'L.A. TIMES' DROPS THE BOMB: Drudge has a blockbuster from the "L.A. Times" on classified U.S. nuclear attack plans. Beyond the obvious question of how in the hell did they get their hands on a classified report, I just wanted to point out an especially glaring example of labeling bias. First there this:

"This is dynamite," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear arms expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "I can imagine what these countries are going to be saying at the U.N."

And this:

"They're trying desperately to find new uses for nuclear weapons, when their uses should be limited to deterrence," said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World. "This is very, very dangerous talk . . . Dr. Strangelove is clearly still alive in the Pentagon."

Compare that to this:

But some conservative analysts insisted that the Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies, especially now, when dozens of countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in secret weapon development programs..."We need to have a credible deterrence against regimes involved in international terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction," said Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. He said the contents of the report did not surprise him and represent "the right way to develop a nuclear posture for a post-Cold War world."

You gotta love the juxtaposition of the "Dr. Strangelove" analogy from the unlabeled peacenik guy with the guy from the "conservative Heritage Foundation," who is all for the plan. Sheesh.

For the record, this revelation doesn't really surprise me, either. Do we really think Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria aren't making plans, too? And I noticed the story doesn't even mention whether the events of Sept. 11 had any bearing on this change in policy. But then again, Pentagon officials declined to comment.