This is rehashing old news that has been posted and debated before.

If you go to the chart quoted at murdoconline.net and tally the numbers this is the result you get.

Clinton years (8 Years) 1993-2000: 7500 military deaths
Bush years (4 years on the chart) 2001 - 2004:
5187 military deaths.

So it doesn't even include 2005 & 2006 and you can see the disparity in what is shown on these graphs and the actual US military figures. Adding figures available for years 2005 & 2006 from others charts brings Bush's total to roughly 7,000 with 2 years remaining in his administration.

Why not do a side by side comparison of the US military wounded during Clinton and Bush years?

This chart is misleading on two levels. First, if you are going to compare death counts you should also present death rates. Second, it is not comparing ALL military deaths under the Clinton administration with ALL military deaths under the Bush administration. It is comparing ALL military deaths under the Clinton administration with ONLY those military deaths in the Iraq war. Obviously, US soldiers are dying in places other than Iraq, but "Gateway Pundit" would rather you ignore that inconvenient fact.

We deconstructed this argument here. In one of my comments I presented death counts and rates for each year in the Clinton and Bush administrations.

This isn't meant to be a direct comparison. There have been no calls for disbanding the military because of deaths from all causes, there have just been calls for a withdrawal from Iraq because of those casualties. So these charts compare those casualties to other wars, and to military casualties as a whole during a time of peace. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and the charts don't pretend to show anything else.

Thanks for the clip n2broncos! All of this death is really no big deal. Whew!

As also discussed previously the higher actual numbers of military deaths in the Clinton Administration correlates to a larger amount of personnel, active duty, in the military.

So during Bush's years you have a smaller number of personnel in the military. Putting these statistics on a military deaths per active duty the rates are higher during the Bush Administration.

Just go to the Murdoch online website and check out the graphs which show you military deaths per number of active duty and you will see that W is not only exceeding Clinton butDaddy Bush & Reagan as well.

Sooners, where's our graph comparing military wounded between the Clinton administration and W's?

jklugman meant to post this on this clip but accidentally posted on the previous clip we already debated and debunked.

"By the way, the total number of military deaths so far for the first six years of the Bush administration: 8,792", jklugman

Updates to the table: Link

2003 - 0.86 (1228)
2004 - 1.33 (1874)
2005 - 1.41 (1942)
2006 - -1.35 (1858)

I have checked the CRS REport for Congress Table 4. "U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths, l980 Through 2006, Part 1, Total Military Personnel" figures. They were as follows:
1993 - 2000 7500
2001 - 2006 8742

Where do you get your information? Your chart isn't even close to accurate!