Jeb Bush: I would have invaded Iraq

[JakeStarkey]

The more establishment neo-cons, the more likely there will be war.

 

[rightwinger]

Given the available evidence, George Bush is the only person who would have invaded Iraq

The Hildabeast spoke up in favor of the invasion. In 2004 John "Shithead" Kerry ran on a platform to continue the war, just like Bush. Obama fought the war for three years, calling it a success and nowadays have more troops and more bombing.

Without Democrat support Bush would never have secured funding for the invasion.

It is always comical to see the Moon Bats try to separate themselves from the Iraq War when most of them supported it. Typical Moon Bat hypocrisy.

Just like nowadays the Republicans try to claim they are not responsible for that disastrous Obamacare but the program would absolutely not be funded without Republicans voting for the appropriations.

Congress gave Bush approval to do what he thought necessary in Iraq. Bush waited almost three months and then pulled the trigger on the invasion once it was becoming clear that no WMDs would be found

No other President would have been so arrogant

 

[hangover]

Undeniable proof that cons will never learn from their fuck ups.

 

[Flash]

The more establishment neo-cons, the more likely there will be war.

The Democrats have been the party of war for the last 100 years.

WWI
WWII
Cold War
Korea
Vietnam
Bosnia
Somalia
Three years in Iraq
Escalation of Afghanistan
Libya

The Democrats would make any NeoCon green with envy.

 

[hangover]

The more establishment neo-cons, the more likely there will be war.

The Democrats have been the party of war for the last 100 years.

WWI
WWII
Cold War
Korea
Vietnam
Bosnia
Somalia
Three years in Iraq
Escalation of Afghanistan
Libya

The Democrats would make any NeoCon green with envy.

Undeniable proof that cons will never learn from their fuck ups.

 

[BlindBoo]

The more establishment neo-cons, the more likely there will be war.

The Democrats have been the party of war for the last 100 years.

WWI
WWII
Cold War
Korea
Vietnam
Bosnia
Somalia
Three years in Iraq
Escalation of Afghanistan
Libya

The Democrats would make any NeoCon green with envy.

Military interventionism has had bipartisan support since WWII.

Your Three Years in Iraq is a hoot. Don't you mean 3 years implementing the Big Bush Bug Out?

 

[bendog]

The more establishment neo-cons, the more likely there will be war.

The Democrats have been the party of war for the last 100 years.

WWI
WWII
Cold War
Korea
Vietnam
Bosnia
Somalia
Three years in Iraq
Escalation of Afghanistan
Libya

The Democrats would make any NeoCon green with envy.

Military interventionism has had bipartisan support since WWII.

Your Three Years in Iraq is a hoot. Don't you mean 3 years implementing the Big Bush Bug Out?

I think Iraq was an outlier. Post the greater SE Asia war games disaster, our military interventions were pretty much limited to opposing communist inroads on "our side" of the Atlantic. A sort of Monroe Doctrine. Bosnia and Somalia were really international calls for us to do something. Slick didn't repeat Somalia, even to save the Tutsis.

I think we're still trying to sort out post 9-11. Has there ever been a rational reason given for why any sane person would fly airplanes loaded with innocent civilians into skyscrapers? How can anyone really get their mind around that? Most muslims were as horrified by that as they were by BushII invading Iraq .... because he could. Obama's certainly not made our policy clearer, and even now he continues to waffle. He dithers with ISIS, and takes his boot off Iran's throat just to get a deal to cement his legacy claim to achieving peace in the ME.

Jeb just showed Tom Brady media savvy.

 

[healthmyths]

"Former governor Jeb Bush said Hillary Clinton would have approved the mission, too."

I won't vote for Jeb in the primaries, and I am hoping we have someone else to oppose HRC.

Jeb Bush I would have invaded Iraq US news The Guardian

But you voted for Obama and he took us back into Iraq after Bush had to end that war... You even support Hillary who voted for the war... You even liked Mitt who supported the Iraq invasion as well...

And you supported the Iraqi War from the beginning, whereas I have always wanted to stay out. So what point are you making? None.

And I and 90% of the country concluded that
a) 1991 Cease Fire was broken by Saddam.... what are agreements for if they aren't enforced?
b) 32 democrat comments as well as the UN etc. believed there were WMDs and firmly believed in Saddam was using them on his own people why not the rest of the
world... and it took nearly 2 years to come to the conclusion Saddam had WMDs and would use them and the 1998 Liberation of Iraq act was to be completed.
c) Finally you explain to me... would any SANE leader of a country allow 115,000 children to starve each year when all that was needed to be done to lift the
UN sanctions which prevented aid coming to these children was to CERTIFY there were NO WMDs.
Saddam wouldn't do it. Why? No same leader would put their children at risk is what most leaders of the world concluded and as a result Saddam by NOT
certifying a conclusion was HE HAD WMDs and by the fact he allowed his own country's kids to starve he would definitely use the WMDs.

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

Would you want to see from 2003 to today 12 years another 115,000 a year kids starved or 1.3 million kids starving.... and you would still want Saddam in power??

 

[JakeStarkey]

The appropriate reading is "The Democrats [and Republicans] have been the [parties] of war for the last 100 years." Bi-partisanship is the name of game when we go imperial adventuring.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When we read him begin "And I and 90% of the country concluded that" the laughter breaks out.

The country overwhelmingly conclude the war was a disaster.

 

[bendog]

"Former governor Jeb Bush said Hillary Clinton would have approved the mission, too."

I won't vote for Jeb in the primaries, and I am hoping we have someone else to oppose HRC.

Jeb Bush I would have invaded Iraq US news The Guardian

But you voted for Obama and he took us back into Iraq after Bush had to end that war... You even support Hillary who voted for the war... You even liked Mitt who supported the Iraq invasion as well...

And you supported the Iraqi War from the beginning, whereas I have always wanted to stay out. So what point are you making? None.

And I and 90% of the country concluded that
a) 1991 Cease Fire was broken by Saddam.... what are agreements for if they aren't enforced?
b) 32 democrat comments as well as the UN etc. believed there were WMDs and firmly believed in Saddam was using them on his own people why not the rest of the
world... and it took nearly 2 years to come to the conclusion Saddam had WMDs and would use them and the 1998 Liberation of Iraq act was to be completed.
c) Finally you explain to me... would any SANE leader of a country allow 115,000 children to starve each year when all that was needed to be done to lift the
UN sanctions which prevented aid coming to these children was to CERTIFY there were NO WMDs.
Saddam wouldn't do it. Why? No same leader would put their children at risk is what most leaders of the world concluded and as a result Saddam by NOT
certifying a conclusion was HE HAD WMDs and by the fact he allowed his own country's kids to starve he would definitely use the WMDs.

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

Would you want to see from 2003 to today 12 years another 115,000 a year kids starved or 1.3 million kids starving.... and you would still want Saddam in power??

No, blix and el-baradi concluded there were no womd posing threats to the world at large. No one ever contended Saddam was sane. But only one potus had the hubris to cause a war over that.

 

[bendog]

The appropriate reading is "The Democrats [and Republicans] have been the [parties] of war for the last 100 years." Bi-partisanship is the name of game when we go imperial adventuring.

I dunno. Doesn't it go right to the heart of the American Revolution that we will fck with anyone who fcks with our trade? It's sort of in our genes, imo.

 

[healthmyths]

Why are there still 170,000 US troops in Europe/Asia 70 years after WWII?
Because military leaders right after WWII knew like ALL conquering military that to keep a enemy down you keep military force in place....EXCEPT in
Vietnam and now Iraq!
Both conflicts were morally justified.
But both conflicts now have had immoral people who hate the USA and want to see our military decimated.
No way you can make statements like these and NOT realize that words have meaning and when the enemy hears our leaders encouraging the enemy to kill more
troops like these idiots did you will have serious problems!

And the below Traitors who HELPED by their words encourage TERRORISTS who KILLED US TROOPS as this HARVARD study shows:
The Harvard Study asked: THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The resounding answer WAS YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.

And these statements which idiots like YOU most likely agreed with did everything in the world to encourage recruit and reward the terrorists to continue.
Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real .... "Kerry , Jan . 23. 2003

Then he says this:
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

 

[BlindBoo]

The more establishment neo-cons, the more likely there will be war.

The Democrats have been the party of war for the last 100 years.

WWI
WWII
Cold War
Korea
Vietnam
Bosnia
Somalia
Three years in Iraq
Escalation of Afghanistan
Libya

The Democrats would make any NeoCon green with envy.

Military interventionism has had bipartisan support since WWII.

Your Three Years in Iraq is a hoot. Don't you mean 3 years implementing the Big Bush Bug Out?

I think Iraq was an outlier. Post the greater SE Asia war games disaster, our military interventions were pretty much limited to opposing communist inroads on "our side" of the Atlantic. A sort of Monroe Doctrine. Bosnia and Somalia were really international calls for us to do something. Slick didn't repeat Somalia, even to save the Tutsis.

I think we're still trying to sort out post 9-11. Has there ever been a rational reason given for why any sane person would fly airplanes loaded with innocent civilians into skyscrapers? How can anyone really get their mind around that? Most muslims were as horrified by that as they were by BushII invading Iraq .... because he could. Obama's certainly not made our policy clearer, and even now he continues to waffle. He dithers with ISIS, and takes his boot off Iran's throat just to get a deal to cement his legacy claim to achieving peace in the ME.

Jeb just showed Tom Brady media savvy.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

 

[rightwinger]

"Former governor Jeb Bush said Hillary Clinton would have approved the mission, too."

I won't vote for Jeb in the primaries, and I am hoping we have someone else to oppose HRC.

Jeb Bush I would have invaded Iraq US news The Guardian

But you voted for Obama and he took us back into Iraq after Bush had to end that war... You even support Hillary who voted for the war... You even liked Mitt who supported the Iraq invasion as well...

And you supported the Iraqi War from the beginning, whereas I have always wanted to stay out. So what point are you making? None.

And I and 90% of the country concluded that
a) 1991 Cease Fire was broken by Saddam.... what are agreements for if they aren't enforced?
b) 32 democrat comments as well as the UN etc. believed there were WMDs and firmly believed in Saddam was using them on his own people why not the rest of the
world... and it took nearly 2 years to come to the conclusion Saddam had WMDs and would use them and the 1998 Liberation of Iraq act was to be completed.
c) Finally you explain to me... would any SANE leader of a country allow 115,000 children to starve each year when all that was needed to be done to lift the
UN sanctions which prevented aid coming to these children was to CERTIFY there were NO WMDs.
Saddam wouldn't do it. Why? No same leader would put their children at risk is what most leaders of the world concluded and as a result Saddam by NOT
certifying a conclusion was HE HAD WMDs and by the fact he allowed his own country's kids to starve he would definitely use the WMDs.

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

Would you want to see from 2003 to today 12 years another 115,000 a year kids starved or 1.3 million kids starving.... and you would still want Saddam in power??

You keep saying that and it still makes no sense

The world is putting on sanctions killing 500,000 kids and the deaths are the fault of those being sanctioned?

 

[healthmyths]

"Former governor Jeb Bush said Hillary Clinton would have approved the mission, too."

I won't vote for Jeb in the primaries, and I am hoping we have someone else to oppose HRC.

Jeb Bush I would have invaded Iraq US news The Guardian

But you voted for Obama and he took us back into Iraq after Bush had to end that war... You even support Hillary who voted for the war... You even liked Mitt who supported the Iraq invasion as well...

And you supported the Iraqi War from the beginning, whereas I have always wanted to stay out. So what point are you making? None.

And I and 90% of the country concluded that
a) 1991 Cease Fire was broken by Saddam.... what are agreements for if they aren't enforced?
b) 32 democrat comments as well as the UN etc. believed there were WMDs and firmly believed in Saddam was using them on his own people why not the rest of the
world... and it took nearly 2 years to come to the conclusion Saddam had WMDs and would use them and the 1998 Liberation of Iraq act was to be completed.
c) Finally you explain to me... would any SANE leader of a country allow 115,000 children to starve each year when all that was needed to be done to lift the
UN sanctions which prevented aid coming to these children was to CERTIFY there were NO WMDs.
Saddam wouldn't do it. Why? No same leader would put their children at risk is what most leaders of the world concluded and as a result Saddam by NOT
certifying a conclusion was HE HAD WMDs and by the fact he allowed his own country's kids to starve he would definitely use the WMDs.

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

Would you want to see from 2003 to today 12 years another 115,000 a year kids starved or 1.3 million kids starving.... and you would still want Saddam in power??

You keep saying that and it still makes no sense

The world is putting on sanctions killing 500,000 kids and the deaths are the fault of those being sanctioned?

Why then didn't Saddam certify he had destroyed the WMDs?
So given the FACT he wouldn't certify...
FACT he allowed his own people to be gassed...
FACT he broke the 1991 Cease Fire...
FACT as John Kerry said..."Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , Jan . 23. 2003
FACT is Saddam allowed his people to starve.

 

[BlindBoo]

Why are there still 170,000 US troops in Europe/Asia 70 years after WWII?
Because military leaders right after WWII knew like ALL conquering military that to keep a enemy down you keep military force in place....EXCEPT in
Vietnam and now Iraq!
Both conflicts were morally justified.
But both conflicts now have had immoral people who hate the USA and want to see our military decimated.
No way you can make statements like these and NOT realize that words have meaning and when the enemy hears our leaders encouraging the enemy to kill more
troops like these idiots did you will have serious problems!

And the below Traitors who HELPED by their words encourage TERRORISTS who KILLED US TROOPS as this HARVARD study shows:
The Harvard Study asked: THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The resounding answer WAS YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.

And these statements which idiots like YOU most likely agreed with did everything in the world to encourage recruit and reward the terrorists to continue.
Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real .... "Kerry , Jan . 23. 2003

Then he says this:
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

Ahh healthmyths, emboldening our enemies since 2009 with cut-n-paste ready out of context statements. How many terrorist have you emboldened today?

 

[bendog]

The more establishment neo-cons, the more likely there will be war.

The Democrats have been the party of war for the last 100 years.

WWI
WWII
Cold War
Korea
Vietnam
Bosnia
Somalia
Three years in Iraq
Escalation of Afghanistan
Libya

The Democrats would make any NeoCon green with envy.

Military interventionism has had bipartisan support since WWII.

Your Three Years in Iraq is a hoot. Don't you mean 3 years implementing the Big Bush Bug Out?

I think Iraq was an outlier. Post the greater SE Asia war games disaster, our military interventions were pretty much limited to opposing communist inroads on "our side" of the Atlantic. A sort of Monroe Doctrine. Bosnia and Somalia were really international calls for us to do something. Slick didn't repeat Somalia, even to save the Tutsis.

I think we're still trying to sort out post 9-11. Has there ever been a rational reason given for why any sane person would fly airplanes loaded with innocent civilians into skyscrapers? How can anyone really get their mind around that? Most muslims were as horrified by that as they were by BushII invading Iraq .... because he could. Obama's certainly not made our policy clearer, and even now he continues to waffle. He dithers with ISIS, and takes his boot off Iran's throat just to get a deal to cement his legacy claim to achieving peace in the ME.

Jeb just showed Tom Brady media savvy.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

He's blamin' us for the Boxer Rebellion, now? What the Hell, why not for Cromwell too? LOL

 

[bendog]

Why are there still 170,000 US troops in Europe/Asia 70 years after WWII?
Because military leaders right after WWII knew like ALL conquering military that to keep a enemy down you keep military force in place....EXCEPT in
Vietnam and now Iraq!
Both conflicts were morally justified.
But both conflicts now have had immoral people who hate the USA and want to see our military decimated.
No way you can make statements like these and NOT realize that words have meaning and when the enemy hears our leaders encouraging the enemy to kill more
troops like these idiots did you will have serious problems!

And the below Traitors who HELPED by their words encourage TERRORISTS who KILLED US TROOPS as this HARVARD study shows:
The Harvard Study asked: THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The resounding answer WAS YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.

And these statements which idiots like YOU most likely agreed with did everything in the world to encourage recruit and reward the terrorists to continue.
Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real .... "Kerry , Jan . 23. 2003

Then he says this:
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

Ahh healthmyths, emboldening our enemies since 2009 with cut-n-paste ready out of context statements. How many terrorist have you emboldened today?

I don't think he's emboldening anyone, but he's desperately spinning to convince himself he has a clue on healthcare or for policy, and hasn't pushed failed and miserable ideas.

 

[healthmyths]

Why are there still 170,000 US troops in Europe/Asia 70 years after WWII?
Because military leaders right after WWII knew like ALL conquering military that to keep a enemy down you keep military force in place....EXCEPT in
Vietnam and now Iraq!
Both conflicts were morally justified.
But both conflicts now have had immoral people who hate the USA and want to see our military decimated.
No way you can make statements like these and NOT realize that words have meaning and when the enemy hears our leaders encouraging the enemy to kill more
troops like these idiots did you will have serious problems!

And the below Traitors who HELPED by their words encourage TERRORISTS who KILLED US TROOPS as this HARVARD study shows:
The Harvard Study asked: THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The resounding answer WAS YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.

And these statements which idiots like YOU most likely agreed with did everything in the world to encourage recruit and reward the terrorists to continue.
Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real .... "Kerry , Jan . 23. 2003

Then he says this:
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

Ahh healthmyths, emboldening our enemies since 2009 with cut-n-paste ready out of context statements. How many terrorist have you emboldened today?

What statements made by the above were taken out of "context"???
Kerry called our troops terrorists!
Durbin called our troops Nazis..
Reid tells the enemy the war is lost.
Obama complains our troops air-raid villages..killing civilians"
They said those things totally for political gain regardless of how many troops were killed by the terrorists reading those quotes!