Cognitive Dissonance Courtesy of the NY Times

The Times unleashed its November surprise today - a pathetic attempt to blame George W. Bush for the release of supposedly classified weapons documents concerning the former Iraqi dictatorship under Saddam Hussein.

The US government has thousands of documents concerning former Iraqi weapons programs, so many so that intelligence officers have been unable to sort through them all. Under pressure from congress, the President authorized that certain Iraqi documents be released in order to prove the existence of weapons programs that were continuing up to 2003 in Iraq (and there were plenty of them, even though the Times denies it). Evidently some of these documents contain detailed drawings of nuclear devices - detailed enough that they could virtually serve as the blueprint for a nuclear bomb.

The Times intends this as a November surprise - hey, look! The President is responsible for the proliferation of nuclear weapons! The problem with this meme, of course, is that to project the idea that "these Iraqi documents show how to make a nuke, and it's Bush's fault that they are now public" conflicts with the Times (and the American left's) precious and ongoing assertions that Saddam Hussein was no threat to the US. If Hussein was one year away from making the bomb, and had blueprints to prove it, don't you think the possession of those documents and technology could be dangerous?

I think this is a special case of media bias, and an interesting one. Not only is it another of the Times pathetic attempts to influence an election, it shows just how far the newspaper is willing to go to prove their point, or how far they have detached themselves from reality. This report clearly shows that Iraq was very much a threat to the world in 2003 (including all that the documents say about his ongoing weapons programs) and the Times is willing to finally admit that fact in the hopes that it damages the GOP.

Confusing? Yes. Causing some liberals' heads to explode? Most certainly.

UPDATE: The fact that the Times is now claiming damage at the release of these Iraqi documents now effectively authenticates the whole lot - including ones that explain Iraq's plans to assassinate world leaders, make biological weapons and delivery systems in 2002, and Iraq's connection to Osama bin Laden as early as 1994. Oops.

Oh, yea - and how can the Times be mad at the release of classified documents? Isn't that their thing?

UPDATE: The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee responds:

...it is also important to emphasize that the IAEA, contrary to its assertions, never raised any concerns about this material with the United States Government before going to the press. Similarly, the DNI's office has informed me that no agency of the U.S. Government had raised any issues about the potential or actual release of these documents before yesterday. If there were such problems, they would have been better addressed through the appropriate channels rather than the press.

...

Only 1 percent of the estimated 120 million pages of captured documents have been reviewed, and we must continue working to promptly understand these materials. If there is concern about Saddam's nuclear program, there should be similar concern about potential connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda suggested in the documents.

...

Finally, it is disappointing but not surprising that the New York Times would continue to participate in such blatant and transparent political ploys, including what I believe are improper efforts by the IAEA to interfere with U.S. domestic affairs. The sad reality is that the New York Times has done far more damage to U.S. national security by the disclosure of vital, classified, intelligence programs than is likely to be caused by the inadvertent disclosure of decades-old information that had already been in the hands of Saddam's regime.

That's what you call a rhetorical slap in the face. Do you think the Times will issue a correction next Tuesday?