My 18 months in the theater reinforced my lifetime conclusion that things are not necessarily as they appear.
The academy reports that Gen Boykin withdraw of his own volition.
How likely is it that the WH, currently infested with muslim “advisors” and “consultants” did not have a hand in the agenda of this military event, even if indirect?
Is it not possible the academy, or even the chain above it was “informally” advised by operatives in the WH that it would be in the best interest of the nation if such “controversial” individuals did not use the military as a platform?
How likely is it that Gen Boykin would have insisted on participating if he had been informed that there was real concern in the entire chain of command that his participation would not serve the interest of the academy?
What aret the odds if he had beeen cordially asked by those in the higher chain to please reconsider his participation, that he would not have done so.
I am inclined to give a proven warrior such as Gen Boykin the benefit of all these questions. And that is before any thought is given to thug tactics by his opponents and others, that may well have been in play.
Whatever your view, you have the credentials to voice it and I respect that. You also know our nation is in a struggle for survival and that struggle is with more than just the socialists now active in our government and major institutions. That the struggle is complicated by the fact that one force poses as a religion and we dare not identify it as an enemy.
Keep your eye on the road.
I have seen too many alleged leaders capitulate for political expediency, when they should have (IMHO) stood their ground.
My time in the Mil leaders like Al Grey (Marine Corps, Commandant) was the farthest from a political type and spoke his mind regardless of who was listening.
Unfortunately warriors like his caliber are a dying breed.
Cheers to you both. Frog in a Pot, thank you for your service.