Congress furious over secret program it approved (again)

I really wish I had the imagination needed to make this stuff up.

It seems some Members of our dutiful Congress have proven once again that putting on a political show for the news channels is far more important than playing it straight with the American public.

The piece du jour is here, CIA Chief Panetta's bizarrely timed revelation that the Agency had a secret program to hunt and assassinate al Qaeda operatives that was hidden from Congress. Now some Members are full of (self-) righteous anger over not being told of the program (which, it turns out, was never even close to becoming operational), and are demanding an investigation.

Put aside for a moment the lunacy of a politician angry over a conceived, yet not implemented, program to hunt and kill the leaders of an organization with which we are at war. Put aside also the fact that the Executive Branch has legal authority to direct the CIA in just this way. Instead, get a load of this, which by now may not come as much of a surprise.

Yep. Turns out Members of Congress gave their approval to this program in 2001, at least according to one intelligence official. The soundbites and grandstanding you'll see on the issue are likely to be from Members who were on the Hill then, too. In typical politician fashion, they were for it before they were against it.

Sound familiar? It should, if you remember the imbroglio over who knew what about waterboarding and when. Or if you remember the brouhaha over the AIG bonuses paid for by taxpayers with knowledge of Congress. This is the same Congress whose Members raced to outdo themselves on the airwaves to declare their outrage over that bill, which they passed easily.

And to be fair, the maniacal drive to lead the next 6-hour news cycle with your soundbite conveying hysteria is a bi-partisan affliction.

Which probably means you and I are partially to blame for all this. Apparently we have yielded to a society that is perpetuated by short soundbites, the juicier and controversial the better. We desire entertainment, not information. Context, perspective, meaning - these are not things American society as a whole demands in abundance. Thus, we elect people who leverage these sparingly.

There's probably no clearer indication we value entertainment above all else than many of the people we send to Congress. This group - and I'm speaking largely of both sides of the aisle these days - has an uncanny ability to snatch baffoonery from the jaws of competence. If only their jobs were indeed a laughing matter.

You feel me?

AF