on phil cave's military law blog CAAFlog a birther smugly asks:it would be interesting to see what most of the posters here would be saying if, say, the president in question were GWB. and the issue was whether he was legit based on the election fiasco of 2000. you guys would be crying just like the birthers over the MJ [military judge] denying discovery. i think this case is the only time i have ever seen any one on this blog attack a defense counsel.
to which accusation phil effortlessly responds:actually you have the answer to your question already. no-one who refused deployment orders while president bush was in office did so because they thought he was a usurper or illegal office holder. and clearly none of those on this blog did. the refusniks did refuse or go UA [unauthorized absence] did so on personal animosity to the wars and a belief the wars were illegal, not that the president was an illegal. so your question has been answered and refuted with fact, IMHO.
it seems that the differences between the losers of the 2000 and 2008 elections are invisible only to the losers of 2008. only one set of losers has filed and failed more than 70 eligibility lawsuits when in the same circumstances the other set filed none. only one set has flooded the coffers of gun dealers in every state when in the same circumstances the other set put gun dealers into a slump.
only one set has called for rewriting the constitution; only one set has called for military overthrow and violent revolution, whilst waving the long-discredited flags of long-dead seditious movements; only one set has obstructed all efforts to move forward and threatens to repeal all efforts they cannot obstruct; only one set is still throwing a tantrum two years running and childishly insists on holding the entire nation hostage until they "get their country back".
does it really need to be made any more clear that one set does not deserve to win?