If, as the Washington Post, the New York Times, and even Andrea Mitchell, are correct when they assert "that you had to be 'brain dead not to know' what the White House was doing", why aren't we outraged at how they misled us? How can we ever again consider any one of them as credible sources? Why aren't we asking why they acted as propagandists, rather than a free and open media presenting all sides of an issue?
The Downing Street Memo is not the story. Unfortunately, Congressman John Conyers and too many Democrats don't see it that way. As outraged as they are over what they already knew was a lie, they should be more outraged over the role the media, a supposed Liberal media, played in the lie.
George Bush manufactured the reasons for the war and now, by their own admission, the media allowed him to get away with it.
That's a damn fine point.
Hey! Media! WTF were you doing? Do you honestly think I'll ever trust you to tell me anything more complex than that the sky is blue, ever again?
What's the big deal, however, to answer the question the commentator above asks, since, no, in a sense, the memos don't tell us anything anyone with an ounce of sense hadn't already figured out, is that here you have Official Documents that counter the Official Line -- which was that Bush didn't want to go to war, that Saddam was an imminent threat, that force was a last resort.
It's only with these counteracting documents that you can make a dent in the Big Lie that the Administration told, and that the media, god help them, 'cause I won't, both let them and helped them to do, and take Official Action to hold our elected officials accountable. I mean, aside from voting them out, which we should do with all speed.