Well, it seems the media has finally decided to do a little reporting on the Downing Street Minutes, but as per usual, they are doing a half assed job of it.
They apparently think the whole story is about how they have or have not been reporting on the story. But guess what, besides the attendees of the mainstream media's regular cocktail parties and such, nobody in their right mind thinks that is what the actual story is.
The actual story is what is contained in the Downing Street Minutes:
Downing Street Minutes
This is what is important. This is what is newsworthy.
So, if you are a reporter, or an editor, or a cable news producer, here's what you should do:
Ask relevant people about the contents of the minutes.
If you are the producer of Hardball, for instance, don't ask Howard Fineman or Norah O'Donnell what their thoughts are on the Downing Street minutes. Nobody gives a shit what those two assclowns thinks.
Those two lazy thinkers don't care that the Downing Street Minutes contain the evidence that in July of 2002, the head of British Intelligence told Tony Blair the following:
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"
and
"There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
and
"The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime"
and
"he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections."
and
"Bush had made up his mind to take military action"
and
"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
Don't jusk ask a fellow member of the media about these points. Ask somebody who can actually provide some relevance to the story.
Who, you might ask?
Any of these people:
Ask Richard Dearlove
Why? Because he was the head of British Intelligence who told Tony Blair what was related in the minutes.
Downing Street Minutes starting to gain traction
Ask Matthew Rycroft
Why? Because he was the author of the minutes of the meeting.
Downing Street Minutes
Ask Tommy Franks
Why? Because he was the head of Coalition Forces in the Middle East when they were busy engaging in what might seem to be "spikes of activity"
Airstrikes Intensifying
Special Forces in Iraq
and because he was the head of Coalition Forces in the Middle East when $700 million dollars earmarked for Afghanistan was diverted to Iraq war planning in July of 2002 without the approval of Congress.
$700 Million Diverted to Iraq
Ask George Tenet
Why? Because he was the head of the CIA when the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq WMD was released in October 2002 with all dissenting opinions scrubbed from it's pages (maybe because the intelligence was being "fixed around the policy?)".
NIE stripped of dissenting opinions
and because in his January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea. Why then did the case against Saddam become a "slam dunk" a year later?
The Selling of the Iraq War
Ask Bob Graham
Why? Because in the late summer of 2002, he received a 25 page report from the CIA showing that evidence of Saddam's WMD were inconclusive.
The Selling of the Iraq War
Ask Scott Ritter
Why? Because in July of 2002, this Former UN Iraq Weapons Inspector stated that besides mustard gas, Iraq had no chemical or biological weapons, yet, for some reason, his opinion wasn't listened to.
Is Iraq a True Threat to the US?
Ask Hans Blix
Why? Because in February of 2003, he and his team of UN weapons inspectors still hadn't found any WMD in Iraq, yet we invaded anyways. Why?
No WMDs found in Iraq: Hans Blix
Ask David Kay
Why? Because as the US Weapons Inspector, after a year of searching, he never found any WMD in Iraq. So, what about all that intelligence that said they would be there?
Kay: No evidence Iraq stockpiled WMDs
Ask Charles Duelfer
Why? Because as the US Weapons Inspector, he found out that Iraq hadn't made any WMD since 1991. Hmmm, why did we go to war then: as a last resort, or was the intelligence about WMD a convenient excuse?
Report: No Iraq WMDs Made After '91
Ask Ahmad Chalabi
Why? Because as the leader of the Iraqi opposition group, he was instrumental in the creation and dissemination of faulty intelligence, and later had no problem with the fact that it was faulty. The ends justified the means. What about the means that includes the death of 1600 American soldiers? Are those means justified?
Chalabi stands by faulty intelligence that toppled Saddam's regime
Ask Paul Wolfowitz
Why? Because he was a chief architect of the Iraq war and admitted that WMD was just a convenient excuse.
WMD Just a Convenient Excuse for War, Admits Wolfowitz
Ask Paul O'Neill
Why? Because as Bush's Treasury Secretary, he was privy to the fact that Bush was planning to invade Iraq immediately after he took office in 2001
O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11
Ask Richard Clarke
Why? Because as a head of counterterrorism, he witnessed that immediately after 9/11 both Bush and Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq, not Afghanistan.
Former Bush adviser: Rumsfeld considered Iraq bombings one day after terror attacks
Ask David Frum
Why? Because as Bush's speechwriter for the 2001 State of the Union, he was given the assignment to "create a justification for war". But I thought war was a last resort?
Ex-Bush Speechwriter:
I Was to Provide a Justification for War
Ask Mickey Herskowitz
Why? Because as Bush's biographer in 1999, he was told by Bush about how Bush would invade Iraq if given the chance so that he could gain "political capital". Wow, that's just sick, folks.
Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000
Ask Bob Woodward
Why? Because he was given unusually close access to Bush after 9/11 and found out that Bush was planning on attacking Iraq just 3 months after 9/11 and before major operations were even over in Afghanistan. I guess Bush thought that only invading Afghanistan just wouldn't give him quite enough political capital.
Bush Began to Plan War Three Months After 9/11
There are many, many, many more people out there who could be interviewed. These folks are just a place to start.
