9/11 victims and the flag-burning amendment

Today, the House, after tackling poverty, health care and the economy, moved on to flag burning That's right, because there's nothing as pressing as a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American flag. Not that this sort of thing surprises me, especially now, though it didn't take long for a Republican, Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham - whose ethical flag was desecrated a while ago - to pin the decision to push the amendment on the victims of the September 11 attacks.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

Wait a second. If Cunningham was referring to those brave workers who helped at ground zero, I'm sure that they would have said something other than "pass this amendment." Probably something more along the lines of "Hey, Congressman, either help out or get the hell out of here" or "How about doing more to prevent another attack like this". Of all the things America needed after September 11, the best the Republicans can come up with is a constitutional ban on flag burning? Hell, even a congressman from New York didn't waste time calling bullshit on Cunningham:

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."

Shortly thereafter, Rep. James Sensenbrenner shut off Nadler's microphone as Rep. John Hostettler asked Nadler why he hated Christians so much.