With all due respect you're a little full of yourself. This article is clearly a spin piece and the author is careful in the way he's written it. There is much supposed fact yet little of it attributed to anyone, named or unnamed. In fact it's not far away from an Op-Ed piece but it does appear you've bought into the reasoning behind the article existence in the first place.
However, I've had little succces previously on FR from keeping people from living in hopeful fantasyworlds, and I don't think I'm going to have much success in this one either.
With all due respect again, you could very well be wrong this time.
"With all due respect you're a little full of yourself. This article is clearly a spin piece and the author is careful in the way he's written it. There is much supposed fact yet little of it attributed to anyone, named or unnamed. In fact it's not far away from an Op-Ed piece but it does appear you've bought into the reasoning behind the article existence in the first place."
You are correct on that... The NYT is trying to create "Bush/GOP Congress screw up" meme, and its obvious based on the wording.... yet its the tortured wording that makes it clear they are trying to make it sound like Bush having these docs public is dangerous, without the obvious corrolary that Saddam having these documents - available for use or resale - would be far more dangerous.
Kind of like Kerry's joke - this will fall flat for them.