"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.
What's really funny about this is that in both cases this week, the DEMS [Kerry and then the NYT's] were trying to say something about foreign policy, their biggest weakness.Both times falling completely flat, and further proving their incompetence.
They get caught up in their own egos, start believing their own spin, and fall flat on their face.
Hey, all, I know the lowlifes at the NY Slimes think this article is some kind of blow against the Bush WH, but isn't the very possession of such docs and plans by Saddam's regime a gross violation of the UN inspections regime that was supposed to guarantee (sic) that Saddam could not re-start his nuke program?
This is an inherent contradiction for the bozos at the IAEA and NY Slimes who have sprung this "October surprise" just 4 days before US elections: if these nuke plans are so dangerous because they could help Iran or anyone else toward "the bomb" then they were/are also so dangerous in Saddam's hands and he was supposed to give them up to the UN inspectors!!
The Slimes unwittingly proves yet again that Saddam refused to give up his WMD ambitions and refused to abide by the prohibitions from the 1991 cease-fire and the glorious UN inspections program.