Carol Shea-Porter likes to give constitutional rights to terrorists.  She favored the Boumedine decision to provide Habeus Corpus rights to terror detainees, not because they should be entitled to them but becasue she has been told to go against anything George Bush favors.  She also supported giving these murderers 4th amendment protections by hamstringing FISA, and surveillance of enemy communications, pretty much for the same reason.  (Carol does some pandering, claiming civil liberties violations-but that’s a bunch of pap.  It’s much like the lefts fear-mongering on the death-penalty-kills-innocents lies; great sound-bite, absolutely no conclusive evidence that it’s ever happened, but lets use it anyway.)

The only group that stands to benefit more than the terrorists themselves by Shea-Porters votes (besides Nancy Pelosi who is something of a domestic policy terrorist in her own right) is the Lefts trial lawyer buddies–big campaign supporters of the Democrat party.  In both cases trial lawyers get lots of work, and the potential for big settlements from companies who want to avoid the expense of decades of pointless litigation.  This is of particular interest becasue while Shea-Porter is doing a bang up job of handing our rights out the the people our troops are fighting against, in theoryto protect these rights so that the terrorists can share them with us, her supporters have been promoting the benefits that a congresswoman Shea-Porter provides to all veterans, and the troops on the ground.  This is of course quite subjective. 

In every case, her “support” for troops and vets alike, has been completely ideological and there has been no compromise for the vets or the troops.  She has goose-stepped behind Chancellor Pelosi always on her parties terms. Coming from a party that overwhelming dislikes the military and what it stands for, that’s not so much support, as it is black mail.

Twice she helped delay votes on vital funding for vets and soldiers returning home that would have provided money for health-care, and housing; leaving for a long veterans day weekend rather than voting on one bill, and on Res 259 on the other. 

No possible contradiction in the fact that the woman who considers ‘bringing the troops home’ was in their best interests and not surrender–which is only true if we ignore the fact that she was voting for surrender every single time by asking them not to do their jobs,  voted for HR 3159 which would have extended some troop deployments overseas.

Her biggest sin has to be voting for the slow bleed strategy to use funding restrictions to force troop reductions–which in a hostile environment is more likely to make more dead soldiers, and fewer vets as their strenght is systematically undermined in a predictable and scheduled manner–Oh yeah.  Good for the troops.  I get it now.

And on HR 3074 Carol voted to block a motion aimed at protecting housing for disabled vets.  What no timetable for withdrawal in that one Carol?

She repeatedly helped tie up funding for the war and defense spending strictly on partisan grounds, threatening to shut down parts of the domestic and foreign defense apparatus responsible for supporting the troops in combat.

In these and every case her reasoning has not been what was good for the troops, but what was good for the Democrat parties position on the troops, regardless of what was happening on the ground.   It was entirely partisan and directed, not based on her relationship to a WWII Vet of a father, or veteran husband as she likes to claim, but to pander to the hard left anti-war, moon-bats that appear to run the defense policy mechanisms of her party. 

Carol has made some recent election year proposals on her re-election sight, but remember that she can propose anything she likes and she knows it.  If it never even gets to the floor it means less than nothing.  And Carol has had to accept the cold hard truth that while Nancy Pelosi expects Carol to follow her lead in all instances, Pelosi has no obligation to put Carol’s “meaningful” legislation out for debate.  And if you look at the record, she hasn’t.  So what looks like a genuine effort to benefit vets is nothing of the sort.  It’s political election year pandering.

That makes Carol the tiniest of cogs in a big machine.  No influence.  Nothing exceptional.  Nothing outstanding.  And given all her other positions, something we can definitely do without.