Pro-McCain email received, about Military Losses. Refutations?

[philly_bob]

I'm on a relative's email list, which means I get a lot of her
anti-Obama pro-McCain stuff.

I usually just groan and delete, but I thought you folks should
see it. Any comments? The thesis is that Bill Clinton caused
almost twice as many military deaths as GWBush. Please do not
associate me in any with the email sender's position.

What's sad is that the sender is a person whose family is in a
horrible position because of the Bush-era mortgage meltdown
and union busting.

EMAIL FOLLOWS:


> Food For Thought!
> Subject: : Military Losses, 1980 thru 2007
>
> Whatever your politics, however you
> lean, and however you feel about the current
> administration, this report should open some eyes.
> Military losses, 1980 through 2007.
>
> As tragic as the loss of any member of
> the US Armed Forces is, consider the following
> statistics:
> The annual fatalities of military
> > members while actively serving in the armed forces
> from 1980 through 2006 - by any cause.
> 1980 ......... 2,392 ( Carter Year )
> 1981 .......... 2,380 ( Reagan Year)
> 1984 .......... 1,999 ( Reagan Year)
> 1988 .......... 1,819 ( Reagan Year)
> 1989 .......... 1,636 ( George H W Year )
> 1990 ......... 1,508 ( George H W Year )
> 1991 .......... 1,787 ( George H W Year )
> 1992 .......... 1,293 ( George H W Year )
> 1993 ............1,213 ( Clinton Year)
> 1994 .......... 1,075 ( Clinton Year)
> 1995 ......... 2,465 ( Clinton Year)
> 1996 .......... 2,318 ( Clinton Year)
> 1997 .......... 817 ( Clinton Year)
> 1998 ......... 2,252 ( Clinton Year)
> 1999 .......... 1,984 ( Clinton Year)
> 2000 ...........1,983 ( Clinton Year)
> 2001 ............. 890( George W Year )
> 2002 .......... 1,007 ( George W Year )
> 2003 .......... 1,410 ( George W Year )
> 2004 .......... 1,887 ( George W Year )
> 2005 ............. 919 ( George W Year )
> 2006.............. 920 ( George W Year )
> 2007............. 899 ( George W Year )
> Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,107 deaths
> George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths
>
> If you are surprised when you look at
> these figures, so was I. These figures mean that the
> loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East
> are LESS than the loss of military personnel during
> Bill Clinton 's presidency;
> when America wasn't even involved in a
> war! (Unless you include Bosnia or the disgrace of
> Mogadishu , Somalia when Clinton failed to respond to
> terrorists; Remember 'Blackhawk Down'?)
>
> And, I was even more shocked when I read
> that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel
> Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter , there were 2,392 US
> military fatalities! From what? How?
> I think that these figures indicate that
> many members of our Media and our politicians will
> pick and choose the information on which they report.
> Of course we all know that they present only those
> 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting.
> But why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist
> the truth? Where do so many of them get their agenda?
> Obviously there is one shared agenda. Could it be from
> the most powerful
> Democratic family of the decade?
>
> Do you want further proof? Consider the
> latest census of Americans. It shows the following
> FACTS about the distribution of American citizens, by
> race:
>
> European descent
> ........................69.12%
>
> Hispanic........................................12.5%
> Black .................... .12.3%
>
> Asian............................................ 3.7%
> Native
> American............................1.0%
>
> Other..............................................2.6%
>
> Many media lead us to feel the military
> death ratio is off balanced compared to the
> distribution by race in America . Here are the
> fatalities by RACE over the past three years in Iraqi
> Freedom. Do the comparison yourself.
>
> European descent (white) ........74.31%
>
> Hispanic....................................10.74%
> Black
> ........................................ 9.67%
>
> Asian......................................... 1.81%
> Native American........................
> 1.09%
>
> Other.......................................... 0.33%
>
> I was surprised again. Our mainstream
> media continues to spin these figures (for political
> gain). Nothing more. It's all about politics.
>
> I hope that during the time between now
> and November, intelligent Americans can decipher:
> the facts from the spin,
> the spinners from the leaders,
> those who seek even more power from
> those that seek justice,
> and the dividers from the uniters.
>
> Over the next months let's be good
> listeners and see and hear who tries to divide our
> nation; and who wants to unite our nation. Who wants
> to control how our money is spent and who wants our
> money spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power
> and who seeks justice? Who spins the facts and who is
> genuine.
>
> These statistics are published by
> Congressional Research Service, and they may be
> confirmed by anyone at:
>
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
>
> 'History does not entrust the care of
> freedom to the weak or timid.' - Dwight D. Eisenhower
>

[slick8790]

1. I think there was a discussion about this awhile ago.

Basically what it boiled down to was that the numbers in the email are out and out fabrications, and do not match the linked file. The creator knows most people wouldn't sift through pages and pages of a PDF to confirm these numbers, and simply linking a document gives the message assumed credibility.

Sorry I can't specifically refute any parts of it, but I'm really not up to sifting through said PDF to find the real ones ATM.

[Blue_Tires]

11. true...no one bothers to see for themselves

and adding a link gives a lot of assumed weight to the spam mail...there was another RW spam a couple months back that even had a snopes link at the bottom 'for proof'...of course, that snopes link had nothing to do with the lies in the e-mail

[whistler162]

2. Snopes it...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp

[loveable liberal]

3. It doesnt say How they died for crying out loud....

Dying in a war zone is completely different than dying in a peace keeping mission somewhere in the world. Also it doesnt list wounded. A much better graph would show the number of suicides per year of military personnel. Now that would be a number.

This is just stupid. It equates dying in a car crash to dying in a war zone. what an idiot.

[last1standing]

6. It's also a bald-faced lie.

A simple search found the real story.

Year President Deaths Total during presidency

1980 Jimmy Carter 2,392
N/A

1981 Ronald Reagan 2,380
1982 Ronald Reagan 2,319
1983 Ronald Reagan 2,465
1984 Ronald Reagan 1,999
1985 Ronald Reagan 2,252
1986 Ronald Reagan 1,984
1987 Ronald Reagan 1,983
1988 Ronald Reagan 1,819
17,201

1989 George H.W. Bush 1,636
1990 George H.W. Bush 1,507
1991 George H.W. Bush 1,787
1992 George H.W. Bush 1,293
6,223

1993 Bill Clinton 1,213
1994 Bill Clinton 1,075
1995 Bill Clinton 1,040
1996 Bill Clinton 974
1997 Bill Clinton 817
1998 Bill Clinton 827
1999 Bill Clinton 796
2000 Bill Clinton 758
7,500

2001 George W. Bush 891
2002 George W. Bush 999
2003 George W. Bush 1,228
2004 George W. Bush 1,874
2005 George W. Bush 1,942
2006 George W. Bush 1,858
8,792

[last1standing]

4. That's a cruel lie at the expense of our military troops.

The real numbers, as has already been linked to, are much, much different.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp

Year President Deaths Total during presidency

1980 Jimmy Carter 2,392
N/A

1981 Ronald Reagan 2,380
1982 Ronald Reagan 2,319
1983 Ronald Reagan 2,465
1984 Ronald Reagan 1,999
1985 Ronald Reagan 2,252
1986 Ronald Reagan 1,984
1987 Ronald Reagan 1,983
1988 Ronald Reagan 1,819
17,201

1989 George H.W. Bush 1,636
1990 George H.W. Bush 1,507
1991 George H.W. Bush 1,787
1992 George H.W. Bush 1,293
6,223

1993 Bill Clinton 1,213
1994 Bill Clinton 1,075
1995 Bill Clinton 1,040
1996 Bill Clinton 974
1997 Bill Clinton 817
1998 Bill Clinton 827
1999 Bill Clinton 796
2000 Bill Clinton 758
7,500

2001 George W. Bush 891
2002 George W. Bush 999
2003 George W. Bush 1,228
2004 George W. Bush 1,874
2005 George W. Bush 1,942
2006 George W. Bush 1,858
8,792


It's sickening that these repub "patriots" are so willing to demean our soldiers sacrifices so easily that they would stoop to lying about their deaths. :mad:

[atreides1]

5. From FactCheck.org

They even have a graph that shows military deaths have increased under Bush


From the article:

We should also note that the message is artfully worded and invites a false conclusion. It argues that the loss of U.S. military lives "from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East" is less than "the loss of military personnel" under Clinton. Thus, it attempts to compare only the deaths due to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts with all military deaths during Clinton's eight years. That's not even comparing apples with oranges. It's really, to use a fruit-salad metaphor, asserting that George Bush's apple collection is smaller than Bill Clinton's collection of apples and oranges.



It may surprise many to learn that there are so many military deaths during peacetime. But this is just the law of averages at work. In 1993 the military had 1.7 million men and women in uniform. During that same year, 1,175 of them died from accidents, homicide, suicide and illness. That makes the 1993 non-hostile death rate for military personnel 69.1 per 100,000. That's actually fairly low; the rate for all Americans age 20 to 29 is about 97.5. Today's military is considerably smaller, with just under 1.4 million personnel.

To make an apples-to-apples comparison, we would need to separate combat and non-combat deaths. According to the CRS, during the Clinton administration, one person in uniform died as a result of hostilities and another 75 died as a result of terrorist attacks. By contrast, during the first six years of the Bush administration, 2,596 troops died from hostilities and 55 from terrorist attacks. Looking at the non-hostile deaths (i.e., accidents, homicides, suicides and illnesses), we find that an average of 947 military personnel died each year during the Bush administration compared with 913 during the Clinton administration .

Soldiering has never been a particularly safe occupation. But it is absurd to suggest that soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are somehow safer during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than they were during the relatively peaceful Clinton administration.

[MidwestTransplant]

7. here ya go

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2008/080327-deaths-email.htm

From a defense type site.

[kevinbgoode]

8. These slimy emails almost always start out with:

"Whatever your politics, however you
> lean, and however you feel about the current
> administration, this report should open some eyes."

Then they are always a plug for McWorse.

I wonder why more people don't turn these in as "spam?" Is it just because it comes from relatives looking for any straw to grasp to justify voting for another Republican?

[jobycom]

9. ACSF

Always Check Snopes First

[InNeedOfUserName]

10. check the data in his source pdf... it doesn't match the email

[philly_bob]

12. Thanks for research. Here are four refutation links:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2008/080327-deaths-email.htm

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

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_military_deaths.htm

The consensus seems to be that the military death figures are completely bogus, although the racial composition figures are accurate.

Earliest appearance I was able to find was May 2007 on a blog called Captain America (http://captainamerica2008.blogspot.com/); someone tried to DIGG it but it was greeted with a massive HO-HUM, getting only one DIGG recommendation.

Must be tough being a disinformation specialist in the Internet age.