New York Times criticizes administration over intelligence leaks

In a rare turnaround from the Times' role in divulging sensitive secrets, the paper has published a story criticizing the Bush administration's move of placing captured Iraqi documents in public view over the Internet.

Captain's Quarters has posted portions of the Times' article.

The main controversy over the Internet site concerned portions of detailed plans for building a nuclear weapon.
Captain Ed quotes the Times:

"European diplomats said this week that some of those nuclear documents on the Web site were identical to the ones presented to the United Nations Security Council in late 2002, as America got ready to invade Iraq. But unlike those on the Web site, the papers given to the Security Council had been extensively edited, to remove sensitive information on unconventional arms."

What does this mean in terms of the justification for war?

Iraq seems to have had a fairly advanced set of plans for making a nuclear weapon. Some, I suppose, might point out that the plans dated from 1991. But what difference does that make? Do plans for nuclear weapons degrade over time like mustard gas munitions?

Bottom line: Iraq was a threat in 2002.

The regime remained interested in developing weapons systems forbidden to it, and they were actively working to restore their capability for making those weapons.
First, get money through the Oil For Food program to sustain the military infrastructure.
Second, obtain the needed materials illegally or by getting the UN sanctions lifted.