The Downing Street Memo

Well, I've read the 'Downing Street Memo', which has been circulating the blogosphere for a while, and I'm totally underwhelmed.

This so-called 'smoking gun' shows nothing of substance, once you actually read the text and not just descriptions of the document.

What has the Left so upset is one section in particular which says:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

So some guy at the meeting thinks that the Bush Administration was making a weak case for the war? What exactly is new about that? Lots of people think that the US was proceeding forward too quickly. That doesn't mean anything. If, in a meeting, I say that John Kerry fabricated much of his war biography, would that have any significance? Of course not.

Most of the document suggests that advisors close to Tony Blair thought that joining the US in this war was ill advised. Okay, we already knew that.

And that's it. Some guy in a meeting disapproved of the war. Yep. That's a 'smoking gun'.

The patheticness of the text is exceeded only by its provenance. British reporter Michael Smith was given them by an 'anonymous source'. Uh-huh. Where have we encountered this phenomenon before? Smith typed up copies and destroyed the originals (HT: LGF). How convenient that the documents cannot be tested for authenticity. I guess the press has learned something about covering its tracks. Congratulations.

Wheeee! Let's have fun with 'anonymous sources'. Look at this memo that I 'found'!

I wonder when CBS News will pick up the story?