cinnamon colbert's Journal: why are bush supporters not upset about body armor

I can understand why bush supporters are not upset about his lying about why we went to war in iraq; if foreign policy lies were a problem, FDR for WWII and Jefferson for the Lousiana purchase would be in trouble.
I can also understand why they think it is ok to use 9/11 as an excuse for their right wing programs; politics is a rough biz, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

I can even understand why they think a war to provide cheap gas for their suvs (altho this backfired) is ok; no one ever lost money underestimating the greed and callownes of the american voter.

And, altho it took me a while, I can understand why not paying the troops while you ovepay private contractors is ok: this is a mercenary army that is getting paid very well, and many of its members are from the military, so Bush is essentially buying off the military and creating a praetorian guard.

What I don't understand is why it is OK for bush to not supply body armor and armored vehicles to the troops - why do the military families support a commander in chief who should be court martialed for dereliction of duty.

Can you imagine what the rightwing would be saying if a Democratic president failed , as Bush, to supply body armor and armored vehicles ?

This ties in with the whole cargo cult religious aspect of the right wing: they have this myth that things were better in the 50s, but they are unwilling to confront what that means - blacks in the back of the bus, women dying of backroom abortions, and very high taxes on the rich.