So? We were in Afghanistan long before Obama was inaugurated. The authority for the rotation of troops could predate Obama by months or years. So unless Captain Rhodes is maintaining that everyone in the chain of command is illegitimate she's going to have a hard time proving her case.
If there is a new Battery Commander, the old Battery Commander introduces the new and formally turns over the command authority.
That is followed at each level of the chain of command.
As soon as the authority is changed, the old commander cannot order anyone in that command to do anything.
When a former commander of a unit in Germany wanted to accompany Obama into a Hospital that he formerly commanded, he was denied entrance. The people in the hospital knew he was a former commander, but that did not give him authority to enter the building.
Ordering troop movements are the same. George Bush no longer had the authority, so all orders originated from him became void.
Unless there are proper orders to carry out previous orders, all commanders in the chain of command are without authority to issue orders.
It has been that way since George Washington. It is nothing new.
Uh huh. Bush's fault. You people are so transparent.
That’s a negative. Obama is acting as Commander in Chief now; all orders are HIS orders as of 1/20/2009. That’s the way it works. HE can CHANGE them. If he does not, they are HIS orders, period. Always has been that way, always will be that way. So it is a most legitimate question: IS Obama lawfully and legally qualified, under the Constitution for the United States, to hold that position?
Hard time proving her case? Not really?
All she has to do is submit into evidence the ROE under Bush, and then the ROE under Obama. Obamas ROE make the war unwinnable, increase the chance of soldier fatalities, and are indicative of a disloyal president who is not natural born as required by Article II ,section 1 of the Constitution.
Bowing and kissing the hand of the King of Saud is also another indicator that Obama is not natural born.This list of indicators is very long at this point. She could really go to town on this aspect in the trial.
THe key question is what was the intent of the founders by including Article II in the Constitution, a question which has never been adjudged, AND IT SOON WILL BE. Naturally we on FR are rooting for the home team.
You root for the traitors. ZOTs to you! LOL.