Drip, Drip, Drip: Still More Leaks of Classified Information from the NY Times

Apparently, the NY Times has two goals; one, to deliver more classified information into the hands of America’s adversaries than any other print media in history. Second, to do it’s best to be the largest hindrance to the Bush administration in history – right up to the last day of his term. Today, they take another step in that mighty direction:

(CNN) -- Iraq's prime minister saw his support erode on two fronts Wednesday as a White House memo questioned his leadership and a powerful political bloc suspended participation in Iraq's government. The classified memo by President Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley questions whether Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki can end the bloody sectarian violence in Iraq, and especially whether he can rein in the Mehdi Army militia loyal to anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Hours after details of the Hadley memo first appeared in Wednesday's New York Times, Cabinet ministers and members of the Iraqi parliament loyal to al-Sadr underscored al-Maliki's shaky position, saying they would stop participating in his government.
The al-Sadr supporters had said earlier they would take such action if al-Maliki went ahead with a meeting with Bush on Thursday in Jordan.
The Hadley memo outlines steps the United States could take to strengthen al-Maliki, including sending more U.S. troops to boost security in Baghdad. [All emphasis added.]

Again, what part of “classified” does the Times not get?

As far as damage is concerned “There are about 30 lawmakers loyal to al-Sadr in the 275-member parliament, and six Cabinet ministers from his bloc” and they not participating in the new Iraqi government is probably a good idea, anyway. It only took 1 Benedict Arnold to hurt the Revolution, and it only took 19 Islamic kooks to commit the 9/11 tragedy, so the loss of these 36 possible “Benedicts” is not a bad thing. However, the real damage is to Maliki; now he and his country’s biggest enemy, al-Sadr and his band of killers, have proof of Maliki’s political weakness, verified by a second party friendly to Maliki -- his American allies – as incentive to keep pushing the new Iraqi government till it falls. They have this confirmation now thanks to THE NEW YORK TIMES! The memo states that the US, if convinced of Maliki’s genuineness about wanting a free and democratic Iraq, wewould go to such lengths as putting more troops in Iraq to stabilize him. This could only help strengthen the new government and make the US’s removal from the country come sooner. Now, the enemies of that land have more reason to continue subverting the new government.

Let’s sum it up. A so-called “American” media institution, who advocated the prosecution of Bush Administration officials for supposedly leaking the name of a covert agent (which they didn’t) to the media is now leaking classified information, AGAIN, and this time the results could cost more American soldiers’ lives and a longer stay in Iraq than needed – something the paper and it’s editorial board (and every other department) decries at any available opportunity. THIS ladies and gentlemen is IRONY at its best.

The blood of American soldiers is now on the hands of the NY Times. An entire COUNTRY may now suffer more so than before, because the NYT can’t keep its mouth shut.

**UPDATE: **
You can find even more information on the Times' treachery HERE.,
courtesy Michelle "Ultra-violet" Malkin. Apparently, the Times is seeking someone -- anyone -- to defend it's "right" to reveal classified information. Maybe they can explain to me what the "public's right to know" was here?