The left continues to fail to recognize the pure evil of America's right-wing. A little after 10 o'clock last night, opinionators on both CNN and MSNBC were saying it would be difficult for Republicans to personally attack Lieut. Col. Vindman, a decorated Purple Heart Army veteran.
As I switched off the television I said to myself, that's just silly. Trump and his evil little cheerleaders love to attack veterans and especially men who served in combat in Vietnam. Rober Mueller most notably, but he is far from the only one.
Before I woke this morning Fox was already sliming Vindman.
I am old enough to remember McCarthyism. I did not understand at that time what was going on, but I watched it in action. The opinionators are too young to remember McCarthyism but that's no excuse for not studying it. What we're going through now is McCarthyism pure and simple.
Trigger warning: here lie facts.
ReplyDeletePerhaps instead of clicking, you should run. Like a vampire from sunlight.
Here's a fact: Trump was asked for evidence that Vindman is a never-Trumper. He had nothing.
ReplyDeleteI am not surprised to see you joining in the slime campaign.
Skipper,
ReplyDeleteI can see no facts at your link above. A lot of unconfirmed biased ad hominens, but facts? You clearly has no clue what that word means.
[Clovis:] I can see no facts at your link above.
ReplyDeleteI suppose my link was crippled by having only first hand knowledge to go on.
[Harry:] I am not surprised to see you joining in the slime campaign.
I am not surprised to see you once again so conceptually confused.
That link I provided stands, or falls, on its own. If you have nothing with which to contradict it, then you have to accept the possibility that Vindman wasn't suited for his role.
Skipper,
ReplyDeleteAssuming the person behind that link is even real, what on Earth makes him someone whose opinions I should trust? The fact he was in the military? The mere use of idiotic terms such as 'globalist' shows he is, more likely than not, a very biased Trump supporter. Hey, like you, what a coincidence!
Clovis, under those terms, you don't get to believe Vindman, either.
ReplyDeleteA specific, ascertainable, person portrayed Vindman based upon his claimed first hand experience.
If you cannot undermine that claimed first hand experience — and there are obvious ways to do so — then you must accept as plausible the conclusion that Vindman was not first and foremost motivated by the US's best interests.
And, btw, globalist is not an idiotic term, it is just as descriptive as nationalist.
You sure do love yourself some ad hominem, don't you?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/us/politics/trump-vindman-twitter.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Your source believed the Comet Ping Pong pizza hoax and does not speak Russian, Skipper. And you are joining a QAnon slime attack. I bet you feel great about that.
Harry, please re-read this:
ReplyDeleteIf you cannot undermine that claimed first hand experience — and there are obvious ways to do so — then you must accept as plausible the conclusion that Vindman was not first and foremost motivated by the US's best interests.
The whole Vindman timeline stinks, and based upon his actions, I strongly suspect his motives.
ReplyDeleteUnlike you, I'm not inclined to accept as unvarnished truth things that fluff my narratives.
Oddly, you are an endless source of sewage regarding the military in general, and officers in particular. And yet suddenly you have gone straight into the hero worship mode.
Why is that?
Skipper,
ReplyDeleteThere is no need to believe Vindman's sole words or the initial whistleblower, because everything they alledged is confirmed now by multiple sources, including Trump himself.
As for as hominens, I have no problem using them when duly deserved, but I still know the difference between opinions and facts.
[Harry:] There is no need to believe Vindman's sole words or the initial whistleblower, because everything they alledged [sic] is confirmed now by multiple sources, including Trump himself.
ReplyDeleteLet's take that as read.
Now, what, exactly is the problem?
And may we talk about the timeline, or Vindman's lawyer?
'If you cannot undermine that claimed first hand experience'
ReplyDeleteYour source doesn't speak Russian so could not have heard the conversation. Story over.
[Harry:] Your source doesn't speak Russian so could not have heard the conversation. Story over.
ReplyDeleteYou don't get even the simplest concepts, do you?
Re-read what I said upfront.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
Now, what, exactly is the problem?
---
See, Skipper, if I even have to state that, you disqualified yourself from further use of my time.
Clovis, I really think you do need to say exactly what the problem is.
ReplyDeleteBecause if you try to do so, I think you will find it more difficult to do so than you think.
Also, keep in mind that after the hoax built upon a fantasy that was the Russian Collusion schlamozzle (is this the right time to bring up I was right about that all along, and you weren't?), and the previous votes on impeachment for insulting NFL players, insulting four Congress critters, and calling shithole countries shithole countries, a sizable majority of the US population is becoming convinced that the Democrats are incapable of losing an election.
Harry, what I said upfront is that there are reasons to discount first hand testimony. It seems that the source I cited isn't credible; therefore, it should be ignored.
ReplyDeleteIn exactly the same way that progs should have ignored Dr. Ford from the get go.
But didn't.
Skipper,
ReplyDeleteNo, you were not right about the Russia collusion matter. The final conclusion was that Trump was not passive to prosecution, but he was not exempted. In a better country, he would be impeached for that. You guys are turning into a shit hole so fast I can hardly notice the difference from here anymore...
No, Skipper, her claims should have been investigated. The rightwingers were -- for reasons we may speculate about -- adamant about not allowing that.
ReplyDelete[Clovis:] No, you were not right about the Russia collusion matter. The final conclusion was that Trump was not passive to prosecution, but he was not exempted.
ReplyDeleteWrong.
There was absolutely no evidence of any collusion between anyone in the Trump campaign and the Russians. There never was even any theory as to what form collusion could possibly have taken.
However, it is now clear that the DNC colluded with foreign agents to pay for slanderous gossip; that the CIA planted information with Trump campaign aides to act as a pretext for spying on them; that the FISA court was corrupted; and that highly placed FBI agents actively conspired to first influence the election, then, when that failed, to encourage a coup.
In a better country, that applies the rule of law equally, there would be at least a half dozen people in prison.
None of them named Flynn.
[Harry:] No, Skipper, her claims should have been investigated. The rightwingers were -- for reasons we may speculate about -- adamant about not allowing that.
That is also completely wrong.
Her claims came without a shred of supporting evidence, and more than a fair amount of contradictory evidence. Feinstein held on to Ford's claims for weeks after she received them. Media repeated her claims, and those of others with complete credulity. "Rightwingers" never opposed an investigation.
The proof of progressive moral cretinism is how quickly this travesty disappeared after confirmation.
Read "Justice on Trial", should you wish to stop trafficking in nonsense.
Skipper,
ReplyDeleteExcept your talking points are all opposite to Mueller's final report. You are just trafficking misinformation.
Sigh. McConnell thought that a year was too short a time to review Garland's qualifications but a week was too long to spend on Kavanaugh's.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what Kavanagh did but I do know the rightwigers were terrified of looking into it. Perhaps they know something I don't.
As for your views about the rump collusion, that's been admitted. By Donald Jr. I don't believe much of what he says, but I believe that, since there is corroborating evidence.
Bolton's testimony in the Stone trial this week is conclusive.
[Clovis:] Except your talking points are all opposite to Mueller's final report. You are just trafficking misinformation.
ReplyDeleteOkay, quote directly from Mueller's final report.
Sigh. McConnell thought that a year was too short a time to review Garland's qualifications
Sigh. Stop putting thoughts into McConnell's head. Particularly when they contradict what was abundantly clear: the Republicans weren't going to confirm Garland, so there was no point in ginning up the entire machine and everything that entails.
... but a week was too long to spend on Kavanaugh's.
There was nothing to investigate. How long is long enough to prove a negative?
And it's going on a year since he was confirmed. Since any actual fact be found substantiating what Ford said would be grounds for Kavanaugh's removal, there is all kinds of incentive to find that fact.
Yet nothing.
As for your views about the rump collusion, that's been admitted. By Donald Jr.
You don't know the meaning of the word, do you?
Which could explain why you so heroically avoid taking on actual collusion: the DNC paying a foreign agent to concoct a slanderous dossier.
[Hey Skipper:] Harry, what I said upfront is that there are reasons to discount first hand testimony. It seems that the source I cited isn't credible; therefore, it should be ignored.
ReplyDeleteIs this credible?
In his prepared statement provided to Congress, Vindman claimed to be the top adviser to the President of the United States on Ukraine policy. He was later forced to admit he's never met Trump, never spoke to Trump, and has never advised him on anything.
ReplyDeleteI saw that and saw that Vindman wisely ducked that slime attack.
In fact, principal political advisers to a president seldom if ever meet the prez in person. They work through reports. That's a problem when you have a lazy and illiterate president but that does not mean that Vondman failed to do his job.
Fiona Hill was described as the principal adviser on Russia to the president and she didn't meet the president either.
ReplyDeleteI am fascinated -- as I always was by the Joe McCarthyites -- by how indifferent the partisans are to unending slime.
I saw that and saw that Vindman wisely ducked that slime attack.
ReplyDeleteExcept for the fact it wasn't a slime attack, it was true.
I have read other sources who claimed to know Vindman; all think he is a tool. Of course, there's no way to know the credibility of their claims.
However, based upon my own first hand experience as a LtCol on the Pentagon planning staff, I could have claimed I was the principal advisor to the SecDef and SecAF on NATO issues. And I would have had every bit as much justification as Vindman. Well, more, actually, since I did on occasion provide advice to both.
But I'm not in to self-fluffery, so it would never have, and still doesn't occur to me.
Moreover, it is clear to me that Vindman is way the hell out of line. His role is to provide advice, then shut the hell up. That the President disagrees with Vindman isn't the President's problem.
I am fascinated -- as I always was by the Joe McCarthyites -- by how indifferent the partisans are to unending slime.
Nick Sandmann would like a word.
Never heard of him.
ReplyDeleteIf 'it was true' then the security services have failed. Could be. They missed Ames. But the fact that the slime machine has many spigots proves only that the slime machine works very well.
it got Yovanovich.
[Harry:] Never heard of him.
ReplyDeleteYes, you have.
Do you want the link? (Pro-tip: your answer should be "no".)
If 'it was true' then the security services have failed.
Has nothing to do with security services, and everything to do with Vindman's self-fluffery.
Self-fluffery is not an issue; slime accusations of disloyalty are the issue.
ReplyDeleteSandman was well worth forgetting. What he has to do with your imaginary point escapes me.
ReplyDeleteI am fascinated -- as I always was by the Joe McCarthyites -- by how indifferent the partisans are to unending slime.
ReplyDeletePerfect self-indictment.
Of course you'd like to forget it — it revealed progs for the outrage mob that they, and you, are.
Self-fluffery is not an issue; slime accusations of disloyalty are the issue.
ReplyDeleteThere are two issues. Self-fluffery is one — not a good look, and diagnostic.
The second isn't disloyalty, but rather insubordination. But I only have first hand experience to go on.
UCMJ provides for insubordination when orders are illegal. In Vindman's case there was no order but the situation was equivalent.
ReplyDeleteBy his oath, e was not allowed to do nothing.
Harry, you don't understand simple concepts. Vindman's role was as an adviser. He doesn't get to substitute his judgment for the presidents, nor prance about in uniform directly contradicting civilian control of the military.
ReplyDeleteAdvisers had better be able to have their own judgments, but you're right, with Trump they are not expected to, and if they do they will always be ignored.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that is not the question. The question was breaking the law. Several civilians also spotted that.
Vindman worked for 2 organizations, the army and NSC. He observed improper conduct (which was to become illegal within hours if it hadn't already but there was no way for him to know that) which did not involve an illegal military order.
ReplyDeleteSo it was correct for him to raise his concerns within the civilian apparat and follow its rules.
Turns out the place he turned to was corrupt but he didn't know that.
If Trump was really concerned to root out corruption, he would be doing it in his own house, now that this evidence has been brought out.
You Trumpeters are such fools.
Now this. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/world/europe/ukraine-impeachment-military-aid.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
ReplyDeleteUkraine knew about hold on aid sometime in July.
Republicans on the Intelligence Committee made an interesting argument that it was appropriate to review the Pentagon finding that Ukraine had made significant progress against corruption because a new administration had taking over in Ukraine.
This makes sense and would shut down the inquiry in 60 seconds if Trump could show that someone in his administration directed the Pentagon to review the certification.
You know that didn't happen, and it is absolutely damning.
The Intelligence Committee report is out and it confirms that not only was Vindman right about the lawlessness, but 2 people in OMB quit rather than take part.
ReplyDeleteSo Vindman's character and integrity turn out to be better than about 99% of commissioned officers'. But Lt. Col. Skipper will just keep sliming.
So Vindman's character and integrity turn out to be better than about 99% of commissioned officers'. But Lt. Col. Skipper will just keep sliming.
ReplyDeleteNo sliming, Harry, just facts.
Vindman's arrogance was palpable — his "correcting" a Congressman to call him "Lt Col" instead of "Mr." is all the tell you need. Well, at least anyone who isn't deafened by their own axe grinding.
Moreover, no matter what Vindman thinks, he and his vaunted "policy community" aren't president, Trump is. Which is the way it has to be, so long as you value civilian control of the military.
The policy community's job is to implement the President's policies, not sabotage them. If they can't accept that constraint, then they need to quit.
Not get up in uniform and pontificate.
After all, Vindman had precious few facts to offer. He withheld important information. Vindman had some gaping holes in his knowledge of Ukraine. He seems to have thought the Obama administration provided Ukraine anti-tank weapons.
Perhaps you could clarify something. The President of the United States is not allowed to investigate foreign corruption by US citizens, including public office holders? Or is it only Trump as President that is not allowed to investigate this sort of corruption? Or is it that Trump may not investigate alleged corruption by a political rival? But only if Trump is running for re-election? What about when he is in his second term?
Progressives have gone even further into bizarro world when a completely legitimate request — to investigate something that reeks of corruption and influence peddling, is somehow an impeachable offense.
I shouldn't be surprised, three years of that transparently nonsensical Russian collusion hoax, then the Kavanaugh horror show has taught you nothing.
Alleged is your wiggle word. Alleged by whom? With what evidence?
ReplyDelete[Harry:] Alleged is your wiggle word. Alleged by whom? With what evidence?
ReplyDeleteWhich refers to this:
Or is it that Trump may not investigate alleged corruption by a political rival?
During the period VP Biden was the Obama administration's "point man" on Ukraine, his son had a hugely compensated no-show job.
In anyplace but prog bizarro world, that is reason enough to wonder if there was some, you know, quid pro quo going on.
Of course, it is entirely possible that VP Biden's judgment wasn't swayed at all by this arrangement. And by "entirely possible" I mean to say just that — the appearance of corruption isn't corruption itself.
However, one of the things I learned when in a command position was that avoiding the appearance of impropriety was just as important as avoiding impropriety itself.