Hoekstra berates NYT for "disclosing highly classified intelligence"

More on FISA. Look's like NYT made Pete mad....again.
Here's their editorial that set him off.

Here is Hoekstra's rebuttal to the Executive Editor in which he says:

It has been my practice not to deal with the New York Times after its recklessness in repeatedly disclosing highly classified intelligence programs to enemies who seek to attack our nation and because of what I believe was a lack of honesty and integrity in its dealings with me as Chairman of the Committee at that time.

Now Pete, you don't think we already forgot about you releasing information on nuclear bomb technology did you? I know it didn't get play here in repugmedia land Northern Michigan. So just in case anyone forgot, let's catch you up.

The campaign for the Web site was led by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan. Last November, he and his Senate counterpart, Pat Roberts of Kansas, wrote to Mr. Negroponte, asking him to post the Iraqi material. The sheer volume of the documents, they argued, had overwhelmed the intelligence community.

What did the experts think about the information you released?

Peter D. Zimmerman, a physicist and former United States government arms scientist now at the war studies department of King’s College, London, called the posted material “very sensitive, much of it undoubtedly secret restricted data.”

Ray E. Kidder, a senior nuclear physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, an arms design center, said “some things in these documents would be helpful” to nations aspiring to develop nuclear weapons and should have remained secret.

In Europe, a senior diplomat said atomic experts there had studied the nuclear documents on the Web site and judged their public release as potentially dangerous. “It’s a cookbook,” said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of his agency’s rules. “If you had this, it would short-circuit a lot of things.”

So following that he posted this press release stating:

The approach carries with it risks, but such risks are minimal. It will enable us to better understand information such as Saddam's links to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and violence against the Iraqi people.

Minimal?

Some of the first posted documents dealt with Iraq’s program to make germ weapons, followed by a wave of papers on chemical arms.

To Pete, compalints about the site “Didn’t sound like a big deal,We were a little surprised when they pulled the plug."

So Pete, I guess that makes you the pot, and New York Times the kettle?