I'm neither a politico nor a sycophant, and I am most certainly not among Obama's supporters.
But I am, stoutly opposed to "soldiers" who would arrogate to themselves the right to decide who is, and is not, qualified to be their commander in chief.
History shows the consequences of such behavior -- be it the fate of Rome, or Germany, or any number of modern-day African or Latin American countries. Mr. Easterling has no place in the armed forces.
“But I am, stoutly opposed to “soldiers” who would arrogate to themselves the right to decide who is, and is not, qualified to be their commander in chief.
“History shows the consequences of such behavior — be it the fate of Rome, or Germany.....”
r9etb.....help my memory out here.
When did German soldiers decide who was, and who was not, qualified to be their Commander in Chief?
And what were the consequences?
Nuremberg trials.
That would be Lieutenant Easterling. If you read the article, you'll see that he's not the usual fresh faced butter bar. He joined the army at 40, and had previously worked as a contractor in Iraq.
The comment was made to the young Lt, not anyone on this thread. He has done nothing more than shaft himself and any semblance of a career in the military.
But I am, stoutly opposed to "soldiers" who would arrogate to themselves the right to decide who is, and is not, qualified to be their commander in chief.
We agree. The Lt's comments are seditious.
No place in the military... there’s no better place for him with his conviction and MORAL COURAGE.
And by the way he HAS THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER THE UCMJ.
Sometimes, you have to take your oath seriously..Lt. Easterling, is doing just that.