Just Die, Will You?

This could be the quote of the day:

IRONY SO THICK YOU CAN BATHE IN IT

Rick Moran of the Right Wing Nuthouse coined that phrase to headline his post about the New York Times' almost unbelievable article positing that the Bush administration is endangering us by allowing the publication of translated Iraqi papers about WMD.

Michelle Malkin was almost as good:

The NYTimes blabbermouths are accusing the Bush administration of being careless with national security data?

Ouch. Stop. Sides. Splitting.

Rick’s lead:

The levels of irony on display with the “revelation” by the New York Times that some of the Saddam documents dealing with Hussein’s drive for nuclear weapons may constitute a dangerous release of classified info on how to build them is so perfect, so exquisitely delightful that it’s at times like these I wish I was a poet.

Only The Bard himself could do justice to the smorgasbord of delectable incongruities, tasty paradoxes, and bitterly sardonic idiocies that the New York Times, the left, our intelligence agencies, and yes – even those of us who pined for the release of this historic treasure trove of data have ultimately fallen into.

The New York Times, a news organ that has on many occasions revealed the existence of some of the most classified intelligence programs the government uses to protect American citizens, in violation of the law, of common sense, and (my own opinion) of their patriotic duty during a time of war, now implicitly criticizes the Bush Administration for (wait for it)…releasing classified information!

Read Rick’s entire post here, please.

Ed Morrissey, at Captain’s Quarters, notes how the NYT article also implicitly agrees that Saddam was close to having a nuclear weapon — something they have adamatly denied was possible up to now. Says the Captain:

That appears to indicate that by invading in 2003, we followed the best intelligence of the UN inspectors to head off the development of an Iraqi nuke. This intelligence put Saddam far ahead of Iran in the nuclear pursuit, and made it much more urgent to take some definitive action against Saddam before he could build and deploy it. And bear in mind that this intelligence came from the UN, and not from the United States. The inspectors themselves developed it, and they meant to keep it secret.

Michelle Malkin (called a “firebrand” by the NYT) says:

Just another rich and ripe example of how the Times' problem is, you know, that it’s too “evenhanded."

And the Anchoress manages to make some humor out of this pathetic story, by imagining what a conversation inside the Gray Lady’s headquarters this morning might have been like:

So, the NY Times twirls its mustache and writes:

Stupid Evil Bush Reveals Saddam’s Nuke Plans, and He was Only a Year Away from Having Nukes and…and…

Times Peon #1: HOLY CRAP, Mr. Keller, did we just validate everything Dick Cheney and Colin Powell and stupid evil George Bush said to the UN? When we’re spilling secrets, we’re not supposed to do that!

Keller: OMG, WE DID! We DID validate these scheming nazi theocon bastards!!!

Times Peon #2: And…and…and what about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame and those sixteen words Bush said…you know, the impeachable 16 words about the Brit intelligence and the Yellowcake! Jim Geraghty at TKS says we might have freaking validated that story, too!

Keller: Ohhhhhh crap! And freaking bloggers! Okay, let’s spin this, baby, spin it! All hands on deck! Turn this ship around! Call Chris Matthews! Call MoDo - no, wait, don’t call her, she’ll make it worse by pretending to be Emma Peel, or something - call Bob Herbert! He’s a wiz at shifting the rudder! Spin, spin! Call Olbermann!

ROFL! There’s much more from the Anchoress, who’s obviously feeling much better today than she has for the past couple of weeks. You’ll be really sorry if you don’t go read the whole thing.

Update: It just gets better. James Taranto weighed in on the same story with this:

What’s even more astounding about this is that the Times is encouraging the removal from public view of material that might threaten American national security. How uncharacteristically responsible. Usually the paper itself publishes such material, heedless of the consequences. Is someone at the Times on vacation or something?

Heh. (as Glenn would say)