Where was the liberal outrage when under Klinton with no war We had 4,000 + military killed?

Question

Or is the outrage at merely someone having a different view?

God I hate lying stupid morans

This is for the people who like to keep a countdown of the war dead. Because there are some who are against the war, that have a morbid fascination with this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

External Source

The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

And lets not forget the 40k+ people who die on the highways every single year. If we just pull out from the American highways we could save far more lives than pulling out of Iraq. Not to mention that all of us that can't afford to fly everywhere would drastically reduce our carbon footprints.

1991-96 -- Operation Provide Comfort. Delivery of humanitarian relief and military protection for Kurds fleeing their homes in northern Iraq, by a small Allied ground force based in Turkey.

1992 -- Sierra Leone. On May 3, 1992, US military planes evacuated Americans from Sierra Leone, where military leaders had overthrown the government.[RL30172]

1992 -- Kuwait. On August 3, 1992, the United States began a series of military exercises in Kuwait, following Iraqi refusal to recognize a new border drawn up by the United Nations and refusal to cooperate with UN inspection teams.[RL30172]

1992-2003 -- Iraq. Iraqi No-Fly Zones The U.S. together with the United Kingdom declares and enforces "no fly zones" over the majority of sovereign Iraqi airspace, prohibiting Iraqi flights in zones in southern Iraq and northern Iraq, and conducting aerial reconnaissance and bombings.[RL30172]

1992-95 -- Somalia. "Operation Restore Hope" Somali Civil War On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed US armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a UN Security Council Resolution. The operation came to an end on May 4, 1993. US forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II). (See also Battle of Mogadishu)[RL30172]

1993-Present -- Bosnia/Yugoslavia/Kosovo.

1993 -- Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 US soldiers to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.[RL30172]

1993-95 -- Haiti. Operation Uphold Democracy US ships had begun embargo against Haiti. Up to 20,000 US military troops were later deployed to Haiti.[RL30172][RL30172]

1994 -- Macedonia. On April 19, 1994, President Clinton reported that the US contingent in the former Yugosl

and the list goes on poor dumb bastards.

No war was declared by the house and senate therefore no war or illegal war except the CAC can go to war at his choice VIA the constitution more crap from the left illegal war nonsense.

WMD the entire left said Iraq had them and it was in our intel so that was their flat.

Answer 1

Clinton took us into 4 military escapades - Iraq, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, let along bombing aspirin facilities, empty tents, and a chinese embassy.

Clinton went to war in Kosovo even though the Congress explicitly denied him the authority to do so, the complete opposite of bush's "illegal" war.

EDIT: O-retard is so clueless. the stats are available through DOD

Clinton followed murtha's "advice" and ran from Somalia - OBL called the US a paper tiger and promised more attacks.

Bush caught the people responsible for the USS Cole, the 1993 attacks (there was more than just the few clinton arrested involved folks), and the African embassy bombings.

Clinton did some good things, but he was terrible on defense and national security, people from his own administration say so.

Answer 2

Wanna know the truth?

If you would like to become part of the debate and make a difference, consider what the Long Island Party has to say. We have cake!

Read today's headlines - http://thelongislandparty.blogspot.com/2007/04/spring-putsch-2007.html or

http://thelongislandparty.blogspot.com/

Answer 3

It just kills me when people blame President Clinton for Somalia, when it was Bush the first that got this country into that mess, and then left it for President Clinton to clean up.

Who really is the liar?

Answer 4

proof??? none, oh i see. so if you heard this on the news i can only wonder what news you were watching... was there any outrage over the republican controled congress to make clinton pull out of somolia?? no! did the dems call repubs cut and runners after that? no!! it seems only one party is quick to go to third graded name calling.

Ok, you came up with some so called proof so here's mine.
In fact, military deaths have increased year-over-year since Bush first took office in 2001 -- both in raw terms and as a percentage of the total number serving -- and have increased dramatically since the beginning of the Iraq war.

As indicated by the table below, which was reconstructed from figures provided by the Department of Defense, the rate of U.S. military personnel lost per 100,000 serving rose significantly under Bush, from a low point of 50.0 in 2000, Clinton's last full year in office, to 110.2 during 2004. Additionally, the total number of deaths under Bush is not, as Colon's misleading comparison suggested, 3,133 versus 4,417 under Clinton's first term. The number 3,133 represents only deaths in Iraq since the start of the war and does not reflect total military fatalities. In fact, according to the Department of Defense, total military deaths during Bush's first term totaled 5,187, compared with 4,302 under Clinton's first term. The Iraq war began in March 2003.

Colon's numbers, calculated by the Washington Headquarters Services Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, are slightly but consistently higher than those used here, which were calculated by Defense Manpower Data Center's Statistical Information Analysis Division. The numbers provided by Colon are in a document (PDF) available at the Department of Defense military casualty information website. However, this document provides figures only through 1999. Other documents, available at the same DoD website, offer statistics through 2004, allowing a comparison with part of the Bush presidency. Those more comprehensive numbers were used for this table.

Year
Total serving
Total deaths
Total deaths/ 100K serving*
Hostile deaths/ 100K serving

1993
1,849,537
1,213
65.6
n/a

1994
1,746,482
1,075
61.6
n/a

1995
1,661,928
1,040
62.5
n/a

1996
1,613,675
974
60.4
0.1

1997
1,578,382
817
51.8
n/a

1998
1,538,570
827
53.8
n/a

1999
1,525,942
796
52.2
n/a

2000
1,530,430
758
50.0
n/a

2001
1,552,096
891
57.4
0.2

2002
1,627,142
999
61.4
1.1

2003
1,732,632
1,410
81.4
19.9

2004
1,711,916
1,887
110.2
43.1

Non-hostile deaths can include those caused by accident, illness, homicide, suicide, terrorist attack, or other undetermined causes.

Answer 5

you cons are such hypocrites. yesterday a questioner claimed there were 3 or 4 wars under "Clinton". today, you say "no" wars. which is it. is this the part where you people flip/flop all the time.

want me to answer about the 4000+ killed. show me the proof.

Answer 6

So....Exactly how many of those casualties were KIA?How many were accidental?how many suicide?how many unrelated to duty?Before you drag up somebody's statistics,you might want to verify exactly how they are compiled.I would be willing to bet that VERY few of them were killed in active service.Please-prove me wrong!

Answer 7

Dude.. Liberals are great at sweeping things like this under the rug aren't they?

Answer 8

Do you have a source to a REAL newspaper that supports your outrageous claim?

Answer 9

There weren't 4000+ military killed so your question is meaningless.