Congressional Senselessness: The Awards are in

Congressional Senselessness: The Awards are in
Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2007-11-10 12:01. Congress

By Robert Fantina

At some point, when no one was paying attention, the U.S. Congress apparently declared a moratorium on making sense. Unlike regulations protecting free speech or prohibiting torture, this new law has been strictly followed. And one must not blame Congress for passing it; perhaps it was one of President Bush’s executive orders. But regardless of the source, it is apparently one of the few duties Congress takes seriously.

This first became apparent with the passage of the Patriot Act. This law passed by an overwhelming Congressional vote as Congress members ran like mad to get on the ‘I’m strong on terrorism’ train before it pulled out of the station without them. This act preserved U.S. freedoms by curtailing them, one of the most striking examples of Congress’s resolve to stop making sense.

Things continued on from there, as Congress decided that the best way to support U.S. soldiers willing to fight for the fast-dwindling freedoms America purports to offer, was to have a war for them. After all, one might ask, since soldiers have been trained in combat, so why not put them in combat? The U.S. has paid for their training; it should get its money’s worth.

Additionally, a soldier has, by enlisting in the military, expressed a willingness to take risks that will put his or her life in danger, so why not enable them to experience those risks? And then, when U.S. citizens and some uppity members of Congress want to deprive them of those opportunities - opportunities to kill, die, be maimed, scarred, etc. - the majority rises up in their secure offices and chambers and votes down those thoughtless individuals who would cause these soldiers to return to home and safety.

Perhaps the most recent example of this comes from a person who has brought senselessness in Congress to a new high: Rep. Gene Taylor, a Democrat from Mississippi. As Congress begins yet another debate about funneling billions of dollars from the pockets of U.S. citizens into the black hole of Iraq’s civil war, Mr. Taylor said this: “I think the message in the next week ought to be that a heck of a lot of people have been harmed (in combat) and we ought to take care of them.”

Now, one might have trouble discerning exactly what that series of words, strung together in the context of a war-funding debate, might mean at all. But in attempting to make some sense of it, one might think that Mr. Taylor meant that such funding should include increased dollars for the infamous Walter Reed Medical Center, where neglect of injured soldiers is rampant. One might further think that Mr. Taylor, by that statement, was indicating a need to prevent further injuries by ensuring a timetable to end the war. One might reasonably think that Mr. Taylor was showing compassion for the victimized citizens of Iraq: the U.S. can ‘take care of them’ by stopping the indiscriminate killing of them. But one would not think that that statement by Mr. Taylor indicated his support for throwing more money at the war without restrictions, but that is, indeed what he meant.

more...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28599

Maybe just before and during the Civil War, of which this current situation is but a sequel?

Means Democrats act like they are in the minority even when they aren't:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=319635&mesg_id=319635