Harding's story left me wondering how the newly formed West Point Grads group was free to fund the billboard (were there others?) without receiving a 'cease and desist' order from The Point. Did Harding attempt to query West Point authorities? Only upon reading comments did I learn the Director of Communications did attempt to take action. Harding then raised a good series of questions as to the efficacy and seriousness of the action, but he could have tried to do so from the start.

Good start for a really good article - maybe catching West Point authorities favoring pro-war groups. But so far just "maybe". Finish the research, please, and we'll all applaud!

This really should be a serious topic of discussion in this election style: the role of the military as political capital in campaigns. But unfortunately the substance is lacking in this article. A key point is whether the two "West Point Grads" groups really do just differ on licensing protocol, or as the author alleges, is that all just a smokescreen from the Point to enable it to throw its support behind the "pro war" candidate. If there had been some follow up to this - a few calls to the academy - then this would have been a noteworthy story.