Their readers are, and that's what counts in this propaganda war. The tone of the article says "Bush screwed up" and that's what the libs will take away from this. If they need to clarify for their stupid readers, they'll explain that during the Clinton years, Sadaam's bad stuff was all shut down and contained, then Bush came along and stirred it all back up.
Facts mean nothing to the MSM or the Dems. Politics are more emotional these days than based on logic for many of the masses.
I don't think that arguing Clinton had it under control and Bush screwed it up will work. If NYT had an angle like that to use, they would have referenced it in their article. They specifically referenced 2002 docs to the United Nations. By including such a precarious date, they were somehow indicating the currentness of the step by step becauase if only the 90's were posted, then everyone can say that those docs were outdated. Who would care about some outdated instructions that Saddam had years to share with his Mideast friends.