BobbyRutan is right. The article in the clip is totally bogus.

From Tim Grieve's War Room blog at Salon:

In fact, when you look at the data provided by the Defense Department, you'll notice that almost none of the deaths during the Clinton administration -- just 76 over an eight-year period -- were from hostile action or terrorism. The rest were the result of accident, homicide, illness or suicide or were of an as-yet-undetermined nature.

These noncombat deaths have not simply stopped happening. There are still noncombat deaths going on in the military, and they are, for the most part, kept as...

BobbyRutan is right. The article in the clip is totally bogus.

From Tim Grieve's War Room blog at Salon:

In fact, when you look at the data provided by the Defense Department, you'll notice that almost none of the deaths during the Clinton administration -- just 76 over an eight-year period -- were from hostile action or terrorism. The rest were the result of accident, homicide, illness or suicide or were of an as-yet-undetermined nature.

These noncombat deaths have not simply stopped happening. There are still noncombat deaths going on in the military, and they are, for the most part, kept as a separate tally from the deaths in Iraq. (To be fair, some of the deaths -- about 16 percent -- that have occurred in Iraq are similarly not the result of hostile action.) The absolute number of deaths that have happened as a result of our invasion of Iraq may not be astoundingly high, but they are still deaths entirely above and beyond those that would happen in the course of normal peacetime military business, and that's not something Colon factors into her argument at all. Military deaths have spiked upward from the final years of the Clinton administration. In 1999, there were 796 total military deaths; in 2000, there were 758; in 2003, there were 1,410; and in 2004, there were 1,887.

The figures Willhelm clipped do not represent veterans at all.

We are at war and as a result there will of course be causalities. The point of the clip is that we should to put things into perspective. The media has made this war seem far more deadly for American troops than it has been.
For comparison... "World War II killed more people, involved more nations, and cost more money than any other war in history. Altogether, 70 million people served in the armed forces during the war and 17 million combatants died. Civilian deaths were ever greater. At least 19 million Soviet civilians, 10 million Chinese, and 6 million European Jews lost their lives during the war. All of this in just a s...

The figures Willhelm clipped do not represent veterans at all.

We are at war and as a result there will of course be causalities. The point of the clip is that we should to put things into perspective. The media has made this war seem far more deadly for American troops than it has been.
For comparison... "World War II killed more people, involved more nations, and cost more money than any other war in history. Altogether, 70 million people served in the armed forces during the war and 17 million combatants died. Civilian deaths were ever greater. At least 19 million Soviet civilians, 10 million Chinese, and 6 million European Jews lost their lives during the war. All of this in just a six year period." source

Bottom Line:

In fact, military deaths have increased year-over-year since Bush first took office in 2001 -- both in raw terms and as a percentage of the total number serving -- and have increased dramatically since the beginning of the Iraq war.

As indicated by the table below, which was reconstructed from figures provided by the Department of Defense, the rate of U.S. military personnel lost per 100,000 serving rose significantly under Bush, from a low point of 50.0 in 2000, Clinton's last full year in office, to 110.2 during 2004. Additionally, the total number of deaths under Bush is not, as Colon's misleading comparison suggested, 3,133 versus 4,417 under Clinton's first term. The numb...

Bottom Line:

In fact, military deaths have increased year-over-year since Bush first took office in 2001 -- both in raw terms and as a percentage of the total number serving -- and have increased dramatically since the beginning of the Iraq war.

As indicated by the table below, which was reconstructed from figures provided by the Department of Defense, the rate of U.S. military personnel lost per 100,000 serving rose significantly under Bush, from a low point of 50.0 in 2000, Clinton's last full year in office, to 110.2 during 2004. Additionally, the total number of deaths under Bush is not, as Colon's misleading comparison suggested, 3,133 versus 4,417 under Clinton's first term. The number 3,133 represents only deaths in Iraq since the start of the war and does not reflect total military fatalities. In fact, according to the Department of Defense, total military deaths during Bush's first term totaled 5,187, compared with 4,302 under Clinton's first term. The Iraq war began in March 2003.

Hehe? Didn't know you took military deaths so lightly sooners?

The point JK, which you are missing, is # of deaths. We are not comparing the circumstances of the death. It is not about legitimate or illegitimate comparisons. It is simply a point about 2 things 1. the deterioration of military equipment under Bush 41 and Clinton which decreased training and readiness, which led to so many non-war deaths under Clinton. 2. The deaths resulting during the Iraq War should be expected to a certain extent and still fall short of the deaths under Clinton.

But to be clear, I think Bush 41 is as much responsible, if not more, for the number of deaths under Clinton.

To you this is about POLITICS, just like everything seems to be with you. So you ...

The point JK, which you are missing, is # of deaths. We are not comparing the circumstances of the death. It is not about legitimate or illegitimate comparisons. It is simply a point about 2 things 1. the deterioration of military equipment under Bush 41 and Clinton which decreased training and readiness, which led to so many non-war deaths under Clinton. 2. The deaths resulting during the Iraq War should be expected to a certain extent and still fall short of the deaths under Clinton.

But to be clear, I think Bush 41 is as much responsible, if not more, for the number of deaths under Clinton.

To you this is about POLITICS, just like everything seems to be with you. So you can mark the war dead off on a wall and have a party at every 100 deaths that roll along if you want. I'm just applying perspective.

the deterioration of military equipment under Bush 41 and Clinton which decreased training and readiness, which led to so many non-war deaths under Clinton.

This is not correct. As this data shows (taken from this table), the rate of military deaths was declining throughout the 1980s AND 1990s, from Reagan through Bush I through Clinton. It spiked a little when we invaded Afghanistan, but after we invaded Iraq it jumped up quite a bit, and for the whole 1980-2004 period the death rate was at its highest in 2004. This is the comparison the author of the source material in this clip doesn't want to ma...

the deterioration of military equipment under Bush 41 and Clinton which decreased training and readiness, which led to so many non-war deaths under Clinton.

This is not correct. As this data shows (taken from this table), the rate of military deaths was declining throughout the 1980s AND 1990s, from Reagan through Bush I through Clinton. It spiked a little when we invaded Afghanistan, but after we invaded Iraq it jumped up quite a bit, and for the whole 1980-2004 period the death rate was at its highest in 2004. This is the comparison the author of the source material in this clip doesn't want to make--the lives wasted in the Iraq invasion.

Year-Military Deaths per 1000 active-duty personnel (# deaths)
1980-1.17 (2392)
1981-1.14 (2380)
1982-1.10 (2319)
1983-1.16 (2465)
1984-.93 (1999)
1985-1.05 (2252)
1986-.91 (1984)
1987-.92 (1983)
1988-.86 (1819)
1989-.77 (1636)
1990-.74 (1507)
1991-.92 (1787)
1992-.73 (1293)
1993-.72 (1213)
1994-.68 (1075)
1995-.69 (1040)
1996-.67 (974)
1997-.58 (817)
1998-.60 (827)
1999-58 (796)
2000-.55 (758)
2001-.64 (891)
2002-.71 (999)
2003-.99 (1410)
2004-1.34 (1887)

It's no wonder Willhelm can understand. He doesn't do math very well. He totaled nine years for Clinton's term 1992 - 2000. Should have done 1993 - 2000. But still that's comparing 8 years to 4 years. This is rather silly. It's easy math.

As was stated before -

As indicated by the table below, which was reconstructed from figures provided by the Department of Defense, the rate of U.S. military personnel lost per 100,000 serving rose significantly under Bush, from a low point of 50.0 in 2000, Clinton's last full year in office, to 110.2 during 2004. Additionally, the total number of deaths under Bush is not, as Colon's misleading comparison suggested, 3,133 versus 4,417 under Clinton's fir...

It's no wonder Willhelm can understand. He doesn't do math very well. He totaled nine years for Clinton's term 1992 - 2000. Should have done 1993 - 2000. But still that's comparing 8 years to 4 years. This is rather silly. It's easy math.

As was stated before -

As indicated by the table below, which was reconstructed from figures provided by the Department of Defense, the rate of U.S. military personnel lost per 100,000 serving rose significantly under Bush, from a low point of 50.0 in 2000, Clinton's last full year in office, to 110.2 during 2004. Additionally, the total number of deaths under Bush is not, as Colon's misleading comparison suggested, 3,133 versus 4,417 under Clinton's first term. The number 3,133 represents only deaths in Iraq since the start of the war and does not reflect total military fatalities. In fact, according to the Department of Defense, total military deaths during Bush's first term totaled 5,187, compared with 4,302 under Clinton's first term. The Iraq war began in March 2003. Link to table.