March 22, 2006

Clinton vs. Bush: Comparing U.S. Soldier Death Rates

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

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

Here's where that data is from via Rob at Say Anything.

That's 881 more deaths under Bush's watch in those four years (no data available after that). See especially the sharp decline in the number of homicides and suicides now compared to those glorious Clinton years. Can somebody remind me what the Clinton administration accomplished militarily in those years?

More discussion here.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:57 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I hated Clinton - rarely if ever even mention him but ... ... this has got to be one of the dumbest approaches for the basis of argument I have heard in awhile. Why?

Posted by: hondo at March 22, 2006 03:24 PM (9pQ6D)

2 It's standard statistical inference and quite common--especially in epidemiology. That is, when comparing across time one cannot only focus on a single causal factor. While the number of U.S. casualties have gone up dramatically due to casualties of war, they have gone down significantly in other areas--especially the murder rate and the suicide rate.

Posted by: Rusty at March 22, 2006 03:34 PM (JQjhA)

3 Er uh lets see he bombed that Milosovek dude and got our ass run our of Somalia. Did I miss anything? Oh yeah 11 missiles at Al-Qaeda. That a lot of dead guys for not doing much.

Posted by: Howie at March 22, 2006 03:39 PM (D3+20)

4 Can you locate the numbers for Reserve and Guard deaths? I suspect that there would be a major difference during the two periods.

Posted by: Alan at March 22, 2006 04:05 PM (Y6cqr)

5 Reservists and National Guardsmen are generally considered "Active Duty" when called up and deployed.

Posted by: Rusty at March 22, 2006 04:08 PM (JQjhA)

6 This results of this comparison are to me about as useful as a comparasion of US civillian deaths by terrorists durring the same period. Personalites are interesting but fail to give the full picture of what has happened or is occuring. As Tolstoy noted it was not Napolean that invaded Russia.... it was the French Army that invaded Russia.

Posted by: john Ryan at March 22, 2006 05:40 PM (TcoRJ)

7 A leader who seeks soley his own council is a dangerous man! Object lesson in progress!

Posted by: Thesaurus at March 22, 2006 06:23 PM (Y2ILH)

8 Strange, and sad topic. While all these fellow Americans have died, neither Mr. Bush, or Mr. Clinton buy their milk the same way we do, and never will. I never cared about Mr. Clinton getting a B.J., more men should get them. However, it appeared Mr. Clinton is a globalist, and stabed this last nation state in the back to further that end. Mr. Bush was once, I think, an WASP capitalist, but is being pushed to be a globalist. For example, KAFTA, debt increase to weaken the U.S., and the southern border invasion of people, and exit of untaxed monies. More, and more Americans die to keep fellows like Mr. Clinton, and Mr. Bush in office.

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 22, 2006 07:12 PM (D2g/j)

9 I think Rusty has grasped the most useful inference we can make in this comparison: as combat deaths went up deaths from suicide and murder went down. This is the signature of men doing what they feel their service and mission are supposed to be. Anyone remember the theme of Frem Here to Eternity?

Posted by: Demosophist at March 22, 2006 11:30 PM (N7Eh1)

10 Hated Clinton. Still do. But in all fairness to our fat letcherous hillbilly ex-pres during his first term the nation still had a cold war sized military. More troops = more deaths from accidents etc.

Posted by: Jones at March 23, 2006 10:07 PM (SJ35d)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
21kb generated in CPU 0.0183, elapsed 0.1586 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1477 seconds, 259 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.