You reap what you sow

[PsyOps]

Your assumption was that the WB ‘could only be one of vindman’s higherups’. The could haves I describe prove your assumption is faulty.

Yup... just like your assumption (could have) that the WB got his info from anyone in intel. Neither one of us really know, do we? So we're both making assumptions. Yet you see my 'logic' as questionable. Making assumptions - really is called 'having an opinion' - is not failed logic, simply because you disagree with it with your own opinion. That's failed logic.

 

[Yooper]

This brings up an interesting thought on my end.

(a) You seems to have respect for the military institution. You appear to have some background in foreign affairs and maybe even some level of intelligence role within the govt at some point in your life/career and respect the idea that many military/intel folks are inherently good people who took an oath to defend this country.

Yet in the article you link, you highlight that the person was "held over from the Obama era". While it's certainly possible that not every military/intel official is ethical, it seems myopic to seemingly dismiss him simply because he worked under a Democrat administration or supported a Democratic president, or that he specialized in Russia and Ukraine (it would make sense that someone in the NSC with that background would be involved in the call to Ukraine in some aspects)

The article does note that the ICIG found "some indicia of an arguable political bias", it fails to note that immediately after that line, the ICIG stated that "such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible', particularly given the other information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review. (b) The article does not mention that despite the WB submitting his concerns before the Ukraine call transcript came out, the complaint matches the official transcript too much to be made up.

Your article appears to focus more on the guy's political leanings and less on substance. (c) I find it a bit odd that you'd seemingly decide that his time in the military/intelligence community and the oath that he took means squat because he shares different political beliefs. Now, it 's completely possible it's some sort of political hit job, I'm not denying that, just that the article appears to be trying to discredit this person based, not on facts of him being incorrect, but on his political leanings with the implication that politics has overridden his oath he took (likely) many years ago without question thus far.

(a) Yes, was in the military (30+ years). Yes, was very involved in foreign affairs. And yes, some level of involvement in/relationship with the IC (let's just leave it at that).

(b) On a related note, there is some info (at this point, circumstantial) that Vindman may have shared his phone call info with the "WB." That's potentially a real problem for Vindman if this sharing took place. We'll see.

(c) If I understand where you're going with your comments, there's nothing odd. As we've discussed previously, these folks are charged with doing what they do professionally and ethically. My argument is that the "WB" (and perhaps, Vindman) did not conduct himself professionally and ethically. As such, the "WB" ethics and political leanings are very much fair game. And Vindman's will need to be as well (if this new info proves true).

I say this, because regarding intel folks, I've rarely met a group of people with a higher percentage of ignoble service and self-serving behavior.* If you understand what folks are looking for in intel officers this shouldn't be surprising. And to counter-act that propensity for folks "breaking bad" there are stringent oversight measures to (a) keep bad behavior in check, (b) ensure what is being done is legal, and (c) ensure that what is being done is supporting national, not partisan, interests. Well, what happens when the entire chain of command goes bad? I maintain this is exactly what happened to the CIA in the 1950s-1960s and what happened with the IC (and LE) recently during the Obama years: politicized & weaponized and an entity unto itself.

So yes, what is happening is a political hit job. And folks on both sides should be very concerned it is happening. But one side now won't care and will defend bad behavior (what folks like the "WB" are counting on) and when the shoe is on the other foot down the road (as assuredly it will be) the other side won't care because "whataboutism" or "turnabout is fair play."

We are very close to having a nation that is no longer "of the People," but one run by the whims of a 21st-century praetorian guard.

To sum up, something really stinks in this affair. There is a cabal of bad actors acting badly who clearly have forgotten their oaths and clearly need to be brought out of the shadows and their deeds exposed to a very bright light. If that means other pieces on both sides of the political aisle fall as a result, I'm okay with that so long as whatever is done is done in the light and done according to the rule of law. Because we all need a nation based on the rule of law and what we currently have at this point is not that with how this impeachment is being conducted and who is being used to fuel it.

Sorry if I missed what you were saying/asking or if I rambled off-topic. Only had a few minutes to reply....

* I wish I could be more specific, but as I'm sure you're aware there are classification issues involved.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[PsyOps]

You seems to have respect for the military institution.

Odd statement. Who doesn't? You?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Odd statement. Who doesn't? You?

Why is it an odd statement? It's an observation based on their posts.

 

[Midnightrider]

Yup... just like your assumption (could have) that the WB got his info from anyone in intel. Neither one of us really know, do we? So we're both making assumptions. Yet you see my 'logic' as questionable. Making assumptions - really is called 'having an opinion' - is not failed logic, simply because you disagree with it with your own opinion. That's failed logic.

Your statement was that it could only be one of vindmans superiors. That is a logical fallacy. I never made such a claim. That’s the difference.

 

[Midnightrider]

(b) On a related note, there is some info (at this point, circumstantial) that Vindman may have shared his phone call info with the "WB." That's potentially a real problem for Vindman if this sharing took place. We'll see.

1. what evidence is there that Vindman shared the call with the WB?
2. What evidence is there that Vindman did anything improper?

 

[Gilligan]

Now, it 's completely possible it's some sort of political hit job,

The. End.

 

[PsyOps]

Why is it an odd statement? It's an observation based on their posts.

To me asking that question is like asking someone "you seem to like that heart beating in your chest". Well DUH! It's what's keeping me alive.

 

[PsyOps]

Your statement was that it could only be one of vindmans superiors. That is a logical fallacy. I never made such a claim. That’s the difference.

Your own words:

The short answer, chain of command. He reported his concerns to the appropriate authority within his chain of command.

If you understand the military chain command, reporting things go upwards, not down or laterally. There is no "fallacy" in that. That's just how it works. It's obvious you've never served, and feel comfortable lecturing me about how the military chain of command works.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Another point... This Vindman better be right about this or his career is screwed.

I'm thinking that these whistle blower laws do not apply to those in military service. And, I'm also thinking that the UCMJ should be applied upon this fellow forcefully. One does not repeat what one has overheard without authorization during communications between one's Commander in Chief and the Leader of another Nation. This puffy faced slimy commie should be in the stockade at present facing a Courts Martial, and then, it's off to Fort Leavenworth for life.

 

[PsyOps]

If I may ...


I'm thinking that these whistle blower laws do not apply to those in military service. And, I'm also thinking that the UCMJ should be applied upon this fellow forcefully. One does not repeat what one has overheard without authorization during communications between one's Commander in Chief and the Leader of another Nation. This puffy faced slimy commie should be in the stockade at present facing a Courts Martial, and then, it's off to Fort Leavenworth for life.

It appears that his testimony is premised on this comfort (or lack thereof) with the phone call. It doesn't appear he has brought anything into this that shows Trump did someone illegal. Dems are marching this guy around like he's the smoking gun and, like all of the other accusations against the president, that will end up being a dud.

 

[Midnightrider]

Your own words:



If you understand the military chain command, reporting things go upwards, not down or laterally. There is no "fallacy" in that. That's just how it works. It's obvious you've never served, and feel comfortable lecturing me about how the military chain of command works.

god damn you are approaching V levels of obtuseness......

There were numerous people on that call. The WB did not necessarily have to hear about it from vindman. There for the assumption that the WB "can only be one of Vindmans supervisors" is a logical fallacy. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[PsyOps]

god damn you are approaching V levels of obtuseness......

There were numerous people on that call. The WB did not necessarily have to hear about it from vindman. There for the assumption that the WB "can only be one of Vindmans supervisors" is a logical fallacy. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

So, you having an opinion is fact, and me having an opinion is "logical fallacy". Because, you don't have any clue to who informed the WB anymore than I do. I'm going with the fact that Vindman showed up to testify that he was personally on that call, and the WB stated that he got his info from someone that was on that call. It's called connecting dots. I'm not suggesting, by any means that Vindman was the origin of the WB's information.

Are you going to emphatically deny there is any possibility that Vindmar was the source for the WB, and that the WB is someone of higher rank?

Oh, and you can try to insult me all you want. It only shows you are struggling to maintain a cogent retort,

 

[Yooper]

Vindman supposedly had first-hand knowledge of the call. The "WB" claims he/she/xe did not; meaning someone or ones told the "WB" the info that the "WB" put in the complaint.

There is the possibility that Vindman knew the "WB" and passed info/thoughts directly to this person. Of course, there is also the possibility that there was an intermediate party (or parties) who received info from Vindman and passed on to the "WB."

Or (or additionally), there may be other people involved.

Wouldn't it be better if we could find out the "facts" of the matter rather than everyone simply supposing? I think so; then we would have evidence as opposed to conjecture. What's the downside? None that I can see. So let's start with getting the hearings out into the open. We also should come to a legal determination as to whether the "WB" is actually a WB (as opposed to political posturing about this individual's status and thus, afforded protections).

WRT Vindman's testimony, it really doesn't look good for him at this point. Aside from the fact that it all centers around his feelings (what he thought was wrong as opposed to what is actually wrong*) there are indications of impropriety regarding his relationship with Ukraine (this from a NYT article). Further, there have been some interesting opinion pieces these past few days from military JAG types that say Vindman could be in real UCMJ trouble on several fronts (e.g., disobeying an order from his C-in-C, unauthorized release of classified info, failure to use his chain of command correctly, inappropriate/unauthorized relationships with foreign entities, etc.). I hope Vindman really believes in what he is doing or has some post-career work plans already lined up because when his usefulness is over he's gonna be sitting on a park bench all by himself alone with his principles. He is being used; not for being right, but for his uniform, rank, and ribbons. Similar to what happened to MG Flynn, Vindman is a means to the anti-Trumpers' end.

What a mess.

* Here's a good summary:

Alex Vindman’s Impeachment Testimony Rested On His Personal Opinions

Alex Vindman’s testimony about the July 25 call between the two presidents does not add any new facts. So, what does he say? He offers his opinions.

thefederalist.com

(I'll post the NYT link and JAG links once I re-find them)

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Midnightrider]

So, you having an opinion is fact, and me having an opinion is "logical fallacy". Because, you don't have any clue to who informed the WB anymore than I do. I'm going with the fact that Vindman showed up to testify that he was personally on that call, and the WB stated that he got his info from someone that was on that call. It's called connecting dots. I'm not suggesting, by any means that Vindman was the origin of the WB's information.

Are you going to emphatically deny there is any possibility that Vindmar was the source for the WB, and that the WB is someone of higher rank?

Oh, and you can try to insult me all you want. It only shows you are struggling to maintain a cogent retort,

I am insulting you because you are either being intentionally obtuse or you aren’t reading my posts before responding.
I have never claimed that one of vindmans higerups could not be the WB.
I said that your assumption that it had to be one of vindmans superiors was a logical fallacy. It simply is. There are lots of other possibilities. Period. The WB could be someone in vindmans chain of command, but they also might not be. The WB could have gotten their information somewhere else.

your ‘connecting the dots’ doesn’t incorporate the fact that there are other dots and not all of them are necessarily part of the same picture/line.

 

[Yooper]

This Politico article (from mid-January 2017; i.e., before the inauguration) may help to put the Trump-Zelensky phone call into perspective:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.

www.politico.com

Longish (20 mins read time minimum; if reading for content and not just skimming). One short snip from close to the end; worth the click-over:

Many Ukrainian officials and operatives and their American allies see Trump’s inauguration this month as an existential threat to the country, made worse, they admit, by the dissemination of the secret ledger, the antagonistic social media posts and the perception that the embassy meddled against — or at least shut out — Trump.

Can't help but wonder if this is where Vindman, the "WB," and others fit in.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[PsyOps]

I said that your assumption that it had to be one of vindmans superiors was a logical fallacy.

When you know that concerns and complaints go up the chain, it's an absolute truth. There's no logic required because it's a how things work; therefore is not a "fallacy". You keep showing you know nothing about how complaints work in the military in regards to the chain of command.

 

[Yooper]

Take this for what it's worth. A Twitter thread by one of Vindman's former Army supervisors....


I will only add that it rings true with my long-distance assessment of Vindman (based on my experience in the same Army career field and environments). Granted, "ringing true" and the anecdote from a former boss aren't necessarily damning.... Hence why I started with "take it for what it's worth."

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Midnightrider]

When you know that concerns and complaints go up the chain, it's an absolute truth. There's no logic required because it's a how things work; therefore is not a "fallacy". You keep showing you know nothing about how complaints work in the military in regards to the chain of command.

JFC, the problem with your logic is that there were numerous other people on the call so the WB could have heard his information from them, not from Vindman. Stop being so ****ing obtuse.

 

[PsyOps]

JFC, the problem with your logic is that there were numerous other people on the call so the WB could have heard his information from them, not from Vindman. Stop being so ****ing obtuse.

First of all, you need to calm down. You're letting my opinion get way too under your skin.

Okay, outside of your opinion that is could have been someone else, how about some proof that it was someone else. Why is it that I am "obtuse" for having an opinion that the WB is the person Vindman leaked the called to, yet your opinion is more informed. I have already admitted that neither of us know. I am simply connecting dots. The only thing I am certain of is, the WB is higher up in Vindman's chain, if Vindman is the source.

SHOW ME THE CRIME!