What you blatantly failed to omit was the fact that in 1980 under Jimmy Carter there were ZERO Hostile Action deaths. Cause of Deaths that year were:
Accidental= 1556
Hostile Action= 0
Homicide= 174
Illness= 419
Pending= 0
Self Inflicted= 231
Terrorist Attack= 1
Undetermined= 11
These numbers are from your chart from your website that you gave (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf Table 5, Part II, page 11 of 28).

It shows that in 1983, under Ronald Reagan, Active Duty Military Deaths reached the apex of 2,465 total deaths. This was partially due to the Lebanon Barracks terrorist attack where over 200 Marines were killed. Reagan quickly cut and run from Lebanon and no one has been held accountable for that terrorist event.

Your chart also shows that Accidental Deaths have been reduced dramatically since 1980. But Hostile Deaths skyrocketed under current president Bush.

As a side note, there was only ONE Hostile Action death under Bill Clinton's 8 years as president. He also shrank the total number of Active Duty Military Deaths 7 out of the 8 years in office.

Also, you transcribed the following years incorrectly: 1982, 1990, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. Here is the accurate information from Table 5 Part II:
.........Total ..Accidentl Hostile ......................Self ..Terror
Year Deaths Deaths Action Homicide Illness Inflict Attack
1980 .2,392 .1,556 ... 0 174 419 231 1
1981 .2,380 .1,524 ... 0 145 457 241 0
1982 .2,319 .1,495 ... 0 108 446 254 0
1983 .2,465 .1,413 ... 18 115 419 218 263
1984 .1,999 .1,293 ... 1 84 374 225 6
1985 .2,252 .1,476 ... 0 111 363 275 5
1986 .1,984 .1,199 ... 2 103 384 269 0
1987 .1,983 .1,172 ... 37 104 383 260 2
1988 .1,819 .1,080 ... 0 90 321 285 17
1989 .1,636 .1,000 ... 23 58 294 224 0
1990 .1,507 . 880 ... 0 74 277 232 1
1991 .1,787 . 931 .. 147 112 308 256 0
1992 .1,293 . 676 ... 0 109 252 238 1
1993 .1,213 . 632 ... 0 86 221 236 29
1994 .1,075 . 544 ... 0 83 206 232 0
1995 .1,040 . 538 ... 0 67 174 250 7
1996 ...974 . 527 ... 1 52 173 188 19
1997 ...817 . 433 ... 0 42 170 159 0
1998 ...827 . 445 ... 0 26 168 161 3
1999 ...796 . 436 ... 0 37 150 145 0
2000 ...758 . 398 ... 0 34 138 151 17
2001 ...891 . 437 ... 3 49 185 140 55
2002 ...999 . 547 ... 18 51 190 160 0
2003 .1,228 . 440 ...344 36 207 167 0
2004 .1,874 . 604 ...739 46 270 188 0
2005 .1,942 . 632 ...739 49 281 150 0
2006 .1,858 . 465 ...753 30 205 155 0

Your original post failed to disclose the fact that Accidental Deaths have decreased while Hostile Action deaths have increased. Slanted? It also omits the fact that the least amount of Accidental and Total deaths occured during Bill Clinton's (Democrat) final year in office, 2000. He was able to shrink the deficit as well as the total number of military fatalities lower than ANY OTHER president in our generation. But all anyone ever says is Monica Monica Monica. It's like a Brady Bunch Rerun. Marsha Marsha Marsha.

Withdraw the troops, nuke our enemies. All of them. In the words of Granny5x-God bless the troops, God bless America.

If you are going to rate presidents based on the number of combat deaths, then FDR and old Abe would be our two worst.Presidents. Following that rational, FDR would be a better President if he had cut and run in WWII and let Hitler win the war. i think that most of us are glad that he did not.

I think that a man is made or broken by the time in which he lives. Lets look at a few Presidents. Washington, without the Rev War,would have remained a Virginia planter and militia officer like dozens of others. Lincoln, without the Civil War, would be remembered as a mid-western lawyer who served as President. FDR's reputation rests on his combating the Depression and WWII. Eisenhower, without WWII would have retired as an unknown army colonel. All of these men were given the opportunity to rise by the events of their time. Take away the events and they would have been, at best, minor players in American history.

I totally agree with you hastings1066. If a president is rated by # of combat deaths, FDR is the worst. FDR (Democrat) presided over virtually all of WWII where 405,000 American troops died.

Just to show you I'm trying to be fair, don't forget Woodrow Wilson (Democrat). He presided over WWI where 116,000 American troops fought and died. Under Abe, 364,000 troops were lost in the Civil War. Abe was a Whig, then a Republican then a National Union Political Party member (Hadn't even heard of National Union Party till I just looked it up, but I know you knew because you taught history).

More American troops have fought and died under a Democratic president than a Republican president. Yet Republicans have it drilled into their heads that Democrats just want to cut and run. The website provided above by the OP of this thread shows that Democrats are not scaredy-cats. There's a time for war and there's a time for peace. I think I read that in the Holy Bible somewhere. "Mission Accomplished" could have been a time for peace to withdraw the troops. When we found Saddam Hussein then Iraq hanged him, was another time for peace to withdraw the troops. Instead we're still there.

I like Harry S. Truman. He wasn't afraid to show shock and awe by dropping a couple of big ones. Anyone who likes Admiral Halsey's infamous statement regarding the Japanese, should also like Harry S. Truman.

No problem.. American deaths in the civil war exceeded all other wars combined from the revolution to present day. That is a stunning  fact i always remembered which made me realize something wasn't right about the numbers from that website

Rex - You make a good point when you mention that in the past, democrats have been effective leaders in time of war. FDR is the best example of this. It was in the 1960s (Vietnam) when things started to change. Prior to that both parties had a strong footing in the center. The Dems were a little to the left and the Reps were a little to the right, both had room for dissension within the party. From the 60s on,both parties moved away from the center toward more strident positions.It seems that Reps are a bit to willing to resort to force and the Dems are to willing to appease our foes in order to avoid using force. More and more the ideologues have taken over both parties. It's a shame. Oops, wife looking over shoulder, tells me I am lecturing, sorry!

Of course clinton reduced the number of deaths. That SOB reduced the size of our Armed Forced.

Ummmm, no.....

American deaths.....and these are not all the conflicts....

Revolutionary War  = 25,000 total deaths

War of 1812 = roughly 20,000 deaths

Mexican-American War = 13,283 deaths

World War I  = 116,516 deaths

World War II  = 405,399 deaths

Korean War =  36,516 deaths

Vietnam = 58,151 deaths

Gulf War = 299 deaths

Iraq = 3,959 deaths

American Civil War deaths =  364,511 Union and roughly 260,000 Confederate....