[LeoOshkosh]

"I believe that this guy is confused about the difference between national security and his personal political beliefs. The rationale for being in Afghanistan is the same as it was before Obama became president -- the reason for his orders has nothing to do with who is president now."

So if someone took over the WhiteHouse by force, soldiers should still serve that person whether or not it was legal? Here is the other problem with your argument. Most agree that normal citizens do not have standing to file suit against zero. But many agree that a soldier would have standing. If a soldier is the only one with standing, are you saying we should allow a fraudulent traitor to stay in the White House even though it is illegal just so we can say that the military was doing its job?

[mojitojoe]

If a soldier is the only one with standing, are you saying we should allow a fraudulent traitor to stay in the White House even though it is illegal just so we can say that the military was doing its job?
__________________
Sure that fool thinks that. He would be very comfortable with Hugo Chavez. Two of a kind.