The headline of this story should be something like:
The New York Times confirms that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program
Did the New York Times put on it's front page that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program and was trying build a nuclear bomb? No way!
The line from the war critics has been that there was no WMD and therefore there was no threat. Now the New York Times is trying to say that Bush screwed up by making public information that could help a country make a nuclear bomb.
One more time:Iraq had a nuclear weapons plan that was so detailed and so advanced that any country could have used them.
The New York Times was hoping this story would come across that the idiot Bush screwed up once again. The New York Times just destroyed the antiwar argument and they don't seem to realize what they did.
The antiwar critics are going to have to try argue that the information somehow wasn't dangerous in the hands of Saddam, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It can't be both no threat to the US and also somehow a threat to the US once it's in the hands of Iran.
Did Rove sneak this paragraph into their article?
Does the New York Times think that we are supposed to believe that Iraq had "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building", but there was no chance that they would restart their nuclear program, or give them to terrorists or another rogue regime?