The drubbing continues from this morning...
Eye on Williamson, on John Carter
[I]f supporting the troops means holding the President accountable and making sure our soldiers and Marines are well rested, well prepared, have healthcare, have body [armor], and armored Humvees then you can count out the Congressman whose district includes the largest Military Base in the United States of America. He’ll vote the party line instead.
Calitics, on John Doolittle and Jerry Lewis
But what else do they have in common, I mean, besides the fact that they are both corrupt? Well, they both voted to continue to send troops to Iraq before they're combat ready and fully equipped.... So, not only are they personally corrupt, they are morally bankrupt. Good work, California GOP.
The MountainGoat Report, on Mike Simpson
Is party-line voting more important than military readiness? Apparently so for Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson.... [T]he readiness standards aren't excessive, unreasonable or arbitrary — they are the standards set by the Department of Defense. Then why, according to Red State Rebels, did every Republican on the Committee vote to scrap that language? Maybe you should ask Mike Simpson.
Prairie State Blue, on Ray LaHood
Ray has gone and voted to send troops into the war without protective equipment. Well done Ray! That'll show the both our enemies and our own troops who does not support our military. And about those troops not complaining... Don't forget that you also have to talk to the families of those that don't come back.
Missouri Politics, on Jo Ann Emerson
Jo Ann Emerson and the Republican Party continue to talk about supporting the troops while voting to do the exact opposite.
Burnt Orange Report, on Kay Granger, John Carter and John Culberson
Why do Texas' Republican Congressmen continue to vote against our troops and for an unpopular war?
While it would seem, at the least, a bad political move and at its worst, a vote to put American men and women in harm's way, that is exactly what they are doing.
Raising Kaine, on Frank Wolf and Virgil Goode
Given that Virgil Goode is an ethically challenged, globally ridiculed xenophobe and that Frank Wolf got caught lying about his visit to Iraq, a vote against supporting our troops won't help them in 2008.
IdahoRocks, on Mike Simpson
Way to go Rep. Simpson....you who have never served in the military, you who say you support the troops but then want to send them into war without protection. Once again we have an elected official who does not represent the best interests of his communities, his state, and the troops he has sent to war. Shame on you.
We Have Failed Our Duty as Citizens..., on Mike Simpson
What kind of message do you think our soldiers receive when they are lacking appropriate armor, weapons, training, and medical care? What kind of message do they receive when their food is spoiled and their water is contaminated? What kind of message did we send them with the Walter Reed situation? What kind of message do they receive when they needed more troops and were denied over and over and over again...until this pitiful, too little, too late "surge"?
D-day, on Jerry Lewis and John Doolittle
Not only have both of these bloodsuckers drained the national treasury to give their defense contractor and lobbyist friends precious booty, they have talked about patriotism incessantly, yet committed the most unpatriotic act you can possibly commit, signing the death warrants of potentially thousands of Americans.
Democratic Grup, on Jim Walsh
Republicans like James Walsh voted to send our troops to war without proper body armor. Dan Maffei didn't seem to be the guy to take him last November, but in CNY has to do the right thing on behalf of our brave soldiers and send him packing in 2008.
Discourse.net, on Ander Crenshaw, Dave Weldon and C.W. "Bill" Young
There really is no ‘nice’ name for people from a country as rich as ours who send other people’s children, spouses, and parents into combat without basic necessities like body armor, armor for their vehicles, or the weapons they trained with.
Capitol Annex, on Granger, Culbersonand Carter
[T]he votes of Granger, Culberson, and Cater were to send ill-prepared, under-equipped soldiers into war with zero accountability provisions.
Rochester Returning, on Jim Walsh
Walsh voted against this — all the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee did. Shameful.
De Magno Opere, on Ralph Regula
What the hell?! You support sending troops unprepared and unequipped into battle Mr. Regula? Is that not what your vote says in clear and concise terms?
A Seattleite in Idaho, on Mike Simpson
I've been accused of not supporting the troops so many times, at least I didn't vote to send "unarmored, untrained, unrested (and even, Salon and the Hartford Courant tell us, wounded and mentally unstable) troops to Iraq.
UPDATE:
Political Forecast, on Tom Latham
Tom Latham voted to kill American troops by sending those returning to Iraq, whether via the surge or not, by sending the unprepared.
The Freedonian, on Zach Wamp
[W]hy does Tennessee's own Zach Wamp go along with it? Does he wish to endanger American soldiers? Or does he simply lack the testicular fortitude to stand against the Republicans on Appropriations that voted unanimously to endanger American soldiers?
As Ohio Goes, on David Hobson and Ralph Regula
Regula and Hobson only seem to look out for themselves. Why else would they vote against a bill designed to protect the troops? It is an incredibly cowardly and selfish act. How can they drape themselves in the flag but not provide troops with sufficient armor?
