Some of us longtime RP supporters were very much in support of our troops and very much opposed to the Xlinton action under the U.N. banner in Kosovo/Serbia/Croatia. Especially in supporting resistance to placing American troops under an incompetent foreign commander under the U.N.! And we were correct. This was in fact the uniform position here at FR in the pre-Bush era. I'll point out that both Bush and McStain vocally and publicly supported Xlinton's ill-begotten[Editor's note: Margie Raborn & her husband Robert reside near Columbus, Texas and have been active in Texas politics for over 20 years. The following letter is republished from The Texas Insider with her permission. Her thoughts are well worth considering, and she welcomes your comments.]
by Margie Raborn
Cathie Adams stated in her July 1st Texas Eagle Forum e-mail, "It is my firm conviction that no presidential candidate in '08 can claim to support our troops, but NOT support their mission." Such a statement is not only an affront to presidential candidate Ron Paul, who claims this as his position, but to all of us who DO support the troops, but do NOT support this war.
Mrs. Adams has earned the respect of many Texas citizens and has considerable influence in Republican politics. However, such a pronouncement seemed to me to be a very deceitful and unjust slap against Congressman Paul, who warned against going into Iraq and continues to oppose the mission in Iraq. He promises to bring our troops home, as quickly as possible, and use them to protect our own borders and to defend our national sovereignty.
Congressman Paul has an impeccable record on national defense, which is one of the Constitutional duties of the Congress, as well as, an impeccable record of support for helping our returning veterans. While Mrs. Adams may unequivocally state that you can't support the troops without supporting the war, it appears that many of our military personnel do not agree with her. Congressman Paul has had more campaign contributions from the military than any other presidential candidate.
According to Mrs. Adams, support for the troops and support for the mission in Iraq are one and the same. If she believes that a presidential candidate cannot support one without supporting the other, then it appears she would be equally convinced that an individual cannot support the troops, unless they likewise support the war in Iraq. This seems to be a preposterous conclusion.
I am offended by such an accusation as this, on a very personal level.
Margie Raborn, Columbus, TX
The most important issues boil down to whether a combat campaign (war, seizure, reprisal, etc.) is Just & Necessary.
If they are Just & Necessary, then true support for a soldier MUST include support for his mission. Otherwise, we tell him that his sweat, toil, sacrifice, and blood are in vain and cheap.
To abandon an enterprise once begun is to send the message to family and comrade-in-arms that the sacrifices have been abandoned....never worth it in the first place.
This is tragic because it takes away one major solace of the injured and bereaved -- that their loved one sacrificed for an honor-laden cause. Take that away, and you've cut their heart out and caused unending pain.
For this reason, we must never hastily agree to a combat offensive, nor must we hastily leave one.
Somalia is a great example. Exactly what solace do those families of dead soldiers cling to?
No one can deny that the Reprisal Against Terror (commonly called War on Terror) is just and necessary. The Iraqi campaign of that reprisal has its detractors for various reasons.
However, unless we can prove with absolute certainty that there was no terror threat from Saddam's Iraq, we should be SENSITIVE to the blood of those who've sacrificed, and to the families of the bereaved before we make broad pronouncements.
I was put in this position when my son went to Iraq .
Here I was pulled between the position of mother and patriot . I was suppose to leave all common sense questions at the military gates .
Questions like ; why not go to the source of the world terrorism, like Saudi Arabia who finances it; why were most of the 911 terrorist Saudis; why was our borders still wide open when we knew without a doubt that terrorist were crossing them ;why were we silent when clintons were killing Christians and turning over the Balkans to radical islam ; why did a REPUBLICAN congress vote for this action ?
I voted for republicans last two elections and was lied to ,it will take a hell of a good liar to fool me again .