Is it obscene to support civil liberties? Disrespectful? Confrontational?

I have a different measure of ‘obscene’:

–failures of the CIA to share information with the FBI and the FBI’s failure to devote enough attention to stopping terrorism instead of building prosecution cases. And O’Neill wasn’t the only one ignored.

–investigations about those endangering national security being delayed 15 months or longer from public view. Not to aid national security but to keep voters uninformed.

–The President trying to prevent the 9-11 Commission from being formed in the first place.

–The President ignoring the inspectors, especially the International Atomic Energy Agency, saying Iraq had to disarm, or face war. Which the latest report indicates Iraq did, back in 1991.

–The President stating the conditions Saddam had to meet, back in October 2002:

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country — and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein’s terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself — or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein’s regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that’s why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

with this assurance to Congress:

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America’s military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance — his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

And Saddam was slicing up missiles that flew 30 miles further than allowed at the time we attacked. So which of the conditions did Hussein fail to meet? Cheating on the Oil-For-Food program, enriching himself.

Despite Hans Blix’s report, which asked for more time. Despite the IAEA report denying any evidence of nuclear development. Despite taking intelligence ‘maybes’ and declaring them as certainties. Despite warnings from numerous people such as this one:

The founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition said Tuesday he told President George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq that he should prepare Americans for the likelihood of casualties, but the president told him, “We’re not going to have any casualties.”

Pat Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, said he had that conversation with the president in Nashville, Tennessee, before the March 2003 invasion U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. He described Bush in the meeting as “the most self-assured man I’ve ever met in my life.” . . .

“And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, ‘Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.’ ”

Robertson said the president then told him, “Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.”

Which the White House claims he never said. (And what motivation would Robertson have to lie? After all, he’s a Bush supporter.)

–This is obscene. And so is this. Shouldn’t it be obvious why?

Shouldn’t we listen to other experts for a change, like Hack or Phil Carter?

–It’s obscene to send troops to war without body armor. And is it troop support to not meet their needs afterward? Isn’t that obscene, too?

I think it’s obscene that some call this president ‘pro-life’.

Secrecy without cause, outing our own spy, stonewalling investigations, misrepresenting intelligence guesses as certainties, denying inspectors and allies and Congress who asked for a little more time to pin down the truth, sending troops in unequipped, failing to keep up with the healthcare needs of our veterans, denying there’d be casualties then disputing the words of a major Christian leader, refusing to listen to anyone who disagreed - even supporters - and suggesting we’re better off with more than 600,000 jobs lost, with the largest deficit and greatest spending in history (higher than we spent against 10,000 USSR nuclear warheads !)…. yes, these are examples of ‘obscene.’

And the proper response to people responsible for obscenities isn’t to renew their contracts and ask for more. That would make us accomplices to obscenity.