It’s amazing how quickly the rules change.
A few weeks ago, I was assured that it is absolutely off-limits to ever question a military member’s motivations when they enter the political arena. Any concern about why Alexander Vindman was so dedicated to Ukraine’s interests was considered a “dual loyalty smear.” This was all a surprise to Michael Flynn, of course, who has been relentlessly trashed by the media despite his extensive military record.
Oddly enough, the rules suddenly changed again this week when another military member stepped forward to give his personal account of Vindman.
This, via American Greatness, who has been in contact with Lt. Col. Jim Hickman.
The New York Times on Thursday covered U.S. Army Lt. Col. Jim Hickman’s explosive allegations against Democrat “star witness” Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman by casting aspersions on Hickman’s character.
Last week, Hickman divulged on Twitter that Vindman “really talked up” President Barack Obama and ridiculed America and Americans in front of Russian military officers when Hickman worked with him in Grafenwoher, Germany in 2013. Hickman said that he “verbally reprimanded” then-Major Vindman after he heard some of his derisive remarks for himself. “Do not let the uniform fool you,” Hickman wrote. “He is a political activist in uniform.”
Given what I’ve seen of Vindman’s testimony, all of that is absolutely believable. And let’s remember that Hickman is a decorated combat veteran. By what logic is he to not be believed but Vindman is? Especially when Vindman’s behavior has shown him to be an arrogant, self-serving operator who was willing to subvert the elected accountability of the President to push his own foreign policy?
But the rules are always malleable and The New York Times decided to trash Hickman after lecturing the world just weeks earlier about questioning Vindman. Consistency isn’t their thing.
The Times characterized Hickman’s account as “unsubstantiated,” even though it was backed up by his boss at the time. And on Friday, a second individual who witnessed the incident, provided American Greatness with a statement saying Vindman “was uncomfortably supportive of Obama” and “almost self-hating of white Americans.”
While Vindman is frequently described in the media as a patriot and a Purple Heart recipient, Hickman was described by Times reporters Mike McIntire and as a “Florida man” and “fan of QAnon” in the story’s fourth paragraph.
The Times dug through Hickman’s social media history, because of course they did, in order to find something to trash him with. Marginalizing and boiling a wounded warrior (Hickman left service in 2017 after complications with his injuries) down to just a “fan of QAnon” sure screams respect, right? While the QAnon thing certainly has true believers, most of those who post about it, hold up signs about it at rallies, etc. are joking. Without anything substantive to go on, the Times sought to paint Hickman as an evil conspiracy theorist because he dared to question Vindman.
Here’s a list of Hickman’s accomplishments for those interested.
In addition to the Purple Heart, Hickman also received an Afghanistan Campaign Medal with two Stars, Iraq Campaign Medal with three Stars, Presidential Unit Citation, Combat Action Badge, Air Assault Badge, two Bronze Stars, Legion of Merit, four Meritorious Service Medals, five Army Commendation Medals, two Army Achievement Medals, Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terror Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terror Service Medal, Korea Defense Service Medal, and a NATO Medal.
McIntire and Confessore suggested that Hickman coordinated with the White House to smear Vindman, noting that President Trump hinted over the weekend that information regarding Vindman’s partisanship would soon be coming out.
So let me get this straight. In the same article that the Times is trying to paint Hickman as a non-credible conspiracy theorist, they delve into a wildly unsubstantiated conspiracy that Hickman was working with the White House. Sounds legit.
The left-wing and media in this country simply don’t care about military service unless they think they can use it to push their partisan narratives. If it’s Alexander Vindman, he’s off-limits and it’s a grave sin to dare ask questions about his motives and actions. But if it’s Jim Hickman, he’s fair game and open to being trashed publicly. Understand?
The only consistent thing about the rules these people try to enforce is their inconsistency.
Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive to read more of my latest articles.
Find me on Twitter and help out by following @bonchieredstate.