“More specifically, you state, “I have walked in their company and I know their mettle.” The term is usually taken to mean having been with them on the battlefield either shortly before, during or shortly after their heroics; otherwise, of course, everyone in the community could make a similar claim.”
Hogwash. It means you have worked with them and know enough about them to appreciate them. Over the years, centurion316 & I have exchanged many posts on military threads. Sometimes we agree, and sometimes not (Army vs USAF), but it is painfully obvious to anyone with significant military time that centurion316 is genuine.
No military court-martial has any authority to challenge a sitting President. Congress does, but they have not - not ONE person objected to Obama being sworn in.
If you have proof Obama was born overseas, offer it. Until then, he is in the eyes of the law a NBC and the valid Commander-in-Chief. And LTC Lakin agreed under oath.
centurion316’s military credentials are not in issue, but nice try. At issue is his refusal to appreciate Lakin’s earliest motivation and his continuing unnecessary derogatory references to Lakin.
However, there is something suspect about a speaker who appears to bolster his credentials by saying he has walked with more than a half dozen MOH recipients. While the speaker may have known them apart from the heroic events or met them at social functions, the point of such a statement is often to capture some of that “mettle” for their own use. We do not know the circumstances behind 316’s relationships with the recipients, and that is why I asked. That I may have done so in a doubtful tone was warranted. 316 could have been a Saigon Public Affairs Officer, if not, he might have been very active in the field and it could be an interesting story.
Our politicians failed us during the validation process and most of us hoped our military officers, also sworn to defend the constitution, would rise to the occasion. All Lakin and the rest of us wanted to know - what Congress was supposed to confirm but chose to sit on its hands - is whether the guy is legitimate. I am willing to wager that for every 316 you present, one could present two, O5s and below, who admired and supported what Lakin did.
Your last two paragraphs are knee jerks that raise side issues not in issue. I do not argue O is not valid, rather that there was a statutory breach in the validation process. If corrected, O may indeed be invalid. The nation and the military deserve to know what is behind the fraud of concealment.
Have nice weekend.