostages, not a crime. Using the proceeds to pay for things Congress banned you from paying for (Boland amendment) in a bill you signed, maybe a problem. And when that happened, military members of the NSC got called to testify about it and they testified in uniform. 

[FWIW... I have much less of a problem with doing accounting tricks to pay for fighting the commies in Latin America than I do with holding "fight the commies in Eastern Europe money" hostage to your reelection campaign. But that's just my two cents.]

[Homestar]

4 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

I think the rub is that the military is inherently political, but isn't supposed to be partisan, and people often mistakenly conflate the two. Every time a service chief or a legislative liaison goes to the Hill for budget stuff, it's political. When we make tactical, operational, or strategic choices, it's political. War is politics. Clausewitz etc. etc. The issue is when you mix service with promoting a partisan candidate or cause.

Likewise, impeachment is inherently political (see Federalist 65) but isn't intrinsically partisan. The founders naively thought political parties wouldn't become a thing but a decade before the first partisan presidential election (Federalist Adams vs. Democratic Republican Jefferson in 1796) they wrote impeachment into the constitution on the theory that the competing ambitions and different constituencies/time horizons of a non-partisan House (elected by the people every 2 years) and Senate (elected by state legislatures every 6 years) would equip them to keep a chief executive from abusing his power. They didn't anticipate a lot of trends that subverted that structure: the evolution of political parties, direct election of Senators, indirect popular election of the President (i.e. EC changing from a deliberative body to a ceremonial body that ratifies the results of 50 statewide presidential elections), mass media, and a series of presidents (Andrew Jackson, Teddy, Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Reagan, etc.) shifting the CG of the political parties away from their congressional wings and toward their presidents/presidential candidates. So today members of Congress are incentivized to stick by THEIR president in any impeachment proceeding, lest they offend their primary voters, and so much for competing ambitions between the executive and legislative branches... And impeachment is seen as partisan like everything else Congress does, e.g. budgeting/appropriations, oversight, confirmation of appointees, etc.

All that being said, just because the budget is politicized doesn't mean the CSAF doesn't show up to testify in favor of the Presidential Budget. He's just supposed to say "Vote to fund this because the AF needs it to fulfill the NDS and execute our OPLANs," not "Vote for this to send a message that President Trump supports making our military great again and to own the libs." Likewise, if a military member gets subpoenaed to testify to what they know in an impeachment inquiry, well, they kind of have to do so. As long as it's "I saw this and heard this on this date, and then this happened, etc" and not "I Colonel So and So say Trump has to go. Medicare for All." And if it's service protocol that you testify in uniform, then you testify in uniform. 

Those who are talking about Vindman substituting his judgment/views over those of the head of the executive branch... Well, they would be right if we were talking about the "high criminalization and misdemeanoring" of mere policy differences. But we're not. Presidents including Trump have disagreed with the consensus of their interagency process before. Presidents including Trump have blurred the org chart before, e.g. Obama making Dick Holbrooke his Afghanistan/Pakistan guy in lieu of working through his ambassadors to those countries, = not all that different from Trump making Jared Kushner his Middle East Peace Czar or even in this case having EU Ambassador Sondland work Ukraine issues. What is new and different here is asking a country to play ball with someone outside government, Rudy G, as your personal attorney and representative of your reelection campaign, in order to receive aid that was lawfully appropriated by Congress. The key factors in the allegation are that appropriated funds were being withheld until Ukraine cooperated with Trump's personal representatives in promoting false stories about a political opponent. If Trump had said through Taylor, Sondland, Pompeo, the State Department janitor, or anyone else on the federal payroll, "I will oppose and/or veto future funding for aid to Ukraine until my Justice Department tells me you are cooperating with it's investigations into XYZ," that's in the realm of policy differences. When you circumvent your ambassadors and attorney general, and say "Get with my private lawyer and coordinate a public statement saying you're investigating Joe Biden for something that didn't happen and that you're investigating yourself for the DNC hack that my intelligence and law enforcement agencies all say the Russian Soviets did, or you can't have the money Congress appropriated and I signed into law," that's a potential abuse of power. (And remember, the Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional back during the Clinton years, so the president does not have carte blanche to not spend appropriated funds.)

A much shorter comparison: Disagreeing with your own appointees about the wisdom of selling arms to Iran to encourage Hezbollah to release hostages, not a crime. Using the proceeds to pay for things Congress banned you from paying for (Boland amendment) in a bill you signed, maybe a problem. And when that happened, military members of the NSC got called to testify about it and they testified in uniform. 

[FWIW... I have much less of a problem with doing accounting tricks to pay for fighting the commies in Latin America than I do with holding "fight the commies in Eastern Europe money" hostage to your reelection campaign. But that's just my two cents.]

I feel like I should get college credit for reading this. Geez. 

[dream big]

23 hours ago, drewpey said:

The rub is someone thought there was a problem and is using the proper channels to voice their concerns.  This is what we should all want on either side of the aisle, and I'll take hundreds of dudes testifying in uniform over one Reality Winner thinking the only way to voice their concern is to jeopardize national security.  One of the golden rules...don't make it hard to do the right thing.

He “thought” there was a problem with the way Trump conducted foreign policy.  Well too effing bad.  Military members don’t make policy, the President does; we execute that policy.  If we don’t like said policy we can get out of the military and do something about it.  This guy is either a shrill looking for attention or a complete fool.  Either way, he’s about to become the darling of the left. 

[drewpey]

6 hours ago, dream big said:

He “thought” there was a problem with the way Trump conducted foreign policy.  Well too effing bad.  Military members don’t make policy, the President does; we execute that policy.  If we don’t like said policy we can get out of the military and do something about it.  This guy is either a shrill looking for attention or a complete fool.  Either way, he’s about to become the darling of the left. 

Yes he thought Trump's method of conducting foreign policy was illegal.  He went through appropriate channels and was silenced.  When another investigative body comes along and asks questions, you think he should just shut up?

Is that your answer for anytime a military person thinks they see someone break the law?  "too effing bad"...keep your mouth shut and if you can't take it then quit?  Jesus I hope you aren't in any sort of leadership position.

[SurelySerious]

Buried last week on A16 on Turnberry Report: much ado about nothing. 

[MechGov]

I feel like I should get college credit for reading this. Geez. 

It’s CCAF credit, tho

[dream big]

On 11/3/2019 at 2:11 PM, drewpey said:

Yes he thought Trump's method of conducting foreign policy was illegal.  He went through appropriate channels and was silenced.  When another investigative body comes along and asks questions, you think he should just shut up?

Is that your answer for anytime a military person thinks they see someone break the law?  "too effing bad"...keep your mouth shut and if you can't take it then quit?  Jesus I hope you aren't in any sort of leadership position.

How is it illegal? Show me where Trump’s foreign policy decisions are illegal and I’ll concede that the Lt Col made the right call and Trump needs to reign it in.  The Lt Col even admitted that he only “had concern,” nothing anywhere about illegal activity.

There is a dangerous precedent to be set when military members think that they can influence policy because they disagree with the administration.  Generals for example advise, but in the end if their advice is not taken they either A. shut up and color or B.  resign.  

Thanks for your concern about me being in a leadership position, I happen to be in one and encourage my subordinates to pass feedback on my decisions.  But I’m not a civilian leader in charge of the military making national policy. 
 

 

[drewpey]

2 hours ago, dream big said:

How is it illegal? Show me where Trump’s foreign policy decisions are illegal and I’ll concede that the Lt Col made the right call and Trump needs to reign it in.  The Lt Col even admitted that he only “had concern,” nothing anywhere about illegal activity.

There is a dangerous precedent to be set when military members think that they can influence policy because they disagree with the administration.  Generals for example advise, but in the end if their advice is not taken they either A. shut up and color or B.  resign.  

Thanks for your concern about me being in a leadership position, I happen to be in one and encourage my subordinates to pass feedback on my decisions.  But I’m not a civilian leader in charge of the military making national policy. 
 

 

It's not about whether the action was actually illegal or not, it's a matter of perception.  He perceived there was wrongdoing, brought it up.  He did the right thing.  You want to judge the action based on your perceived outcome, but that's not how things work.  You want people to voice concerns when they have them no?

You will never have a completely impartial complaint.  It's not a thing, but you all act like every opinion is immediately invalid because someone has a perceived a bias.  Immediately throwing out or silencing all complaints with any hint of bias is going to lead to there being zero complaints.  This guy isn't the judge...he isn't determining legality or punishment, he simply raised his hand and said he had concerns and was silenced.

The problem here is the right wing media is painting him as a partisan hack, which then puts the military in a bad light and you don't like.  If the media were to simply look at him as a person voicing concerns through an established process (which he is), then it wouldn't be dragging down the "impartiality" reputation of the military.  This is a predictable cycle though, as anyone who gives even the slightest shred of disagreement with Trump is immediately eaten alive, even if they are in your own party.

It's easy to get riled up over him when you look at it under these set of political circumstances, but instead imagine a similar situation happening with an IG complaint, sexual assault, a maintainer sabotaging an airplane...etc.  You don't want people out there witnessing potentially bad things to be second guessing themselves and being afraid of reporting.  Report it and let the authorities sort it out.  He did.

[mcbush]

8 hours ago, dream big said:

How is it illegal? Show me where Trump’s foreign policy decisions are illegal and I’ll concede that the Lt Col made the right call and Trump needs to reign it in.

In addition to what drewpey said, if you want actual statues that were potentially violated, consider 52 USC 30121 for example:

”It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive (from a foreign national)... a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value... or an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.”

Zelensky was allegedly solicited for two things: an investigation into the Bidens and a big public announcement about it. It’s the second part that ties this to an election, and makes it reasonable for a person to raise his hand and ask the question, IMO.

[tac airlifter]

On 11/5/2019 at 6:38 AM, mcbush said:

In addition to what drewpey said, if you want actual statues that were potentially violated, consider 52 USC 30121 for example:

”It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive (from a foreign national)... a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value... or an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.”

Zelensky was allegedly solicited for two things: an investigation into the Bidens and a big public announcement about it. It’s the second part that ties this to an election, and makes it reasonable for a person to raise his hand and ask the question, IMO.

How do you feel about the Clinton campaign paying a foreign national for a fake dossier filled with garbage hearsay to frame a president and subvert the democratic process?  Or Obama asking for favors from Russian diplomats because he’ll have “more flexibility after then next election?”  
 

these are rhetorical questions.  The broader point I’m trying to make is that there’s a lot of “allegedly” in your post but the actual transcript has been released and I don’t read it as quid pro quo.  Yet we know these other violations were real, not alleged.  So there’s an element of political hypocrisy undermining the narrative against our president, and invalidating the current complaint in the eyes of many people.

Were in a tough spot as a nation. 

[pawnman]

Am I the only one who wants Trump, Biden, and the Clintons investigated in relation to this whole Ukraine thing?

I don't care what letter you have after your name... If you used your government position for personal gain, I want you prosecuted.