[T]he NYT is just recycling old news. The Guardian did a
     report on this memo nearly two months ago.

    By the time Bush met Blair at the White House, Hans Blix 
    had reported that the Iraqis would not cooperate with the 
    inspections, only paying lip service to the inspectors. 
    Now, thanks to captured notes of Iraqi meetings, we know 
    that Saddam remained confident that his bribery of France 
    and Russia (as well as their well-known economic interest 
    in maintaining their contracts with the Saddam regime) 
    would result in a stalemate at the Security Council over 
    any resolution opening military force as a consequence of 
    failure. That may be why France practically begged Blair 
    at that moment not to pursue a "second resolution" (actually
    a 17th); they assured both the US and the UK that the 
    previous sixteen resolutions gave plenty of cause for 
    action, but that France would find it politically 
    impossible to vote for explicit military action against 
    Iraq. [...]

    In short, the Times presents us with a memo that shows 
    the US and UK understanding that Saddam would not 
    cooperate with the UN nor voluntarily disarm or step 
    aside; history proved them correct on all those 
    assertions. Given those as reality, the two nations 
    prepared for war. If the Times finds this surprising, it 
    demonstrates their cluelessness all the more.