The Washington Post Now Reporting on Democrats' Conspiracy to Hide Biden's Mental Decline When They Were a "Hidin Biden" Co-conspirator From the Get-Go!

 

Opinion | Biden’s decline was covered up. Here are ways to prevent a repeat

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/05/29/biden-frailty-cancer-transparency-media/

It seems the Washington Post (WaPo) is experiencing memory problems at least as severe as
Biden’s when it comes to how they were reporting on his mental acuity right up until he went on parade at the Presidential Debate to confirm to the World how impaired he really was. Don’t forget, it was the crack WaPo political reporter Jennifer Rubin that slammed the "shoddy front-page Wall Street Journal article” correctly assessing Biden’s cognitive decline saying it was "essentially the promotion of a right-wing meme." Rubin went on to write in the WaPo:

"The Journal’s faceplant should lead to a much larger discussion: to what extent and in what way age matters to the performance of the chief executive. Frankly, it has nothing to do with the sort of factors Biden’s critics obsess over (e.g., verbal slips, how fast he moves)," Rubin told readers. "Does he misspeak? Does he physically stumble? Focusing on such relatively superficial subjects has come to define political journalism."

"A president’s gait, verbal tics and minor recall errors have virtually nothing to do with the job of being president. The White House occupant is not a "Jeopardy!" contestant, a stand-up comic, a talk-show host or guest; the president is the head of the executive branch and commander in chief," she later wrote.

It is a little disingenuous for the Washington Post to now report on the Dem’s conspiracy to hide Biden’s mental decline reaching from the inner circles of the White House to the Dem Congressional leaders without acknowledging that the WaPo was a co-conspirator in the “Hidin Biden” conspiracy.

Recordings of Biden Justice Department interview emerge, highlighting his memory lapses

By Joe Walsh, Ryan Sprouse

CBS News report updated 17 May 2025

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/biden-hur-interview-tapes-special-counsel/

Snippets from a 2023 interview that led Justice Department special counsel Robert Hur to describe former President Joe Biden as an "elderly man with a poor memory" were obtained and published by Axios Friday, showing Biden's halting tone of voice and difficulty remembering dates.

CBS News has confirmed the audio matches the transcript of the interview released by the Biden White House in 2024.

In one four-minute clip, Biden was asked by Hur's team — which was investigating Biden's handling of classified records — about where he kept his documents shortly after leaving office as vice president. Biden's response is marked by long pauses, and his voice appears hoarse at times. His speech is especially halting as he describes the period around his son Beau's death.

In the audio obtained by news outlet Axios, Biden can also be heard struggling to remember the year when Beau died or the year when President Trump was first elected. Members of his staff can be heard correcting him or reminding him of the date.

A written transcript of the five-hour interview was released last year, but portions of the audio released Fridayprovide context on Biden's demeanor and memory problems at certain points in the session.

In response to the audio, Biden spokesperson Kelly Scully told CBS News in a statement, "The transcripts were released by the Biden administration more than a year ago. The audio does nothing but confirm what is already public."

Biden's verbal delivery was a key part of Hur's report. The special counsel wrote in February 2024 that Biden sounded like a "sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." Hur said it's a view jurors may share, making it hard to convict Biden of knowingly holding sensitive documents at his home and office. Hur's report noted "significant limitations" to Biden's memory, including his difficulty remembering when his son died.

Hur recommended against charging Biden with a crime, though he did conclude that Biden "willfully" retained government documents.

At the time, Biden and his allies reacted furiously to Hur's report — especially the "elderly man with a poor memory" line and the comment about Beau Biden's death.

 

The 'Original Sin' wasn't Biden's. It was the media's

Suddenly reporters are interested in Biden’s decline while in office. Where were they at the time?

Thiessen, Marc A The Washington Post

Washington, D.C.. 23 May 2025: A.17.  

In the wake of Joe Biden's cancer diagnosis, the debate over his mental decline in office "should be more muted and set aside," Democratic strategist David Axelrod suggests. The opposite is true. It is now clearer than ever that Biden was in no condition, either mentally or physically, to serve a second term. And the time has come to hold those who misled to the American people about his fitness for office to account - not just in the White House but in the media, too.

It was clear even before his 2020 election that Biden was mentally diminished. During the 2020 campaign, he fumbled the words of the Declaration of Independence; misstated what office he was running for; mistook Super Tuesday for "Super Thursday"; declared "poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as White kids"; and claimed to have worked with Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (who died in 1997) on the 2015 Paris climate accord, among countless other mental lapses.

And almost from outset of his presidency, Americans began to realize that Biden was suffering from cognitive decline. In November 2021 - after just 10 months of watching him in action - a 48 percent plurality said Biden was not "mentally fit" for office. By June 2023, a year before his disastrous presidential debate performance, the share of Americans who said they had concerns about Biden's mental and physical health had risen to 68 percent. Yet virtually every news organization in the country downplayed, ignored or helped the White House minimize one of the biggest stories in modern presidential history: that the commander in chief was increasingly non compos mentis.

One of the worst offenders was CNN's Jake Tapper. He accused those who voiced concern about Biden's cognitive decline of "mocking his stutter" and spreading Russian disinformation. Tapper insisted Biden was "sharp" mentally and "not the way he is caricatured on Fox." When Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minnesota) dared to question Biden's age, mental fitness and ability to lead, Tapper attacked him, asking "how seriously can anyone take" his accusations. Now, Tapper has the chutzpah to publish a book, "Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again," in which he unironically investigates the very cover-up he helped perpetuate.

The only reporters to extensively investigate Biden's mental fitness before his debate fiasco were the Wall Street Journal's Annie Linskey and Siobhan Hughes, who produced a rock-solid report on Biden's cognitive decline. That didn't stop many of their fellow journalists from joining the White House in attacking their reporting. CNN's Oliver Darcy wrote that their article played into "a GOP-propelled narrative that the 81-year-old president lacks the fitness to hold the nation's highest office" and had "glaring problems" because the on-the-record sources were mostly Republicans. "The Wall Street Journal owes its readers - and the public - better," Darcy declared.

Actually, it is Darcy, Tapper and all the other reporters who should have covered this story but didn't who owe the public better. Every other news organization ought to be asking itself a simple question: Why didn't we report that story?

The answer, as former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson explained in Semafor, is that "the story was reportable" but "too many journalists didn't try to get the story because they did not want to be accused of helping elect Donald Trump," adding, "I get that. But this is no excuse for abandoning our first duty, which is to report the truth and hold power accountable."

Sorry, I don't get that. Reporters didn't care whether exposing Watergate or the Monica Lewinsky scandal would hurt the president politically. The job of a free press is "to give the news impartially, without fear or favor," as the Times stated its principles - in 1896.

But that is not what far too many journalists believe today. Seventy-six percent of Americans say the media should strive to give equal coverage to all sides of an issue, according to a 2022 Pew Research Center survey, but 55 percent of journalists disagree. The disdain for evenhanded reporting is even worse among younger reporters, 63 percent of whom say varying sides do not deserve equal coverage, as do 69 percent of journalists who say their outlet's audience leans left.

This growing disregard for objectivity is destroying public trust in the media. According to the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer, 70 percent of people believe "journalists and reporters purposely mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations."

Perhaps that is because, over the past several years, they watched as many in the media pushed the discredited, Hillary Clinton-campaign-funded Steele dossier; breathlessly reported false allegations that Trump had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election (only to learn from the Mueller report that it was little more than a conspiracy theory); suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian disinformation; and then aided the cover-up of Joe Biden's cognitive decline - until his disastrous debate performance made it undeniable (and a political liability for Democrats).

For many, an unmistakable pattern has emerged: Whenever Trump is on the ballot, the media colors its reporting to hurt him and favor his opponent.

And now Americans are watching with deep skepticism as the same reporters who dismissed Biden's mental decline are suddenly asking tough questions about it - and making excuses for their failure to cover it. Sorry, Biden's mental decline was obvious for years, and the reporters covering the president knew it. They just could not bring themselves to report a story that might help Trump. How will this profession recover its reputation? The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

The National Security Implications of Chinese Students Attending US Universities (and How the Washington Post Sees It)

These three below Washington Post article concerning the Trump Administration clamping down on foreign students attending American universities appeared in the WaPo 28-30 May 2025, and evolved from a story lamenting the loss of revenue foreign students bring to colleges to finally recognizing that some of these students, especially the Chinese, pose a serious National Security risk. Most of the Chinese students major in engineering, computer science and other hard sciences with direct application to military and economic uses. What they learn here they bringing back to China and apply to either advancing military weapons systems or infringing on our patents and copyrights so they can wage economic war on us in World markets.  By avoiding research and development costs, the Chinese can and do undersell us by copying and selling our proprietary products cheaper than we can even produce let alone develop them.

It’s possibly just a coincident but after I posted my below comment in the comments section of the first article is when the focus slowly shifted from purely the colleges’ economic loss to recognizing that there was a national security and national economic component to the loss. Although I had previously posted similar comments, this is the first time my concerns have appeared to gain any traction.

 

Although I only posted the headline and a few snippets from each article, I did include a link to the entire WaPo article and it is well worthwhile reading each of them. After reading the articles, read my comment that I hope had some role in evolving the story from one of economics on colleges to one of National Security.

Higher Education

Here’s how much international students contribute to the U.S. economy

 

International students contributed $44 billion to the U.S. economy in the 2023-2024 school year. Their loss could hurt more than just universities’ bottom line.

 

By Vivian Ho 28 May 2025

 

As the Trump administration pauses new student visas in its battle to force change at the nation’s elite universities, economists warn that the loss of international students would affect not just the schools that depend on their tuition but local and state economies, as well.

 

The more than 1.1 million international students who studied in the United States last year contributed nearly $44 billion to the U.S. economy during the 2023-2024 school year, according to nonpartisan nonprofit NAFSA, the Association of International Educators — from $10 million in Alaska to more than $6 billion in California — and supported more than 378,000 jobs.

 

“Students don’t just spend money paying tuition fees,” Nicholas Barr, a professor at the London School of Economics, said in an interview. “They pay rent, they go to restaurants, they travel.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/05/28/international-students-economic-impact-trump-harvard/?commentID=85ec1814-c41d-484d-96a2-8b8824328480

 

 

Immigration

Trump administration to crack down on Chinese visas, Rubio says

 

He said the State and Homeland Security departments will work to “aggressively revoke” visas of Chinese students in the United States, “including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.”

 

By David Nakamura and Katrina Northrop

29 May 2025

 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday announced plans to crack down on Chinese holders of student visas and ramp up scrutiny of new visa applicants from China and Hong Kong, escalating the Trump administration’s confrontational approach to Beijing.

 

He did not specify which areas of study would be targeted — of the 277,398 Chinese students at U.S. universities last year, more than 110,000 were pursuing math, engineering, science and technology courses ….

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/05/28/chinese-visas-applicants-trump-rubio/

 

 

 

Trump’s visa clampdown plunges 275,000 Chinese students into uncertainty

 

Chinese students make up nearly up nearly a quarter of all international students in the United States. Here’s who they are and what they’re studying.

 

By Kim Bellware and Angie Orellana Hernandez

30 May 2025

 

More than a quarter-million Chinese students attending college in the United States saw their futures plunged into uncertainty Wednesday when the Trump administration announced an aggressive clampdown on student visa holders from that country.

 

The majority of Chinese students study subjects related to science, technology, engineering and mathematics, according to the Institute of International Education. For the 2023-2024 academic year, nearly a quarter of students were pursuing math and computer science, while 17 percent were majoring in a form of engineering.

 

Nearly half of Chinese students in the U.S. — 44.3 percent — are seeking graduate degrees, while about 32 percent are enrolled as undergraduates, the IIE data showed. About 22 percent of students are participating in optional practical training, which offers temporary employment directly related to an F-1 visa holder’s field of study.

 

The IIE estimated that Chinese students in the U.S. have an economic impact of $14.2 billion. Its report listed New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Illinois as the most popular landing spots for the students.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/05/29/chinese-students-data-visa/

 

 

The Old Colonel’s Take on Chinese Students Attending US Universities and the National Security Implications

 

I’ve been posting this below in the past and I’m absolutely delighted that the WaPo is finally echoing my concerns:

 

In the lead up to World War II the United States sold Japan huge amounts of iron so in essence we supplied them with the materials that enabled them to attack us. We are now in a similar situation with Communist China but instead of iron, we are selling them the intellectual capital to shoot back at us and with which to defeat us both economically and militarily. In the 2023-24 school year over 277,000 Chinese nationals were enrolled in U.S. universities, representing roughly 25% of all international students and they are mostly attending our top universities mostly majoring in engineering and computer science. The top universities with significant Red Chinese student populations include Columbia University, Cornell University, the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, the University of Southern California, University of California Los Angeles, Michigan State University and Ohio State University.

 

What the first article is touting as an economic negative is really a National Security positive. Although by reducing the number of foreign students attending, colleges may lose the tuition they would have paid but that money is a pittance compared to the intellectual “ammunition” they are taking away in knowledge. It is what these Chinese students learn here and bring back home that will someday enable China to challenge us both economically and militarily. Instead of us selling them the “iron” to defeat us on the battlefield, we are selling them what is now our intellectual “iron” so they can defeat us on both the economic and military battlefields of the future. Appears we have forgotten the lessons we learned 80+ years ago.

Washington Post Reporting on SecDef Hegseth's Dysfunctional Department of Defense and the Old Colonel's Take on His Performance

On 27 May 2025, the day after Memorial Day, this article appeared in the Washington Post.  

Within Pete Hegseth’s divided inner circle, a ‘cold war’ endures

 

At the Pentagon, personality conflicts persist and inexperience reigns, fueling speculation about Pete Hegseth’s long-term viability in Trump’s Cabinet.

 

By Dan Lamothe, 28 May 2025

 

An enduring rift among Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s cadre of senior advisers has divided the Pentagon’s front office and fueled internal speculation about his long-term viability in the Cabinet post after several episodes that attracted White House scrutiny, according to numerous people familiar with the matter.

 

The article goes on to describe a Pentagon in chaos and a dysfunctional Office of the Secretary of Defense. Although lengthy, Lamothe lays out a compelling argument that Hegseth’s inner circle is too busy fighting amongst themselves and playing one-ups-manship jockeying for position to carry out the business of keeping this country safe. Don’t take my word for it, it’s well worth your time to read Dan Lamothe’s entire article at:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/05/27/hegseth-advisers-pentagon-trump/

As I often do, I posted my take on the article in the WaPo comments section and here is my evaluation of the former “FOX & Friends” personality, former Army National Guard Major and now present United States Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Peter B. Hegseth.

Of all of Trump’s Cabinet appointees, Hegseth is by far the least qualified. His ill advised dismissal of highly respected and performing senior uniformed leaders including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; Chief of Naval Operations; the Director of the National Security Agency; and the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy and Air Force has caused unnecessary chaos and dissension in the ranks. He has done more to degrade Military readiness in 100 Days than Biden did in 4 years and that’s saying something. His “Signalgate” blunder not only exposed him as incompetent but also called into question the competence of everyone on the call. I predict Hegseth will have worn out his welcome at the Pentagon by the end of the Summer and Trump will be forced to fire him.

As for “Signalgate,” I am a retired 30 year service Army Full Colonel with a Pentagon G-3 tour and combat battalion and brigade level commands and in my opinion anyone that can’t recognize this below exchange over non-secure communications as a serious compromise of highly classified operational information does not belong in any Government position responsible for National Defense. As a matter of fact, everyone participating in this forum that did not immediately intervene to curtail this serious Security breach is equally at fault. Heads should roll!

Judge for yourself, here is the exact text of SecDef Hegseth’s “Signalgate” Message:

"TEAM UPDATE: TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch. 1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package). 1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s),"

"1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package). 1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets). 1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched … Godspeed to our Warriors."

Waltz later wrote "The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.”

Vance replied, "Excellent.”

The Washington Post (WaPo) Is Still Censoring Conservative Voices

 

The day after the 5 November 2024 Presidential Election I was reading the comments to a WaPo article about Trump’s victory and noticed a comment that hit home with me. It seems a commenter was complaining about one of his rather non-controversial comments being removed by the WaPo censors and because this often happens to me, I wrote the below “Comment I tried to post” supporting his contention that WaPo censors target conservative commenters to disproportionately censor conservative voices. When I hit the “Submit” button I found in the time it took me to write my comment the WaPo Censors had already deleted the comment I was replying to so I got this message: “This comment has been removed by the moderator.” Hence, I wrote this “Message I actually posted” and posted it but notice I predicted “Let’s see how long it takes for the WaPo Censors to remove my comment.” The WaPo Censors did not disappoint me because within 15 minutes they had removed my comment once again confirming the WaPo tagline: “Democracy Dies in Darkness and the WaPo Is Turning Out the Lights.”

If I were to post my original comment in the WaPo comments section I’m confident the WaPo Censors would just remove it again and probably suspend me from commenting so I’ll post it at my Blog here and anyone interested is seeing my 100% true comment that was so objectionable or “inaccurate” that it offended the delicate sensitivities of the WaPo Censors so they had to remove it can read it and judge it for themselves.

Message I actually posted:

I just tried to reply to a rather nebulous comment complaining about the WaPo censors deleting one of the commenter’s previous comments but when I tried to post the below comment I got a message: “This comment has been removed by the moderator.” Appears “Moderator” is the new WaPo euphemism for “Censor.” Let’s see how long it takes for the WaPo Censors to remove my comment.

Comment I tried to post

This happens to me all the time, especially when I post comments that include links to previous WaPo articles debunking all the misinformation and even outright lies contained in the article.

WaPo censors are quick to silence Conservative voices by deleting the comment and serving suspensions from commenting for posting 100% true and accurate comments that might not align with the false narrative the WaPo was trying to peddle to their majority Liberal-Left-Leaning readership.

In recent years I have been a frequent WaPo commenter gleefully pointing out and correcting their numerous errors but have noticed over time fewer and fewer comments from Conservatives have been showing up. I had assumed this lack of Conservative comments was due to fewer and fewer Conservative WaPo subscribers as the paper kept drifting further and further to the Left and losing readers but over time it has become apparent that the WaPo just censors, deletes and ultimately bans Conservative voices to avoid embarrassment from having their errors and biased coverage exposed. I know this because that is what has been happening to me.

At my Blog (https://old-soldier-colonel.blogspot.com ) I have posted several of my 100% accurate comments that have been removed and even garnered suspensions to challenge anyone to point out what was so objectionable or inaccurate that it offended the delicate sensitivities of the WaPo Censors other than it confirms the WaPo has become nothing more than a Liberal-Left-Leaning Democrat propaganda rag.

Democrat VP Candidate Tim Walz & Dem Virginia -7 US House of Representatives Seat Candidate Yevgeny “Eugene” Vindman Both Telling the Same Lies -- Technique in the Democrat Candidate Playbook or Coincidence?

Because Democrat VP candidate Tim Walz and Dem VA-7 US House of Representatives Seat Candidate Yevgeny “Eugene” Vindman both used the exact same lie to misrepresent their Military records, I’m curious if the technique is taught in the Democrat Candidate Playbook or if both using the exact same lies was just a coincidence.

Despite being called out on it for years, MSG Walz continued to claim he was a “Retired Command Sergeant Major” (CSM/E-9) on his website and political campaign literature. Even MSG Walz's bio on the Harris-Walz campaign website described him as a "retired Command Sergeant Major in the Army National Guard” until they were forced to correct it by public ridicule. Although MSG Walz did serve as a CSM/E-9 for about 6 months, he did not qualify to retire in that rank so was demoted to Master Sergeant (MSG/E-8) to go on the retired rolls. The Harris-Walz website correction was artfully worded to be technically correct but to still give the false impression he retired as a CSM. The artful change was to say MSG Walz "served as a Command Sergeant Major."

MSG Walz also lied when he was caught referring to "weapons of war that I carried in war" despite him never having served in a combat zone let alone “in war.” When exposed for this “stolen valor” faux pas and his other lies like being present at the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, MSG Walz explained these “discrepancy”  by declaring "I'm a knucklehead at times."

Identical to MSG Walz’s misrepresentations, LTC Vindman served as a Colonel/O6 for five (5) months before being demoted to retire as a Lieutenant Colonel because he did not qualify to retire in the higher grade. That didn’t deter him from falsely referring to himself as: “Colonel Eugene Vindman, US Army Retired” and “Retired Army Colonel Vindman” on his campaign website and other campaign literature as well as in his stump speech. Like the Harris-Walz website correction, LTC Vindman’s was artfully worded to be technically correct but to still give the untruthful impression he is a retired Colonel. He now refers to himself as “a former Army Colonel” but he is still officially on the retired rolls as a Lieutenant Colonel.

Of course LTC Vindman and his surrogates have perpetuated the myth that his promotion was delayed so he was forced to retire by Trump before he had sufficient Time-in-Grade to retire as a Colonel but nothing could be further from the truth. He was considered and promoted to Colonel on time with no disruption to his career and he elected to retire on his own even though it mean being demoted. I suggest anyone that doubts this should read the official DA IG investigation of his treatment.

No one, not even Trump forced LTC Vindman to retire and in fact, he retired in 2022 when Biden was president. LTC Vindman did submit a waiver requesting to be allowed to retire in the grade of COL/06 but it was denied by the Biden administration. This was consistent with normal practice and precedent as there have only been two waivers of officer retiring in a higher grade without serving the required Time-in-Grade in the past 35 years and one was when President Obama allowed GENERAL Stanley McCrystal to retire as a 4 Star General.

Finally, like MSG Walz, LTC Vindman embellished his combat record. His campaign fund raising mailers contained the following statement: “In the Army, I used assault-style weapons on the battlefield. Now, I am running for Congress to ensure these weapons of war are not easier to get than a driver’s license.”

Although LTC Vindman served as an Infantry Officer for almost 10 years, he never had an Infantry command nor went into combat as an Infantryman but after becoming a JAG he did manage to spend 5 months in Iraq as a Captain Law of War advisor in the relatively safe Baghdad Green Zone. During his short stint in Iraq he was never in combat nor fired his weapon despite in his campaign literature he bragged about firing an assault weapon in combat. It should be noted that he received NO combat awards for his shortstay in Iraq and that almost all of his contemporaries had served at least three (3) combat tours/36 months between Iraq and Afghanistan.

To add insult to injury, LTC Vindman is running a campaign ad on TV accusing his VA-7 opponent Army National Guard Special Forces Major Derrick Anderson of lying when he calls him out for originally lying about his retired rank and about falsely claiming to have “used an assault-style weapons on the battlefield” when in fact it’s Vindman that is still lying. For the record, MAJ Anderson has had six (6) deployments to Southwest Asia including 15 months in Iraq and a tour in Afghanistan and he has been awarded a Bronze Star and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

For a detailed comparison of the two VA-7 US House candidates, Vindman and Anderson, see:

The Race for the Virginia 7th District US House of Representatives Seat Between Conservative Republican Candidate Anderson and Liberal Democrat Candidate Vindman – A Side-by-Side Comparison of the Two Candidates

https://old-soldier-colonel.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-race-for-virginia-7th-district-us.html?m=1

The Race for the Virginia 7th District US House of Representatives Seat Between Conservative Republican Candidate Anderson and Liberal Democrat Candidate Vindman – A Side-by-Side Comparison of the Two Candidates

This year the race for the Virginia 7^th District US House of Representatives seat being vacated by Abigail Spanberger pits two Army Veterans against each other in what is turning out to be a very competitive race.  On the Republican side Derrick Anderson is currently a National Guard Special Forces Major who spent 8 years on active duty as an Infantry and Special Forces Officer.  He was born and raised in the 7^th District and has deep roots in the community with local Conservative Republican values. he graduated from Courtland High School in Spotsylvania Courthouse and Virginia Tech. Anderson is a lawyer having graduate from the prestigious Georgetown University Law Center.

His opponent on the Democrat side for the seat is Yevgeny “Eugene” Vindman, a retired Army Judge Advocate General Corps Lieutenant Colonel who spent his early years as an Infantry officer before going to Law School and transferring into the JAGC. He was born in the Ukraine and grew up in New York City with local Liberal Democrat values. He graduated from FDR High School in Brooklyn and the State University of New York at Binghamton. Vindman only moved into the 7^th District in 2016 as a result of him being assigned to the Pentagon and then the White House. Vindman is a graduate of the University of Georgia Law School.

For a quick comparison of their background:

Since both Anderson and Vindman are touting their Military experience as their main attribute, let’s compare their Service.

Anderson is still a serving National Guard Army Special Forces Major with 8 years of active duty and multiple Southwest Asia tours including a 15-Month “Surge” tour in Iraq and another in Afghanistan. He is an Airborne Ranger with a Combat Infantryman’s Badge (CIB) and Bronze Star among other awards. He is also a graduate of the elite Special Forces Qualification Course and has had multiple SF commands and deployments to Afghanistan, Bahrain, Jordan, Israel, and Lebaron. Between combat tours he served 2 years in the elite “Old Guard” at Arlington National Cemetery.

Although Vindman served as an Infantry Officer for almost 10 years, he never had an Infantry command nor went into combat as an Infantryman but after becoming a JAG he did manage to spend 5 months in Iraq as a Captain Law of War advisor in the relatively safe Baghdad Green Zone. While in Iraq he was never in combat nor fired his weapon although in his campaign literature he bragged about firing an assault weapon in combat. It should be noted that he received NO combat awards for his service and that almost all of his contemporaries served at least three (3) combat tours between Iraq and Afghanistan.  As a JAGC Officer, Vindman served mostly in Stateside assignments although he did have one overseas tour in Germany.

Vindman was promoted to Colonel before retiring but was demoted to retire as a Lieutenant Colonel because he did not qualify to retire in that higher grade.  He now refers to himself as “a former Army colonel” after being exposed to public ridicule for falsely referring to himself as: “Colonel Eugene Vindman, US Army Retired” and “Retired Army Colonel Vindman” on his campaign website and other and places.  He is officially on the retired rolls as a Lieutenant Colonel.

Contrary to the misinformation being circulated by Liberal sources that LTC Vindman was somehow "forced to retire," the fact is NO one, not even Trump forced Vindman to retire and in fact, he retired in 2022 when Biden was president. Vindman submitted a waiver requesting to be allowed to retire in the grade of COL/06 but it was denied by the Biden administration. This was consistent with normal practice as there have only been two waivers approved for officer to retire in a higher grade without serving the required Time-in-Grade in the past 35 years and one was when President Obama allowed GEN Stanley McCrystal to retire as a 4 Star General.

For a quick comparison of their career assignments:

A good indication of how successful an officer’s career was is by looking at the Awards, Decorations and Badges they amassed over their time in service. Here is a quick comparison of the recognition for both their service:

Again Washington Post Censors Silence a Conservative Voice for Exposing Their Misinformation About Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh

On 8 October 2024 the Washington Post (WaPo) published this article mischaracterizing something as a “Congressional Report” when it was in fact, a “report” produced by a single member of Congress, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a notorious misinformation peddler and Kavanaugh hater.

FBI probe of Kavanaugh constrained by Trump White House, report finds

A congressional report finds new evidence of how the White House’s tightly controlled an FBI investigation into sexual assault claims against the Supreme Court nominee.

By Beth Reinhard

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/08/kavanaugh-trump-white-house-fbi-report/

I quickly posted the below comment including links to previous WaPo articles debunking all the misinformation and even outright lies contained in this article.

Once again, the WaPo censors were quick to silence this Conservative voice by deleting the comment and serving me with a one day suspension from commenting for posting the below 100% true and accurate comment that might not align with the false narrative the WaPo was trying to peddle to their majority Liberal-Left-Leaning readership. 

In recent years I have been a frequent WaPo commenter gleefully pointing out and correcting their numerous errors but have noticed over time fewer and fewer comments from Conservatives have been showing up.  I had assumed this lack of Conservative comments was do to fewer and fewer Conservative WaPo subscribers as the paper kept drifting further and further to the Left and losing readers but over time it has become apparent that the WaPo just censors, deletes and ultimately bans Conservative voices to avoid embarrassment from having their errors and biased coverage exposed. I know this because that is what has been happening to me.

Below is what garnered my latest suspension and I challenge anyone to point out what is so objectionable or inaccurate about this comment that it offended the delicate sensitivities of the WaPo Censors other than it confirms the WaPo has become nothing more than a Liberal-Left-Leaning Democrat propaganda rag. Although the links in my below WaPo comment thoroughly discredits this WaPo fairytale, here is a link to my January 2023 Blog posting about my previous comment the WaPo also removed that goes into far more detail proving the WaPo continues to peddle the same already discredited misinformation about Kavanaugh:

https://old-soldier-colonel.blogspot.com/2023/01/dishonest-sundance-hit-piece-brett.html

 

Even the WaPo has thoroughly discredited both Ford’s and Ramirez’s stories.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/24/new-kavanaugh-allegation-is-precarious-legal-ground-former-sex-crimes-prosecutors-say/

While Politico destroyed everything Ramirez said and the New York Times wouldn’t even publish it.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/25/deborah-ramirez-attorney-kavanagh-fbi-841973

If you can handle the truth, suggest reading “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation” by New York Times reporters Kate Kelly and Robin Pogrebin. These two ultra-Liberal NYT reporters thoroughly discredit every unfounded allegation against Justice Kavanaugh. Here was their bottom line according to the NYT:

“Pogrebin and Kelly spend significant time digging into Blasey Ford’s accusations and also those of Deborah Ramirez, a woman who says Kavanaugh put his penis in her face at a Yale college party. They track down any witnesses and friends willing to talk, comb through legal documents, do their best to find the house where Blasey Ford says the assault took place. They point out critical witnesses that the F.B.I., in its very limited investigation, did not have time to interview. In the end they turn up no smoking gun, no secret confession, no friend who comes forth to say Kavanaugh was lying all this time.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/books/review/the-education-of-brett-kavanaugh-robin-pogrebin-kate-kelly.html

And for more about this subject, see:

https://old-soldier-colonel.blogspot.com/2024/03/washington-post-book-review-after.html