375. I'm pissed. This is an outrage!

Tom's comment on a recent post prompted me to learn more about a certain Negroponte. Tom pointed out that Negroponte is continuing with the Iran-bad-scary-nuclear-weapon scare tactics that should feel familiar to those of us alive way back in 2002 when the campaign to invade Iraq was in full swing. (Some of us picked up on the more subtle clues just post- 9/11. And still others can point to clues shortly after W first entered office.)

...in the form of a mushroom cloud...

Negroponte and the Bush family go way back. But, that is not what concerns me most. Two things do.

First concern:

Negroponte:

I think we have learned a lot of the lessons from 9/11 as well as from some of the mistakes that were made in the run-up to the Iraq War with respect to weapons of mass destruction. I think we have improved the integrity of our analyses substantially. In other words I think we have internalized some of these lessons.

From Wikipedia:

On February 17, , President George W. Bush named Negroponte as the first, a position created due to recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission completed late in 2004. On April 21, 2005, Negroponte was confirmed by a vote of 98 to 2 in the Senate, and subsequently sworn in.

A controversy exists 2003 invasion. According to the editors of the Weekly Standard, Negroponte continued the policy of delaying the translation and release of these documents and tapes. In one of the taped conversations an aide to Saddam Hussein asked "Where was the nuclear material transported to?"

He goes on: "A number of them were transported out of Iraq." The Washington Times editorialized on another moment caught on tape that revealed "Saddam was actively working on a plan to enrich uranium using a technique known as plasma separation. This is particularly worrisome because of the date of the conversation: It took place in 2000, nearly five years after Iraq's nuclear programs were thought to have stopped."

House Intelligence Chairman Pete Hoekstra requested that all the documents be put on the internet so Arabic translators around the world can help translate them. According to the editors of the Weekly Standard, President Bush has also expressed his desire to have the documents and tapes released, but has never ordered this action through official channels.

My second concern:

(I know I'm expecting way too much here, but that's never stopped me before.)

Are our newspapers deliberately facilitating the ignorance of Americans? Why do I have to "Wikipedia" Negroponte to find out he is intricately involved in the Iraq controversy and that no thinking person would trust him or his analysis of the state of Hawaii, never mind Iran?

Granted, I read an ABC article. Maybe a better publication would have provided more depth...yeah, right! More people get their news from ABC-type organizations. Don't they then have a greater moral obligation to provide relevant back-story information along with their stories? Of course they do.

When all is said and done... well, I guess I don't really know where we go from here. I'm sick of it all.

I'm trying to come up with a fitting analogy for the news media and their complacency in recent history. The best I'm coming up with is:

They are like the neighbor who knows of the child abuse going on next door, but fails to alert the appropriate agency. Sure, they feel badly about it, but it's not their business.

Let's play a game!

You come up with an analogy! I'll do a song and dance for the winner. Better yet, I will somehow include the winner in my next 55 story!

Any takers?


.