Heroes and Cowards, which side are you on?

[RuffRidr]

Great article in the New York Sun.

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

Here's a passage from that article that makes you think:

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?

--RuffRidr

[beardman2]

huh... never knew there were so many under Clinton.

[cjive134]

Where do you get your numbers from? Are you talking about deaths related to combat or training accidents? If you're talking about training accidents then you need to add training sccidents to the current total. If you want to be fair. George has 2 more years to catch up any way.

And why is it relivent if Clinton had more military deaths under his watch? What is your point?

[Miguel]

That the left exagerates the bad news, and ignores the good news to make the GOP look bad. Just like they did the opposite when their darling President BJ was in power.

[bd]

Originally Posted by Miguel

That the left exagerates the bad news, and ignores the good news to make the GOP look bad. Just like they did the opposite when their darling President BJ was in power.

The GOP doesn't need any help making themselves look bad.

bd

[jednp]

Originally Posted by bd

The GOP doesn't need any help making themselves look bad.

bd

correction, POLITICIANS don't need any help making themselves look bad.

[RuffRidr]

Originally Posted by cjive134

And why is it relivent if Clinton had more military deaths under his watch? What is your point?

If you'd read the article you would have realized that the whole point of it was how the mainstream media and certain politicians (and I'd add bloggers and webboard posters) use these numbers to demonize our actions in Iraq to sway public sentiment.

Oh and your comment about how George has 2 years to catch up to Bill is quite telling. That's something I pray won't happen.

--RuffRidr

[RuffRidr]

Originally Posted by bd

The GOP doesn't need any help making themselves look bad.

bd

How about a comment on the actual article. Na, I guess you don't need help making yourself look bad either.

--RuffRidr

[cjive134]

I have a DoD graph showing that the total for on duty and off duty deaths since 1992 went down every year until 1998 but never exceeded that of Bush 41. The total was 3558 when Clinton left office. The total of on duty deaths was only 1170. So this lady who wrote this very objective article pulled a few dead out of her a$$. Her article only speaks of war deaths when it comes to 2001 to present which isn't quite fair is it? When I come upon a number that has all off and on duty deaths for that period I post it. The problem with reading the news is one must look a little deeper before they go posting on politacal forums.

[cjive134]

Originally Posted by RuffRidr

Oh and your comment about how George has 2 years to catch up to Bill is quite telling. That's something I pray won't happen.

--RuffRidr

Yeah, I pray he is kicked out of office too. So were in agreement.