Here's an interesting report compiled by the Department of Defense's Manpower Data Center.

What I found most interesting was a comparison of the active duty deaths between the first four years of Bill Clinton's term and the first four years of Bush's term.

Active duty deaths during Clinton's first four years (1993 - 1996): 4302

Active duty deaths during Bush's first four years (2001 - 2004): 5187

The difference? 885 deaths over four years, or about 221 deaths a year. Of course, during Bush's first four years in office we liberated both Afghanistan and Iraq. What did we accomplish, in terms of military victories, during Clinton's first four years in office?

I can't think of a thing.

Unfortunately this report doesn't go beyond 2004, but using some other sources we can develop numbers for additional comparisons. There were another 3,198 active duty deaths under Clinton during the second four years of his term (1997 - 2000). That's about 800 active duty deaths per year. In 2005 - according to these numbers which, admittedly, aren't official - there were 846 active duty casualties. So far in 2006 we've had 139 active duty casualties. Those numbers may be a little low as I believe they may on encapsulate deaths in Iraq, but going with the assumption that most active duty deaths are going to be occurring in Iraq anyway they're probably pretty close.

And regardless, the point is clear: US Military active duty deaths simply have not gone up that much despite the fact that we've fought two major wars, liberating two formerly oppressed countries, and have struggled against an active terror insurgency in both countries ever since. Given the numbers above it is safe to say that fighting two major wars has resulted in an annual active-duty death total that is only about 250 (give or take) more than the annual total from a time when this country was relatively at peace.

The media and the anti-war crowd in this country would suggest that our military is depleted. Used up. I would argue that, given the modest increase in active duty deaths despite fighting two wars in two different countries, that we haven't even scratched the surface of what our military is capable of.

None of this is to suggest that military deaths should be taken lightly, yet we are often told of the "high cost" we are paying to wage these wars in the middle east. Is the cost - which is high from the perspective that any U.S. soldier's death is a high price - as high as some would have us believe?

Kind of puts the defeatists in perspective, doesn't it?

http://sayanythingblog.com/2006/03/22/active_duty_deaths_bush_vs_clinton/#comments

I've been saying the same thing for 5 1/2 years now. This draft-dodging rich boy who skated out on his military obligations because he couldn't pass the urine test (I bet). I say impeach the fucker and send him to Iraq to make up his required six years of service, then send him to prison for war crimes. Then impeach Darth cheney and send him and his war profiteering buddies to prison too. Thanks Jo Fish you are more eloquent than me, you put into words what I feel.

250-odd soldiers, more or less, aren't important. There's a true patriot for you.

And you're of course forgetting that the death statistics ignore the 200,000-odd soldiers who have been injured. At least half of those soldiers would have died in other wars. Thanks to advances in battlefield medicine, they're just crippled.

What did Clinton do?

* Settled down the former Yugoslavia and Kosovo, which were active civil wars and potential training grounds for jihadists.
* Restored order in Haiti.
* Ordered airstrikes that took out Saddam's WMD capability.
* Tried to kill Osama bin Laden in 1997-1998 with cruise missiles. Bush didn't realize Osama was a threat until the second plane hit, and still not even then.

Am I forgetting anything? Sorry for the multiple posts, the comment thing is buggy today.

Speaking of Big Words...how 'bout that gem he threw out there last night? Something about "The people of Iraq have to put their differences behind them, and develop a unified government."
Ain't THAT the pot callin' the kettle black!

Another sage post from the Goat Locker!!

Welcome aboard Chief, you make me proud.. Glad to see that a brother feels the same as I..

Maybe I'm missing your point, "true patriot" but, if I understand the cited reference correctly, the differences between the time period you cite are kind of significant when you look at "Killed by hostile action"

Clinton: 1. Bush: 1102.

And to understand this properly, one muct take into account the fact that DOD does NOT count a troop dying in a hospital after medevac from Iraq or Afghanistan to be "killed by hostile action." They simply list them as "dying" and they aren't accounted for in the war figures.

And, as another commenter there pointed out, let's by all means look to see if Clinton's "war" record includes the 20,000 odd severely wounded/maimed/crippled vets who, more and more, can't get decent follow up treatment from a VA that is deliberately being financially starved.

Don't forget, by the way, the constant cries that Iraq is a "distraction" from the war on terrorist because supposedly Saddam and al Qaeda had nothing to do with each other, even though there is growing evidence of Saddam/bin Laden ties. The moonbat left have been desperately holding their hands over their ears going la-la-la (actually, something like "Saddamhadnothingtodowith9/11") while denying the obvious.

Hey Tee Pee,

If, you are a "True Patriot", What the fuck are you doin sittin on your ass here in the land of the big PX? Why aren't you out there sloggin thru the sand and looking for those WMD that you repigs tried to ram down the world's throat?

ChickenHawk = ChickenShit

You aren't patriotic enough to burn the shit barrels let alone scrub the piss tubes....

Just this old Chief's ¢

Hey Tee Pee,

Good One, Figures Lie and Liars Figure!

Since you decided to use the handle "True Patriot". I would like to ask you what branch of the military you served in?

You can get away with your lies and innuendos in your repig forums/rooms, but I will be goddamned if you can here in a military blog.

You Fuckheads started this war, and as usual you use our brothers and sisters to carry out your insane mission of control and deception.

Lad, I would have dearly loved to have had you under me in the Nam... There were Shit Barrels to burn, Piss Tubes to scrub and for a 10%r like you those jobs would have been probably too difficult for you to handle. One thing for sure, you sure wouldn't have been walking point or flank... I doubt that you would have been walkin, period...

As Usual, ChickenHawk = ChickenShit!

Fuckin Feather Merchant Mother Fuckers, each and every one of you Reich Wing shit eating sons of bitches....

Come back when you have something good, Bean. The 9-11 Commission knew about the 1995 meeting and decided it didn't lead to anything.

Did you read down to the one where Saddam's intelligence forces are monitoring al Qaida members? That's not very friendly, would you say?

"gowing evidenbce" bean?

Now, bean...... have you been eating those special mushrooms again?

Get back to me when you see the purple magnolias, OK. (wink>

a) I smell a prepicked audience again. Sure you can find military supporters of Bush. You can also find plenty that aren’t, but they never get invited to his normally prepicked audiences. Bet they could also have found, using a random search, plenty of military who would have given a tepid response.

b) 'true patriot' (Hmmmm, that's what the Nazis called themselves, too :0)

I read the SayAnything blog (which cherry-picked only the info they wanted), and what you did is known as plagiarizing!!! You represented the opinion as your own written comment. Don’t you have your own original thoughts? Now, I went to the OFFICIAL site …and to be fair, let’s also add: (http://web1.whs.osd.mil/MMID/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf)

Active duty deaths during Reagan’s first four years (1980 - 1983): 9556

Active duty deaths during GHW Bush’s first four years (1988 - 1991): 6749

c) Bean, I looked up your source on the ABC News site and found this interesting disclaimer:

The editor’s comment from the article, "Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq" says,"This document is handwritten and has no official seal… The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship,” and on the article directly below it, "Osama bin Laden and the Taliban" says, “(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e., an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)”
First, notice that the first document is “handwritten with no official seal.” Pardon me if I am a little bit suspicious of this document. Second, Bush himself is on record as stating (I heard the recording over and over again) that we had no evidence that linked Suddam and al Queda, at least there was none that really was known during the rush to war in Iraq, before the release of this document, so that argument for the war is after-the-fact justification. It would really be moot IF GEORGE BUSH HAD CAPTURED BIN LADEN IN 2003! Now he says we won't leave Iraq during his tenure. The reason the American people have lost confidence in this administration’s war in Iraq (hell, we don't have much faith in his performance in the separate war in Afganistan, either), so their dismal polling on leadership and support for the war in Iraq is their own fault – piss poor performance!!! Bin Ladin was in Afganistan, so why didn’t we use our shock and awe power there, and put an end to this whole sad episode? George Bush has protected us from terrorists’ attacks? NOT THE ONE ON 11 Sep 01 HE DIDN’T, WHICH WAS ON HIS WATCH – AND TOOK PLACE RIGHT HERE IN THE GOOD OL’ US of A!!!

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)

While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e., an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)

(Editor's Note: This document indicates that the Iraqis were aware of and interested in reports that members of al Qaeda were present in Iraq in 2002. The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda.)

This info was at the link provided. No news here.Saddam was a bad guy. Says so in the 9-11 Report. Uncollaberated evidence? We've been down that road before. Even if some smoking gun is found at this point, it will be evidence after the fact. Bush still lied. Iraq was not a threat to us. The Iraqis by a large majority don't want us there. Osama is still free because let him escape at Tora Bora. Saddam's worse atrocities were back in the eighties, when Reagan, Cheney, and Powell supported him against sanctions that Democrats had proposed. The Bush crew are puppet masters and people like beanie boy are their puppets. Grow up kid, be a real patriot instead of a puppet.

Bean -- get real.

The 9-11 Commission examined the 1995 meetings and concluded nothing came of it. And read down to the document on the second page -- it shows Saddam's intelligence service tracking al Qaida. If they were working together, there'd be no need for surveillance.

Gawd Bean, even the first idiot says that one had nothing to do with the other. Only Darth Cheney still says that shit. I think it's because they have to reboot his brain housing group each morning when he's revived. IT's good to see these idiots turns drooping.

Snuffy

Sorry folks, but I want to add some new numbers from the data given by the Department of Defense's Manpower Data Center so you can see a little clearer picture of why they picked the time frame of first terms to build their picture. If you look at the last four years of Clinton's term in office, which is the one that actually preceded King George's (hence more accurate to compare figures with) you get a total active duty death toll of 3198 under Bill. Now if you take in only George's time as a war fuhrer, the two years of 2003 and 2004, his total for those two years is 3297... more deaths in 2 years under BUSH than the last four years under Bill. In fact Bill had a lower total than Reagan, Bush 41, and Georgie. You know 'true patriot' you could have really impressed this bunch by showing that George's total of 5187 was much more impressive than Reagan's total of 9556 but for some inexplicable reason you (or the guy you plagarized) didn't. Yes, I'm aware of the differences in the the size of the military during these times has shrunken, but not that significantly to have a difference of 9556 (Reagan, first 4) versus 4302 (Clinton, first 4). To have that kind of disparity, the military under Reagan should have been at least double the size that it was under Clinton!!! The Dem beat the Republicans hands down, even in the categories of hostile action and/or terrorists attacks (Reagan, first 4 years in office only = 288; GHWB, his only 4 years in office = 172; GWB, first 4 years in office = 1157; Clinton, ALL 8 years in office = 76).

Hey, guys, I smell desperation in the air. More and more docs are being released that not only confirm Saddam's shell games with WMD, including giving instructions on how to hide them from inspectors, but also that there were extensive ties between al Qaeda and Saddam. Only the willfully ignorant or blind would believe that Saddam would not want to take advantage of and help someone who hated the US more than he did, and Osama would be a fool not to take advantage of the logistical help an oil-rich nation-state like Iraq could offer. It doesn't matter what they thought of each other. The proverb "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" originated in the Arab world, after all.

As for Iraqi intelligence keeping track of al Queda guys, what's the big deal? Of course they would keep track of foreign terrorists on their own soil. It's only prudent. If they were hostile, though, they'd have taken them out.

Saddam's worse atrocities were back in the eighties, when Reagan, Cheney, and Powell supported him

And Stalin's worst attrocities were when Churchill and Roosevelt supported him against Hitler. We allied with Saddam against the moonbats in Iran, who at that point were the one who had actually attacked the US by seizing the embassy (sovereign US territory) in Tehran.

All the "Bush lied" stuff is a crock, and history will vindicate him.

By the way, why do y'all wish Saddam was still in power?

Active Duty deaths.... hmhmhm... interesting statistic, care to include the Guard and Reservist count in your "numbers"??? How about the wounded? How about the contractors?

Do we have a smaller armed forces now, than we did during the Clinton years? The Bush admin has cut the Navy what, 20%??

Good lord, talk about a bogus statistic.

So, guys, if the 9/11 commission pooh-poohed the 1995 doc, why is 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey treating it as if it's big news (as opposed to old news)? Kerrey also says the torrent of new docs being released show that Saddam was indeed a threat.

C'mon, guys, get your story straight!

Could it be because Kerrey might, just might be playing politics?

As for the documents, a couple of handwritten documents without seals, that just happen to be released when Bush is coming increasing fire, do not make a torrent. They don't even make convincing evidence. But then, these are the same people who believed the inept forgeries from Italy about the uranium.

No, I don't 'wish Saddam was in power' anymore than I wish George W Bush was in power. I do wish we had captured Osama when we had the chance than wasted all these lives and resources on Iraq. We could have been far smarter about the last 4 years than this. Bean, you state that Churchill and Roosevelt supported Uncle Joe because he was fighting Hitler for the same reasons as the neocons supported Saddam because he was against Iran. Really? Explain to me why we were in that part of the world to begin with, and why we fell out of our arrangement with him. Was it because he was torturing and killing people? Nope. A far better explanation was because he made an attempt to dominate the oilfields of Kuwait, and our oilmen couldn't stand for that. Explain to me how you're going to win the war now that your ilk have made a total disaster out of the postwar rebuilding? How are you going to pay for the bills caused by this war without raising taxes? Bean there you go again, using the word moonbat. Only this time, instead of liberals, you use it against hardcore (Muslin) religous fanatics. I suspect that you yourself are a hardcore religous (Christian) fanatic, so does this term apply to you, too? The Middle East is dangerous primarily because of religion (though our interest is primarily petroleum-based). And, because of the religous beliefs of hardcore fanatics, we were attacked on 9/11, and our soldiers will remain targets. As far as Saddam was a threat, let me remind you that ALL of the Middle East is a threat to us because of the religous beliefs that predominate that region of the world. The policies of this administration have not made us safer. We haven't captured bin Ladin. But we have brought violence to that region of the world. Everytime we have killed a loved one we have given someone else a reason to kill Americans in return. What is this administration's plan to turn off the cycle of violence? I have serious doubts that they have even given it much thought. They seem to care mainly about securing access to oil. And if there is good news coming from Iraq, I suggest that FOX News send in lots of reporters, without armed escorts, to wander the streets of Iraqi cities, and just show us all that good news that the 'moonbats' on the right claim is there. Wanna volunteer, bean?

Hey, Bean -- you should tell President Bush that he was right about Saddam and al Qaida. I'm sure that if he knew, he'd start talking about it again.

Seriously, that second article is one shitty piece of journalism. It references the same weak documents, quotes Kerrey saying Saddam was a "significant enemy," then quotes some other yahoo to draw the link.

Give it up. Just admit Bush made a mistake, and let's figure out how to get out of this mess we're in.

If anyone who opposed the war in Iraq secretly admires Saddam ... then how much must Bean hate Bush 1 and Reagan?

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams