MRFF Member Goes Anonymous for Mikey — and Harms his Cause

Michael Weinstein has been working hard to recover from his self-inflicted public relations debacle that began with the Sally Quinn article praising his ‘heroic’ and substantial influence over the US Air Force.  As part of that effort, Weinstein got a high-ranking supporter to write a letter defending him — anonymously, of course.

Mikey ~
…As a retired, multiple-star, senior officer (General or Admiral) you know that I was asked by the Chief of Staff…to be my Service’s direct day-to-day interface with you. During those three years, and specifically because of that relationship, my Service avoided countless…breaches of religious civil rights…

As a direct result of this relationship, we had military Service-wide policies written/documented for our entire Service to follow!!

Once again, though, Weinstein’s ego may have undone his own attempts at obfuscation.

The supportive letter refers to “policies” written for the “entire Service” as a “direct result” of Weinstein.  The only service that has done that, which Weinstein has claimed influence over, no less, is the Air Force.  Based on the timeline, the Chief of Staff is certainly General Norton Schwartz.  That’s no surprise, since Weinstein has already admitted he had a buddy-buddy relationship with the now-retired four-star.

Who did General Schwartz ask to be the point-man for dealing with Weinstein?  Probably the same office that current Chief of Staff General Mark Welsh has: his TJAG, the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force.  For Gen Schwartz’s tenure, that would have been recently retired LtGen Jack Rives, who, as the Air Force’s highest ranking lawyer, was responsible for advising General Schwartz on the Air Force’s responses to Weinstein’s attacks.  Coincidentally enough, LtGen Rives enthusiastically endorsed Weinstein’s cause (and his book) shortly after retiring.

Shockingly, the General’s public admission actually validates the very things the MRFF has been calling “lies” over the past few weeks.  Rather than help Weinstein, it actually fuels the arguments of his critics.

The “anonymous” letter admits the Air Force had an official relationship with Weinstein over at least a period of three years, in which this General — officially appointed to personally be Weinstein’s military intermediary on a “day-to-day” basis — took his complaints and acted on them, rather than viewing them critically or defending the rights and virtues of his fellow and subordinate troops:

Mikey, when you revealed these potential abuses by officials in my armed forces Service, I contacted the Command Section of the responsible agency…who took actions to fix the situation. Many times that “fix action” was accomplished in hours…not weeks…

I’m stupefied by suggestions of severing a relationship which worked so well for my Service.

If the 59 Congressmen who demanded the Air Force explain its relationship with Weinstein needed any more ammunition, Weinstein himself just provided it.  Weinstein would have shot himself in the foot if he hadn’t had it shoved in his mouth already.

It’s unclear why the General in the letter even wants to be anonymous, since he’s offered to “come out” if the military will give him face time with “appropriate, high-level decision makers” (again, providing evidence for Congressmen critical of the relationship).  Of course, its not the first time a member of the US military who was already publicly aligned with Weinstein pulled on a veil to send him an “anonymous” letter.


One comment

  • Interesting reading, but would be more informative were it not full of wild-eyed speculation and assumptions.

    Regardless of how you characterize the relationship, how do you explain away or rationalize this anonymous author stating “During those three years, and specifically because of that relationship, my Service avoided countless (I believe in excess of 3 dozen) events of potential Constitutional breaches of religious civil rights – which we were able to resolve quickly, and quietly.”

    You constantly claim there’s no “evidence” and now we have this letter, ostensibly claiming there have been issues/problems over a three year time frame.

    Are these people just fabricating falsehoods, just to prop up Mickey Weinstein? I wouldn’t think so.