New York Times Hurts America

I don't have the right words. I'm beyond rage and in a detached calm as I think about it.

The New York Times will get us killed.

The New York Times has chosen sides in this war, and it isn't America's side.

The New York Times has finally gone beyond the bounds of...of what? They passed the bounds of decency long ago. They passed the bounds of news reporting, civic duty, and all the other virtues that should belong to a news agency, long ago. When the news media accuse Ann Coulter of having "gone too far" by making personal jabs at the Jersey Girls, and then they release national secrets of this magnitude NOT FOR THE FIRST TIME, that's an irony way too rich for me to handle. That's "too far" on a galactic scale.

What they did was publish an article, by Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, in today's issue of the Times, exposing an effective, legal, secret program that has been helping the US catch terrorists. And there was no understandable reason for them to have published it. By publishing the story--after the Bush Administration as well as many Democratic leaders requested them not to publish it--they have told the enemy the details of how we go after them, essentially destroying our ability to continue this program. A program that has worked. A program that has resulted in terrorists being discovered and captured.

First, the New York Times exposed the NSA wiretapping. Now this.

Michelle Malkin has lots of great reaction to what the New York Times (and its poodle, the Los Angeles Times, who also published the story) did. She published the contact information for the NY Times, but because she expected the Times to ignore the letters of protest, she asked her readers to copy her on their emails to the Times. Here's my favorite quote from one of the email senders, Steve:

"Do your kickbacks from al-Qaeda make up for your losses in subscriptions?"

Perfect.

Hugh Hewitt has more reactions as well. He offers this quote from the Times article:

Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said: "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

Mm-hmm. They gave "the most serious and respectful consideration" to how the article would hurt the Bush Administration and possibly win them another Pulitzer prize. There's no other reason they'd buck both the President and the majority of Democrats--reportedly even John Murtha--by publishing this story.

For me, the New York Times no longer exists.

I refuse to link to their stories. I refuse to quote their articles. Even if it's an article as helpful as how to extricate yourself from quicksand (which was not the NY Times, by the way), I won't do it. Unless it is to disparage their name, I refuse to give them one more piece of my share of the blogosphere.

Update:

Powerline posted a chart of the New York Times stock prices over the past five years. Take a look. It's stunning. They're on a fast track from being the one-time "paper of record" to being a paper of ruin.

Update II:

Michelle Malkin reports that the New York Times is publishing another article leaking classified information in the Sunday edition.

Check out the Anti-Blabbermouth posters right below the text. My favorite is the one at the top (as of the time of this update), from Slublog.