The New Lepers (NY Post on the NY Slimes' whacko vet theory)

New York Post online ^ | Ralph Peters

[StarCMC]

I'VE had a huge response to Tuesday's column about The New York Times' obscene bid to smear veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan as mad killers. Countless readers seem to be wondering: Why did the paper do it?

Well, in the Middle Ages, lepers had to carry bells on pain of death to warn the uninfected they were coming. One suspects that the Times would like our military veterans to do the same.

The purpose of Sunday's instantly notorious feature "alerting" the American people that our Iraq and Afghanistan vets are all potential murderers when they move in next door was to mark those defenders of freedom as "unclean" - as the new lepers who can't be trusted amid uninfected Americans.

In the more than six years since 9/11, the Times has never run a feature story half as long on any of the hundreds of heroes who've served our country - those who've won medals of honor, distinguished service crosses, Navy crosses, silver stars or bronze stars with a V device (for valor).

But the Times put a major investigative effort into the "sensational" story that 121 returning vets had committed capital offenses (of course, 20 percent of the cases cited involved manslaughter charges stemming from drunken driving, not first- or second-degree murder . . . ).

*snip*

Again, the Times' smear certainly wasn't an accident. The paper's staff is highly paid and highly experienced. Its editors know that a serious news story has to put numbers into context. But their sole attempt at context was to note that offenses by former soldiers have ticked up since we went to war.

The Times is trying to make you fear our veterans...to convince you that our military would be...a death-machine that would turn [your sons and daughters] into incurable psychopaths.

[Turret Gunner A20]

Ping for later

[Billthedrill]

An excellent reply to a story that was simply astounding in its superficiality. The actual source of the original story was an antiwar "expert" whose livelihood depends on the ability to portray veterans as damaged human beings. That the NY Times chose to give him a sounding-board was explicable only by the fact that he fits their narrative regarding the war. That they should do so on the basis of such flimsy and easily-refuted statistics speaks purely to a lack of professionalism.

[RobinOfKingston]

There is far more reason to fear the “Old Grey Witch” than to fear our vets of any era.

[GATOR NAVY]

OIF vet who hasn’t murdered anyone bump.

[StarCMC]

That they should do so on the basis of such flimsy and easily-refuted statistics speaks purely to a lack of professionalism.

But...but...but I thought Helen Thomas said that it was the PROFESSIONALS who had the ethics and the bloggers were the ones who didn't....? *eyeroll*

[StarCMC]

ROFL!! Nice!

[Titan Magroyne]

You’re right. That was worth every minute spent reading.

“...reflects the Freudian terrors leftists feel when confronted with men who don’t have concave chests...”

Freakin priceless!

Although the short author bio line at the end means I could be in harm’s way, heh!