“That’s not leadership. That’s not the way Maj. Cook was trained and brought up in the Army,” Friedman said. “You don’t leave a unit like that, and you certainly don’t do it because you’re trying to make a political statement.”
Exactly. Any other reason outside medical/hardship and the army would have intitiated disciplinary/legal action.
>Exactly. Any other reason outside medical/hardship and the army would have intitiated disciplinary/legal action.
So then, WHEN is a member of the military SUPPOSED to inquire about the authority over him? That is, the legality of the orders.
If someone were to come up to me while I was on guard-duty for a restricted site and say “I’m a major, let me by!” I wouldn’t be obligated to do so... the same with sergeants, generals, congressmen, and even the president of the united states, if they weren’t authorized to be there. I say this because I’ve worked the site of a nuclear facility and not even the commanding general of the post was allowed entry w/o the proper authorization. (As a safeguard against say, someone holding his family hostage and making demands regarding nuclear material.)
I agree w/ you, RT. The article is biased, but so was Cooks' offer to be deployed. That's not a proper way to serve in the military. It's not fair to the Army or to the person who's billet Cook was slated to fill.
Is the "birther" fight legitimate? Absolutely, but there are right and wrong ways to do this. This was the wrong way.