The figures aren't deceptive if "deaths from various non-combat causes such as training accidents" are included in both totals. To compare "combat" totals seems misleading because, of course, the totals during the Clinton years (pre-9/11) should be a lot less because we were not fighting a major war. That would be like comparing Hoover & FDR (WWII).

Incidences such as the following would not be included in Clinton's "combat" totals, would they?

October 12, 2000 -- The USS Cole bombing -- 17 sailors

June 25, 1996 -- Khobar Towers bombing -- 19 U.S. Air Force servicemen

"US Active Duty Military Deaths"

"The press has focused with relentless intensity on the raw number total of casualties, without regard to the size of the force or comparisons to the toll paid annually just in training to be able to fight. And in doing so, they have performed a disservice to anyone who lost their life wearing the uniform, but not facing an actual enemy."

"Take a look at the actual US Military Casualty figures since 1980. If you do the math, you wil [sic] find quite a few surprises. First of all, let's compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents." [

George W. Bush . . . . . 5194 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6224 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9162 (1981-1984)

"Even during the (per MSM) utopic peacetime of Bill Clinton's term, we lost 4302 service personnel. H.W. Bush and Reagan actually lost significantly more personnel while never fighting an extensive war, much less a simulaltaneous [sic] war on two theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan). Even the dovish Carter lost more people duing [sic] his last year in office, in 1980 lost 2392, than W. has lost in any single year of his presidency. (2005 figures are not available but I would wager the numbers would be slightly higher than 2004.)"

"Lies, Damn Lies, and (MSM) Statistics" & "US Military Casualty Figures Since 1980" (PDF)

For a little perspective:

Civil War -- 364,511 total deaths

WWI -------- 116,516 total deaths

WWII ------- 405,399 total deaths

Korean ------ 36,574 total deaths

You included the USS Cole bombing and the Khobar towers bombing, and those are certainly valid--I should have included them as well. Ironically, I was in Khobar towers about a month before it got hit, but I forgot to include those numbers when I composed the list.

The total US Military casualties you quote have a simple explanation. The reason that the numbers were higher in Reagan's years than later is because we were still in the cold war, so our total numbers of US military personnel on active duty were significantly higher than in the late 90s. This is not a negative reflection on Reagan or H.W. Bush or Clinton, it's just a reflection of the reality that out of every 100,000 young adults, you will have a few deaths by car accident, by cancer, by suicide, and so on. So comparing the total number of military deaths during the Clinton years versus during the Bush years is somewhat meaningless. A comparison of the combat deaths during their respective terms in office is much more meaningful.

As you pointed out, our losses in Iraq are, so far, much less than our losses in other major wars. On the other hand, my contention is that our losses in Iraq were unnecessary, unlike the losses in WWI, WWII and even Afghanistan. That's why the numbers are somewhat irrelevant. The war in Afghanistan was a needed response to an attack on the US, but the invasion in Iraq was not.

That's why they call it the "Dept. of Defense", not the Dept. of Force Projection. Military force should only be used in defense of our nation. But I digress.

Bottom line: why is it relevant to compare the military deaths during various different presidential terms? The truth is that it is a meaningless statistic that spin-doctors are using to spin the bad news from Iraq.

Thanks for your inputs, Denice.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

Mixer is just continuing the Big Lie technique. W learned from hanging w/ Lee Attwater & found a similar soul in Rove (why isn't he indicted?). I found this blog interesting...

Being from Texas we have watched Karl Rove mold himself to be just like Lee Attwater. It has been written that when Attwater was dying he pled for forgiveness for all of the dirty dealings and smear tactics used against the Democrats and anyone else who disagreed with his opinion or policy.

Rove has forgotten that part of Attwater's life.

There is something about; there is no more religious Jew than a dying Jew. (No offense intended).

Exactly how many bills has Bush vetoed?

Maximus
__________________________
Stop Global Whining

Oh, please. (roll eyes) The thin Democratic majority has been stymied by the Bush Republican Loyalists blocking legislation in the Senate so that it never gets to Bush to actually veto. Then, they talk about the failure of the Democrats to reverse 6 years of corruption in 6 months as though they have nothing to do with the lack of progress on the constituents' agenda. I have my problems with the Dems but, c'mon, at least put the blame squarely where it belongs.

I'm perfectly fine with Congress . . . just not my representatives. I've got my campaign contributions budget lined up and I'm starting to look for the right candidate to oppose Chambliss (anybody but Vernon Can't-Keep-It-In-His-Pants Jones, thank you). An independent is preferred but a Democrat will do, for now.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

I'm almost certain he hasn't met a spending bill he doesn't like. And forget beating Saxby. Your money would be better spent on the "Tarpgate" right here in PTC.

the “thin” majority of the dems under the stellar leadership of Pelosi and Reid are getting walked all over by the republicans? I guess that’s how you leftists try to explain the 14% approval rating that congress has.

So, how many bills has Bush vetoed from the democrat controlled congress?

Speaking of 14%, if you’re “perfectly fine with congress”, you’re one of the very few.

Maximus

__________________________
Stop Global Whining

the “thin” majority of the dems under the stellar leadership of Pelosi and Reid are getting walked all over by the republicans? I guess that’s how you leftists try to explain the 14% approval rating that congress has.

No, my point is that the Republican spin job of pointing to Congressional approval ratings as being solely the product of Democratic failures is a garbage argument. People hate congress for any number of reasons (corruption in both parties, the infestation of lobbyists, politicization of the business of the citizenry, etc.). The fact is that a 14% approval rating is more likely to be the product of Republican policies coming home to roost after the Democrats got control; after all, they've only had control for 6 months. It's like buying a house with an old air conditioning system. The system might work well enough to entice you into buying the house but, after closing, when the system stops working, the repair bill is yours to pay.

And, it is disingenuous for the Republicans to disclaim any responsibility for Congress' failure to do the business of the people. They're stonewalling on troop re-deployment, on censure of the President (and his sock puppet, W, too) and energy independence, and this garbage "approval rating" is their way of rolling out propaganda. Here's what the Republicans are essentially saying, "See? They're no better. You don't want to elect any more Democrats. Look how much we got accomplished [by steamrolling the other side]. You want to be with a successful team [even if they successfully fleece you out of jobs, homes and taxes]. So, don't vote for any more of them. It won't do you any good."

It would be funny if there weren't naive people (and I'm trying to put that kindly) willing to believe it.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

"The fact is that a 14% approval rating is more likely to be the product of Republican policies coming home to roost after the Democrats got control; after all, they've only had control for 6 months."

Oh boy. So, even if we stretch the first 100 hours in to the first 100 days, and then stretch it again to 180 days...oh, heck.

Okay, let's try this: Facts: the number of democrats in congress increased and the approval rating of congress decreased. An inverse relationship.

And you think 'we' spin?

Here you go- a nice dose of that liberal love fest at the absolute most liberal of information outlets, NPR:

"Democrats took office in January with a 43 percent approval rating, which has now dropped below 30 percent. The biggest drop is among Democrats. The most disaffected are independents."

Now granted, that was taken six days ago.

This one: "Americans' Confidence in Congress at All-Time Low", I like much better. It even tells us that the last time we saw numbers almost this low the, guess who - democrats - controlled congress. Wow.

Remarkably, they are actually lower than George W. Bush's approval ratings. OUCH!"

You made him disappear.

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video