As dissatisfied as I am with President Bush, it appears that Dean is even less qualified for the job. Calling Hamas terrorists 'soldiers'...what a complete jackass. http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/pr_2003_0912c.html Is there anybody left worth voting for???
(From the article) "...George Bush has shown that the Presidency is no place for on the job training ..."
i read that completely differently. it seems to me what he said is anybody connected with Hamas has declared themselves a combatant and should expect to be attacked like any other combatants would be attacked. is that the extent of his comment?
Maybe if you consider these wacko's as "soldiers" rather than terrorists then anyone supplying these "soldiers" can be charged with crimes against humanity in war tribunals.
Howard Dean: I THINK NO ONE LIKES TO SEE VIOLENCE OF ANY KIND. THAT'S WHY THE UNITED STATES IS INVOLVED. I WILL SAY, HOWEVER, THERE IS A WAR GOING ON IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AND MEMBERS OF HAMAS ARE SOLDIERS IN THAT WAR, AND, THEREFORE, IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE CASUALTIES IFTHEY ARE GOING TO MAKE WAR. Nah, there's really no way to interpret Dean's statement without Dean looking like a complete terrorist-hugger. Imagine if he had said "The members of Al-Quaida are soldiers". Even if Dean apologizes for his stupidity, the Freudian slip still stands...
i dunno, i still see his statement as basically giving Israel carte blanche to go after Hamas "soldiers". i don't see any "terrorist-hugger" in there at all.
You see what you want to see. Most liberals do. It wouldn't surprise me if those terrorists were financially backing Dean.
OH YEAH! Like the Bin Ladens!!! I heard thru the grapevine that they were doing MAD BUSINESS with the DEAN FAMILY!!! Could it be true!?!?!?!?
i dont see what's the big deal. are members of hamas terrorists? yes. has dean said that they are not terrorists? i dont think so. can a member of hamas be a terrorist and a soldier? yes! what's so hard to understand?