Do you remember that more military died under Clinton, then both wars under Bush?

Question

Oh yeah and Clinton lost a stealth fighter.

Answer 1

There is only one war--multiple campaigns.

Crabby--you'd better check. Over the course of the Clinton Administration's 8 years (1993-2000) there were 7502 Active Duty Deaths.

Answer 2

this one is for "sky" in case you dolts shop upping the Iraq peoples dying toll there won't any Iraqies left the authentic parent is uder a hundred,000 however the lefties shop upping no ask your self each and every is conscious you at the instant are not "working on bothh tracks" get a real american dying toll decrease than Clinton and decrease than Bush and you will see how all the bombings in the process the Clinton adm. placed the dying toll merely approximately even. Marine Barracks, united statesCole, the commerce center

Answer 3

Oh, really? Three things.

1. I notice you provide NO evidence of this whatsoever. You'll be hard-pressed, too, because it isn't true.

2. If it WERE true, you forget an important part of the puzzle: the reasons we got involved with the wars in question. The amount of deaths in Iraq is irrelevant to the fact that we have no business being there in the first place. Everything we were involved with during Clinton's terms were world-supported peace-keeping missions.

3. And what about civilians? As many as a hundred thousand Iraqis have died, and millions have lost their homes and are displaced. All that for a war that shouldn't have happened. Clinton, meanwhile, actually helped (though not all on his own, no doubt) SAVE the lives of millions of civilians by helping to end ethnic cleansing in eastern Europe. I think he could have done more and don't consider him a hero, but he's a lot closer than Bush ever will be.

Answer 4

I believe not. There was no invasion of countries under Clinton. When you look at father Bush and son Bush and add the two wars casualties up they pale in comparison to the strikes against military targets under Clinton. Also, the Iraq and Afgan wars are still ongoing with more casualties coming. That's the most unfortunate of all.

Answer 5

Not to mention that much of the trouble we're in now could've been abated back in the 90's if Clinton had done his job as commander-in-chief. We might not even be in this War on Terror right now if he'd been responsible and had put the country's best interests before his own.

Answer 6

Clinton should burn in hell for what happened Oct 3 1993. Yea, I hate Clinton and don't care who knows it.

Answer 7

"Honestly, it's not about the deaths, it's about the misuse of resources, including our soldiers."

I don't believe using the American military to protect American lives is a misuse of resources. In fact that the very purpose for which it was made.

Answer 8

I wonder where you get that idea. Pure B.S. How can you figure Clinton had anything to do with the loss of a plane of any kind? Last time I checked, he's not a mechanic or a pilot.

Answer 9

both wars under bush? all were hearing is about Iraq....i think bush forgot about 9/11....and where it came from...but yeah lets chastise Clinton for the past when the present is here and deaths are rising and will go above and beyond any war with bush as our leader and commander...

Answer 10

Does that make it alright, in your mind, to start a war under false pretenses?

How about we stop the comarison/contrast game. President Bill Clinton was held responsible for his own actions in office. President George W. Bush should be held responsible for his too.