The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMichelle Malkin Archive
The Blabbermouth Media Strikes Again
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks


(Image credit: PTG, 2006 NYT blabbermouths photoshop contest 2006)

Last week, it was the Washington Post spilling the beans on the nation’s post-9/11 top-secret infrastructure.

Today, it’s the NYTimes dutifully splashing vengeful Wikileaks’ massive document dump on our Afghanistan military strategy.

The Times tries not to break its collective arm patting itself on the back for its valiant struggle to publish the documents. As if it could resist.

Remember: From September 11, 2001 to the present, the terror-tipping blabbermouths of the New York Times have repeatedly undermined national security by disclosing sensitive/classified information about many key counterrorism programs. The paper has gone to court to force the government to release such information. The paper has shown reckless disregard for the consequences of disclosure.

The only time it has shown any restraint is when disclosure would endanger one of its own reporters.

The Fishwrap of Record: Our enemies’ favorite rag.

Commenter corkie quotes from the NYTimes’ disclaimer:

Information that is marked “secret” has been determined to be information or material that the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause “serious damage” to the national security.

So the New York Times is freely admitting that they don’t concern themselves with risking serious damage to national security.

The fact that this information wasn’t marked Top Secret allows the Times to pretend that they wouldn’t have published material that has been determined to cause “exceptionally grave damage” to the national security. It’s nice to see that they deny contributing to exceptionally grave damage while being complicit in contributing to serious damage.

Flashback: From our 2006 Blabbermouth NYTimes photoshop contest (more here)…

The Peoples Cube:


HA affiliate Sanctuary Bryan:


John McG.:


Bob D.:


Verum Serum:




Xardoz (hat tip –

Impacted Wisdom Truth):


Richard Pucillo:


Are We Lumberjacks?:


George Ratton:



Supreme Court to NYTimes: Buzz off

Terrorist-tipping NYTimes wants Ruth Ginsburg’s help

Blabbermouth damage, again

When blabbermouths lie: question the timing

The newspaper of wreckage

How about a nice big glass of…

The terrorist-tipping Times

More blabbermouth posters

Messages for the blabbermouths

Backlash against the blabbermouths

NYTimes blabbermouths strike again

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: New York Times, War