Oh good:

The airmen attached the gray missiles to the plane's wings, six on each side. After eyeballing the missiles on the right side, a flight officer signed a manifest that listed a dozen unarmed AGM-129 missiles. The officer did not notice that the six on the left contained nuclear warheads, each with the destructive power of up to 10 Hiroshima bombs. That detail would escape notice for an astounding 36 hours, during which the missiles were flown across the country to a Louisiana air base that had no idea nuclear warheads were coming. It was the first known flight by a nuclear-armed bomber over U.S. airspace, without special high-level authorization, in nearly 40 years... The warheads were attached to the plane in Minot without special guard for more than 15 hours, and they remained on the plane in Louisiana for nearly nine hours more before being discovered. In total, the warheads slipped from the Air Force's nuclear safety net for more than a day without anyone's knowledge. "I have been in the nuclear business since 1966 and am not aware of any incident more disturbing," retired Air Force Gen. Eugene Habiger, who served as U.S. Strategic Command chief from 1996 to 1998, said in an interview.The incident came on the heels of multiple warnings -- some of which went to the highest levels of the Bush administration, including the National Security Council -- of security problems at Air Force installations where nuclear weapons are kept. The risks are not that warheads might be accidentally detonated, but that sloppy procedures could leave room for theft or damage to a warhead, disseminating its toxic nuclear materials... "It is more significant than people first realized, and the more you look at it, the stranger it is," said Joseph Cirincione, director for nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress think tank and the author of a history of nuclear weapons. "These weapons -- the equivalent of 60 Hiroshimas -- were out of authorized command and control for more than a day."

Without peeking, how many paragraphs do you think it took the Washington Post to insinuate that the security breakdown happened because of the war in Iraq? Hint: it should be part of the blockquote, but we took it out because vertical real estate is limited enough without including reflexive anti-war propaganda that's both predictable and stupid.

The crazies, by the by, are saying that those nukes were actually bound for Iran but were turned back by a full USAF revolt against the evil neocons who control the Bush administration. Verdict: obviously wrong and insane, but not as insane as it sounds. There have been some suggestions in a couple of journals that Bush can't attack Iran because the USAF will bog him down in a "blue flu"-like slowdown if he tries. The theory here is that military commanders against the attack would fill out so much paperwork that it would make implementing the Commander In Chief's orders functionally impossible. We don't know if that's possible, but there seem to be some serious people who seem to believe that it's a theory worth airing.

Just to reiterate though: this version of the pushback theory - the suggestion that the USAF openly disobeyed the order of the President after starting to implement it - is conspiracy theory garbage of the dumbest kind.

References:
* Missteps in the Bunker [WaPo]
* News of B-52 Nukes Leaked by Personnel Opposed to Attack on Iran

Previously:
* At This Point, Journalists Are Literally Just Going Through The Motions Of Covering Up Their Bias
* Bombshell? The US Gave Israel IFF Codes Before The Syrian Airstrike
* Purdue Nuclear Strategy Expert: Bomb Iran Now