Mr Vinderman - That's Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.

GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Later, Vindman explained why he snapped, saying, “I’m in uniform, wearing my military rank, I just thought it was appropriate … the attacks that I’ve had in the press and in Twitter have marginalized me as a military officer.”

Many saw Vindman’s remarks as a sign of arrogance and said that it made him look bad.

Laura Ingraham tweeted: “That is revealing. Not in the way the media and their Dem pals think.”

Phil Valentine tweeted: “What an arrogant ass.”

Jon Gabriel tweeted: “All enlisted people just rolled their eyes. We’ve all had to report to this guy.”

Randy Barrett tweeted: “Award him the Barbara Boxer Prize for Committee Decorum.”

Sean Davis tweeted: “Multiple combat veterans have told me they are livid at this attitude from Vindman, at his use of the uniform as a prop for the cameras, and at his obvious scheming against and insubordination towards his chain of command.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/alex...le-heres-the-reason-he-gave-on-why-he-snapped
 
L

limblips

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I may not support his testimony but I do support his point regarding his title. His title was earned and he is entitled to be referred to as LtCol. It is an acknowledgement of his position. If someone had called me Mister or E-7 when I was a Chief Petty Officer I would have done the same as he did. Later as a commissioned officer I felt the same. We address doctors, political persons, and a host of others by their title to recognize their accomplishments. I see no braggadocio or self-importance by LtCol Vindman's request.
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
limblips said:
I may not support his testimony but I do support his point regarding his title. His title was earned and he is entitled to be referred to as LtCol. It is an acknowledgement of his position. If someone had called me Mister or E-7 when I was a Chief Petty Officer I would have done the same as he did. Later as a commissioned officer I felt the same. We address doctors, political persons, and a host of others by their title to recognize their accomplishments. I see no braggadocio or self-importance by LtCol Vindman's request.
Click to expand...
Good points...
 
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
limblips said:
I may not support his testimony but I do support his point regarding his title.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But I disagree. Vindman was being arrogant. Everything @GURPS snipped in the initial post is spot on (especially Jon Gabriel).

If Vindman's as savvy as he would have his listeners believe he is, then he would have understood no offense was meant. Even as an O-6 I was in these settings and was frequently called "mister" or some other incorrect appellation. Yup, my professional title was "Colonel" (still is, btw, even in retirement), but to have made a big deal of it would have been seen (rightly so) as gauche and self-important. In other words, Vindman should have sucked it up; after all, at a minimum he was in uniform (as he himself stated). It's not like he was going to be misidentified as a bus driver (we don't wear those uniforms anymore!).

Not trying to be funny, but had Vindman been a naval officer I would have understood his pique. But we don't have the same tradition in the Army that makes naval officers (or senior enlisted) insist on proper title. And "mister" doesn't have the same connotation in the Army (or, at least, no longer does) as it does in the Navy. (Though, at least when I was still in W-1 are properly addressed as "Mister" (W2 and higher are addressed as "Chief").)

Now I am trying to be funny when I say this: as a junior field grade officer and getting my first exposure to the Joint environment I learned VERY quickly how prickly naval officers and chiefs are about their titles!

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:
S

Stjohns3269

Active Member
Hijinx said:
I don't see his asking to be referred to as Lt. Colonel as such a bad thing, but that isn't what marginalizes him as a military officer.
His coming out in defiance of his Commander In Chief does that.
Click to expand...

Do you believe there is nothing the commander in chief could do that would warrant his defiance?

I
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I do not believe that there is nothing a Commander in Chief could do that would warrant defiance.

I DO believe that President Trump has done nothing to warrant his defiance, and I believe he needs to retire before they kick him out and rip off his buttons.-----------------------------(Do they still do that?)
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Stjohns3269 said:
Do you believe there is nothing the commander in chief could do that would warrant his defiance?
Click to expand...


No Sapidus .... Unless it is a UNLAWFUL Order .... you suck it up and do as you are told

Trump was not giving any UNLAWFUL Orders
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP
T

transporter

Well-Known Member
GURPS said:
Later, Vindman explained why he snapped, saying, “I’m in uniform, wearing my military rank, I just thought it was appropriate … the attacks that I’ve had in the press and in Twitter have marginalized me as a military officer.”

Many saw Vindman’s remarks as a sign of arrogance and said that it made him look bad.

Laura Ingraham tweeted: “That is revealing. Not in the way the media and their Dem pals think.”

Phil Valentine tweeted: “What an arrogant ass.”

Jon Gabriel tweeted: “All enlisted people just rolled their eyes. We’ve all had to report to this guy.”

Randy Barrett tweeted: “Award him the Barbara Boxer Prize for Committee Decorum.”

Sean Davis tweeted: “Multiple combat veterans have told me they are livid at this attitude from Vindman, at his use of the uniform as a prop for the cameras, and at his obvious scheming against and insubordination towards his chain of command.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/alex...le-heres-the-reason-he-gave-on-why-he-snapped
Click to expand...

Well it doesn't surprise me that the good comrade is making a big deal out of this...just another deflection.

Vindman didn't "snap" as the good comrade's propaganda states. He waited until the Congressman has completed asking his question. Vindman responded without anger requesting that he be addressed properly. Vindman ends his request with "please".



Remember...YOU people are SUPPOSED to be the ones who SUPPORT the military!! Why don't you all try acting like it for once.

This was in an official setting. Everyone is being addresses by their proper titles.

Nunes called Vindman "mister" to insult him...to get a rise...he failed. Vindmen simply requested that he be addressed by his title.
 
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Sorry, my friend, but this is one of your weaker takes.

Yes, essentially he did snap. And he did it to try to add some gravitas to his testimony. The more correct response was to overlook it.

Having been in those situations (as I have previously noted) I will say that it does smart. BUT one learns to keep it inside and not make a big deal about it. So, IF it was the case that Nunes was insulting him Vindman should have been the bigger man and not taken notice. And if Nunes did not intend to insult, then not taking notice would have been the gracious, and thus, correct, response.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:
Rommey

Rommey

Well-Known Member
limblips said:
I may not support his testimony but I do support his point regarding his title. His title was earned and he is entitled to be referred to as LtCol. It is an acknowledgement of his position. If someone had called me Mister or E-7 when I was a Chief Petty Officer I would have done the same as he did. Later as a commissioned officer I felt the same. We address doctors, political persons, and a host of others by their title to recognize their accomplishments. I see no braggadocio or self-importance by LtCol Vindman's request.
Click to expand...
I agree that members of the military should be addressed by their specific rank or the generally accepted address ("Colonel" vs. "Lt Colonel") especially in that setting. He was right to correct members of Congress on that point.

As an aside, as a group, in any of the services, Navy Chiefs are especially arrogant when it comes to addressing them by their specific rank and their inherent obsession of being God-like, IMO. [Spoken as a retired Air Force MSgt who had to deal with the Navy (and Army and Marines) during my active duty days and in retirement as a contractor.]
 
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Rommey said:
I agree that members of the military should be addressed by their specific rank or the generally accepted address ("Colonel" vs. "Lt Colonel") especially in that setting. He was right to correct members of Congress on that point.
Click to expand...
See #12 above as to why I disagree.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Rommey

Rommey

Well-Known Member
Yooper said:
See #12 above as to why I disagree.

--- End of line (MCP)
Click to expand...
We posted at the same time, so your response wasn't there when I was posting mine...

I respectfully disagree with you on two points. I don't think he "snapped", but he could have phrased his "request" a little better. Secondly, I believe that was the only time he corrected anyone, so it's not like he was harping on that point. He requested it once and the Congresscritters all started addressing him that way.
 
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Rommey said:
We posted at the same time, so your response wasn't there when I was posting mine...

I respectfully disagree with you on two points. I don't think he "snapped", but he could have phrased his "request" a little better. Secondly, I believe that was the only time he corrected anyone, so it's not like he was harping on that point. He requested it once and the Congresscritters all started addressing him that way.
Click to expand...
The reason why I say "snapped" is because his training would have (oops, let me correct that - should have) covered this. Yes, Vindman is correct to insist on his proper title. But it's not a big deal except to those who think they're more important than they really are.

Speaking of "insisting on doing things the proper way," if the concept is so important to the young man Vindman wouldn't be testifying as he is doing. He would have voiced his concerns in an entirely different manner. In other words, the proper way. He wants it both ways; we shouldn't indulge him in one without expecting the other.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP
Monello

Monello

Smarter than the average bear
PREMO Member
Rommey said:
As an aside, as a group, in any of the services, Navy Chiefs are especially arrogant when it comes to addressing them by their specific rank and their inherent obsession of being God-like, IMO. [Spoken as a retired Air Force MSgt who had to deal with the Navy (and Army and Marines) during my active duty days and in retirement as a contractor.]
Click to expand...
:killingme

I guess you didn't spend a lot of time around navy officers. Talk about arrogance. I met a few great ones but conversely ran into more than my share of self important *******s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top