The New York Post goes after The New York Times:

Is the number of killings by combat vets dramatically higher than the rate involving people of the same age who’ve never served in the military?

It’s a good question – in fact, it’s the key question. But the Times never asked it. Or, if it did, it never reported the answer.

Perhaps for good reason – because the statistics tell a far different tale than that appearing in the Times.

As Peters noted, "to match the homicide rate of their [nonmilitary] peers, our troops would’ve had to come home and commit about 150 murders a year, for a total of 700 to 750 murders between 2003 and the end of 2007" – six times the number the Times cited.

That estimate is borne out by University of Pennsylvania political scientist John DiIulio, who notes on the Weekly Standard’s Web site that 749,932 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan had been discharged by the end of 2007. Apply that to the 121 killings cited by the Times, and the homicide rate works out to 16.1 per 100,000 – over the entire six-year period.

By way of imperfect comparison, the US Bureau of Justice Statistics’ most recent numbers demonstrate that the same rate among males ages 18-24 was 26.5 – 65 percent higher – for a single year, 2005.

It’s not necessary to extrapolate that stat to understand that the Times has slandered some fine young Americans.

For none of those numbers appeared among the 7,000 words the paper published. Which means that the numbingly long piece, while loaded with affecting details, contained nothing that would place these cases in any sort of meaningful context.

Clearly, the Times was out to suggest that the experience of war creates post-traumatic stress disorder, which – if untreated – creates a horde of psychotic killers in combat fatigues.

Who’s editing the paper these days – Oliver Stone?

The Times suggests that it has only the best interests of our men and women in uniform at heart. But ignoring the numbers that disprove its case out of hand is a disservice to the vets – and certainly to America.

The Times has committed a gross slander. And that’s simply unforgivable.

For shame.