The New York Times and our Soldier-Murderers

If you depend on the New York Times for your information, you’d be forgiven for thinking that American troops are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan and littering the streets of America with murder victims.

In Part 1 of “War Torn: A series of articles and multimedia about veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who have committed killings, or been charged with them, after coming home,” we hear some frightening anecdotes.

Town by town across the country, headlines have been telling similar stories. Lakewood, Wash.: “Family Blames Iraq After Son Kills Wife.” Pierre, S.D.: “Soldier Charged With Murder Testifies About Postwar Stress.” Colorado Springs: “Iraq War Vets Suspected in Two Slayings, Crime Ring.” Individually, these are stories of local crimes, gut-wrenching postscripts to the war for the military men, their victims and their communities. Taken together, they paint the patchwork picture of a quiet phenomenon, tracing a cross-country trail of death and heartbreak.


The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress of deployment – along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems – appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.

My RSS reader is already running hot with American and Australian MSM outlets repeating the New York Times’ implications in headlines such as “Rise in homicides by US Iraq war vets”

Thankfully, the Blogosphere is already on to this. So far, The Democracy Project, Winds of Change and Media Lies all take issue with the New York Times’ maths — debunking the meme of the Murderous Vet that the Times is trying to push. After doing the sums, Media Lies concludes,

In other words, the homicide rate for returning military personnel is dramatically lower — one-half to less than one-third as much as the general population. The entire thesis of the story is not only false but portrays the exact opposite of the truth!

After similarly taking the NYTs’ figures apart, Democracy Project comments, “In short, the NYT has no serious methodology but a serious agenda.”

Winds of Change answers their own question as to why the NYT does not publicise the fact that returned soldiers are actually less likely to become murderers: “Because it’s not part of the narrative of how our soldiers are either depraved or damaged.”

All this, less than 24 hours after the New York Times piece was published. All I can say is, Wow. And, Thank you.

Oh, almost forgot. The NY Times Public Editor can be reached at

UPDATE: From Sandi in comments, a link to this very topic under discussion at over at the Swiftvets site.

UPDATE #2: I’m finding more and more blogs on this subject as time goes by and I’ll be listing the ones I think are worth a read. Phil Carter calls “bullshit.” Abu Muqawama has a great post discussing the “Rambo” connection. Michelle Malkin headlines, “Hey, NYT: 99.98 percent of all discharged Iraq and Afghanistan vets have not committed or been charged with homicide.” John J. Dilulio Jr. of The Weekly Standard busts the NYT’s wacko-vet myth

UPDATE #3: Bob Owens published a piece today (17 January) which offers a much more in-depth analysis of this.  Read it.

Posted in Temp. 18 Comments »

18 Responses to “The New York Times and our Soldier-Murderers”

  1. tizona Says:

    Friggin collaborator’s. Guess NYT is still stuck on stupid, with a large ass does of Walter Duranty.

  2. spot_the_dog Says:

    Yeah, well “our” A-B-f’ing-C (Australian Broadcast Corporation) was the first of the Aussie news outlets to spread the “good” news: Rise in homicides by US Iraq war vets And their article is via Reuters. Quelle surprise!

  3. Angus Dei Says:

    Look, this is good news/good news/good news/bad news.

    1] The first good news is, the US military guys – the Army of God – is not going to stand for being slimed my the Old Gay Lady today as they did during Viet Nam. Fool me once, and all that. Water off a duck’s back.

    2] The majority of the American public ain’t gonna buy it either. The gay culture morons who run the NYT are blind to this.

    3] This is another nail (as IF another was required) in the putrefying carcass of the MSM. The sooner they are completely dead, the better.

    4] The only bad news is that there is still any of the MSM left to spout this vitriol. “Time” will eliminate this problem soon enough, which is a gorgeous enough irony.

  4. Ash Says:

    I think it says a lot about the mainstream media that so many people are turning away from them because so many people are realising that they’re absolutely full of it. That must really hurt idealogical pushed papers like the NYT, and here in Aus, the Age.

  5. SandiM Says:

    Spot, Tizona
    I have posted this (with link to here) on the SwiftVets site at title NYT desperately seeking to slime Iraq and Afghanistan vets.

    The die-hard lefties, especially at the NYSlimes, will go to any lengths to make something out of nothing if they think they can sell an anti-military “story”. We can not let them get away with it. We can act, in the only form we have available to us, by emailing a rebuttal to every form of media that publishes this crap. We can also widen our reach by posting this, and anything else that reeks of such treachery, to every other blog we support.

    It’s not a lot, but it’s something we can do besides just being pissed off.

  6. tizona Says:

    Excellent SandiM,

    There lies no doubt as to what you have presented, here.

    The only LIES presented are those of the Left…so far Left, that the name of Walter Duranty, stirs once again at the NYT. Trouble is, the NYT…loves it.

    Anything to help bring down, that what makes them FREE to scribe and spew the garbage that they do, is exactly what they will do.

  7. tizona Says:

    OH…forgot, SandiM….Did I or did I NOT see letters next to your name?

    Let me see if I can recall those…ummm, Lt.jg…I think…:).

  8. SandiM Says:

    Did you see Site Admin’s response?

    “Sandi…thanks for bringing this info to the forum…I hadn’t taken note of the NY Times article till now…and that Tizona’s website is a keeper.”


    “Let me see if I can recall those…ummm, Lt.jg…I think…:).”
    I wish! That’s just a site honorific related to the number of posts.

  9. SandiM Says:

    Ooops! Weblog. Weblog Weblog. Sorry, boss.

  10. David M. Says:

    They want to smear Iraq vets the way they did Vietnam vets and that’s just wrong. Look what happened to some Vietnam vets. Sure, some of them came out in some ways damaged, but the way they got treated when they came home made it 10 times worse, and even vets who came home OK got damaged by the way they were spit on and called baby killers and murderers.

    What’s in it for those liberal pussys? Maybe they can’t stand the fact that some men are brave and passionate enough to actually go to war in the first place and they care enough about America to even risk dying for it, so these liberals sit behind there comfy desks with the ***FREEDOM OF SPEECH*** that other men fought and died for and try to take them down.

    SISSY LIBERAL PUKES, you are not going to succeed this time, people will not listen to you or believe you because there are groups like Swift Vets who will take YOU down.

  11. Kae Says:

    Have Lancet now produced a book of logarithms?

  12. tizona Says:


    I didn’t know they practiced that…Like no pills, IUDS or sponges?

  13. spot_the_dog Says:

    Kae, interesting idea — maybe they had Soros’ mates over at the Lancet do their sums for them.

  14. spot_the_dog Says:

    I’ve just added two more links here to blogs discussing this NYT article. If anyone finds any more good ones, please let me know and I’ll add them. Ta.

  15. Media Outlet Changes Picture of Baghdad Snow; Iraq Re-Gloomified « Tizona’s Weblog Says:

    […] says, between the latest NYT “Vets Turn Rambo” story and the great Un-Snowifying and Re-Gloomification of Baghdad, this has been a very bad week […]

  16. Old Vet Says:

    Wow – I’m sure glad i came across this even tho I was looking for something else.

    Who’s side is the New York Times on anyway?!?

  17. RIP Grey Lady Says:

    Wasn’t the New York Times recently downgraded to “Junk” status?

    Could not have happened to a more deserving rag.

Well, SAY something...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: