The answer is that the situation could have been avoided if the candidate had been properly screened when he announced.
It is not the fault of officers who question, it is the fault of the democrat party, the sec of state, the electoral college, the congress, the ussc, and indirectly, the media.
Officers who ask the question are acting honorably and standing by their vow to defend the constitution. Someone must stand up in the face of a complete system breakdown.
So you think the military can function if any officer is permitted to disobey orders because they question whether the president--the person voted for by the Electoral College, confirmed by Congress, and sworn in by the Chief Justice--was "properly screened" or not. Interesting.
“Officers who ask the question are acting honorably and standing by their vow to defend the constitution. Someone must stand up in the face of a complete system breakdown.”
Is that what you would have said when the enlisted in a squadron I was in refused to deploy because GWB wasn’t properly elected President, and therefor didn’t have the right to order them into combat?
Did officers have a right and duty to refuse orders starting 20 Jan 2001 because GWB didn’t REALLY win Florida, but instead was imposed on the USA by a cabal of unelected justices voted him in 7-2?