In terms of military deaths per year, who had the highest Clinton or Bush?

Answer 1

During the Clinton administration, there were somewhere around 4,500 military deaths. During PEACETIME. Yet, none of the libs were screaming about how Fort Bragg was a quagmire and how we should pull out of Pearl Harbor!

Update:

"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?"
--- Alicia Colon

Source: http://www.nysun.com/article/48926

Answer 2

there's a extensive distinction between giving a speech asserting that Hussein is a threat....and launching a 300 and sixty 5 days long campaign crammed with lies and distortion aimed in the direction of convincing the american those that we ought to invade Iraq. Then, even after UN inspectors locate no weapons, going forward and invading a united states and continually changing your tale on why you probably did it. conflict is meant to be a final hotel - no longer what you do even with info which says you ought to no longer.

Answer 3

From everything and articles found, I will lean towards Bush. It is my understanding that there has been gross underreporting of the deaths in Iraq.
Iraq deaths are counted when
a) They die instantly
b) They die while in triage in Iraq

The deaths are NOT being counted if
1) they are wounded in iraq, airlifted to Randstand, Germany and they die there, or die in the US as a result of their wounds.

So far I have a total of US casualties for Bush from both Iraq and Afghanistan at 4912
If I don't consider the deaths of those soldiers who decided to end it rather than go on living through the hell they were
it would still total more than anything cited here for Clinton in his 8 years in office.-4,805.
My concern is that IF what is floating out there is true, such as in McClatchy Washington Bureau articles about the underreporting, that is a f**k**g shame. It just belittles the sacrifice our soldiers ultimately made.

Answer 4

Clinton...he is responsible for not only the deaths under his own administration but directly responsible for many of the deaths under the Bush administration due to the way he destroted our military and it's resources. Bush has done a stunning job of building it back up !
Read this article by Mike Reagan (eldest son of President Ronald Reagan)
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27632

Answer 5

The deaths of military personnel by year from 1980 to 2004, apparently compiled by the military, can be found here:
http://www.murdoconline.net/pics/Death_Rates.pdf
I would note that during Clinton's presidency, the number of deaths fell 7 out of 8 years.
I would further note that the most relevant year for comparison might be 2000. In that year about 760 military personnel died, and about 50% were from accidents, about 20% died due to illness, about 20% due to suicide, 4% were murdered, and no American military personnel died due to hostile action. Under George W. Bush the total number of deaths from all causes has gone up, but so have deaths in each of the categories I mention above: accidents, illness, suicide, murder, and hostile action.

The hostile action category is easy to explain, of course.
But then again, so are the others:
When you send troops into combat, they are in much more dangerous locations, and so accidents cause more deaths. They are also in novel locations, and so deaths from odd illnesses go up. And they are under much more stress in violent environments and so suicide and murder go up.

But, as is well known by now, GWB didn't go into combat and so he had no inkling that things would be this hard on the troops.

Conservatives and republicans can whine about Clinton all they want, but the numbers don't lie: George Bush's policies are killing the brave and honorable men and women who volunteer to defend the US.

Incidentally, the numbers cited so often by conservatives - as written by Ms. Colon - seem inaccurate according to the .pdf I found.

Answer 6

Clinton.

Answer 7

The figures for deaths in combat operations cited here and in the links given here in every single case cite only each other, and do not cite any reliable or credible source whatsoever.

That does not mean there were no deaths in combat operations during Clinton's administration. But there actually were few "operations" and few casualties. For example, he sent about 20,000 troops to Serbia and there were NO deaths from that.

This "urban legend-ing" tactic is often used by Republicans to deflect the heat off themselves onto their favorite target. They are obsessed still with Clinton, and their obsession is owing to his accomplishments in spite of them.

Answer 8

What difference does that make? Its the Ideology that is being fought over here. Clinton gave all our nuclear technology to the Chinese...what will we have to pay in the future for that??? war is war..3000+ casualties...wow I say that awesomely phenomenally low...Nam was over 50000..pull your head out man! :)

Answer 9

I couldn't find deaths per year, but here is deaths for the first 4 years of each presidents term:

Clinton: 4302 deaths
Bush: 5187 deaths

Answer 10

Clinton, don't tell that to a lib though