Earlier this year the New York Times courageously exposed vulnerabilities of US body armor, accompanying the story with a controversial diagram and a leaked Pentagon paper in a PDF file, identifying the best areas to shoot at. Today the Pentagon responded by releasing a diagram that details vulnerabilities of the New York Times journalists, which analysts predict is about to become the focus of a new media fury.


"The Pentagon released the results of their secret research despite our strongest objections," said Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, in an urgent statement. "It can seriously damage our ability to gather and publish information that is harmful to the United States."

"This is clearly a retaliation for our recent exposure of the US surveillance of foreign bank transactions, as well as our diagram revealing weak spots in US military gear," Keller continued. "But the both stories presented a great public interest. We are an international paper serving the world community, and if al-Qaeda subscribers of the New York Times are interested in how they can inflict the most damage on imperialist Western crusaders, it is our obligation to provide them with a diagram."

Original NYT diagram reveals US armor vulnerabilitiesSpeaking for the Pentagon, US Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said they've only "taken the Times' principled approach a bit further" and, similarly, identified vulnerable areas in the gear of the New York Times reporters. "Let them taste their own medicine. We trust that the progressive New York Times staff won't mind our publication since it strictly follows their own guidelines in fairness, impartiality, and newsworthiness," Rumsfeld said.

"It's a disgrace," retorted Keller in his statement. "Only we can decide what the world has the right to know. It is our God-given monopoly. The Pentagon ought to think harder whether a public's right to know might overwrite somebody's right to work against this country and its government."

"The Times have long been acting like spoiled brats that kick their parents in the shin knowing full well that the parents won't retaliate and will still protect them," the Secretary of Defense concluded. "We thought we might teach them a little lesson in responsibility by walking away and just leaving them alone in the street for a while."


US military retaliates by researching weak spots in reporters' body armor

If I'm not mistaken, it seems to me that soldier is trying to mug that brave,courageous,provacative,honest reporters purse!

We need to disarm the troops so we can make sure that can never happen again.

I am disturbed by the picture of torture being inflicted upon that brave reporter. More importantly however, I demand an investigation into the leak of the analysis of our dear comrades in the NYT. I know Rove was involved in the leak. I don't have any proof but that doesn't matter. Rove was involved, and no doubt Cheney was as well.

On a side note, is the NYT going to receive medals on behalf of the People because of their glorious efforts to inflict defeat on the capitalist Amerikkkans?

My only concern is why isn the New York Times investigating Global Warming a little more. I mean both coasts could be under water in a manner of minutes!!!!! Then ManBear Pig will be the Overlord the United States and Al Gore will be sad. He was the only voice of reason man!!!!!

Che Baabaabooie wrote:My only concern is why isn the New York Times investigating Global Warming a little more. I mean both coasts could be under water in a manner of minutes!!!!! Then ManBear Pig will be the Overlord the United States and Al Gore will be sad. He was the only voice of reason man!!!!!

I agree, comrade. We need to listen to Comrade, I mean President Gore more. Few things scare me more than ManBearPig being supreme Overlord. After all, he is half man, half bear, and half pig. This combination frightens me alot. And yes, I am being super, super serial. Maybe the Times can publish one of their famous exposes exposing that the Bush regime had a plan to wage war on the environment.

Impenetrable, perhaps?