US Lost More Soldiers Under Bill Clinton Than We Have In Iraq

America lost an average of 938 soldiers per year under Clinton. In Iraq, we have lost an average of 789 soldiers per year. From Gateway Pundit:

Before Americans hand the keys of government over to the Bush-haters and allow:

* Osama to make another fatwa tape on how weak the Americans are for running from Iraq

* Speaker Pelosi to follow through with the 9-11 Commission's recommendations after she voted them down in 2004

* Liberal democrats to spit on our soldiers as they drag them from Iraq

* Total chaos and death if Iraq is left to the militias

* Democrats to rewrite the books on this historic military campaign

It is, of course, a tragedy to lose the soldiers we have lost in Iraq. We ought to be thankful to them and their families for the sacrifices they were willing to make in the cause of freedom. But, the Left blows the numbers out of proportion to reality. In World War II we lost over 400,000 soldiers. In Vietnam we lost approximately 47,000 soldiers. In Iraq, we have lost 2,755 men in total.

Here's a little known fact, the casualty rate suffered by French policemen in the continuous street fighting with Muslim "youths" is over three times higher than the casualty rate of American forces in Iraq (from the French paper Le Figaro):

"Violent acts are rising in an exponential proportion", says a speaker from the Police. "If this tendency continues, we will have 15% of the policemen hurt in a year".

They are suffering a higher number of casualties than Americans are in Iraq. The total number of casualties in Iraq per year is approximately 6,800, which represents about 4.5% of total American forces.

The Left is in charge over in France, and they have incredibly high casualty rates. The Left was in charge with Clinton in office, and we had high casualty rates. Conservatives are in charge under Bush, AND WE ARE AT WAR, and we have comparatively low casualty rates.

Now, do you really want to put the Democrats back in charge?