The New York Times anti-gun agenda is spreading to their foreign coorespondents. Last week, they issued a mandate to their foreign reports in war zones that the carrying of firearms is strictly prohibited. The anti-gun policy change for the Times comes right after several reporters were killed in Iraq.

Earlier this week in Iraq, two CNN employees died from gunshot wounds when their vehicle was ambushed. A third employee in another vehicle was injured. A security adviser traveling with the convoy was credited for saving the lives of the other journalists and employees.

"There is no doubt in my mind that if our security adviser had not returned fire, everyone in our vehicle would have been killed," said CNN correspondent Michael Holmes in a statement. "This was not an attempted robbery; they were clearly trying to take us out."

The security officer returned fire WITH A GUN. Had he worked for the Times under their new policy, his only means of defense would have been begging for mercy and peeing himself. Have they learned nothing from the murder of Daniel Pearl? (Ironically, a Times reporter won the Daniel Pearl Prize last year.)

So what is the Times reason for disarming their reporters the week after several U.S. foreign coorespondents were murdered in Iraq? Well apparently they think the CNN guys brought it on themselves.

"The carrying of a weapon, for whatever reason, jeopardizes a journalist's status as neutral," Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis told CNSNews.com. "For the same reason, it's also important that Times journalists do not travel with or accompany other journalists they know to be carrying weapons."

Murderous fanatics like their victims unarmed, and the NY Times is happy to oblige in the interest of neutrality.