Why so little coverage of the Downing Street Memo?

[choosybeggar]

(I thought first about placing this thread in GQ, as if a factual answer exists, that’s what I’m after. More likely, the issue is debatable, so here we are in GD.)

At least in the US, precious little attention has focused on what you’d think could be a political blockbuster.

Originally reported May 1st in the Times of London, the Downing Street Memo purports to be the leaked minutes of a meeting between Tony Blair and other senior British officials, dated July 23, 2002, well before the invasion of Iraq. The discussion centers on the US case for invasion, and includes the following:

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.

Bolding mine

The Blair government declined comment on the leak. Scott McClellan commented only obliquely on it. 89 democratic congresspersons sent a letter to Bush about it. But that’s about it (except in the left-leaning reaches of the blogosphere).

So what gives? Why not more public discussion of this? What coverage has it received in the rest of the world?

Are major news outlets afraid of the evisceration they’d receive should the memo turn out to be a forgery? Is there a hidden consensus on it’s authenticity?

[choosybeggar]

CRAP! Just noticed this thread. I searched on “downing street memo” and came up empty before posting. I’ll head over there now.