Conservatives Say Obama Has Lost More US Troops Than Bush. That’s Crazy.

In the middle of one of my regular arguments with conservatives on Twitter, I was surprised to see several of them make the assertion that we had lost more U.S. troops in combat with President Obama than we did under President Bush.

Being a member in long standing of the reality based nation, I decided to do some Googling. It literally took all of 5 minutes to get the pertinent information, and to generate a chart in Excel, something I am far from an expert at.

Shocker: It isn’t true. It isn’t remotely true. It isn’t even close to true.

I made this chart using parameters very favorable to Bush. I included troop deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009 under Obama’s numbers, when in fact the reality is even though he became commander in chief in January of 2009, his strategies in the region would not be implemented for several months.

Even under that wide latitude, bending over backwards really, the numbers just don’t compare.

It’s also worth noting the amount of American soldiers who died in Iraq in 2012: 1. And the amount who have died through November 20 of 2013: 0.

I should also further note that I was a supporter of the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 under President Bush. I think we should leave now, but I think that our actions there were warranted by the attack on us on 9/11. I think the troops who have died there under both presidents did so for an actual, clear reason.

By comparison, Iraq was always a mistake and will always remain so. The troops died there because the Bush administration lied America into a war and refused to adjust our strategies there under a terrible Defense Secretary (Rumsfeld) for the venal satisfaction of his own, sick ego.

The deaths of American troops in both theaters stand in stark contrast to each other, and it is one of the reasons I often bring up Bush and his policies: It is wrong to send American soldiers to their deaths for lies or no real reason.

us-troop-bush-vs-obama

  • RCLUVSANN

    the point conservatives make is that the media is very selective in what it reports. Under Bush’s tenure, we saw DAILY body counts and lots of images of coffins coming home with American flags. Under Obama’s surge, double the number of deaths and pretty close to no media coverage. You can look at facts any way you want – Obama’s policy was to surge in Afghanistan and run like hell out of Iraq. If you want to conflate the two, then be our guest, but surely even you can see the obvious disparate media attention and/or stereotyping.

  • Sam Spade

    Hey ass-clown, you combined the data for Afgan and Iraq for the Bush Afghan total for Bush. Also, you seem to forget that we pulled out of Iraq. Lastly, you are comparing 8 years of Bush to 6 years of Barry. I bet you were a riot in statistics classes. It is fortunate that Hussein’s bunch were overthrown before Barry was sworn in.

  • Donald Schuster

    The real problem is being overlooked by people on this site. ObamaCare will cause over 14 millions more deaths in this country by some estimates. As my liberal/progressive friends would say he lied and more will die.

    • John Roman

      You are a friggin idiot.

      • Donald Schuster

        Well I wonder when a liberal name calling would begin. If you would only take that 3rd grade education, go to Google and do so research you to could learn what is really happen and quit battling old business. Like your leader Hillary would would say that happened a long time ago who cares. Bush at least let the troops have ammo in their weapons.

  • Guest

    Well, I am going to say this, any of you idiots that are defending Obama are just that, idiots. Bush was in office when both conflicts started,your savior the mighty Obama campaigned on the fact that he was going to bring all troops home and end U.S. casualties, has he done this? Not only did he not deliver on his promise he has caused MORE deaths…and somehow you don’t seem to understand this?!

    • John Roman

      I guess you failed chart reading at middle school?

  • Gerald Leddin
  • Candice Harris

    The Military has very different numbers than you have (??) where did yours come from?

  • Captain ‘Merica

    Credibility = ZERO

    “I should also further note that I was a supporter of the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 under President Bush. I think we should leave now, but I think that our actions there were warranted by the attack on us on 9/11.”

    Yeah, good call on that one, what with all that evidence that was produced about Afghanistan carrying out 9/11…

  • Pinkamena Diane Pie

    Looks like a concerted effort is underway by the RWNJs to upvote their own.

  • feloniousgrammar

    There weren’t as many deaths under Bush in Afghanistan, because there weren’t enough troops in Afghanistan to do anything successfully, and because the Bush badministration turned its attention to Iraq— which it lied to get support for, and then the Bush Administration fucked it all up in terms that probably haven’t been coined yet, because it was galling and disastrous beyond all reason for a country that’s half crazy (far left and far right) anyway. If their goal was to create a vacuum of a failed state that would become a cluster-fuck controlled by the most fundamentalist and mercenary bastards who could grab a gun and shoot people they don’t identify with, then they could not have done it better.

    The Bin Laden was suddenly so five minutes ago—

    until President Obama had him assassinated.

    Here is some history:

    … historians say resistance to providing more robust resources to Afghanistan had three sources in the White House and the Pentagon.

    First, President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had criticized using the military for peacekeeping and reconstruction in the Balkans during the 1990s. As a result, “nation building”carried a derogatory connotation for many senior military officials, even though American forces were being asked to fill gaping voids in the Afghan government after the Taliban’s fall.

    Second, military planners were concerned about Afghanistan’s long history of resisting oreign invaders and wanted to avoid the appearance of being occupiers. But the historians argue that this concern was based partly on an “incomplete” understanding of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan*.

    Third, the invasion of Iraq was siphoning away resources. After the invasion started in March 2003, the history says, the United States clearly “had a very limited ability to increase its forces” in Afghanistan.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/asia/31history.html?_r=3&hp&

    So, of course more soldiers have died in Afghanistan under the Obama Administration— there were more soldiers, and they were actually fighting a war in order to help make the government of Afghanistan able to provide enough security to keep extremists from using Afghanistan as the number one terrorist training resort in the world. The job required more than a few gestures being made while focusing on carrying out an unjustified invasion and occupation launched on the basis of lies, that created a failed state that quickly spiraled into sectarian violence that targeted everyone. There were no deaths in that war that were vindicated, no matter how much the Bush Administration likes to hold the corpse of Saddam Hussein up as some sort of victory; most Iraqis were better off under Hussein— except for Shiite extremists who are in control now. We haven’t even got an explanation for WHY they attacked Iraq and a reckoning of all the things they did wrong and how many Iraqis were killed or injured by injured by U.S. troops and others who took full advantage of a failed state to rape, kidnap, torture, and/or kill whoever they considered to be their enemy and their families.

    But more Americans soldiers died in Afghanistan during Obama’s administration than under Bush’s. The right sit’s up on it’s back paws and mewls— ‘Obama is worse than
    Bush’— as if everyone else is also in denial about what how disastrous his presidency was. And the emotarian left cries in it’s organic granola because Obama didn’t just make every prior death in Afghanistan meaningless by just pulling up stakes and pulling
    everyone out of Afghanistan as soon as he took office, because all the people in Afghanistan who worked with us are just props, right?

    It doesn’t matter if anyone in the category of terrorist from anywhere in the world can take holidays in Afghanistan to learn how to make bombs, train suicide bombers, recruit psychopaths, etc. And if the Taliban wants to kill a lot of their fellow citizens— which they do— then so what? So what if the Taliban takes over Afghanistan and/or Pakistan. One POTUS starts a war, and the next POTUS is supposed to stop it on a dime, because there are FEELINGS with no understanding, no context, and no sense of history.

    The body count is higher in Afghanistan under Obama = Obama worse than Bush.

    Idiots. You got nothing.

    * “an “incomplete” understanding of the Soviet” is the middle name of every Team B neocon in the Bush Administration. Pappy Bush made sure they stayed in the basement. W. Bush gave them the reigns and they failed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

  • WassupSir

    the author also conveniently forgets the intel used by bush was inherited from the clinton admin … the Iraq resolution passed with 29 of 50 dem senators support – most of whom served during clinton admin and had seen the iraq situation (WMDs) evolve for many years…

  • Mosely

    I think that what the author (or the author’s conservative twitter friends) have mistaken is that Obama has lost more troops in Afganistan, not overall. It should be obvious that Bush was in office for longer than Obama, so he would naturally lose more troops overall. I think the main question is, why would either president want to lose any men to help these people? How many raped women have to be stoned before we give these monsters up as a lost cause? Leave these places. Isolationism 4 life

  • Chris Horsefield

    So the facts are more than 3 times the amount of United States personnel died and are still dying in Afghanistan under Obama. And guantanamo bay is still open. Yes more died in Iraq under bush, we kicked out a government and took over a country, Obama (Another of his lies) said he would be out of Afghanistan in 3 years. Is anything Obama says true?

    • zen

      Banter is shilling for Obama, the man who accelerated the war in Afganistan to prove his moxie. It is disgusting to see the backing of war after all these years, hidden behind Blame Bush, again, after all these years.

    • ozarksgal

      And 3 times the amount of US personnel died under Bush in Iraq than Obama, and Obama’s Afghanistan is still way less than 50% of the deaths than Bush so…. does math not work in your alternative universe???

  • RobiZ

    So either party will send our men and women to die in foreign countries. I used to watch the news and every day I saw the death count and protesters… I see neither anymore. Did the protesters care more about party affiliation than the war? Shame on them! Have we shut down Guantanamo? Where was the backlash for killing an American teen with a drone? I didn’t see much of it except on the Daily Show. We heard about the water boarding; however, recently the UN sent 3 reports dealing with torture in Afghanistan under Obama. What about the huge surge of Afghan civilian deaths. Are we going to ignore this, when it used to make headlines? I so wish people would stop defending or condemning a man simply because of the party he belongs to. Both Bush and Obama have mislead us in these wars, and lied to us about what they were doing. Yet depending on which party you belong to, you’ll condemn one and defend the other…

    • zen

      It’s the Democrats fault now, they are in power and failing badly. Obama caused massive bloodshed in Egypt and Syria just by unleashing his vast ignorance.

  • American White Dude

    In other news, Lincoln was a Democrat and 90% of Americans claim no Gender affiliation. Moving on…..

  • American White Dude

    The assertion is regarding Afghanistan. Since the media is hiding it, many Americans don’t know there is still a war. Why are we still there, anyway?

    • Chris Horsefield

      Obama. The Lier in Chief

  • Andrew Joiner

    So it would be fair to say many more American Troops have died in Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush?

    • Chris Horsefield

      YES, 3 times the amount and STILL dying.

    • Burzghash

      When you give us a good reason to differentiate between total troops lost and picking and choosing single destinations, then we might have a reason to care.

  • jbfaust

    This one is quite interesting. It discusses how many people have been killed by Obama by drones.

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread951989/pg1

    • Pinkamena Diane Pie

      >posting links to abovetopsecret
      >jasonalexander.jpg

  • jbfaust
  • jbfaust
    • Kyle Villareal

      oh yea… great source… Go ahead and throw in poltifact and politco and cnn… Wait the be all end all Snopes…

      Facts on the Internet are two words that should be classified as an oxymoron.

  • jbfaust

    Did a little research and found your numbers to be false as of 2011.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120087842

    There have been more soldiers lost since Obama, and mainly in 2010-2011

    • Stonefallow .

      That only covers the war in Afghanistan. If you actually look at the chart above, it shows that indeed about three times as many soldiers died in Afghanistan under Obama. BUT, many many more soldiers died in Iraq under Bush, pushing the total number of soldiers killed under Bush far above Obama.

      • summer Jones

        Afghanistan
        Obama’s deaths were in 3 /12 years
        Bush was 8 years

        Bush had two terms
        O has 1 so far so there is no comparison. Who knows what will happen next

        • Stonefallow .

          The war in Iraq commenced in 2003, just two years after the war in Afghanistan. In that time, Bush had over 4200 casualties in Iraq alone, while Obama had 264 casualties. Looking at both wars together, Bush has lost over twice as many people as Obama. Do we need to rethink our strategy in Afghanistan? Most likely, but this claim being made by conservatives is nothing more than party serving propaganda.

        • you_know_it

          Perhaps you’ll stop posting such stupidity.

          Doubt it.

      • Ironhorse Rider

        The bulk of the Iraq war was pretty much over when Obama came in.
        Of course fewer casualties when conflict is winding down. Google the timeline.

      • animevil

        https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/report_by_year_manner.xhtml

        This is a military site that has the deaths of military servicemen and women broken down by year (without regards to what war they were in) all deaths, accidental, and hostile action. I totaled the Hostile action deaths from 2001-2009 and it comes to 4129 so I don’t know where the writer got his numbers from but they are wrong.

    • summer Jones

      YOu are correct

  • jbfaust

    Where did you get your numbers from?

  • Jerry S

    575 US troops died in Afghanistan during the Bush presidency. By August 18, 2010, following two troop surges initiated by President Obama, that number had doubled. Today, over 1500 US troops have died in Afghanistan since President Obama took office—and yet, little in that war-torn country has changed.

    These numbers should give us pause. While the Administration has publicly conceded that there is no military solution in Afghanistan, and claimed that it supports ‘Afghan-led reconciliation’, its policy on the ground is marked by a refusal to establish a timetable for full military withdrawal even after misleading Americans into thinking that all US troops would be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

    We must ask ourselves how many more lives will be sacrificed before the Obama administration sets a clear end date for America’s longest war.

  • Jerry S

    So you agree that under Obama more than 3 times as many soldiers died under Obama!

    That is the conservative argument, not the total number of deaths in both wars.

    And the reason for the 1662 deaths? Obama’s restrictive ROE’s. In other words, most of the deaths could have been prevented.

    Google that!

    here’s some help:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/26/rules-of-engagement-bind-us-troops-actions-in-afgh/?page=all#pagebreak

    • Chris Horsefield

      And the number is still going up under Obama. The Lier in Chief.

      • zen

        And the liars in the press.

      • Kevin Hickey

        What’s a Lier?

  • Matt BabcocktheSolution Adcock
  • Matt BabcocktheSolution Adcock

    How about innocnets in drone strikes? how many of them have Bush killed more than Obama? since the chosen one stated he is “quite good at killing people”

  • Matt BabcocktheSolution Adcock
  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com wetcasements

    Not to mention 3,000 Americans murdered in New York and DC under Chimpy’s watch.

  • Terry Shannon

    In any event that is 6729 too many. And then, should we add up all of the other people who have died? Iraqis, Afghanis, members of Bush’s “Coalition of the Willing?” How many thousands? How many hundreds of thousands?

  • GeorgiaYankee

    So where’d they get that ridiculous assertion from?

  • Vipsanius

    Whatever “works”. Say whatever you feel the need/urge to say. More likely than not, you will get away with it.

    • Mick Rusk

      Especially if you say it enough times to people who want to believe the lie in the first place.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    “Conservatives” (or, fans of the GOP (or, people who now call themselves “independents” (meaning, people who voted for George W. Bush twice))) are appalled by what they enabled. The horror and suffering and death and destruction unleashed on the world by the last administration is almost beyond grasp. Knowing that your vote, if not your vocal and enthusiastic support, helped make all that happen is too much for some people. This is a defense mechanism.

    • zen

      You are responsible for all the deaths and mistakes of all the recent years, even though your media doesn’t report it.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        Translation: “You’re absolutely right, therefore I will change the subject.”

    • RobiZ

      I suppose we should have voted for Kerry in the second election; however, Bush sought congressional approval and Kerry voted for the war. He also had a plan to give Iraq an ultimatum and a couple months to comply, which Bush used. Given your statement then, it would be the problem of anyone who voted for not only the president but the congressmen who voted for the war too, and we didn’t have candidate in 2004 who didn’t support the war. Gosh, I guess both parties should feel ashamed and should feel appalled.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        Translation: “You’re right, so I’ll change the subject.”

  • feloniousgrammar

    ZOCHRIST!

    I think I see how they do it. Check out some of the comments at http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/first-couples-therapy-100054.html?ml=m_u3_1. I could only read part of the first page before I started feeling kinda barf-y.

    Let me spell it out for you. Obama was a stoner and drug users whose grades would have never allowed him to enter college on his own. THIS IS A FACT. Obama even with lowered standards because of his races still couldn’t get in.

    According to the New York Times, Khalid al-Mansour, a close adviser to Saudi Prince Al Waleed bin-Talal and mentor to the founders of the original Black Panther party, solicited letters of recommendation to help Obama get into Harvard. (An intelligent person, which I realize leaves out the bots, would be asking themselves right about now why would the Saud Royals take such a strong interest in a then unknown Obama—-and might even then further ask themselves since when do Sunni muslim Sauds EVER in the history of the world help anyone that isn’t a Sunni muslim but I digress)

    The Saudi royals have been large benefactors of Harvard and other schools. Which probably explains the middle east wars of Harvard Obama and Havard Bush(including Obama attempted illegal one with Syria) to help out the Sauds specifically Prince Bandar who was flat out documented bribing other countries leaders to take out his personal enemy Syria and specifically ASSAD.
    Yes, the Sauds funded Obama’s campaign as did other terrorists like Hamas members———————which is well documented. In fact, there was a nice article put out during the first election that Obama was taking ILLEGAL donations from the GAZA strip terrorists——and then putting that the donations had come from “GA” as in Georgia to hide the funds.
    BTW, I do hate Obama….he’s a lying crook—but even worse he is especially dumb so I have trouble accepting that the American populace has dumb down so much that Obama and his propaganda media could fool so many. He should be impeached and imprisoned for the various crimes he has been committing and murders he has been causing. And you may wanna note, I am no demmie—when I post something, I can back it up with facts easily.

    People believe this shit.

    • Christopher Foxx

      THIS IS A FACT.

      Rule of thumb: When you have to SHOUT that your claim is a fact? It isn’t.

      • Vipsanius

        Do not tell that to radio talk show personalities. if you do, they will yell louder so you can understand them better.

      • Christopher Foxx

        when I post something, I can back it up with facts easily.

        Rule of thumb #2: People who have facts to back themselves up actually present those facts. People who merely claim they do, don’t.

    • Vipsanius

      This what I tell them:
      “If you find it expedient to believe that, go ahead and believe it I won’t stop you..”
      That shuts them up.

      • sealiagh

        Excellent. I am committing that one to memory for future use!

        • Vipsanius

          The key word is ‘expedient’.

    • wdhammer

      this sounds like Bush you described to a tee

    • Donald Schuster

      I was told by an Arab friend the same story before Obama was elected the first time.

  • feloniousgrammar

    The level of denial that believing that there were fewer U.S. casualties under Bush than Obama is infinity— these people will never believe that Obama did anything better than Bush.

    Poor wittle things. When yous gotta lie like a cheap rug to not think your choice of POTUS was an unmitigated disaster, then it’s time to leave your party.

    • dbtheonly

      fg,

      How do they even get to that point? I mean how can you get the math to work, even with the RW colored glasses?

      • Buzz Killington

        Yeah, I’d be interested to hear how they could come up with that. I can’t imagine.

        • KarenJ

          Like feloniousgrammar’s Politico story, it’s obvious the RWNJs just make stuff up.

          It’s a wonder to me such narrow-minded zealots have the imagination to create such outlandish fantasies, but I suppose that’s how they get through each oppressed fearful day.

  • blair houghton

    They’re probably making the lazy shift from a claim qualified with “in Afghanistan” to an unqualified claim. Of course, it just makes the same thing happen to them that happened to America when Bush made the lazy shift from a war “in Afghanistan” to war everywhere…

  • Vipsanius

    Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.