Since the invasion of Iraq was little more than speculation one word kept creeping into the lexicon of the American political scene: Vietnam.  Whether the talk was about how many lives would be lost compared to Vietnam or the “exit strategy” that would lead us into a Vietnam-like quagmire the idea was constantly being put into the back of our heads that Iraq is another Vietnam.

Once the invasion happened the talk of Vietnam began again.  It took a little bit longer, but first came the bloggers and then the politicians who were all too willing to begin branding the battle of Iraq as George Bush’s Vietnam.

Debate over Iraq and the non-stop front page stories about either wrong doing of individual servicemen (Abu Ghraib, Haditha or other individual acts of so-called misconduct) or the inability of the Bush Administration to get a handle on Iraq kept the front pages sufficiently filled with anti-war fodder for the left.  As payback to the Democrats, the American people allowed them to gain control of the Congress in 2006.  The front page offensive was working.

Since the War on Terror began the American people were consistently assured by war critics that they opposed the war, but supported the troops. The position is insane since you cannot support men and women at war if you believe the war they are fighting is illegal, unethical or in opposition to the opinion of the people in Luxembourg or leaders in France, but the facade of support held.

So convincing was the barrage of “I support the troops” that even I started to believe it was possible to support troops, but not their mission (it was a momentary lapse I assure you).

Then came General David Petraeus and the troop surge designed to actually make Iraq a more stable place so that the political reconciliation that was necessary for Iraq to move forward could take place.  After a series of hearings on Capitol Hill and a backfiring ad campaign bought and paid for by a far left group that openly brags about “owning” the Democratic Congress – many thought that Iraq was lost.

Unfortunately for the majority of large city newspapers Petraeus was able to turn things around in Iraq and as progress is being made and the front pages began to be swept clean of anti-war rhetoric the “I support the troops” mantra began to change.  The anti-war crowd needed a new target because they couldn’t be anti-war without front pages full of bad war stories.

Introducing the new American evil: veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. AKA: the heroes of the War on Terror.

On January 13th the New York Times began a series called War Torn with a 7,000-word front-page story titled ‘Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles’.  The Old Gray Lady’s series opened the door to opposing the war again, but this time not just the war, but the people fighting it.  How? 

By doing a story that showed that 121 homicides involved veterans of either Afghanistan or Iraq.  Not bad when you think about it - 6 years of war so about 20 a year.  That coincides with the number of women Bill Clinton fondled in the White House, the shots of whiskey Ted Kennedy drank before driving a woman off a bridge and the number of times Hillary practiced the sigh and cry before the New Hampshire primary.  Ask Detroit if they’d like six homicides a year.

The story was assailed by other papers and veterans’ service groups who pointed out that even if the Times’ story was true that it did not mean that veterans who served in the War on Terror were more likely to become involved in homicide.  Move America Forward showed just the opposite was true: that since the War on Terror began it is less likely that a veteran would become involved in a homicide compared to their peer group.

So what does this have to do with Vietnam?  Everything!  When Vietnam War veterans returned home they were spat upon in airports and called baby killers when using their GI Bill for college.  Now the Times has all but given permission for veterans to be labeled as sinister killers simply because they ran out of stories to help get Democrats elected; so much for the heretofore unchallengeable “we support the troops” mantra.

Remember that every time anyone challenged the assertion that you cannot support the troops without supporting their mission people ran for cover as desks were banged with clenched fists for that was a question of someone’s patriotism.  Well, the genie is out of the bottle and their patriotism is challenged.  Not supporting the war is fine and pretending to support the troops was okay too, but to say that veterans have something in them that makes them inherently able to commit homicide is going further than even I thought they would go.

For the first time since the War on Terror began I am talking to veterans either on my radio program, at the VA Medical Center in La Jolla or active duty guys who feel that the story in the Times damaged them.  Of all the other stories that were printed, all of the other things that said our men and women in uniform were doing evil instead of good – this one hits home because it does not discriminate between vets.  It paints everyone serving today as capable of murder. 

The Wall Street Journal lamented in response to the Times’ article, “The Times didn't try to establish a causal relationship between war service and homicide. It didn't even try to establish a correlation.” The New York Post’s Ralph Peters did his own math and concluded, using the Times’ stats that even if the article figures are accurate that Afghanistan and Iraq war vets are only about one-fifth as likely to be implicated in a homicide.  Hardly a ringing endorsement of the dozens of people involved at the New York Times’help the Democrats at any price hit squad.

The Times was looking for something, anything, which could fill the area that they devoted to making the Iraq war the central issue in the 2008 campaign.  When things began looking up in Iraq they had to find a new target and the easiest target in any war are the men and women fighting it.  From there it was easy to find a topic because nothing scares the American people like a bunch of highly trained killers roaming the country just looking for their next target.

Of course there is a flip side to the bad done to veterans in the article.  We no longer have to pretend to buy into the smoke and mirror “I support the troops, but not the war” facade because it was exposed by the Times as the complete absurdity that it is and always has been.

The only thing to worry about now are the men and women who will return to the United States after serving in some of the most dangerous circumstances since Vietnam to a public and a press that is willing to paint them capable of the most horrific of crimes.  I hope the Times is proud of what they’ve done – I am disgusted, but finally we get to debate how anti-American they and their supporters are… without being worried about being accused of calling their patriotism into account because I am – loud and clear.

The Times and their supporters of this article are unpatriotic pansies that sit in New York demanding someone protect their first amendment right to publish obtuse studies that have no academic merit.  I wonder if the people who wrote the article realize that the people protecting their right to a free press are the same people they paint as capable of murder?  If I were working at the New York Times I would fear that one of these deranged veterans would figure out where they are.  Watch, the next article in the series will be how stupid the troops are too. 

Anyone have the ten-digit grid for 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY?

Steve Yuhas is a radio talk show host on AM 600 KOGO in southern California and may be reached atsteve@steveyuhas.com or www.steveyuhas.com