Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Lt. Colonel Vindaman and Espionage
I want to clear up a misconception of my remarks on the Laura Ingraham show last night. I did not accuse Lt. Col. Vindaman of committing the crime of espionage.
I have tremendous respect for a decorated officer of the U.S. Army and a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What I was addressing was a report that Ukrainian officials had sought to contact Vindaman for advice on how to handle Rudy Giuliani acting as a presidential envoy. I meant to say that this sounded like an espionage operation by the Ukrainians. I think it deliberately misconstrues my words to say that the separate issue of the phone call between the US and Ukrainian president through the chain of command constitutes espionage by Vindaman, or that Vindaman is some kind of double agent.
Published in General
He didn’t withdraw his statement. He clarified it because people took it the wrong way.
Don’t stop him, he’s on a roll.
What Lt Col Vindaman did is dialogue with his interlocutors. Which is exactly what he is supposed to do. What the Ukrainian side did by asking isn’t espionage, it is what they are supposed to do — gather information to help them make an informed decision. This is why we — and they — send diplomats overseas. This is why we do not conduct diplomacy by fax, as Ross Perot wanted us to do.
The only thing more astounding that the ignorance of Vindaman’s critics is the vitrol of their criticism. They are demonstrating a Trumpian-level lack of knowledge or perspective.
This is a George Schultz story. Each new class of incoming Foreign Service officers is told this story. The phenomenon is called “going native.” It exists, but in a benign way. You recognize the importance of the country you are working in, and work to strengthen the relationship. It doesn’t mean you ignore their flaws.
Several former Ambassadors to Ukraine have remained quite active in U.S. – Ukrainian relations, not just Amb. Taylor. They all understand and appreciate the importance of supporting a strong and independent Ukraine and the country’s potential. In this, they are extending the service they offered as Ambassadors.
Examples please.
Without commenting on this exact situation, what you dismiss a “lack of knowledge or perspective” is at times actually an explicit rejection of the way things are done. People are rejecting the federal employee and officer’s own sense of their place in the Constitutional order. Generally, they are either (1.) correct to do so, or (2.) incorrect, but it isn’t the place of an unelected official to contravene their indirectly expressed will.
And if it – for legitimate reasons or not – becomes the policy of the executive branch to treat Ukraine as hostile, do they get to use their position to frustrate that determination? Do they have constitutional prerogatives independent from the head of the executive branch? If so, what is the source of that authority?
But you could forgive voters for being more wary of experts these days, no?
It was an expert who told little Jimmy down the road that his testicles are entirely consistent with his newfound identification as a woman. Other experts deemed a global, capitalist utopia to be a feasible future and did their best to convince voters to send Janie (formerly little Jimmy) to Iraq. I’d guess that Greta Thunberg and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez have received direction from a plethora of experts too.
We’ve also seen an abundance of self-important civil servants whose personal sense of honor and expertise have dictated that they disregard every other protocol in order to remove the President that they believe has done so much damage to this country. These people are not trusted because they have also done profound damage to this country – and continue to do so with their own inappropriate stunts. They’ve shown remarkable resilience in the face of criticism and manage to avoid the consequences of their calamities. Whether this applies to Vindman, I can’t say, but a pattern has emerged, and its a mistake to expect anything other than skepticism from the people who don’t share the hatred of this president that many have deemed to be the litmus test of rational, thinking beings.
As far as I can determine, the policy of the United States government remains to support Ukraine, both in its efforts towards reform and its efforts to resist Russian aggression. I hope that the United States never becomes hostile towards Ukraine. That would be totally against our own interests. If there has been a change in this policy, perhaps it is only in Trump’s own mind. He has not shared this change with anybody.
If there is to be a change, there would be a process where the question is deliberated, and a wide range of interests would be considered. (This is why the clearance process in the State Department is so agonizingly slow, but necessary.) Not telling the people that are in change of implementing a policy that is is changing is incompetent management.
This is the problem of sending special envoys, friends and the like: if you don’t coordinate the policy with everybody else, if you don’t share information, than you have two sides working at cross-purposes. Again, this is incompetent management.
The whole reason we have a foreign affairs bureaucracy is to make better decisions based on a wide range of viewpoints and interests. That’s why we staff Embassies, collect and analyze intelligence. It is perfectly fine to have your own viewpoint, but you need to go through the process to make sure it’s a good idea. Trump clearly rejects this.
Trump seems to have some kind of antipathy against Ukraine, for reasons I do not understand. I think he has an extremely limited and stereotypical view of the country. There’s only one idea that fits in his mind, and he runs with in. In reality, the situation is much, much more complex.
In is in our interest to support Ukraine, a country with geo-strategic important and great potential. Ambassador Taylor eluded to this point eloquently in the close of his written remarks to the House committee. The current Ukrainian regime was forged in the fires of the Maidan revolution, which reflected the truths that our own country was founded upon, liberty, rule of law and consent of the governed. Ukrainians in a very real way fought for these things, and are fighting for them now. Trump does not seem to understand this, or perhaps he doesn’t care.
Sky,
This is absolutely the correct answer. I don’t know what Democratic operative got to him and filled his head full of cr@p but he is completely off base with his behavior. If every Lt.Col. felt free to do this we wouldn’t have a country left. As always the Democrats are looking for a short term political kill at the expense of the long term health of the country.
Regards,
Jim
But what I heard that came first when he expressed his opinion was his concerns with the effects on Ukraine and the damage that might be done to the balanced, bipartisan US treatment accorded Ukraine and then he went on to express his concerns of negative effect on US national security. Isn’t that backwards and is his work on the NSC to take care of Ukraine?
No, the McRib’s are on Hogie Buns. I had two today, and got two more to talk home for tonight. The end is coming!
The McRib Locator lets me know which McDonalds continue to have McRibs. https://mcriblocator.com/find.html Sadly, there are no McRib’s in the southern 90% of New Mexico and the western 25% of Texas, or in all of Colorado. What an incredible tragedy!
I would not want to have testified to this and then be cross-examined on your point. And the quote I saw had the effect on Ukraine expressed before any consideration of US national security. If that is accurate, it just astounds me that the people we have working in these roles don’t seem to be able to project the effects of their words when publicized. They’ll tear this guy up.
Because investigating Ukrainian companies that employ the offspring of US politicians will cause those same politicians to withhold aid to Ukraine.
Thus every company in Ukraine should seek to employ the offspring of US politicians and thereby attain immunity from investigation.
The whistleblower has been outed. He is a loyal Democrat who worked for Biden and Brennan on Ukraine (didn’t report any of the malfeasance he saw then) and was one of their spies in the White House. He was reassigned last year because he was one of the leakers. The person who outed him said he was involved with investigating Trump from the start and that he met with Schiff’s staffer, the one they hired out of the White House. He disagreed with Trump’s policy towards Ukraine and went outside the chain. I have heard others say this is witness tampering, a felony. Perhaps Barr should pull a Mueller and squeeze him for info.
This looks more like an operation to protect Dems and Biden.
evidently, in the secret hearings, a Republicans have been angering Schiff by asking witnesses if they know or talked to him causing Schiff to blow his top. He will redact the name from the transcripts. Why? Everyone knows who he is.
We know a Schiff staffer went out of his way on a Ukraine trip to meet with folks. We need to know if he met with Vindman, coached him, or got his name from others while there. There is a reason Schiff called on him, and I can’t think of one good one.
That the Republicans are on to this and have been inserting what they know into the process might indicate a pushback has started. I expect things to be interesting tomorrow.
Also, in the RCP article, the Atlantic group that DC high rollers and Soros are tied to came up. Hmmm.
It’s like the point of Tom Massie’s tweet came to life:
Starting to see twitter comments from people who knew Vindman in the military. I won’t repeat them because it is twitter. However, one thing Schiff didn’t count on was Retired military people coming forward.
Heads up: John Yoo is a guest on this week’s Ricochet Podcast. Guess what we (mostly) talked to him about?
McRibs. I guess McRibs.
They were mentioned (by law, we have to do that).