Shouldn't that be "don't misunderestimate the mullahs"?

OK. On page one of the Post we have a story that says:

Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.

"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," said a senior official who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.

But the NY Times, in its infinite wisdom, decided today to run an op-ed that says exactly the opposite--"Iran is determined to get the bomb -- all the agencies agree on that [eh?] -- and dealing with that threat is not a job that can be left for the next administration." In other words, this is a job only the Dubster is qualified to do (because he's been so masterful in his mideast policy to date). The author of this op-ed, Gary Milhollin, has screamed quite a bit about another nation's nuclear capability. Armscontrolwonk says of him, "To say that Milhollin was a major culprit in whipping up hysteria over Saddam’s bomb is an understatement."

Seems the Times is going through a little bout of amnesia in regard to its dark days as an agent of the Iraq catastrophe. It's also being a little vague about the track record of the dogdy Ahmad Chalabi, a man whose first mention should be accompanied by a few dozen qualifying statements.

So what's up with the Times? To me its editors look like they're not terribly interested in putting distance between the paper of record and the neocon party line. Arianna has a nice quip that doesn't quite answer the question, but is a nice quip all the same:

At least we know it wasn't Judy Miller's fault. The one good thing about prison is that it gives you a great alibi.