I heard this on Rush yesterday and feel compelled to post on it. According to this DOD report, the death rates of military personnel were not much different in the first few years of Clinton's administration compared to Bush's first few years with a war.
In fact, we have lost a little over 3000 of our military in the last four years fighting in Iraq which is about 750 per year. During Clinton's first four years in office, the military lost over 4000 or 1000 per year. From 1980 to 2004, it looks like we lost approx 1000 a year on average. The numbers went down during the last years of Clinton but that is due to his significant cuts in the military.
This goes to show how ridiculous the daily MSM military death count is. It is so out of proportion to reality and exposes their anti-war, pacifist agenda.
Nice for Rush to compare apples to oranges. The CLinton rates were for non-combat related deaths. The Bush rates are ONLY for combate related deaths. They don't take into account non-combat related deaths. Do some research before you spout that Rush is right. He is typically wrong.
ReplyDeleteThese are not apples to oranges metrics, one apple falls off the tree the other gets picked and ends up smashed into apple sauce. The peacetime Clinton years saw an increase of military deaths mostly due to a reduction in training frequency, and military folks train with live ordnance and large vehicles or equipment, none of which is forgiving of a mistake. In Desert Storm we saw a similar effect with death rates in combat being historically LOWER than non-combat accident rates. Certainly Vietnam was far higher than non-combat deaths due to the terrain, failure to recognize a 4GW opponent that we fought as a 2or3GW opponent. Combat safety and medical practices in the field are far better. So back to the current problem, the deaths are more violent in Iraq and Afghanistan, but are less frequent than current military training and accident death rates. Do your homework my friend.
ReplyDelete