Why Were Dead Soldiers OK When Clinton Was in Charge?
Boy, those democrats sure hate to sacrifice soldiers in a battle against an enemy determined to destroy us.
Why then were democrats OK with sacrificing even more soldiers during the Clinton years?...
...During peacetime?
Click to Enlarge
Results from official government figures via Murdoc Online.
Honestly... You never heard them complain about military casualties during the Clinton years when we were not at war.
What gives?
Could it really be just a political game for democrats?
Why are democrats so concerned suddenly about military deaths when the US lost more than twice as many soldiers during the Clinton years than during the military campaigns in Iraq... and Afghanistan... combined?
Click to Enlarge
Numbers taken from Iraq Coalition Casualty Count and Operation Enduring Freedom websites. (4-22-2007)
Just wondering.
posted by Gateway Pundit at 4/22/2007 11:12:00 AM
14 Comments:
wow! is this true? I had no idea. Just another proof that how much the media is in bed with Liberals.
Frieda-YES!
The links to the data are posted.
denial is HUGE on the left.
some other examples:
cold weather = bad weather, but warm weather = AGW!
bubba's bubble was a great economy, but bush's "dow 13,000" sucks and is unfair!
bush spends a higher % on medicare and education and vet healthcare than clinton but bush is heartless penny pincher who riobs from the poor to give to the rich.
clinton made war on serbia without congressional approval but was a dove.
bush got both UN and congressional approval - and has a UN mandate and an IRAQ government request to stay, but he's a rampaging warmonger.
and so on.
leftists are fantsists deep in denial.
they pose as truthers but they wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on their asses.
btw: check out my post on: "DUBYA STANDS FOR WIMP"
This post has been removed by the author.
Sorry, I'll try to post these links correctly...
But I got two different .pdf's here...
http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf
and
http://www.murdoconline.net/pics/Death_Rates.pdf
If you look at the death rates during Bush, they're different. One is hosted by a 'right' site, and the other (with higher Bush deaths) seems to be related to the Dept. of Defense.
Which one's correct?
Adam- You'll have to look at your pdf's again.
They are the same thing.
One has another year of data.
Should we be suprised that the party of the Seditious & Sleazy should lie & whine about dead soldiers?
They are after all the party of the faux war heros... Just look at the following three pathological liars:
Sen. Tom Harkin
Sen. John Kerry
Rep. John Murtha
I see... sorry, I was a little loopy last night....
Anyway, the numbers still don't line up exactly for '03 and '04, but I suppose they're close enough to account for some error or new info?
At any rate, I don't get where the numbers come from on the graph. It's comparing TOTAL deaths during Clinton (including accidents, etc...) to only IRAQ deaths with Bush; of course it's going to be higher. And the '486' during 2003 to '1213' during Clinton? Where does the '486' come from? What I see, is 560 'Hostile' deaths (i.e. deaths that were very knowingly willed into being) compared to '0' for Clinton for 2003. 2004? Bush: 737 Clinton: 0
Of course you're not going to make a big deal out of peacetime deaths (the majority of these during Clinton being accidents I might add).
By the way, if I'm missing something here, let me know. I'm using Murdoc's version here.
It's the same reason the 32 students killed in Virginia get more press than the people in your local obituary page, or even the countless people killed in gang wars, if you want to compare apples to apples.
Let's really look at the numbers shall we.
Total active military deaths from 1981-1988 (Reagan) 17201 (avg 2150 per year). 58 from hostile action. That's 0.33%.
Total active military deaths from 1989-1992 (Bush, Sr.) 6223 (avg 1555 per year). 170 from hostile action. That's 2.73%.
Total active military deaths from 1993-2000 (Clinton) 7500 (avg 938 per year). 2 from hostile action. That's a 0.01%.
Total active military deaths from 2001-2004 (Bush, Jr.) 5187 (avg 1296 per year). 1102 from hostile action. That's a 21.24%.
Straight from the same source.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics" - B. Disraeli
Flame away.
Nice job, iam.
And that doesn't count the casualties of private contractors, which make up about half of the fighting force.
(Well, we know that four of them were killed, burned, and hung from a bridge.)
Neocons post Apples and Oranges data. Total clinton deths versus only Iraq Bush deaths. Typical Neocon lies and deception. BTW, where are the WMDs?
wow this site is just corrupted as what everyone claims the media to be. It's kinda funny that deaths will be placed under clintons name, when desert storm started under the Bush years.Clinton came at he end of the operation. But i guess it's easy to say it when you have a bunch of people on a web site that think the exact same way.
I think this page does a nice job of presenting more facts and information instead of skewed numbers that fit a specific agenda.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_more_soldiers_die_during_bill_clintons.html
Gateway Pundit forgot to post links to data such as military size, all deaths, contractor deaths etc.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home