The New York Times is concerned that the administration published on the web many documents that it regards as sensitive and dangerous, from Saddam's program of WMD. Of course, the Times neglected the interim article; the one that acknowledges that Saddam did in fact, have a WMD program.
If you recognize the Modus Operandi here, it's similar to the one used by the New York Times and others to report on the economy: report repeatedly that the economy is terrible, and then finally report that Bush is being damaged by the sudden and dramatic economic slowdown.
The salient point you should take from the NYT article is here:
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
It's unclear whether the NYT means to say that Saddam was a year away in 1990, or in 2002. In either case, the NYT and the Democrats will argue that the 'real point' is that Saddam did not have an 'active, ongoing' program to create & use WMD.
But the Times has refused to acknowledge that there is every indication that Saddam intended to restart his program of WMD when he had the opportnity. These documents clearly support that conclusion. Or would the NYT argue that the only reasons these documents exist is because hadn't gotten around to shredding them yet?
Make sure to read more at TKS as well as Captain's Quarters, where Ed Morrissey has done tons of work on the documents in question.
Ed notes a critical mistake by the NYT: by saying that the documents are dangerous, the NYT confirms that they are legitimate. If that's true, they confirm Saddam's ties to terrorists (including Al Qaeda), his plans to improve delivery systems for WMD, and a whole host of other things.
Back to the top.