Moving On….

| November 20, 2019

No, the GOPers don’t like what Vindman has been doing. But as we are all aware that after 20+ years he’s likely going to retire, so it’s just him looking for a new cash cow. His only “loyalty” is to himself, from what I’ve seen.  His opportunities for self-aggrandizement are plentiful.

From the article:  WASHINGTON — A career Army officer on Donald Trump’s National Security Council testified Tuesday he was duty-bound to object to the president’s clearly “improper” phone call seeking Ukrainian investigations of U.S. Democrats. Republicans answered him with doubts about his loyalty to the United States.

Arriving on Capitol Hill in military blue with medals across his chest, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman told impeachment investigators he felt no hesitation in reporting the president’s request of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

Vindman, a 20-year military officer who received a Purple Heart for being wounded in the Iraq War, was among the officials who listened in to the July 25 call when Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy for “a favor” — investigations of Democrat Joe Biden and other issues. – article

Here’s a basic summary of Vindman’s Army service:

And life will move on, even if the Democraps try to stop it in its tracks. It’s just that part about being so eager to throw himself into the spotlight that is – well, inappropriate.

Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Army

Comments (246)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Vindman is a disloyal bitchboy. Should get an OTH REFRAD based upon other folks’ experiences.

  2. OWB says:

    How long has he been applying this standard for the behavior of other folks? Must be recently.

  3. Trapperfrank says:

    No Bronze Star Medal for his Iraq deployment. For an officer, that should tell you all you need to know.

    • IDC SARC says:

      could just be because he isn’t a supply

      j/k…you’re likely correct IME

    • Hondo says:

      Not necessarily. During the general time frame when this guy served in Iraq, some commands did award the MSM instead of the BSM to those who they deemed “did not serve in combat” while deployed to Iraq. (How that would be possible, I dunno.) Other commands used criteria that added to the Army’s BSM criteria to distinguish between the two awards.

      In some commands, reputedly the practice was fairly common. I personally know of at least two cases where an individual was awarded a CAB for service in Iraq – and a MSM as their end of tour award from their Kuwait-based higher HQ. Go figure.

      • IDC SARC says:

        Yeah nothing’s ever certain, But O-Rank and a CIB but no BSM IME seems to be the exception….but I was in fact just being a dikk. 🙂

      • SFC D says:

        11th SIG BDE awarded MSM’s while deployed, but then again, we’re well known FOBBITS. There were also a couple of BSM’s awarded, but why, I could only guess.

      • Trapperfrank says:

        Not so fast my friend, he was awarded a CIB, and , a Purple Heart during his Iraq tour. By default, most commands would award a Bronze Star to an officer for meritorious service. That was my observation. Shows me he was not highly thought of by his higher ups.

        • Hondo says:

          You are possibly right about this guy. However, I have personal knowledge of cases where people were awarded MSMs vice BSMs by their commands in spite of exemplary performance for one reason or another.

          My point was that absence of a BSM for service in-theater is not necessarily indicative of being a low performer. Sometimes good performers get screwed over by their higher HQ.

          • Charles says:

            My father was a career Marine, Korean War and Viet Nam war veteran. He served well in both wars, but he was an Aviation Electronics officer, not an infantryman.
            After he passed away, I pulled his awards and decorations from his records. He had once mentioned that he was given an award in Viet Nam that “should probably” have been a Bronze Star but his commander believed that only infantry in combat should receive a Bronze Star (hey, many awards say more about the command than the servicemember).

            Bottom line: He went out onto the airfield in Da Nang, even when rockets were still impacting, to inspect, repair and calibrate the ground to air communications, the radar, and ground controlled approach antennae, all to make sure the aviators could return safely under instrument landing conditions.
            He was awarded the Navy Commendation Medal …
            … with “V” device.

          • timactual says:

            When I out-processed from 1 Cav. in RVN the standard award & decoration package included Bronze Star for E5 and up and ARCOM for the peasants. Given the attitude shown by the Army in the creation of various do-nothing decorations since, I think Vindman must have stepped on his dick to earn the lack of of a BS BS.

    • Anonymous says:

      Got wounded wackin’ in the porta-pottie during IDF attack…

    • nbcguy54ACTUAL says:

      Infantry Officer.

      Infantry War.

      ZERO Company or Battalion Command time.

      THAT also should tell you all that you need to know.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        Ding. Ding. Ding.

        That old song, “Things that make you go hmmmmm…”

        • Commissar says:

          Your cluelessness is showing again.

          I guess you did not learn much in the mailroom.

          • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

            I still think that Vindman must have been a real Lars of an Officer, one that would be a frag magnet during the Vietnam War!

          • Poetrooper says:

            “I guess you did not learn much in the mailroom.”

            Says one who supposedly had the IQ to get into the intel shack but demonstrates absolutely zero common sense…

          • USMC Steve says:

            Wrong answer again fuckwit. There were never enough grunt officers in lower and mid grades over there to actually do the job. If he didn’t do any time in an infantry unit he was a fuckup. But what the fuck would you know about it FOBBIT?

            • Commissar says:

              He did serve as a infantry officer, which is why he has a combat infantry badge, dumbshit.

              • MajorMike says:

                The only criteria for a CIB is to be an Infantry Soldier, Colonel and below, serving in an Infantry billet in an Infantry unit, in a hostile fire zone where award of the CIB has been authorized, for the period of time required. Actually engaging in close combat isn’t required. I know mortar men (11C) who never left the FOB or fired a mission that wear CIBs.

                • Slow Joe says:

                  That’s fuckin wrong.

                  CIB requires to be under enemy fire and to return fire at the enemy. Both requirements have to be met at the same time, for the same action.

                • timactual says:

                  And I know of at least one Infantry officer who never should have been awarded a CIB. I have suspicions about others, e.g. Bn. staff.

                  I don’t know what you have against the 11C MOS, but many of them spent as much time in the field as any 11B. Also, the perimeter of a FOB (where the 11Bs live) is sometimes safer than than the interior (where some of the 11Cs live when they aren’t detailed to pull perimeter guard). Mortars and rockets are usually aimed at the center of the target.

                • Poetrooper says:

                  I still have the orders for my award of the CIB. On the day I supposedly “earned” it, I was neither under fire nor returning fire. However, another squad in my platoon operating some distance away did come under fire.

                  Now, in later fire fights and at the Battle of Truong Luong, I most assuredly earned my treasured CIB; but the fact remains that had I been transferred out to a non-hostile area before those subsequent combat encounters, I could conceivably be entitled to wear the CIB without ever having heard a shot fired in anger.

                  See, Larsy? That’s how that kinda shit can happen.

                • SteeleyI says:

                  This is from the actual regulation:

                  (2) A Soldier must be personally present and under fire while serving in an assigned infantry or SF primary duty, in a unit engaged in active ground combat to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires. Improvised explosive devices vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, and the like are direct fire weapons. While no fixed, qualifying distance from an explosion of these devices can be established, commanders should consider the entirety of the combat situation when considering award of the CIB.

                  • Hondo says:

                    Yes, that’s what 600-8-22 says.

                    And we all know that units never play “fast and loose” with regulatory criteria to “take care of their troops”, right?

                    Give me a break. I think we all know of cases where units deviated from regulatory criteria when it comes to awards and decorations. That includes the CIB.

              • Anonymous says:

                Asst S3 PowerPoint bitch at a Bde HQ in Iraq.

              • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                SWOME recipients of the CIB are known as “Free I.B’s” and I’m sure that Vindman ONLY got his from being wounded in an IED attack. Was the severity of his wound ever verified, or is he just another John “Lurch” Kerry?

              • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                I apparently spent more time in an Infantry role than you did.

                Granted, stateside in peacetime, luck of the draw and all that. Still, 11B at least a bit or two.

                I know how folks were viewed that held command roles and staff roles, also those who were …. Diverted away from command.

                Are you sure you want to be chucking that particular stone? Walls look kinda glassy.

                You utterly fail to impress me. Your opinion of me is … unimportant.

                You -could- mend your ways. Not too late. Stop digging maybe?

                • SteeleyI says:

                  Ok, cards on the table.

                  First, please read some of the applicable regs before you start posting false info.

                  Now, how much time did you spend ‘in an infantry role’, in what units, and what war? ‘A bit or two’ seems very vague.

                  Personally, my infantry time was as an enlisted 11B in the Army National Guard in the ’80s (we were a 113 unit on the old MTOE).

                  I was never infantry on active duty, but I spent over 10 years in three different infantry battalions (one in the 101st, 2 in the 82nd), one tour in combat, one deployed in Haiti. So, I have been around a lot of infantry guys- even with them when they earned their CIBs (I never got one).

                  • ArmyATC says:

                    You’re telling us that every CIB ever awarded was strictly by the regs? You know as well as I that’s horseshit.

                    When I returned from my deployment a new guy was assigned to my section. he was waiting to go to ATC school. I noticed he was wearing a CIB and asked him where he got it. His reply, “Kuwait.” After further questioning I found out he was part a reserve unit left in Kuwait by his company to back fill when needed. He was never under fire, never even heard a shot fired. The entire company received a blanket order for the CIB and his name just happened to be on the orders. So he put on the CIB knowing he didn’t earn it.

                • timactual says:

                  ” also those who were …. Diverted away from command.”

                  LOL. love that phrase! You have a future in PR. Had a platoon leader who managed to get himself “diverted” all the way to Saigon in several bounces.

                • SteeleyI says:

                  So, not much Infantry time? Are you one of those ‘my secondary MOS is Infantry after the HHC reflag’ guys?

                  It’s OK, admit it. everyone already knows

                  • Ex-PH2 says:

                    You can quite changing the subject of this post right now. It is about Vindman, NOT ABOUT YOU, steely1.

                    If you enjoy baiting people with personal attacks that are uncalled for, you have a problem.

              • Huey Jock says:

                But what was his MOS?
                Guy just ain’t got the Grunt look.

      • Commissar says:

        He is a FAO. You transfer to that long before you make LTC. It is a highly competitive field.

        He chose FAO knowing he would not follow the normal infantry command track.

        It is how it works and getting selected for FAO is an honor and incredible opportunity.

        You keep making up shit to justify believing Trump over him.

        It is pathetic.

        • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

          Keep it coming, I think I just busted a rib LAUGHING at what you said!

          • Commissar says:

            Infidel, you are embarrassingly ignorant of any military specialty outside of infantry and you lack proficiency in infantry as well. Which is why you were assigned to supply and sergeant major’s driver.

            • Poetrooper says:

              Lars, you wouldn’t know this, but being the sergeant major’s driver means you may just have more knowledge of what is actually happening in the battalion or brigade than most of the assigned officers.

              Don’t be so quick to denigrate that of which you are ignorant–and in your case, that’s apparently most of the real world, military and otherwise.

              • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                I see a lot of what Freud referred to as “Projection” in Lars’s assessments on the Military Service of others. I think that he must have been a mediocre Officer at best and he knows it, thus he “projects” it onto others!

              • steeleyI says:

                …Like which female PFC in the BSB the CSM is sleeping with.

        • IDC SARC says:

          C’mon…working in civil affairs the concept of diplomacy and leveraging assets to get what you want must be status quo to you and certainly not unusual for any DC Types. Quid pro quo is what governments do, besides the threat of mutual annihilation it’s the go to methodology.

          • Commissar says:

            We can’t to it for personal benefit.

            This is not complicated. He was not leveraging US funding for US interests. He was doing it for personal benefit. And he was not just leveraging US resources for personal gain, which would have been a crime in of itself, he was compromising US interests for personal gain.

            • Mason says:

              What personal gain? Biden wasn’t even a candidate at the time.

              You were pissed Trump didn’t take the 2016 foreign “meddling” seriously, then when he asks Ukraine’s new president to look into it, you cry foul.

              Fuck you people are crazy.

        • Stacy0311 says:

          FAO is what is known as a Functional Area in addition to Basic branch. The typical career path to a Functional Area starts when one is a senior Captain (O3) AFTER company command time and prior to selection for Major (04).

          Ask me how I know? I got my first Functional Area designation as a 1LT (had company command time as a 2LT with an OER that made me sound like the second coming of George Patton BTW). 29A Electronic Warfare Officer. I got my second Functional Area designation as a senior Captain and after a second command tour. I am currently basic branch Armor officer with a FA57 (Simulation Operations)designator.

          Some officers move back and forth between their basic branch and FA. Some stay in their FA because they know their career path in their basic branch is limited.

          • Commissar says:

            FAO is highly selective and they rarely move back and forth between the functional specialty and their basic branch. I also have seen no verification he never had company commander time.

            • Stacy0311 says:

              I’m throwing the bullshit flag.
              FAO is “we’ll take any warm body. Got a 1/1/1 on the DLAB? You’re in. Don’t speak a language? No problem, we’ll send you to DLI. 9 months in Monterry. You’ll love it.”

              And how do I know this? Back to my J5 time when they were trolling for said warm bodies. “Hey you seem very knowledgeable about Bangladesh/Mongolia/Thailand/Indonesia/Cambodia/Vietnam/Kyrgyzstan/Uzbekistan/Tajikistan/Kazakhstan/Turkmenistan/Jordan, have you ever thought about becoming an FAO?” (Yeah I was the desk officer for PACOM/CENTCOM and covered all of those countries)

              So as for false similarity, yeah, fuck you.

              And I’m sure people rarely leave FAO. Get cushy assignments in DC or an embassy. Don’t have to do nasty things like field time or combat.

          • Commissar says:

            Neither of your functional areas are anywhere close to how selective FAO is and none require the two years of training FAO does.

            It is a false similarity.

            FAO has about a 12% selection rate. People rarely voluntarily leave it. It is one of the coolest careers in the military.

            • Poetrooper says:

              “It is one of the coolest careers in the military.”

              Says the born REMF/fobbit…

            • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

              IS IT as selective as say, Civil Affairs which according to what I heard one merely had to possess a current Military ID Card and be breathing to be accepted into?

        • USMC Steve says:

          Oh, I get it. He did it to keep his fat slimy ass out of the line of fire then. As his ranger school classmates would attest to. Thanks for that info FOBBIT.

        • timactual says:

          I don’t have to believe Trump to realize that Vindman has nothing but an opinion or two with no evidence to support them. Even if Trump is lying that does not make Vindman correct.

          You claim to be trained in the intelligence field? I have read that during WWII police and lawyers were assigned to intelligence because they were trained and had experience in sifting evidence and constructing chains of logic. Alas, that does not seem to be the case these days.

        • nbcguy54ACTUAL says:

          That must explain his time in the SIM Center at Graf.

          FAOs were in high demand in those locations.

        • Mustang Major says:

          Commissar- Are you Vindman? You sure know a lot about the guy. You didn’t make any posts on the 19th of Nov, other than tell someone that evening that they were BS. Then after the hearing, you make over 30 posts defending Vindman, the FAO career field, and bashing Trump.

          Come clean with us.

    • SGT Ted says:

      I served in Iraq from 2003-2004.

      BSMs for service were pretty much guaranteed for E-7 and above if you weren’t a fuck-up.

  4. Berliner says:

    I’m hoping in recognition for his dedicated service he receives the coveted Certificate of Achievement, or at the most the 4th award of the Army Achievement Medal, on his retirement.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      A Certificate of Achievement as a retirement award is epic-level malice.

      • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

        I’ve seen a certificate given as a PCS award to give someone the middle finger because they were a POS/slug.

        • Anonymous says:

          My Cdr once wanted to give everyone “something” for a PCS award… so out came a cheesy certificate reading: “For exceptionally meritorious service insufficient great for an Army Achievement Medal nor rotten enough for a Bad Conduct Discharge.” (Idea rethought.)

          • rgr769 says:

            Shoot, the only PCS award I received when I left the 10th SFG(A) was a certificate of lifetime membership in the Group. That will get me one Grande at Starbucks if I hand $5 to the barista.

        • Twist says:

          I’ve seen an AAM as a retirement award.

      • Mason says:

        Can’t forget the canteen cup!

        • SFC D says:

          I’m still highly pissed that I learned about that particular send-off AFTER I retired. Would’ve been so useful on some of my problem children.

    • Commissar says:

      He will make Colonel. His OERs are exemplary. He is a top 1% officer according to his last OER.

      • MajorMike says:

        That’s funny. My last OER said I was a 1% officer. I signed on the way to the transition point. My previous ones said the same thing.

      • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

        I bet that you chew your fingernails and hyperventilate while you come up with some of the shit you post!

      • timactual says:

        Doesn’t that depend on whether he is a regular officer or a reserve officer? And the fact that he is competing against officers who presumably have some command experience.

        • rgr769 says:

          The most telling factoid about him is that as an infantry branched officer in 18 years of war since 2001, he has had one combat deployment to Iraq with an infantry unit.

  5. Commissar says:

    He is doing his duty to his country. He is doing the right thing. He is doing what he is required to do by by honor.

    The fact that you “font like it” says a lot about you ex.

    So many of you are twisting your brains in knots trying to come up with a framework to justify believing Trump over literally everyone else.

    You are spending your days trying to discredit an officer doing his duty.

    It is not just pathetic. It is grotesque. Cultish.

    It also makes it clear many of you would lack the courage and integrity to stand up and do what Vindman is doing if you ever watched someone in power abuse their authority for personal gain against the national security interests of the United States.

    Every single witness that has testified has implicated Trump. Under oath. Despite knowing that republicans are eagerly waiting for a misstep or mistake knowing that if they catch them in a lie they will be prosecuted.

    Trump is doing everything he can to prevent witnesses from testifying.

    If he were innocent these witnesses would be able to exonerate him. He is ordering them not to testify because he know he is guilty.

    Trump refuses to go under oath to testify. He did with Mueller and will do so again. He only says he is willing to testify to the press because he knows his cult will believe him.

    The president for does not have complete and unilateral authority to set foreign policy. He cannot compromise Us interests for personal benefit or gain. He also must set policy by advice and CONSENT of congress. Additionally, as the executive, he must execute laws passed by congress concerning our foreign policy. Withholding that funding, legislated by congress, to extort something of personal gain was an abuse of his power.

    It was the exact kind of abuse of power the founders discussed in establishing both the emoluments clause, and the articles of impeachment.

    LTC Vindman served honorably and competently. The attempts to discredit his career to find some excuse to believe Trump over him are bullshit efforts by brainwashed cult dipshits.

    LTC Vindman was a FAO. FAOs are not bottom 50% officers. It is a highly competitive, highly prestigious field, with incredible opportunities and assignments.

    In choosing to go FAO you give up the normal command track of your original branch. FAO are promoted based on their expertise and foreign policy experience. Not their command experience. They are promoted like other experts such as medical officers.

    • Anonymous says:

      Lars is empathetically butthurt for Vindman.

    • SFC D says:

      I’m not even sure you’re watching the same “hearing” I am.

      • timactual says:

        Well, he is certainly not hearing the same hearing. Then again, neither is the media.

        Ain’t CSPAN grand?

    • David says:

      Not a Trump fan at all, and have stated so repeatedly – but you might also remember that these hearings are being run like a big-city grand jury, wherein witnesses are hand-selected and neither rebuttal witnesses, nor defense lawyers are allowed. What we are seeing now is Schiff’s version of the truth, and ONLY his version. I believe the popular saying is that in such a grand jury setting any DA can get a ham sandwich indicted? If this is the strongest case they can make with those advantages, it’s pretty weak sauce. ALL politics is quid pro quo negotiating. I am seeing no worse that what Biden bragged of, and while I hate “what-about-ism”, I have to say if there was no upset over his strongarming Ukraine, I am not sure Trump’s is a whole lot worse.

      • Commissar says:

        That is how impeachment is done in the house. The house phase of an impeachment hearing is essentially the grand jury investigation phase of a criminal hearing.

        The senate phase is the “trial” phase.

        Originally the house was following the rules last passed by a Republican house. Hen they passed rules that give trump more due process in the house phase than has ever been afforded during an impeachment proceeding,

        Whining about how this is being conducted is completely baseless bullshit.

        • Fyrfighter says:

          ” What we are seeing now is Schiff’s version of the truth, and ONLY his version. I believe the popular saying is that in such a grand jury setting any DA can get a ham sandwich indicted? If this is the strongest case they can make with those advantages, it’s pretty weak sauce.”

          Please try reading for comprehension jackass, and STOP SNIFFING GLUE!

          • timactual says:

            After watching/listening to parts of the hearing, it is definitely a Schiff show. This morning I could only get through part of his opening remarks before turning it off.

        • Mason says:

          “more due process in the house phase than has ever been afforded during an impeachment proceeding”

          Blatantly false.

          “Whining about how this is being conducted is completely baseless bullshit.”

          At this point, who’s whining? This whole thing is blowing up in the Democrats’ faces. It’s entertaining now to watch the shit show.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          Anyone besides me notice that last week, Lars Taylor, the Great Know-It-All from Berserkley, said “the impeachment is going on now” and went away when he was corrected?

          And now, he won’t even admit that he was both ignorant and wrong, and says “impeachment is done in the house” when it is NOT THE IMPEACHMENT!!

          He’s still showing everyone his level of laziness and ignorance and phony superiority, in addition to being a tiresome bore. But he does provide some sort of entertainment…. kind of like watching feral hogs decide which one of their own number they should attack.

          • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

            IMHO Lars is once more displaying just what an ignorant, harebrained propagandized zealot he is!

          • timactual says:

            “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink”

            No matter how bad the schools he attended may have been, he should at least have learned something about vocabulary, civics/government/anything. Obviously you can lead Lars to knowledge but you can’t make him think.

            Crikey, even his insults are boring and ignorant.

    • Commie-Tsar says:

      My FLACCID MICROPENIS OF TRUTH tells me this… it is all I need to tell each and every one of you that ORANGE. MAN. BAD.

    • timactual says:

      “…over literally everyone else.”

      You are literally as deranged as you accuse others of being.

      ” the national security interests of the United States.”

      God help us if our national security depends on the well being of countries like Ukraine.

      “Every single witness that has testified has implicated Trump”

      No, “every single witness” has admitted that they have no evidence to support impeachment other than the gossip of other frustrated bureaucrats.

      “If he were innocent these witnesses would be able to exonerate him.”

      Jeez, Louise. Have you ever read anything about Western civilization’s ideas behind our justice system? Our educational system has indeed failed since I was a lad if they didn’t at least try to make you understand that the accused in our culture are not guilty until the prosecution proves guilt. Trump, like all US citizens, does not need to prove his own innocence. Those witnesses (PROSECUTION witnesses for God’s sake!) are supposed to provide proof of guilt, not exoneration.

      • rgr769 says:

        Don’t waste your bytes on his BS. In his parallel universe, he has a law degree and has years of experience trying cases.

        • timactual says:


          adjective: trying

          difficult or annoying; hard to endure.”

          I am sure the entire courtroom agrees.

  6. Arby says:

    As we all know, there are ranks and pay grades. Vindman is an O-5.

    • Commissar says:

      He is a FAO. One of the most selective and prestigious jobs in the military.

      • Arby says:

        So what? He is still just a pay grade.

        • Commissar says:

          Calling someone a “pay grade” makes you sound like a petulant E-4. E-5 at best.

          You definitely do not sound like a sergeant.

          Thinking a job is a “pay grade” is a state of mind that does not reflect the duty, responsibilities, and positions of trust that a rank is granted in order for someone to function.

          He holds a position of extreme trust and responsibility. Much greater trust and responsibility than the vast majority of lieutenant colonels in the military.

          • Fyrfighter says:

            It’s the BEHAVIOR (AKA Blue Falcon), NOT the position retard… but then again, you already knew that..

          • timactual says:


            He is just another redundant staff weenie. Now, if he (or you) had ever commanded a battalion, or even a company, in combat you would know what (trust and responsibility) means. He is a small apparatchik in the foreign policy establishment.

        • Commissar says:

          Also, by your logic Sergeant Majors, and Command Sergeant Majors are “pay grades” and not ranks.

          They advise and assist commanders and work in senior staff positions.

          You try telling a sergeant major that “sergeant major” is just a pay grade and not a rank.

      • Stacy0311 says:

        FAOs must be part of JSOC or at least SOCOM since it’s so selective an prestigious….

        FAO is a place to park people with language and cultural skills. Usually D&D nerds who can’t hang with normal people and are too weird even for MI.

        Worked for 3 years on Joint Staff J5 International Affairs and dealt with many FAOs. Most of them are so far on the spectrum that they make Sheldon Cooper seem socially well adjusted

        • Poetrooper says:

          “FAO is a place to park people with language and cultural skills. Usually D&D nerds who can’t hang with normal people and are too weird even for MI.”

          That’s what makes it so “selective and prestigious” for our very own Larsy Boy…

          • Commissar says:

            Your quote about FAO is clueless.

            Being a defense attaché in an embassy is a kick ass job. Which is one of the roles of a FAO.

            Weirdos are not selected for FAO. They literally represent the US military in interactions and negotiations with some of the most powerful and influential defense officials in nations all around the world.

            • Mason says:

              “Weirdos are not selected for FAO.”

              And yet, Vindman proves you wrong. If he’s the most elite and in the coolest job in the military, I have been grossly misinformed on what cool is.

              • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                Most officers I have known would say “Commanding Officer” is the coolest.

                We do need the gifted staff-only folks. But they must not run things.

                The ones that do neither should be removed, not stuffed in make-work nothings.

        • Commissar says:

          It has a 12% selection rate for FAO and they go through two years of training,

          It is highly prestigious and has much cooler assignments than most SF officers get after Major, in fact, a lot of SF majors apply to FAO.

        • SGT Ted says:

          “Usually D&D nerds who can’t hang with normal people and are too weird even for MI.”

          That reminds me of the MI BN that moved into our AO at Abu Ghraib. All that was missing was the propeller beanies and the Star Trek t-shirts.

        • Jeffro says:

          I worked with FAOs in Africa. I found them to be knowledgeable and extremely helpful. The FAOs I worked with with were definitely not bottom feeders. They interacted with host country defense officials, NGOs,the UN (and its military ops like AMISOM etc), and of course Big Army and a slew of alphabet soup organizations. They may no longer be(or perhaps never were) the tip of the spear but they certainly help keep it lethal.

      • Ret_25X says:

        Nope, no, nein, nyet.

        What you must have meant is that FAO is the most affected and laughed at career fields.

        along with “strategist” it is the FA officers go to when they are in “hide from real work” mode.

        If the military never produced another FAO, our foreign policy could only improve.

        As for this particular O-5, I will only say this: there is no “consensus” policy. There is only the PRESIDENT’s policy. Get on board or get out.

        I may have disagreed with the last president about things, but my DUTY required me to support him.

        Running to a political hack with a story and bypassing the chain of command is not honorable, loyal, or even smart.

        I’m sure you would agree if he worked for you…..right?

      • USMC Steve says:

        Go fuck yourself FOBBIT. He is a political appointee, doing the job of a uniformed version of a political appointee, who could not get past light col in over 20 years of service. Can we say terminal in grade before he committed perjury? Trump should take his commission for this shit.

        • Commissar says:

          I was not a fobbit, dumbshit.

          He will make colonel. FAO is a slow promotion field because people stay in it for decades because it is a fantastic field.

          And all this is about is trying to justify believing Trump over Vindman.

          Fucking pathetic.

          • rgr769 says:

            So you weren’t a fobbit. So explain the combat effectiveness provided by a Civil Affairs officer, cuz inquiring minds want to know. Last I heard they weren’t exactly at the point of the spear.

            • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

              Even during MY time in the litterbox CA only went into areas after they were pacified by us Grunts and were covered by us while they were outside the wire!

      • rgr769 says:

        Bullshit, Squidward. Name an FAO who ever won a minor combat engagement, let alone a battle.

      • Mustang Major says:

        “Prestigious and selective” are terms often used to describe miserable jobs to the unaware.

        FAO is not the coolest functional area jobs in the Army.

        • timactual says:

          “Prestigious and selective”

          Now that you mention it, I think I saw those words in an email I should not have opened.

  7. Commissar says:

    Ambassador Sondland, in sworn testimony, confirmed the quid pro quo. And said he was operating under Trump’s orders.

    “I followed the directions of the president.”
    “I worked at the direction of the president.”
    “I was following the president’s orders.”

    He also implicated Pence, Giuliani, Perry, Pompeo, and Mulvaney.

    It is done. Trump will be impeached.

    All that is left is the republicans to put their country over their party and political careers.

    I doubt they have the courage to do that. I had too much faith in the integrity of the Republican Party in the past. They are feckless cowards who are held hostage be a personality cult.

    So Trump may still cling to office. Though I expect he will resign by March.

    • Wilted Willy says:

      For God’s sake, please ban this asshole!

    • SFC D says:

      Implications are wonderful things. So are allegations. And apparently, according to some dems, hearsay evidence is great, and innocence must be proven by the President.

      I want facts, good, bad or indifferent. Adam Schifferbrains is feeding everyone shit and telling us it tastes great.

      • Commissar says:

        It is not hearsay. Three witnesses were on the call. Sondland testified he was operating under direct orders from Trump. None of that is hearsay.

        Apparently you have no clue what hearsay is. Or you are still regurgitating the original White House talking point about the whistleblower. The whistleblower is irrelevant at this point. We have nearly a dozen corroborating witnesses with first hand knowledge of various aspect of the attempt to extort Ukraine.

        • Ret_25X says:

          Sondland DID NOT give any direct evidence of any “quid pro quo”.

          In fact, for you cant understand normal thinking types, he said the opposite.

          Also, an “element of the crime” in a QPQ is that something of value must be exchanged.

          whoopsie! you been dumb wrong again!

          • Commissar says:

            Witness testimony is evidence. In this case direct evidence.

            Something of value does not have to be exchanged. Simply soliciting something of value is sufficient.

            The announcement of an investigation is something of value.

            You responses are bullshit. The fact that you did not know that witness testimony is evidence is fucking ridiculous.

            And you are doing everything you can to find some small shred of justification to believe Trump over literally everyone else. You are a brainwashed cultist moron.,

            • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

              SPEAKING OF a “brainwashed cultist moron”, whatever happened to the great Apocalypse of the Zika Epidemic you said was imminent? The Russia Collusion which you said was going to unseat President Trump any day?

              Keep the laughs a-comin’, Comrade Seagull!!!

            • Blaster says:

              “And you are doing everything you can to find some small shred of justification to believe Trump over literally everyone else. You are a brainwashed cultist moron.”

              Seems like recall you doing that with obama. But, okay, it’s all the republicans,. Your side doesn’t do the exact same when it’s their guy!


          • rgr769 says:

            Most of his testimony was conclusory and, as he admitted, based upon his “presumptions.” Guess what that gets one in a real (non-kangaroo) courtroom? Nothing, as it is not admissible, and if uttered, is subject to a motion to strike. Even a moron with a valid law degree might know that.

        • rgr769 says:

          So, give us your brilliant definition of “hearsay” is Cunthulu.

      • Poetrooper says:

        “Adam Schifferbrains is feeding everyone shit and telling us it tastes great.”

        From Lars’ above comment, it would appear he thinks it’s chocolate pie and asking, “May I have another, sir?”

    • Perry Gaskill says:

      Sheesh, Lars. What is it with you. Did Trump 86 your mom for acting up at a casino one night?

      Personally, I find it remarkable that nobody so far has apparently asked a simple question:

      If you were the President, and a couple of prominent Americans were engaged in a shady deal with Burisma, wouldn’t you want to find out what was going on? Particularly after Joe Biden bragged that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor canned. Somehow, it seems reasonable to me that a couple of loose financial cannons potentially trying to loot a friendly country would be cause for concern, and if Trump didn’t want to look into it, he would not be doing his job.

      • Commissar says:

        Trump is using his office for personal financial gain, compromising national security for personal gain, and constantly doing things to serve the interests of a hostile foreign power.

        You all should be upset about this.

        Some of you are brainwashed morons.

        The others are hyper partisan dirtbags putting party loyalty over country.

        The rest are too afraid to be attacked by their peers to say anything critical of the current administration.

        The fact that this is only a safe space for cult members is why it dropped from the approximately 350,000 ranked website in the world to the bottom 4,500,000 ranked in the last few years.

        • Poetrooper says:

          You all should be upset about this.

          “Some of you are brainwashed morons.

          The others are hyper partisan dirtbags putting party loyalty over country.

          The rest are too afraid to be attacked by their peers to say anything critical of the current administration.”

          Project much, Larsy?

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            Projecting by Lars Taylor? That’s putting it mildly, Poetrooper.

            Apparently, Lars Taylor, whose view of things is as narrow as his brain can make it, has never heard of, nor does he believe in, free will and the ability to think for oneself. His lack of respect and disdain for anyone and everyone who shows up here oozes out of everything he posts. His posted assumptions are based on his own prejudices, with no reasoning or thought as a basis for them.

            Such a narrow view of the general population is a display of vapid, self-serving egocentricity. I’d bet a 6-pack of beer that ol’ Lars is one of those lame idiot ossifers that ran around with his head up every senior officer’s ass until he was sent back to the USofA.

            Doesn’t matter: he’s another useful idiot who can’t see any further than his own conceit.

        • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

          Lars, you’re not unlike a retarded parrot:

          “*SQUAWK*, ORANGE MAN BAD!”
          “*SQUAWK*, ORANGE MAN BAD!”
          “*SQUAWK*, ORANGE MAN BAD!”
          “*SQUAWK*, ORANGE MAN BAD!”
          “*SQUAWK*, ORANGE MAN BAD!”
          “*SQUAWK*, ORANGE MAN BAD!”

        • Perry Gaskill says:

          That’s a typical response from you, Lars. Instead of answering the question at hand, you chose to reply with a series of poorly-supported ad hominem observations about brainwashed morons and partisan dirtbags. This was then followed by a goofy non sequitur about TAH’s web rankings.

          Your “Trump is using his office for personal financial gain, compromising national security for personal gain, and constantly doing things to serve the interests of a hostile foreign power” is also without a foundation of evidence. Just because you want rumor and innuendo to be true doesn’t make it so. Seeing a sinister motive in everything is a kind of thing common in very small children. Or the insane.

          If you’re so disdainful of the brainwashed morons and partisan dirtbags here, why do you continue to come around? It seems to me anybody who would apparently welcome the kind of abuse you usually get is either a neurotic masochist, or someone in desperate– and pathetic– need of attention.

        • Fyrfighter says:

          Absolutley NOTHING in that response addressed the question posed by Perry you brain damaged seagull… Of course, any rational person can see that you have no reposnse and that’s what you’re deflecting, as leftists always do…

          So seriously, did you mother have any children that lived???

        • Huey Jock says:

          Hmmmm! Been smoking that funny smelling stuff again.

          Even the president’s office isn’t gonna get Trump substantial personal gain.

          His greatest gain will be retirement at Mar A Lago and away from the zoo he accepted as a concerned American.

        • Mason says:

          Nobody here cares about what the rank of this website is except you, jackass. Don’t know why either. Since you crap on the site constantly and seem to hate everyone here.

          • rgr769 says:

            The commie cuttlefish needs to go back to DU. I am sure it has a much higher ranking, especially among slobbering kool-aid drinking progturds.

        • Blaster says:

          I notice that Obama did jack$h!¥ for the Ukraine and your side was okay with it.

          Trump comes in, gives aid, then says maybe we need to think about this for a minute, and your side looses their shit saying- they’re an ally and we can’t do this to them.

          So, how was okay for Obama to withhold helping them against Russia, but now that Trump is the CiC, it’s a national security disaster?

          Which brings up another why/point,,, I thought you all claim Trump is in bed with the Russians. So,,,,,, which is it?

    • SGT Ted says:

      Did you see the part where he said he was never told by anyone directly that aid was to be withheld? That Trump told him directly there was to be no quid pro quo?

      You’re wrong. Again. But you won’t ever admit it.

    • Fyrfighter says:

      “They are feckless cowards” Finally you say something I can agree with. Your description of RINO’s is spot on…

    • Twist says:

      I noticed how Lars conveniently leaves out this portion of Sonland’s testimony.

      “I just said, ‘What do you want from Ukraine?’” Sondland said, rehashing closed-door testimony he gave to the committee last month. “And he said, ‘I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I just want Zelensky to do the right thing, to do what he ran on,’ or words to that effect.”

      • timactual says:

        Yeah, I noticed that too. Odd, that. He is usually so full of accurate and timely information. On the subject of Trump he seems to be full of Schiff.

    • timactual says:

      ” I had too much faith in the integrity of the Republican Party in the past. They are feckless cowards”

      That’s what I said several years ago. Probably the only thing we will ever agree on. Except I don’t agree that it applies in the present case. So, I guess we are only in half agreement.

  8. PavePusher says:

    Something I posted elsewhere, in response to a strong defense of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

    “While it’s entirely possible he’s an honorable, contientious officer, serving to the best of his ability, and with the best intentions, I’m seeing a lot of glaring red flags in Vindman’s career path.

    Translating through Mil-Speak, I’m seeing the following items just on coursory review:

    A. Purple Heart with no reference I’ve found to actual wounds sustained. Broken finger-nail? Scratch from broken glass? Bruises/Sprains/Cuts? Broken bones? TBI? There is a large record of PH’s awarded for basically falling down, or even just being in proximity to wounded people. Need more information here, because it appears very odd.

    B. Staff positions since 2008, with no notation of any particular training/expertise in the duties assigned.

    1. Leaving the Ukraine at the age of 3 bestows no particular expertise in the area. And I have seen no indication of applicable training as an area specialist. Just a claim of language fluency. That doesn’t always indicate an understanding of culture, politics, etc. No language school or intel qualifications given….

    2. Hasn’t lead troops for at LEAST 10 years (2009). Military vets will recognise what that is very likely to mean, especially at his current rank.

    C. At the NSC level, the vast majority of O-5’s/LtCol’s fetch coffee, sharpen pencils, and answer the phones for their bosses. They don’t -shape- policy, and rarely influence it, unless they have actually demonstrated an exceptional ability to “read the mail” of their opposition forces.

    D. His multiple (and admitedly impressive) qualification badges are standard for ‘ticket punchers’ working their way up the rank structure without actually standing out in any positions of command (which he doesn’t seem to have), or special postings awarded strictly for ability (also seemingly absent), but there could be good and valid reasons for camoflauging these.

    E. No report of any Senior Rater Endorsements, especially during his period of being supervised by civilians. This one is glaringly suspicious.

    F. No Exceptional PME (Professional Military Education) noted. No CGSC courses. No Staff schools.

    Edit: None of the above is definitive, of course, without additional information. But it fits a pattern of officers (and Senior NCO’s) who are self-serving political animals, drifting through the military without leaving any positive contributions, while sowing discord and turbulence in their wake.”

    if I have erred badly in any way, please correct me.

    • Commissar says:

      Nearly everything you posted is fully explained by his being a FAO. One of the most selective and prestigious officer careers in the military. 12% selection rate and two years of training. They give up the normal command track for an exceptionally inter sting career field.

      The rest is unsubstantiated bullshit by people trying to invent reasons to discredit him. His last OER said he was a top 1% officer. We have. O access to other evaluation and no statements from anyone with any knowledge of his previous evaluations.

      He has expertise in the area because, besides language training, a FAO is sent to the Naval Postgraduate school for one year to become a subject matter expert. Additionally, the Army paid for him to get a masters in Russian and Eastern European studies from Harvard as part of his FAO training,

      FAO also do a 1 year rotation in the region to gain further expertise before being assigned to their first official capacity as a fully qualified FAO.

      • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

        Just like Civil Affairs was a hard slot for you to get into!

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          Have you considered, perhaps it was?

          • Mason says:

            One has to set realistic goals for themselves. The world needs ditch diggers too.

          • RetiredDevilDoc8404 says:

            Lars was a CA officer? That explains a lot. Best CA team leader I saw was a crusty Marine MSG whose response to the usual song and dance from the corrupt Iraqi contractor rebuilding a police station in Yousufiyah – “need more money mistah for windows, no money…” Top looked at him and told him “We’re coming back tomorrow, there’s no more money for you but if there’s no windows in this building when we get here I’m going to have one of these Marines shoot you.” The CA officers kept handing the clown money – guess who got the windows in and the job done? Not the Army CA officer who handed out cash like it was candy.

            • SFC D says:

              And that, my friends, is called diplomacy in action.

              Here ended the lesson.

            • Poetrooper says:

              For some reason, I thought he was MI. Should have readily seen he wasn’t smart enough for that.

              • Hondo says:

                PT, I’m pretty sure he branch-transferred to CA after he was commissioned. I believe either his enlisted MOS or initial officer specialty (or both) were in the MI career field.

      • timactual says:

        d” two years of training.”

        Does that include the graduate degree that seems to be standard for FAOs? Just what and when was that training? I couldn’t find anything other than a bare bones bio. Perhaps you could relieve some of our pathetic ignorance by posting a more complete CV.

        • timactual says:

          Never mind. I have to flaunt my ignorance at least one a day.

          How come I can’t find this info?? Are you all using the legendary dark web or something?

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      “A. Purple Heart with no reference I’ve found to actual wounds sustained. Broken finger-nail? Scratch from broken glass? Bruises/Sprains/Cuts? Broken bones? TBI? There is a large record of PH’s awarded for basically falling down, or even just being in proximity to wounded people. Need more information here, because it appears very odd.”

      It sounds to me like Vindman has a very “Kerry-esque” PH Medal, I’m interested in hearing more about it and I wouldn’t be surprised ig some of his former Subordinates come forward telling everyone just what a Lars he was!

    • SteelyI says:

      You have erred badly. Most of what you say is simply out of touch with easily obtainable facts, so I won’t do a blow by blow. Bottom line, Vendman is a Harvard educated expert on Russia and Eastern Europe, and has been a FAO for about a decade now.

      This is standard Army practice, and it explains why his career path is different from what you are used to seeing.

      See below about the criterion for the Purple Heart. He either met them or he didn’t. Clearly a medical officer and Field Hospital commander thought he did. I would love to see the large record of unearned Purple Hearts you mentioned. Do you question every Purple Heart you see? (see section 2-8)

      • rgr769 says:

        Who give a fuck about his purple heart. All it means was he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I almost got one several times. Everyone but a retard doesn’t want one and the fact a person got one doesn’t mean squat, especially for a purported infantryman, which he wasn’t for most of his career. He has no valor medals, so I’m not impressed.

        • Anonymous says:

          Not even the BSM w/o V participation medal for Officers in a combat zone when that was expected… that says “dipstick” pretty much.

        • timactual says:

          I have come to realize that a PH is earned one of three ways;

          1) Bad luck
          2)Ignorance (no moral judgement implied)
          3) Stupidity

          Then there are the unearned ways;
          1) You already have two and the unit uses that scratch you just got to get you that third one that gets you sent anywhere but here.
          2) John Kerry

          I myself stupidly passed up the chance to get a couple of Kerry-style virtual PH, as did a lot of other grunts.

  9. 5th/77th FA says:

    Larsey Boi and vindictiveman. Seagulls of a feather.

    Brucie’s Bath House (Entrance in the Rear) is calling. Them towels ain’t gonna fluff themselves. Get back to work. Oh, and btw, both of your slots behind the dumpsters at the Flying J are overflowing with customers.

  10. Charles says:

    If you were the President, and a couple of prominent Americans were engaged in a shady deal with Burisma, wouldn’t you want to find out what was going on? Particularly after Joe Biden bragged that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor canned. Somehow, it seems reasonable to me that a couple of loose financial cannons potentially trying to loot a friendly country would be cause for concern, and if Trump didn’t want to look into it, he would not be doing his job.

    Joe Biden’s confession: “I withheld one billion dollars in guaranteed U.S. Government aid until that prosecutor was fired!”

    Joe Biden’s explanation: “And I did it because he wasn’t a very good prosecutor. And I, Pure of Heart with an equally Pure of Heart son making $50,000 working for a foreign natural gas company while I’m the sitting Vice President, wanted a really good investigator. So I had the old prosecutor fired in the hope we would get a hard charging zealous replacement who would conduct a legitimate investigation.”

    So what are the Democrats complaining about?

    Donald Trump should say: “I agree with you 100% Joe… I’m sure you and your son were as pure as the newly fallen snow. That’s why, like you, I wanted a full and fair investigation of any corruption during your term of office. You can thank me later when the investigation discloses that you did nothing wrong. I can’t have such an honorable man as yourself be sidetracked with baseless claims that your son’s job was a political payoff: ‘pay my son or no U.S. aid.’

    So I’m sure you will be as happy as me, Joe, to have Hunter’s brilliant memoranda and position papers published, the successful marketing plans he developed, his email messages that steered the company so well, the minutes of the Board Meetings with his input and sage advice, all released and inspected, all proving Hunter had a real job with real responsibilities.
    Isn’t that right, Joe?”


    AN ASIDE: Um, by the way Joe, that “energy company. That was fossil fuel, wasn’t it? You know, natural gas that produces greenhouse gases when burned, leading to global warning. You should be grateful we asked for an investigation by the Ukraine government, and not by Al Gore and Greta Thunberg.
    “How dare you!”

  11. SteeleyI says:

    I take my eye off you guys for a few days and you come up with all sorts of unsubstantiated, uninformed, biased nonsense- and I only skimmed most of this.

    Here’s a response to some of the more ridiculous things on this thread:

    1) “Vindman is retiring so he is looking for a new cash cow”. He may or may not be retiring; there is no evidence either way as far as I can see. He’s Year Group ’98 or ’99, which means he is coming up on 20 years. Most due course LTCs will stay to 22 years, or their first PZ look at COL (plus, they are then maxed out on the pay scale).

    Either way, as a guy with a grad degree from Harvard and a lot of experience national security affairs. I don’t think he was worried about post- Army employment. This may actually prevent him from getting a few jobs…

    2). “Vindman was seeking the spotlight”. How so, exactly? He reported through proper channels within the NSC. He is not the whistleblower. It’s not his fault that this whole thing turned into a Congressional Inquiry.

    3). “FAO and Strategist career fields are for officers hiding from work.” Again, not true, both by Army policy and personal experience of just about anyone who has worked with officers from either career field. Neither one is for everyone- you gotta sorta like that kind of stuff- but not everyone is for either of those fields. Both require advanced degrees, FAO requires language training, and both pigeonhole you into certain kinds of jobs. If that’s what you want you will love it. Most FAOs and Strategists do just fine on promotion to LTC and COL.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      You’re more full of shit than a Platoon of Politicians, a Brigade of Used Car Salesmen and ten million geese all at once!

    • Poetrooper says:

      “I take my eye off you guys for a few days and you come up with all sorts of unsubstantiated, uninformed, biased nonsense- and I only skimmed most of this.

      Here’s a response to some of the more ridiculous things on this thread:”

      Wow, you and Lars must be vying to see which of you can demonstrate more smug, superior, liberal condescension. Right now, judging by the size of the respective asses you’re both showing, I’d say it’s a close contest.

      Although, based on word count today, Larsy Boy does have a leg up…

      • rgr769 says:

        Ooh, see I said these articles and comments on the preferred Defense Minister of the Ukraine would awaken the Kraken known as the steelyeye.

        I am pretty sure these guys are paid Soros-bucks by the word. That is why they are so prolific and verbose.

      • SteeleyI says:

        Poetrooper, once again, vitriol with no actual point.

        The trend on this board is for PH to post an article with commentary, and the rest of you to have a contest to see who can come up with the most creative use of cliched insults for the subject of the article (most of which are question their sexuality, for some reason).

        At some point someone will offer their analysis and insight garnered from serving in a completely different career field at a different echelon in an unrelated situation 15-20 years ago, bolstered by RUMINT and legal advice from the barracks lawyer in their company at basic.

        It’s boring, and you all know it. Seriously, do you like reading 15-20 variations on the theme of calling Vindman gay or challenging the validity of his Ranger tab?

        I suspect that many of you are just as bored by it as me and Lars (why do you call him that, by the way?), and you probably also know that many of the commenters have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

        So, stop calling me names, admit that you missed me, and lets debate.

        • rgr769 says:

          We call his Lars because that is his name, Lars Taylor. The dimwit posted his full name here, several times, and then he complained about us using it.

          Oh, and it is a waste of time to debate the blind steelyeye. Have you watched that video yet of Quid Pro Joe bragging about how he extorted the prior Ukraine president into firing the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma? Likely not.

        • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

          BITCH, PLEASE! Nobody is forcing you to come here and post, thus if you don’t like what you see here I heartily invite you to take the fastest flying FUCK you can find and go somewhere else!!

    • timactual says:

      “He reported through proper channels within the NSC.”

      Except for his immediate superior. One of them “Didn’t have time” was his excuse, I believe.

      “He is not the whistleblower.”

      Probably true. But the whistleblower may have been one of the folks he chatted with about the phone call. That’s a nono, isn’t it?

      “and Strategists”

      We have official “strategists”?!? OMG. That explains why we have A’stan (18 years and counting), Syria, Iraq, etc. Only a real “expert” can f$%^ things up that bad. And the potential new kid on the block, Ukraine, without whose friendship and support our nation cannot survive. I think “W” said it better–“strategerist”

  12. Sapper3307 says:

    His Ranger school buddy’s are saying he was a lazy and a chow thief and was almost peered out multiple times.

      • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

        From your link:
        “Despite not having the respect of his peers, Vindman was pushed through due to his language proficiency.”

        Basically saying that because of his language skills they were bent on graduating him NO MATTER how big of a Blue Falcon he was.

        “At the time of VIndman’s command, the practice was still common, and Vindman should have a Bronze Star.

        This is seen as a red flag to senior officers.”

        ‘Nuff said, he must have been a big Lars!

    • SteeleyI says:

      Absolutely ridiculous. You are asking me to believe that in 2003, just as the Iraq war was going form ‘Mission Accomplished’ to fiasco, the ARTB was pressuring RIs to pass students with language proficiency? I’m sure there was pressure to pass infantry officers…

      Almost peered isn’t the same as peered. By definition, someone is almost peered in every platoon in every class. Most people never complete the course at all, and of those that do, most are recycled at least once for one of three reasons, one of which is peer evals.

      What’s next, he failed to complete a dynamic PLF on his third jump at Airborne School?

      Why can’t you guys debate what he had to say?

      • Hondo says:

        Most here have quit attempting to debate ‘Roo (AKA Poodle AKA Commissar AKA “seagull”) because he refuses to debate in turn. When questioned, he routinely engages in a combination of obfuscation/misdirection/non sequiturs and ad hominem attacks instead. For an example, see his exchange with commenter Perry Gaskill elsewhere in these comments.

        The . . . individual also has delusions of omniscience and infallibility; only rarely presents verifiable facts to support his positions; often presents obviously false information as fact (whether intentionally or due to carelessness/ignorance, I can’t say); will virtually never admit he’s wrong, even when evidence is presented to prove same; and routinely ignores questions to which he doesn’t have an answer. He is also among the most arrogant individuals I’ve encountered on the Internet.

        Other than that, I can’t offer a good reason that others here refuse to debate him.

    • timactual says:

      ” a chow thief”

      From my brief exposure to Ranger school that is indeed a damning accusation.

      • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

        IMHO “Chow Thief” is as big of a Blue Falcon as one can get, pity he didn’t get peered out of Ranger School.

  13. Zulu02 says:

    I was a BN XO and we were doing Liberation Day in Ettlebruck Luxembourg. We were at the Mayor’s reception and one of the “Aldermen” was telling the FAO what his son was doing in ND. The guy (an O4) stopped the guy and said let me translate for the Major (me). The Alderman says he understands. I say he (in French) was talking about his son who is a professor at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks. The FAO looks at me and says “you speak French?” That is when I kind of -insert whatever – with FAOs. Too arrogant

  14. USAFRetired says:

    Many decades ago the fourth year of AFROTC was National Defense Policy. Last Century when I took Squadron Officers School and later Air Command and Staff College, I was exposed to a lot of stuff.

    Did I miss something. Since when do field grade officers decide what is and what isn’t US Foreign Policy. I’m pretty sure the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave decides what our Foreign Policy not some staff wonk even if they are a wounded combat veteran.

  15. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    New Clothes 2: the Impeachment Suits

    “See how fine the fabric is in these Impeachment Suits. You have to be really smart to see the quality. Only the finest, best people see this sort of quality. ”

    “Sure, I do! I’ll take it. impeach!”

    “Me too! Impeach!”

    (Cut to scene of a mob of buck-naked idiots jumping up and down, screeching “impeach!)

    45: ” … What the hell?”

  16. Sj says:

    I miss Jonn. I doubt that he would have let the Lars and other asshole shit show go on this long. Or maybe not.

    • Mason says:

      Many of us recall Jonn saying he was banned. Conveniently, now that the man can’t speak to it, Lars says he wasn’t actually banned. Just asked not to post. As if coming back after Jonn passed is somehow better.

      • Commissar says:

        He said, “I wish you would just go away.”

        I responded “You got it, Jonn.” And did not post again until after he passed.

        “As if coming back after Jonn passed is somehow better.”

        It is better. I don’t know what divine echelon duties he is engaged in right now, but I guarantee he does not give a shit about what I post.

        When I get a chance I will call Dave and ask if my username, email, or IP was banned. I don’t think it was. I am still using all three on here.

        • Hondo says:

          Unless Jonn told him directly, Dave may or may not know whether Jonn had banned you – ‘Roo (AKA “seagull” AKA Commissar AKA Poodle). Others here, however, do know that to be a fact. We know that because Jonn told us personally.

          Before his demise Jonn personally told multiple individuals that you’d been banned. I am one of those individuals he told, so I can say definitively: yes, Jonn indeed banned you from his website. He told me that not terribly long before his death.

          The fact that you posted here under a new screen name when you returned after Jonn’s demise – and continued doing so, not using your former screen name until longtime readers recognized your arrogant attitude and verbally diarrhetic, asinine commentary and thus identified you – leads me to believe you also at least suspected that to be the case. If not, you’d have attempted to comment using your normal screen name when you first returned.

          Here’s why Dave may or may not know whether or not Jonn banned you. (It’s also why you yourself wouldn’t necessarily know that Jonn had decided to ban you.) While WordPress may have a mechanism for banning traffic from a specific user or IP address, my understanding is that Jonn didn’t use that method to ban disruptive jerks – at least not immediately after he decided to ban someone. Rather, he used a two-step process. Jonn would first put someone on moderation – which meant that each of their comments would require individual approval. If Jonn later decided to ban an individual on moderation, he’d simply never approve any of their comments.

          I’m pretty sure that was what happened when Jonn banned you – you were on moderation, and Jonn converted it to a ban. I can’t say if Jonn even used WordPress’ built-in mechanisms (if any) to ban people permanently; I never directly asked him that question.

          I also don’t know if Jonn kept a written list of who he’d banned (that’s another question I never asked him). If not, and if Jonn never directly told Dave who he’d banned, it’s entirely possible that Dave wouldn’t know one way or another if Jonn ever banned you. And since Jonn’s death was sudden, it’s entirely possible that creating a written list of who he’d been banned was one of those things Jonn simply never got around to doing because he had more pressing tasks at hand.

          Being banned by Jonn puts you in rather “select company”, Poodle – and here, being in “select company” isn’t a good thing. Jonn was very reluctant to ban anyone outright. Including yourself, there are only about 5 individuals that I can think of off the top of my head that I know Jonn banned (I know because he told me he’d banned them); there are probably a few more I can’t immediately recall, plus some I don’t know about. Since I’ve been here 6+ years now, I’d estimate that means Jonn banned somewhere around 2 or 3 individuals yearly.

          To put things in perspective: another of the individuals Jonn banned was SoMeOnE wE aLl KnOw AnD lOvE.

          • Commissar says:

            I posted under my “Commissar” name when Jonn passed.

            I then switched after a post or two to an alternate name but never denied it was me. I did this to bypass the approval filter, not a ban.

            He may have told you I was banned, but he never told me. Nor did he appear to ban my email, screenname, or IP. Though he did put an approval filter in place a few weeks before he said “I wish you would just go away”.

            So I did not know I was “banned”. Saying “I wish you would just go away.” Does not convey a ban. At the time he was filtering and approving each and every post I made. He started doing that because I criticized the blog itself, not just the users, for being hyper partisan. He was pissed that I was essentially calling him partisan. After giving me a warning he started to filter and individually approving my posts after I doubled down on my opinion the blog was partisan despite the warning.

            He filtered and individually approved my posts for about two or three weeks after that. Only appearing to not approve posts calling no out the blog itself.

            In fact during this time I posted messages directly to Jonn knowing he would see them when deciding whether to approve them.

            It annoyed both of us that he was doing this. My posts would take a half hour to a few hours to get approved and I am sure he was getting notifications of pending posts.

            I took the “I wish you would just go away” to mean he was tired of having to respond and approve my posts.

            I told him “You got it, Jonn” in my next post. The fact that my posts were individually being approved was unsustainable for both of us anyway.

            If he wanted to ban me he could have just done it (by banning my email, screenname, or IP), or told me I was banned.

            I am not saying he did not tell you I was banned, I am saying he never told me. He was approving my posts and continued to do so until my very last post.

            When I returned after he passed the approval filter was still in place. The first post I made after he passed had to be approved before showing up.

            At some point the approval filter was removed. I assume it was Ed that did it.

            • Hondo says:

              While Jonn was alive, this site was Jonn’s property. As owner, Jonn had complete authority to moderate or ban whomever he wished. He also had zero obligation to notify those banned or to publicly announce the fact someone was banned (although Jonn often did so). His house, his rules.

              For the benefit of others, I’ll recap your extended, whiney, excuse-filled apologia above. Paraphrasing, above you stated the following:

              1. You knew Jonn had placed you on full moderation, meaning each of your comments was to be individually reviewed prior to appearing on the site.
              2. After placing you on full moderation, before he died Jonn asked you to leave the site.
              3. You agreed to leave, apparently without qualification.
              4. After Jonn died, you returned via subterfuge, posting under a new alias (e.g., a different screen name) until recognized.
              5. By your own admission, you used that alias to “get around” moderation you either knew or believed to be still in place.

              In plain terms: you broke your word to a dead man after he was no longer around to take issue with you. Further, your behavior clearly indicates you knew exactly what you were doing and did so intentionally.

              IMO that’s low, Poodle. Damned low.

    • Commissar says:

      The only reason you want me banned is because you don’t like what I have to say,

      My attitude and tone is no better or worse than the attitudes expressed toward me and no,worse than you all express toward people you know fuck all about, like LTC Vidman.

      Says a lot about the attitude regulars like you have about dissenting opinions.

      It is also bizarre you choose to believe Trump over literally anyone and everyone else.

      • Perry Gaskill says:


        Poor persecuted Lars. All the meanies and poopy-heads on TAH simply can’t appreciate his superior intelligence and understanding of how the heroic LTC Vindman is simply doing his patriotic duty, and couldn’t possibly be pushing a personal agenda.

        Seems to me that makes you not only delusional, but also a crybaby, Lars.

      • MrGrumpy1964 says:

        You are right Lars. You are always right.

      • 26Limabeans says:

        “dissenting opinions”

        Your opinions are not merely dissenting.
        They are telling of much deeper issues.
        They lack common sense and require leaps
        of faith that just do not exist here.

        Kinda like the impeachment circus coup.

        • Commissar says:

          You are among a 30% minority that thinks the impeachment is a coup.

          You are also among the less than 30% minority that thinks everyone is lying except Trump.

          I am not the one lacking common sense on the issue.

          How many witnesses will it take who are swearing under oath and under penalty of perjury? Trump refuses to go under oath and is blocking witnesses from testifying.

          If he were innocent they would exonerate him. Why is he blocking them?

          The only leap of faith is your misplaced faith Trump is the only honest man in Washington.

          It is ridiculous. He is a con artist and grifter,

          • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

            If you want a con artist, look no further than the previous administration!

            You lose yet again, keep guzzling the Kool-Aid!

          • timactual says:

            “You are among a 30% minority…”

            You say that like it’s a bad thing. Some of us have outgrown the need to go along with the crowd just because.

            • Perry Gaskill says:

              Typical Lars. Claiming a view held by a 30 percent minority is automatically incorrect is like claiming a decision reached by a committee will always be the optimum decision because of consensus. Such consensual decisions have routinely been shown in the past to be not only non-optimum, but also merely the decision the committee was able to agree upon.

              • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                IMHO that’s what you get when you never talk to anyone beyond the boundaries of Berzerkely CA!

          • Poetrooper says:

            “I am not the one lacking common sense on the issue.”

            Uh huh, and just how many times did we hear that from you during the two-year Mueller investigation?

            Lars, you remind me of that old joke about the kid who gets a sack of horse shit for Christmas and goes running outside yelling,

            “There’s gotta be a pony here somewhere!”

  17. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    At this rate, Crow and Nothingburgers are going to be the staple of Leftist diet.

    • Mason says:

      Nice. See, this is why this impeachment hearing is so entertaining. Good comedy. Testifies he got direct orders from Trump that “I want nothing” from Ukraine. Sounds like a quid pro quo, bribery, whatever they’ve focused grouped this week.

      Complete waste of taxpayer dollars, but at least they aren’t trying to “fix” something else at the expense of someone else’s money.

    • Twist says:

      Lars will either ignore this or attempt to spin it to fit his narrative.

  18. Ex-PH2 says:

    Well, after spending at least five minutes online looking for something else, I found this video which explains why Pelosi and the others are spending so much time in the basement of the House of Reps.

    Yes, indeed: the ecohippies have invaded Nancy’s office in the HofR and won’t leave until she addresses them in person. They also are staying “hydrated” by drinking salt water… not a very smart thing to do, but then – well, they ARE hippies, and I never met a hippie that had an ounce of common sense.

    • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

      I myself have yet to see an eco-kook that wasn’t a complete and total idiot, as brainwashed of a zealot as Lars!

  19. H1 says:

    Lotta chatter about the good LTC’s past performance including some detention in the USSR…
    The only attributed I have read is LTC(R)Hickman’s.
    Any way TAH sleuths could dig up more?
    I suspect it would be fascinating reading.

  20. Berliner says:

    The website johnsolomonreports has a blistering “OK Boomer” article backed up by source links, titled:

    Responding to Lt. Col Vindman about my Ukraine columns…

    “under oath to Congress, he asserted all the factual elements in my columns at The Hill about Ukraine were false, except maybe my grammar. Here are his exact words:

    “I think all the key elements were false,” Vindman testified.”

  21. Berliner says:

    Twitter has a correction posted by GQ magazine to wit:

    NOTE: This story has been updated. Alexander Vindman received a Purple Heart after being injured by an IED, or improvised explosive device, not an IUD, or intrauterine device. We regret the error.

    Here is that part of the original story on GQ:

    The article reads as follows:

    “Vindman is the first White House official to cooperate with Congress’s impeachment inquiry, which makes his testimony all the more damaging. So Trump surrogates rushed to discredit him before he even appeared before the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Reform committees. Their main tactic so far has been to accuse the Army veteran — who has a Purple Heart for an IUD injury in Iraq and served multiple overseas tours — of secretly working for Ukraine.”

    Lots of comments about the IUD injury on twitter.
    The best one I saw was “thank you for your cervix”