Is This The Best The NYT Can Do?

So we're four days before the mid-term election and the scheduled election-eve gotcha of the "newspaper of record" is that (1) Saddam Hussein WAS pursuing nuclear weapons; (2) he was farther along than people like - well, like who run the New York Times - thought he was; but (3) the Bush Administration and all its supporters are not prescient, principled, and courageous for arguing for invading Iraq based (in part) on Saddam's pursuit of nuclear weapons and enduring the relentless vilification of people like - well, like who run the New York Times - ever since for there allegedly not being any WMD at all, but hopelessly, haplessly, roaringly stupid for making the documentary evidence available on the internet for those pesky Iranian mullahs next store to find and give ideas of building nukes of their own, which they otherwise would NEVER have thought of doing on their own, other than the nuclear program they've been working on for decades.

But we should still "negotiate" rather than try to stop them, just as we should have Saddam, despite twelve years of negotiations having him on the brink of developing nuclear weapons that people like - well, like who run the New York Times - insist to this day that he never had or wanted. Or, rather, insisted until yesterday.

And this hurts the GOP how, exactly? "Nyah-nyah-nyah, you were right and now you've made a problem we deny worse!" Seems to me the Times has added substantially to the case for invading Iran next.

Pity nobody in the Bush Administration is listening. But then who does heed anything the "newspaper of birdcage bottoms" says anymore anyway?

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin drops the other shoe:

The NY Times blabbermouths are accusing the Bush Administration of being careless with national security data?

Ouch. Stop. Sides. Splitting.

UPDATE II: Bushophobia - Behind Closed Doors.