The Times IS spinning this story differently.
Their story is not about the facts presented by News Max, namely that there WERE WMD, banned materials, a well funded and equipped nuclear program, stockpiles of chemicals, etc.
No. The Times story is about the FAILURE of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION to secure these items (which the Times has been insisting were never there).
This isn't proof that WMDs were present and the Times was wrong. Oh no. That's old news. They've moved on from that. This is proof that the war was run incompetently.
If AlGore or J F'n Kerry or the oh so perfect Kofi were in charge they would have found the WMD and secured them.
It's all Bush's fault!
Ah, yes, the "Bush let tons of explosives get away" story that was released the week before the election..
The Times has never insisted that UN-monitored WMD-related (NOT actual "WMDs") facilities and equipment were never there.
The fundamental cause of confusion in a billion "WMD" threads has been this issue of stuff Iraq was actually ALLOWED to have.
A lot of "Dual use" stuff; chemical equipment used to make regular industrial chemicals, but COULD be used to make WMDs; also, a lot of equipment at their nuclear facility, wasn't destroyed, but sealed and monitored by the IAEA.
Iraq was never required to destroy them; instead, they were regularly inspected by the UN.
That this stuff existed isn't breaking news, and there are zillions of articles from before GW II describing them in detail.
None of these materials potentially violated UN sanctions and were openly declared and acknowledged by the Iraqis.
One problem with the NYT article is that it assumes the reader, to a degree, is aware of the above. However, many people on FR, and, apparently, Newsmax, is not.
Also people seem to be confusing "looted after Baghdad fell" with "Shipped out of Iraq before the war by Saddam."