Military deaths by president-debunk right wing spam

[Timefortruth]

A relative sent me this email, he sends them all the time. Normally I don't respond, but this one really bothers me.

Help!

These facts speak for themselves

Military losses, 1980 through 2006
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

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:
1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George HW Year)
1990 .......... 1,508 (George HW Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George HW Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George HW Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 (Clinton Year) Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
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) George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths
2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)
2006.............. 920 (George W Year)
2007………...899 (George W Year)

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!

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!

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 marching-orders for their agenda? Obviously there is one shared agenda, and I believe it is clear it comes 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%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
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. . .until it became clear to me that the point here is that our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for political gain). Nothing more.

It's all about politics and some politicians, who are now famous for turning American against American for a vote. (Consider Slick Willy and his comments just recently made about South Carolina, Jesse Jackson, and the 'blacks' voting for the 'black' candidates); or Hillary's stump speech after her Super Tuesday 'victory' stating that the current administration does not 'listen' to anyone and continues the war costing precious American lives. Yes, I might even agree with her, but she should be made to acknowledge her own husband's administration, without having an actual war, sent more soldiers to death during his regime—while also forcing the military to release Osama when we actually had him detained.

I hope that during the time between now and November, that intelligent Americans can decipher the facts from the spin and the spinners from the leaders; those who seek even more power from those that seek justice, the dividers from the uniters..

Over the next months let's be good listeners (yes, Hillary we are listening) 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

[DS1]

1. It's amazing how this email works so well. It assumes people are lazy, just like you were

Did you even think to click the link, or did you just assume that since they posted it, it must say what they say it does.

The first page:

E-mail on military deaths is shaky on facts
By Chuck Vinch - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Mar 27, 2008 7:50:12 EDT
A spam e-mail making the rounds in the military community serves as a reminder that
facts can be flexible when they are launched anonymously into the vast void of
cyberspace.
The e-mail, entitled, “Some very interesting statistics: Military losses, 1980 through
2006,” states that more U.S. service members died on active duty during the eight years
of the Clinton administration, when there were no major U.S. military conflicts, than in
the first six years of the George W. Bush administration, during which the military was
fighting two large-scale wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The e-mail offers year-by-year U.S. military death totals from all causes — operations,
illness, accidents, suicides, etc. — from 1980 through 2006.
The data supposedly were taken from a periodically updated Congressional Research
Service report on the subject, which in turn is based on statistics compiled by the
Pentagon’s Defense Manpower and Data Center.
There’s just one problem: The figures listed in the email are wrong. They vary markedly
from the figures published in the cited CRS source document.

This email comes debunked for you.


Goddamn. :eyes:

[uppityperson]

2. That is too funny, "this email comes debunked for you"

I often just delete the ones I get, rather than clicking on the links. Too funny that this one included the debunking link also.

[garry_neal_hazitin]

3. tell your friend, they're full of s**t

try factcheck.org....heres the skinny...Actually, even counting non-combat fatalities, more military personnel died during the first six years of George Bush's tenure than during the entire eight years that Bill Clinton was in office.
Most of the numbers in this e-mail are completely made up. We were particularly amused by its bravado in providing a supposed source for the information – but anyone who bothers to check that source will find that it contradicts the information presented. The truth is that more military personnel died during the first six years of the Bush administration than died during the eight years Clinton was in office, even counting military deaths in the U.S. from accidents, murders, suicides and natural causes.

According to the Congressional Research Service report that the e-mail cites, the breakdown of fatalities by race during Operation Iraqi Freedom is more-or-less accurate, but the breakdown of total military fatalities by year (which counts both combat and non-combat fatalities) is wildly inaccurate. Here are the actual numbers in graphic form:

[uppityperson]

4. Huh. Did you get stuck mid-post or mid-thought?

re-read. I think you meant to reply to the original poster? And forgot the graphic?