It's to do with peacetime vs. wartime; not Clinton vs. Bush. It's comparing training exercise accidents to real war casualties.
I'm not in the mood to play with you today, go sit in the corner with Dana. ;P On 5/24/07, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1815 more died during six years of Bush, which included a war, than > > during the first six years of Clinton. > > wow. > > so just what exactly does that prove? > > more accidents under clinton? > WTF does that prove, and why does it matter? > > how about if we do an analysis of those wounded in action? > > 25,549 as of May 19, 2007 (cite - > http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/oif-wounded-total.pdf) > > How do the numbers compare there? - I found Bush's you find Clinton's > since you're so good at the "Clinton did it too" argument. > > how about those? > > And of those, how many are surviving wounds that would have killed > them even a decade ago? > > You want to nit pick on only 1815 "more" deaths? how about 25,000 more > wounded? > Answer me that. > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJP Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:235498 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
