The sources aren't named, but it would be a pretty major, major slip-up to specifically claim to site NSA advisers if it were made up out of whole cloth. As in,

The sources aren't named, but it would be a pretty major, major slip-up to specifically claim to site NSA advisers if it were made up out of whole cloth. As in, career ending for the writer. For example, "...according to members of the president’s national security team who were in the room." Journalists don't drop phrases like that lightly, and you don't have access to several NSA members and high-ranking US officials unless this leak is 100% sponsored by the Administration. It clearly was: one can tell by the quantity and range of officials that were interviewed who demonstrate, at points, first-hand knowledge of the situation. Now, the question of whether these NSA advisers are -lying- as part of a propaganda campaign is a fair question. I wouldn't be shocked if they were, but everything that I have anecdotally read about Stuxnet and just using common sense, tells me--a layman on the outside looking in--that there is a pretty decent probability this is true, or at least pretty close to the truth. Clearly, the timing of this is politically relevant. The President wants to take credit for it to boost his domestic stock in the runup to the election. He can repeat these two key points whenever he is questioned on foreign policy: 1) I killed Bin Laden 2) I'm the guy who set the maniacal Ahmadinejad's nuclear ambitions back. The guy who is preventing the destruction of Israel. Regardless of your political persuasion, these are potent points that have a chance to resonate with the electorate. (fwiw: I'm not particularly in love with the NYTimes. I don't have an affinity for any particular newspaper anymore. I'm not defending the newspaper, just pointing out the likely reality as I understand it)