2005 ............. 919 (George W Year) 2006.............. 920 (George W Year) 2007............899 (George W Year)
Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
George W years (2001-2006): 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!
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, 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.
william boyd wrote: > Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the > current > administration, this report should open some eyes.
The 2007 number that you gave was actually not even in the report (dated June 29, 2007).
In addition, you left out several of the Reagan years.
In summary,
17,201 deaths during the 8 year Reagan Administration 6,223 deaths during the 4 year Bush H W Administration 7,500 deaths during the 8 year Clinton Administration 8,792 deaths SO FAR IN JUST THE FIRST 6 YEARS of the Bush W Administration
I don't know where you got your figures from, but they certainly were not from this report!
As to the rest of your spin, it just doesn't support whatever argument you were attempting to make.
Anyone who attempts to gain political points by misrepresenting statistics on military deaths is...well, I think you know!
>> 2005 ............. 919 (George W Year) >> 2006.............. 920 (George W Year) >> 2007............899 (George W Year)
>> Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
>> George W years (2001-2006): 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!
>> 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, 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.
> Don't expect the usual suspects on the left to have much to say about > it. Instead they will parse something out or ignore it. They hate > the military and make a mockery of claiming to support it. Those who > have served know better. And just as they are skewed in those > numbers, they are in who they would vote for.
How about what I said about it? Looks like Hoppy has been caught tweaking the numbers.
jimstevens wrote: > [Default] On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:49:55 -0800, Islander > <nos...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> william boyd wrote: >>> Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the >>> current >>> administration, this report should open some eyes.
>>> 2005 ............. 919 (George W Year) >>> 2006.............. 920 (George W Year) >>> 2007............899 (George W Year)
>>> Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
>>> George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths
>> ---[snip]--- >>> (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)
>> I think that you have some explaining to do. Here are the actual >> numbers from Tables 4 and 5 of the report that you cited:
>> The 2007 number that you gave was actually not even in the report (dated >> June 29, 2007).
>> In addition, you left out several of the Reagan years.
>> In summary,
>> 17,201 deaths during the 8 year Reagan Administration >> 6,223 deaths during the 4 year Bush H W Administration >> 7,500 deaths during the 8 year Clinton Administration >> 8,792 deaths SO FAR IN JUST THE FIRST 6 YEARS of the Bush W Administration
>> I don't know where you got your figures from, but they certainly were >> not from this report!
> He transposed some numbers. The incorrect numbers are there but from > wrong years.
Oh, I see now! He gave Clinton credit for some of the Reagan years which he also conveniently left out of what he posted for Reagan. How do you suppose that happened? Gheeese!
I think we should let Hoppy explain this one himself.
Like I said, "Anyone who attempts to gain political points by misrepresenting statistics on military deaths is...well, I think you know!"
Islander wrote: > william boyd wrote: >> Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the >> current >> administration, this report should open some eyes.
> The 2007 number that you gave was actually not even in the report (dated > June 29, 2007).
> In addition, you left out several of the Reagan years.
> In summary,
> 17,201 deaths during the 8 year Reagan Administration > 6,223 deaths during the 4 year Bush H W Administration > 7,500 deaths during the 8 year Clinton Administration > 8,792 deaths SO FAR IN JUST THE FIRST 6 YEARS of the Bush W > Administration
> I don't know where you got your figures from, but they certainly were > not from this report!
> As to the rest of your spin, it just doesn't support whatever argument > you were attempting to make.
> Anyone who attempts to gain political points by misrepresenting > statistics on military deaths is...well, I think you know!
When the people they support routinely lie (remember WMDs?), they find it easy to do it as well. So they make up numbers as they go along, attribute them to a real report that doesn't contain them, and get people to believe them because they sound convincing and authentic, that is until someone like you comes along and takes the trouble to check them out.
What the knot heads don't even realize is that the numbers they produced for the Dubya years didn't even come up to the numbers that the Bush administration itself admitted to during their Iraq adventure.
Yet, if nobody had bothered to vet those numbers, they'd have gotten away with it...... so thanks for your public service.
jimstevens wrote: > [Default] On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:44:24 -0800, Islander > <nos...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> jimstevens wrote: >>>> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf) >>> Don't expect the usual suspects on the left to have much to say about >>> it. Instead they will parse something out or ignore it. They hate >>> the military and make a mockery of claiming to support it. Those who >>> have served know better. And just as they are skewed in those >>> numbers, they are in who they would vote for. >> How about what I said about it? Looks like Hoppy has been caught >> tweaking the numbers. > Yup. And I leave it up to him to say whatever he wishes. I did > comment on where I think he pulled the incorrect data from. The > numbers came from the mid 80's I recall.
I have been duped and reposted those figures with out checking against the official report. It is my error because I posted with out verification. What else can I say.
-- Posted by HOPPIE, 30 Years Active Duty ,11 Campaigns Vietnam, Life Member; Am.Lgn,DAV,VFW,AFSA
william boyd wrote: > jimstevens wrote: >> [Default] On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:44:24 -0800, Islander >> <nos...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> jimstevens wrote: >>>>> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf) >>>> Don't expect the usual suspects on the left to have much to say about >>>> it. Instead they will parse something out or ignore it. They hate >>>> the military and make a mockery of claiming to support it. Those who >>>> have served know better. And just as they are skewed in those >>>> numbers, they are in who they would vote for. >>> How about what I said about it? Looks like Hoppy has been caught >>> tweaking the numbers. >> Yup. And I leave it up to him to say whatever he wishes. I did >> comment on where I think he pulled the incorrect data from. The >> numbers came from the mid 80's I recall.
> I have been duped and reposted those figures with out checking against > the official report. It is my error because I posted with out > verification. What else can I say.
Thanks for clarifying that, Hoppie.
You might want to lay this on the head of wherever or whoever you got it from and next time consider that you might be blamed for what you post, no matter where you got it.
jimstevens wrote: > [Default] On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 06:58:46 -0800, Islander > <nos...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> william boyd wrote: >>> jimstevens wrote: >>>> [Default] On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:44:24 -0800, Islander >>>> <nos...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>> jimstevens wrote: >>>>>>> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf) >>>>>> Don't expect the usual suspects on the left to have much to say about >>>>>> it. Instead they will parse something out or ignore it. They hate >>>>>> the military and make a mockery of claiming to support it. Those who >>>>>> have served know better. And just as they are skewed in those >>>>>> numbers, they are in who they would vote for. >>>>> How about what I said about it? Looks like Hoppy has been caught >>>>> tweaking the numbers. >>>> Yup. And I leave it up to him to say whatever he wishes. I did >>>> comment on where I think he pulled the incorrect data from. The >>>> numbers came from the mid 80's I recall. >>> I have been duped and reposted those figures with out checking against >>> the official report. It is my error because I posted with out >>> verification. What else can I say.
>> Thanks for clarifying that, Hoppie.
>> You might want to lay this on the head of wherever or whoever you got it >>from and next time consider that you might be blamed for what you post, >> no matter where you got it.
> ???? You rise to tell folks who how to manage their affairs. Chutzpa
Just a word of advice, no charge!
Course, you're just defensive because you bought into it without question. Your initial reply to Hoppie is above. Kind of puts you in the same category as Hoppie - gullible when it suits your politics!
|
