Major Cook is neither refusing duty nor a deserter trying to justify desertion; rather, he is a conscientious officer prospectively using the legal system to determine if the "POTUS" is actually POTUS and not a usurper. Basing a duty refusal on President Bush being "selected, not elected," is is pure garbage because the issue of the legality of Bush's election was fully litigated, with the Democrats and Gore receiving full due process, including discovery. Indeed, even the MSM was forced to admit the election was legal after they conducted their own informal recount. Hence, any refusal of duty on that basis would be entirely frivolous and illegal.
Major Cook's situation is light years different. He has prospectively challenged his orders in Federal District Court, not unilaterally refused to comply with them, and has made no effort beyond the litigation to desert or make himself otherwise inaccessible to the military. Even more important, he's challenging them on he basis that Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be president because Obama's not a natural born citizen. That issue has never been litigated in the history of the United States. Obama, instead of participating in discovery and trial, has done his level best to prevent even the most basic discovery of his "Certificate of Live Birth" along with any other records that might cast some light on whether he is even a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen.
Challenging the war as illegal is also frivolous. It was repeatedly authorized by large votes of Congress and a UN force resolution. There has been no UN resolution declaring it illegal and there has been no final competent court decision declaring it illegal. Further, those who have challenged it have done so after either deserting or refusing orders, not prospectively, while remaining under military jurisdiction, the way Major Cook has. Indeed there is no indication that Major Cook has any desire to refuse to comply with his deployment orders if there is a final judgment saying he's required to comply with them and that he will be a lawful combatant.
There's also one other matter in Major Cook's favor. As of now he doesn't have immediate orders to go, his orders having been revoked by the DOD in an egregious, national security undermining effort to protect Obama from the Major's lawful, substantial challenge to Obama's probably illegal occupation of the presidency. Indeed, that very revocation, especially in light of the terrible consequences it's likely to have for future deployments, is strong circumstantial evidence that Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be President. After all, he wouldn't risk jeopardizing his C in C responsibilities if he didn't have something deeply ominous and derogatory to hide.
The really horrible, unpatriotic, and disloyal thing about what Obama's doing is that he's almost fatally undermining his role as Commander in Chief to avoid discovery in this litigation. One of the C in C's main roles is to order American forces deployed to any place in the world on a moment's notice to protect American citizens and interests. The revocation of Major Cook's orders in this case creates the horrible precedent that Obama, simply to protect the position he probably gained illicitly, will create a vast and indeterminable number of "get out of deployment free" orders, thereby seriously undermining the efficacy of any military deployment.
Well said on the difference between the Left’s claims about Bush and the Iraq war versus this case. There is no comparison.