ARE AMERICAN MILITARY DEATHS UNDER BUSH AND CLINTON COMPARABLE?
FITSNews – June 24, 2008 – So here’s a trick question: Have more U.S. soldiers died under the war-happy presidency of George W. Bush or the blissfully ignorant peacetime years that marked the Bill Clinton era?
Of course the answer is that more military deaths have occurred on Bush’s watch, but according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, the gap is not as wide as you would expect.
According to the findings from CRS, 7,500 American military personnel died during Clinton’s eight years in office compared to 8,792 during the first six years of Bush’s presidency.
But hold on a minute … we sensed there was something fishy about these numbers when we first looked at the report, and it turns out we were right …
It turns out that when you break the numbers down by category, you discover that “military deaths” and “combat deaths” are two totally different things.
The total number of combat deaths (or fatalities from hostile action) have actually soared under Bush’s tenure, prompting the CRS to say that “distorted versions of (the report) have been circulating through the Internet. As the tables here and on the Department of Defense website show, total military deaths and hostile deaths increased from 2001 to 2005, and then decreased in 2006.”
Amazingly, the report lists only one combat fatality for the duration of the Clinton presidency (apparently the nineteen U.S. soldiers killed in Somalia are recorded as victims of a “terrorist action”).
Under Bush, there have been 2,260 combat fatalities (through 2006, anyway) and 122 military deaths due to terrorist action.
More recent figures have the current American military death toll in Iraq at 4,070.
As we’ve written in the past, we think America’s “War on Terror” was a poorly-justified, poorly-executed mistake. We favor things like nuclear weapons and carpet bombing for nations that mess with us, because in the words of one of our favorite generals, “it kills more of them and less of us.”
Of course, America’s disdain for the unpopular war has waned considerably in recent months. Even Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has largely ditched the anti-war bandwagon in favor of addressing economic issues.
That’s been good news to some extent for GOP presidential nominee John McCain, who as we’ve also written in the past is inexorably tied to America’s success or failure in Iraq. Of course, with McCain endorsing so many flawed economic policies, it’s a double-edged sword.
America’s stomach for war may be getting a little bit stronger, but it remains to be seen whether or not our country’s legendary ability to “bear any burden” will be accompanied by politicians who shoot straight with us.
By Amazing June 25, 2008 at 8:49 am
You are really amazing…. You give Clinton a pass while at a time of peace and slam Bush for only a 17% increase in deaths (although terrible) ….. You want to skew things anyway you can,….. I am beginning to think this is a democratic site!!!!
No one knew or heard of the 7,500 that died under Clinton…. That was not news worthy…..
While those shoulders were dieing, he was getting a head job from Monica….. and everyone said —- Hey that is ok!
By Chuck June 27, 2008 at 5:45 am
OK – First you need to include a live link to the source that says the US military death toll was that high under Clinton. It’s just part of being credible cyber-journalists. That’s an easy fix – right?
But the rest isn’t so easy. It’s about perception of reality.
You see there is something very important that you folks missed as you followed the Iraq War:
THE IRAQ WAR IS A LIE !
Typical for an educated lefty, I saw it coming. I was familiar with the background of the players, their flaws, their fears, their lack of integrity. I knew Baby George desperately wanted to out-do his father and “go into Baghdad like they should have back in ’91″. And I knew that Cheney was a CEO for a huge defense contracting firm (he’s still paid over $1 million/year by Halliburton). And I knew that Cheney had worked with Enron and oil companies on a secret plan to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan (The meetings were held in the White House, yet all attempts to retrieve notes on the meetings have been defeated. So much for the White House being “the peoples’ house”.)
I guess my eyes are a little faster – You see, as I watched George, Dick, Colin, and the entire US mass media perform the blatant bait-and-switch of Saddam for Osama, it was a non-starter for me. It was clearly a way for oil interests and war profiteers to use the tragedy of 911 to make a killing (pun intended). I was stunned that they actually convinced so many that the US should end it’s 227-year-old policy of not starting wars.
You folks missed the swap (how could you???), and you allowed the administration to turn the Iraq War into a seemingly high-minded and necessary fight against evil – much like WWII ACTUALLY was. And you even let that cabal convince you that opposition to their war-for-profit (war-for-respectability in Baby George’s case) was a form of treason.
You are still not aware of the truths I speak above, or else your egos are very cunning in the use of denial and confusion.
And what is the message of your piece about body counts? Your message here is that when it comes to military disaster, Baby George is no worse than Clinton. Are you serious?
Of course you are. You’ve bought into a whole universe of lies. I don’t want to scare you, but your universe is crumbling, as all lies eventually do. If you had proper integrity, you’d spend the next few years shunning the uneducated windbags like Imus, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and read the war accounts of real people who participated at the infantry level – the killing level. And you should spend your mornings and evenings meditating to try to discern REALITY – which would necessarily include the pain that the hawkish rich have inflicted on our country and the world…. and then, maybe then… return to journalism – with a sense of what it might feel like to have your darling two-year-old daughter blown apart by a cluster-bomb.
Military action is something you undertake only when absolutely necessary – as when a fascist dictator is conquering Europe, or when the Serbs are systematically eradicating the Muslim minority in Yugoslavia.
The suspicion of ownership of chemical weapons or a uranium enrichment plant – particularly when the knowledgeable people of reason and integrity* are telling you that you are mistaken – is not justification for war.
The actions of the Bush administration with regard to Iraq (and just about everything else) are unacceptable and criminal. If there was ever a President that needed to be impeached, it is this one.
Why “needed”? Because when crimes of this magnitude go unacknowledged and unpunished, nothing is learned, and the same deadly chicanery will only continue.
Chuck R
* Read Joe Wilson, dozens of unnamed CIA career analysts, many smart people in the millitary, and many former presidential advisers. By the way, the outing of Mr. Wilson’s wife, a CIA operative, is treason, and Bush, Cheney, and liar-in-chief Rove are guilty. All the more reason why impeachment is a necessary and urgent matter.