Damn!!....wrong way around, "it's a funnel, not a funnel" :oops::DL

:hmmm:

Is this one of those "one hand clapping" thingies?

Obama doesn't want a court martial because it would require the introduction of evidence by the accused to defend his position.


I predict an honorable discharge.

Yes! Been dying to pull this one up again:

http://www.tweak3d.net/forums/imageh...85fadccc3b.gif

EDIT: Dang. You said one hand clapping. I like this gif anyway.

As has already been noted many times in this thread, his position is indefensible. He's a serving officer in the US military. He can believe what he likes about Obama but he cannot disobey an order that is not, in and of itself, illegal.

His orders do not come from the President!

His Commanding Officer and the Department of the Army are the ones who ordered him to Afghanistan, not the President of the United States.

POTUS would never be called to his coming Courts Martial because as he is not the one whose orders were disobeyed.

Is this too complicated a concept for you to understand?

But his questioning Mr. Obama's right to be president was the basis of his argument . To be prosecuted, even under the uniform code of justice, allows a person to bring and supeana evidense.

Who the President is when the order is given is irrelevant. He has an obligation to do his duty. And from what I've read he didn't seem to have a problem doing it under Obama's administration until he got ordered into a combat zone. Convenient, no?

And if that is the sole basis of his argument it will be a short trial. He disobeyed the orders of his immediate Commanding Officer. That is all the Court will need to put this guy in Leavenworth where he belongs.

Sounds good. But it isn't the law. If the President isn't the president by law, which is the man's contention. Then what?

Darn convenient and very telling too. If Obama ordered him to go to Afghanistan then he also ordered him to do every other order this coward has obeyed since Obama was elected. What's the difference between all those and this one?

The answer is cowardice, pure and simple.

It certainly seems to look that way. But I don't even care if it is.

I have no doubt that there were fine men and women serving in the armed forces under Bush who may have had doubts about the whole election fiasco that happened back then... and if one of them had pulled something like this, some of the rightwing blowhards would've been screaming bloody murder over it. Good grief, I can remember when just openly disagreeing with administration policy as a private citizen could get you branded a traitor.

Some things are above politics. I've never served in uniform but even I understand that. You accept a commission, you take the oath, you DO YOUR DUTY. Period. If nothing else you do it for the people serving next to you and if that doesn't count for something then maybe you chose the wrong profession.

This is like... a cop refusing to respond to call for backup because he doesn't like the new police commissioner and thinks there's something shady about how he got the job. It is beyond unacceptable and there is no honor in it.

I'll add something my Dad once told me about the military:

"You are government property from the time you sign up to the time you leave"

He went on to say that you follow orders: you go where you are told when you are told to do so; you do what you are told to do, when your are told to do so, etc. Sounded pretty harsh to a kid that preferred to kick around the boonies daydreaming all afternoon.

"What?? They won't let me do what I wanna do?" :o
"No, son. And they will not ask you to do something. They tell you. And you do it! Now mow the lawn." :stare:

Time for another one of these:

http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/...te-feather.jpg

I'm lost. :06: