On July 27th, from 5:57pm-5:59pm, there were no active American military deaths. If you take this 3-minute interval and extrapolate it back to 2001, when Bush took office, and then average it over the entire time period, you get an average of zero deaths per year.

The MSM and lie-berals want you to think that soldiers are dying in Iraq, but I have clearly proven above that this is a lie. There have actually been zero military deaths under our strong, steadfast leader Bush!! Don’t believe the left-wing drive-by media!

Hostile action deaths under Clinton durring major operations-

Haiti ?
Somalia ?
Bosnia ?

I have a hard time getting even close to 4000. So that means that the numbers you are siteing must be accidents, illness, suicide etc.. Or, mostly people who would have died with or without a war.

Bush’s figures are different-

Iraq- 3700 aprox as of today

Now granted, only 2300-2500 were hostile action. But, of those 2300 to 2500, most of them would be alive today without war.

However, please don’t think that I am not supportive of the war efforts. I’m just pointing out how flawed your statistics are. I truly want Iraq to be as stable as possible before we leave, and if that requires our military presense; so be it. Unfortunately, I am having a hard time seeing the benefits of the War. In fact, I think we have made things more complicated than they were.

Now we can all agree that a few innocent civilians have died in the war. In fact, Rush Limbaugh even confirmed that at least 10 have died as a result of the invasion (Sorry about the Sarcasm). You might say, “what’s the big deal? More civilians died while Sadam was in power!” Which may be true; but, now the finger is being pointed at us, instead of Sadam because we are in charge. What’s my point? We are creating a breading ground for people to hate us.

Every time a civilian is killed by militia gun squads, suicide bombers, or accidentel fire, you can not tell me that they don’t in some way blame us for the situation. How many lives have changed for the worse due to our intervention? Do think that these people might be good terrorist canidates?

Yes, the chart skips the first year Bush was in office and during which time we went to war with Afghanistan.

During which time President Bush had to deal with both the Clinton recession and the Clinton-enabled losses from 9/11.

You claim that I’m trying to "maximize" casualties? To what end? How do you support that? You yourself stated recognized that your original post neglected to consider the numbers injured in Afghanistan and Iraq.

They might read this post and think, "Huh, things sure haven’t gone as bad in Iraq as the liberals/media have lead us to believe."

Your bottom line always comes back to: we’re winning the war, and it will be a glorious victory for President George W. Bush. But if by chance we lose, it’s the liberals/media/RW bogeyman-of-the-day that are to blame. Fucking pathetic – excuse the language, I am angry too.

You are not prepared to hold accountable those that are responsible for the lack of planning in the Iraq debacle, nor are you prepared to accept any debate on the circumstances that lead up to the war, if it iun any way reflects badly on Bush or the GOP.

The line that liberals and the media have some nefarious agenda that revolves around dislike of the President, a dislike so intense that they would wish defeat on our own country is utterly preposterous. Every time you roll it out, it’s another tacit admission that you’re running low on excuses for the mistakes made by politicians that you support.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_more_soldiers_die_during_bill_clintons.html

2001-2004 Bush
Total deaths – 5187

Due to accident – 2109
Due to hostile action – 1102
Due to homicide – 181
Due to illness – 859
Self-inflicted – 632
Terrorist attack – 55
Undetermined/Pending – 258

Something those numbers are missing…
Total number of active duty troops?

Provided they were at the same level please tell me what level they were and I’ll correct this.

130 less died due to accident. (If I’m in a war zone I’m probably being more careful… not drinking and driving etc…)
107 less due to homicide.. (Most military homicide happens off duty in the states and more are on duty during war…)
85 more due to illness.. (A war zone is a harsh environment that takes a toll on the body.)
237 less self-inflicted.. (War usually raises this number… I’m at a loss on this number, but I guess they have more reason to live???)

Not counting undetermined.. the War has cost us 1101 war time casualties and saved 385 peacetime that would put actual “Cost” and that term I use loosely for how do you judge the cost of any life, around 700 as an actual cost. The war in Iraq has cost more Iraqi lives and saved more Iraqi lives than any other human toll… How many insurgents have been killed? terrorists? Are these numbers higher than 700? Is one U.S. Soldier’s life worth killing 1, 2, 5, 10, or even 100 of your enemy?

In my own personal summary as a man who has served under both Presidents in the USMC, I take a quote from John Stuart Mill, “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

Today fighting for the freedom of others are 100K+ good men and women who do their job whether they agree with the war or not. It is our job as citizens to do everything we can to support them. No war is a good war, but if your going to go to war then you’d better win or even 1 life was too high of a cost. 1 life is too high of a cost for a lost war. 1 life is too high of a cost for a “good” war, but then again no war is a good war. Both the left extremist pacifists, and the far right who would exert their will upon the world have valid view points. On one hand “the left” no war is worth it. This is very true. No War has ever been or is worth the loss of a single life and in a perfect world war would be unnecessary. But, on the other hand “the right” we don’t live in anything approaching a perfect world, so while still not worth the loss some wars are necessary.

The only thing that comes to mind is the questioning of the start of any war, but after we are there you can’t turn back, you can’t withdraw or you lose, then 700 were lost for nothing. My drill instructor is listed among the casualties and having known him I’m not surprised as he was a good soldier through to the core. I have had friends injured and so far every single one of them (whether they support the war or not) has told me the same thing. We need to finish the job. I’m all for bringing the troops home, but let’s get the job done first.

P.S. I was looking for some statistics when I came across this site. I am an independant who voted for both Clinton(and re-election) and Bush(and re-election as the lesser of two bad choices), based on their beliefs on individuals issues and their platform as a whole. I do not agree with most of the leadership of either party currently and am disgusted with the current state of partisan politics, but I will still vote come election day more as a tribute to all those that came before me than for any other reason.

One final note: Whether or not you support the war, please support the troops.