The New York Times Hypocrisy: When Alexander Vindman Was Oliver North

So much for The Times admiration for military men.
The New York Times Hypocrisy: When Alexander Vindman Was Oliver North 1

The hypocrisy, the bold double standard is a sight to behold.

There is The New York Times lavishing praise on Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, enthusing that in his appearance before members of Congress he appeared “in a midnight-blue dress uniform, a bevy of ribbons pinned to his chest…”.

Hmmm. Come back in time with me to 1987. Another Lt. Colonel, like Vindman serving on the staff of the National Security Council, was summoned before Congress to discuss his role in what was called in the day the Iran-Contra affair. Marine Lt. Colonel Oliver North, like Vindman a decorated veteran who had served in the war – Vietnam – was treated very differently by The Times. Oh yes, North had the audacity work for President Ronald Reagan.



Lt. Colonel North, like Lt. Col. Vindman today, showed up for his televised hearing wearing his Marine officer’s uniform with his medals. And what did The New York Times have to say about this Lt. Colonel?

In an editorial titled “The True Oliver North Outrage” The Times editorial board sniffed that when North had shown up to testify “he hid inside his Marine uniform.” And oh yes, the paper wanted him sent to the slammer for one very long time.

Jim Jordan DESTROYS Dems’ Impeachment Narrative – “You’re Their Star Witness?”

Note well that The Times today isn’t accusing Lt. Col. Vindman of having hid inside his Army uniform. No, no. Instead the paper just loves the fact that Vindman showed up “in a midnight-blue dress uniform, a bevy of ribbons pinned to his chest…”.

In an additional Op-Ed by editorial board member Jesse Wegman, whose official Times biography says – wait for it – that he had been a recipient of a “Soros Justice Fellowship”, Vindman is lauded as a “dedicated public servant” who, yes indeed, had the courage to report on President Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky. Which is to say, Vindman was angry that the President had a different policy than Vindman.

In contrast to its lauding of Vindman, when another military man, Lt. Col. Jim Hickman, spoke up in a series of tweets:


about his knowledge of Vindman that painted him in not so glowing terms – specifically as a quite partisan Democrat –  The Times moved quickly to trash him. In this November 7th Times story the paper attacks Hickman because of Hickman:

“…claimed he had overheard Colonel Vindman — a major at the time who was chatting with Russian soldiers during a military exercise — laugh “about Americans not being educated or worldly” and talking up “Obama & globalism to the point of uncomfortable.” Mr. Hickman said he took the major aside and reprimanded him.”

The paper went on to deride Hickman as a “Florida man — a fan of QAnon, a fringe conspiracy about the ‘deep state.’”

So. Understand the game The Times plays? If you are a military man named Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman who cannot abide by President Trump, then, by all means, you will be praised for testifying “in a midnight-blue dress uniform, a bevy of ribbons pinned to his chest…”.

But if you are decorated military hero Lt. Col. Oliver North working for President Reagan and you similarly show up in uniform with medals? You are hiding inside your uniform.

And if you are another decorated military man named Lt. Colonel Jim Hickman – but you have dared to describe Vindman as a partisan Democrat with an ax to grind? You will be derided as a crazy conspiracy theorist with no credibility.

So much for The Times admiration for military men.

Shocking.

Not.


Comments are closed.