No. The difference in the reaction of FReepers, though, is the surprising part.
Crazy... in a shallow and short-sighted kind of way.
>No. The difference in the reaction of FReepers, though, is the surprising part.
>
>Crazy... in a shallow and short-sighted kind of way.
Actually, I think they both have/had valid points. The operations in Iraq (War on Terror) weren’t ever explained as being the resumption of hostilities after a cease-fire; so technically we were still at war w/ Iraq (and may still be) and that is HOW that first case should have been decided, IMO.
What we have here though is slightly different though; the Officer is questioning the orders on the President’s Constitutional eligibility alone; as his oath is to the Constitution this seems both reasonable and right/just to me. If Pr Obama is found to be eligible then I’m sure he would follow those orders but if he is NOT then the Major has the duty to remove him from office... just like all other military servicemen.
Let me put it to you this way: If I were up for a promotion to SGT from my current SPC, fully qualified and eligible, and the S1 lost some key paperwork (like a current PT test, let’s say) then it is my duty to provide the documentation (that is, a copy of the PT test).
Here we have someone getting the promotion to Commander In Chief who is missing documentation (Birth cert, adoption papers, passports, etc) and refuses to acknowledge his own duties to provide them.
That is the big difference here, I think. That the “rules” are excused for the politically powerful but enforced on the grunts like the lower enlisted.