You read that right: Iraq.
Not "Iran." Iraq.
The Iraq War.
The illegal war that fell off the press radar last week. On Monday, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown finally announced an inquiry into the Iraq War. It wouldn't be public, he said, it couldn't be.
And that should have been the big story of the week. Even before the pushback began forcing Gordo to step away from his must-all-be-behind-closed-doors talking point.
Gordon was being called out by the House of Lords, by the military, by the press. It was a very big story.
And it just got bigger.
Today Jamie Doward, Gaby Hinsliff and Mark Townsend (The Observer) report on a January 31, 2003 memo ("almost two months before the invasion") which is a "record of a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq, outlining their intention to go to war without a second United Nations resolution".
The two War Hawks were admitting that WMD might not be found and that they needed other ways to force the war with Iraq.
WMDs might not exist and they needed other ways to force the war with Iraq?
But WMDs was the lie that justified the illegal war. It was the lie that insisted war must take place.
Yet two months before the start of the Iraq War, Bush and Blair were preparing ways to ram through the illegal war without the WMD excuse.
Sam Coates (Times of London) explains:
Paraphrasing the President's comments at the meeting, Sir David noted: "The start date for the military campaign was now pencilled in for March 10. This was when the bombing would begin."
The memo also suggested that Mr Blair and Mr Bush contemplated other scenarios that might trigger a second UN resolution, legitimising military action in case UN weapons inspectors failed to find WMD.
Mr Bush told Mr Blair that they had developed plans to draw Iraq into combat by flying "U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover". If Saddam Hussein fired at the planes, it would put the Iraqi leader in breach of UN resolutions.
In public at this time, Mr Blair was justifying plans for an invasion on the grounds that Iraq might have weapons of mass destruction.
But you didn't cover this, did you? You insta-experts, you Minute Rice heads. Rushing off to the Iran story -- to report on, blog about a country you knew nothing about and players you'd never heard of before. Repeating the lines that would be used to argue a war. Dropping all conditionals because you just knew, from peering into your Twittering crystal ball, that the election was rigged. You knew nothing and you delivered nothing.
Democracy Now! repeatedly wasted time on Iran.
It never once explored the inquiry and what it could mean for Englad, for the United States and for Iraq. Never once last week.
While you were snoozing, Iraq saw a bombing on Saturday with the largest death toll of the year: 80 (over 200 wounded and the death toll might climb).
While you were snoozing, the US traded two prisoners -- said to be responsible for the death of 5 American soldiers -- to secure the release of 5 British hostages. Didn't work out quite the way they planned. Two of the five British hostages have surfaced . . . dead.
A lot's gone on and, if you don't pay attention, you're easily hyped. For example, if no more deaths of US service members are announced for the month (if), the toll would be eight. And you can be sure the press would launch another wave of Operation Happy Talk. And if you don't pay attention, you won't grasp the reality that eight means two for every week in the month.
If you don't pay attention, you can pretend no one was hurt by those deaths.
If you don't pay attention, you can pretend the Iraq War is over.
