“Military deaths under Clinton were mostly not in combat, of course.”
First, you’re comparing 2001-2004, which only includes 1.7 years of combat in Iraq, to Clinton’s first term. I’m sure if you compare March 2003 through today vs. a similar period during Clinton’s first term, the numbers would be quite different. Also, if 1,000 people/year were dying under Clinton, then that’s probably just the basic background number of deaths that occur among such a large number of active duty military personnel. Please explain your implication that somehow those deaths are Clinton’s fault. And I don’t think that your statistical comparison is valid. If 1,000/yr are going to die from training, heart attacks, traffic accidents, etc., and you send 800/yr to die in Iraq, I don’t see that as an 80% increase. I see that as an increase from 10 (or 50 or whatever) combat deaths under clinton to 800. That’s a lot more than 80% (and obviously a lot more than the 20% figure you gave. I’m not sure what your sentence about Iraqi civilians meant, but I think a lack of historical perspective is evident in whatever statistical manipulation results in saying that bush overthrew 2 totalitarian regimes with only an 20% increase in casualties.
I’m on a 20-minute break, so I’ll have to respond to the rest of your post later.