Couldn't they at least mention them?

We are now listening to a hearing, discussions of a hearing, analyses of a hearing, conversations about a hearing, etc. But why isn't anyone talking about Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke? Why is everyone acting as though the Downing Street Minutes are the great a-ha! for understanding the Iraq War motivation?

I understood the motivation and I don't have any geo-political expertise. O'Neill and Clarke both presented concrete proof of the intention to invade Iraq as soon as the decorators were through with the Lincoln bedroom. The press either ignored them or gave them very brief interviews. But now that we have the Downing Street Minutes, it would be powerful to put them up against the transcripts of conversations recorded by the two former Republican White House staff members.

So why the hell isn't anyone doing that? It's what you call the whole picture, and it isn't being displayed.