The De-Ukrainification of the National Security Council

[myth]

THIS part of the article cited in the OP (which I suspect most here have not actually read) is particularly interesting, and underscores a point my budder has made in the past....

In his own testimony on November 19, Vindman admitted that he was so concerned about the telephone conversation between Trump and the Ukraine President Zelinsky that he told two individuals about the President’s demands in the telephone call. Stating that both of these individuals were “cleared U. S. government officials, with appropriate need to know,” Vindman named one of them, State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent. But he refused to identify the other individual — claiming that he had been advised by counsel “not to answer specific questions about members of the intelligence community.” Pressed by Rep. Devin Nunes, Vindman continued to refuse to disclose the name of the individual he told about the president’s call, and Chairman Schiff interrupted to say that Vindman was not allowed to say anything that could reveal the identity of the whistleblower.

This exchange suggests that Vindman was likely the source for the whistleblower — even though both he and Schiff continue to claim that they do not know the identity of the whistleblower. In his opening statements in his testimony against the president, Vindman pronounced: “I am a patriot.” But undermining a sitting president is not patriotic.

Get that --- Schiff interrupts questioning to say that Vindman was not allowed to say anything that could reveal the identity of the (alleged) whistle blower, yet Schiff claims not to know the identity of the (alleged) whistle blower. So, how did Schiff know that was a risk?

I'm disturbed that the author of your article apparently can't recognize that the President is not a dictator, and that "undermining a president" CAN be patriotic, depending on the circumstances. We may disagree about the circumstances of this particular case, but no President deserves the sort of unflinching loyalty a lot of people seem to be advocating for. The President of the United States is not the same thing as the United States of America, and we shouldn't act like it.

[Cow Poke]

I'm disturbed that the author of your article apparently can't recognize that the President is not a dictator, and that "undermining a president" CAN be patriotic, depending on the circumstances. We may disagree about the circumstances of this particular case, but no President deserves the sort of unflinching loyalty a lot of people seem to be advocating for. The President of the United States is not the same thing as the United States of America, and we shouldn't act like it.

Except, of course, that a military officer's "big boss" is the Commander in Chief. Other officers who have had a beef with the chain of command have done more honorable things like resign their commission. You're well aware of "chain of command", and, as unlikable as Trump may be, he's still CinC.

[myth]

This is ridicule: you're a moron for thinking that firing a Ukranian because of his obvious loyalty issues and the massive lack of judgment over Ukraine policy is unreasonable.

You're just a moron, plain and simple. I don't debate with idiots like you who can't have a civil discussion without acting like a 5th grader. Go back to your crayons and let the adults talk.

[demi-conservative]

You're just a moron, plain and simple. I don't debate with idiots like you who can't have a civil discussion without acting like a 5th grader. Go back to your crayons and let the adults talk.

Go back to your anti-Trump koolaid, 'orange man bad, orange man bad!!!!!!!!!!!!'.

[myth]

Except, of course, that a military officer's "big boss" is the Commander in Chief. Other officers who have had a beef with the chain of command have done more honorable things like resign their commission. You're well aware of "chain of command", and, as unlikable as Trump may be, he's still CinC.

Right, but you acknowledge there are limits, yes? Hitler comes to mind. Those concentration camp guards were following their commander in chief, yes? I've had a recent conflict with some bosses at work, and I'm telling you...I will not subordinate my own moral compass and allow a manifest injustice to occur, no matter what they tell me to do. Yes, I can expect negative consequences I do so, but we each have to determine what hill to die on, so to speak.

[myth]

Go back to your anti-Trump koolaid, 'orange man bad, orange man bad!!!!!!!!!!!!'.

I'll loan you back the orange crayon, if you need it, dude.....or have you moved on to finger painting?

[demi-conservative]

I'll loan you back the orange crayon, if you need it, dude.....or have you moved on to finger painting?

You stick with your Santa-level fairy tales about geopolitics, demi will stay with the facts.

[myth]

You stick with your Santa-level fairy tales about geopolitics, demi will stay with the facts.

Fake news.

[Cow Poke]

Right, but you acknowledge there are limits, yes?

Absolutely. I actually resigned my position as Police officer because of such limits. I did not stay around and gossip.

Hitler comes to mind. Those concentration camp guards were following their commander in chief, yes?

They made that choice, yes.

I've had a recent conflict with some bosses at work, and I'm telling you...I will not subordinate my own moral compass and allow a manifest injustice to occur, no matter what they tell me to do. Yes, I can expect negative consequences I do so, but we each have to determine what hill to die on, so to speak.

In my case, I worked the chain of command, found that wasn't an option, and resigned.

[simplicio]

Right, but you acknowledge there are limits, yes? Hitler comes to mind. Those concentration camp guards were following their commander in chief, yes? I've had a recent conflict with some bosses at work, and I'm telling you...I will not subordinate my own moral compass and allow a manifest injustice to occur, no matter what they tell me to do. Yes, I can expect negative consequences I do so, but we each have to determine what hill to die on, so to speak.

If Vindman decided to lie to show some loyalty to his boss, I wonder if he would be a hero to some!

[mikewhitney]

If Vindman decided to lie to show some loyalty to his boss, I wonder if he would be a hero to some!

I'm wondering if he was lying for his boss or was just confused about what he was saying.

[myth]

If Vindman decided to lie to show some loyalty to his boss, I wonder if he would be a hero to some!

No, that sort of behavior seems to be expected when supporting Trump. Remember, personal loyalty over national security.

[mikewhitney]

No, that sort of behavior seems to be expected when supporting Trump. Remember, personal loyalty over national security.

How were you lured into the myth that Trump was acting as a dictator?

[rogue06]

Except, of course, that a military officer's "big boss" is the Commander in Chief. Other officers who have had a beef with the chain of command have done more honorable things like resign their commission. You're well aware of "chain of command", and, as unlikable as Trump may be, he's still CinC.

More than one has been relieved of their command like this famous instance

00000000000000ab000-00aaag.jpg

In much more current example (and one also because the officer in charge had said things about the president which angered the latter) there is Obama's firing of General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of our forces in Afghanistan, because of some unflatoring things he said to a reporter from Rolling Stone magazine about Obama

[myth]

Absolutely. I actually resigned my position as Police officer because of such limits. I did not stay around and gossip.



They made that choice, yes.



In my case, I worked the chain of command, found that wasn't an option, and resigned.

Exactly my point. So why do you seem to be supporting author whom apparently doesn't understand the distinction, or that there are limits? You can disagree with Vindman's decision all day long, but like Mitt Romney he followed his moral compass and made an unpopular decision. Trump doesn't seem to even have a moral compass, but so many Trump supporters seem to think we should just blindly support him no matter what.

The fact of the matter is, Trump isn't smart enough to keep his corrupt shenanigans hidden. He seems incapable of understanding why people raise a stink about blatantly visible corruption. Seriously, he has extreme political opponents (the Democrats, not me)...and he doesn't have the wherewithal to keep his wrongdoing hidden? Why is this, you ask? Because he's President, and he thinks that means he can do WHATEVER he wants. And you know what, a bunch of spineless Republican Senators (minus Mitt Romney, of all people) confirmed that he CAN do whatever he want.

I'm also not interested in hearing any B.S. about Trump supporting Christian values. Trump is pandering to the evangelical base for political expendiency. He wouldn't know an actual Christian if they punched him in the face. And besides, if the Senate would have removed Trump...there's not a single thing he's done is support of Christian values that Pence wouldn't also do.