Wikileaks

Sure, I have lots of thoughts on this.  First off, this kind of thing is a fact of life.  Secondly, when we can, we should prosecute folks who leak this kind of information.  Thirdly, we have to be careful to not trample the First Amendment.  That short little document is much more important to us than our relationship with Saudi Arabia or China.  Fourthly, some of this leaked information will be put to good use by our Department of State (or so I hope).  Fifthly, a lot of stuff out there in the US Government (USG) is way over classified and should be declassified now.

That said, here is Commentator Max Boot, in Commentary Magazine suggesting that The New York Times doesn't have what it takes to publish its own internal communications, even as it publishes those of the USG.

Of course, there is a big difference between The New York Times and the US Government and that difference is the First Amendment.  On top of that there is the fact that the NYT is a private (or publicly held) institution, as opposed to the USG, which is a public institution.

But, someone I know has noted that The New York Times does not come away with a record to be proud of:

The issue is not comparing the NYT w/ the USG, it is one of comparing the NYT w/ the NYT!

When presented w/ Climategate emails, the NYT sanctimoniously declared "We do not publish purloined emails. (Sniff)

Publishing purloined emails and cables are PERFECTLY acceptable, of course, if it is that of the USG.

And there you have it.  The New York Times is free to pick and choose what it exposes to the public.  You just have to trust them.  Your other option is to read additional sources.  I recommend Instapundit as a starter.

Regards  —  Cliff