If the context were any closer, they'd trip over it

In the public discussion of the Downing Street Minutes, reasonable (as in, not neo-Con-supporting) people interviewed on television say that the information in the minutes must be looked at within a context, and not just on its own. I agree, because I believe that all information has to be examined within a context and not on its own.

What is frustrating the hell out of me is that these same people are waiting for the context to appear, despite the fact that it is right under their noses. All the talk is about who said what after September 11, but we have information from two respected Republican White House staffers that Bush and his neo-Con cronies talked excessively about invading Iraq as soon as they moved into the White House. This would have been over a year and a half before September 11, 2001. Why aren't any of the more enlightened (I use that term loosely) news show guests mentioning that, and why isn't even one commentator mentioning it? O'Neill and Clarke no longer exist in the eyes and ears of the news media, and that includes even the more liberal columnists and analysts.