In response to the GOP blasting him for his call for regime change, Kerry said:
Another notable part of the article:
I’m glad that I’m finally seeing a Democrat with the balls to speak out against the current Administration. I hope Kerry or someone likes him runs for President in 2004… I’d vote for him.
He’s had my vote before he said all this, now he’s got me telling others.
He’s playing this with true political craft and skullduggery.
He provoked an attack by Tom DeLay, about as odious a human being who ever trod the halls of Congress. Like Newt Gangrene, he has all the characteristics of a rattlesnake, but lacks the warmth. Anybody Tom DeLay hates…
Further, I think he smells blood. He thinks that Bush will prove to be vulnerable on Iraq. Not now, not real soon. But after the Victory Parade down Pennsylvania Avenue with our beemish boy and Saddams head on his vorpal blade…comes the hangover. And its gonna be a doozy. Just about a week or so ago, the Admin moved to cut Veterans benefits as it asked for 75 billion bucks for war. You could almost hear Kerry smile as he folded that issue up and tucked it away in his pocket. For later.
It makes perfect sense for Kerry to push these issues. His war record as a decorated combat vet compared to Fearless Misleader’s year protecting the sky above Amarillo from Viet Cong aircraft? Not to mention the part about how he wandered off base for a beer and forgot to come back.
Beauty part is Kerry doesn’t even have to mention it, he can be “too dignified” to mention it. But I will! Mark Shields will! And so will many others.
And if, as seems likely, there are further terrorist attacks, Kerry is in the admirable position of asking “Just how, exactly, did this war make us safer, George? When are our troops coming home, George? Yes, indeed, splendid little war, George, but what good did it to us?”
For at least a couple months after the Victory Celebration (I expect the Beach Boys will play) Bush will look invulnerable.
But the election isn’t being held in May.
Who cares? I ignore any politicians military record unless it’s a bad one like dishonorable discharge or being a draft evader. I mean no disrespect, but serving in a war is not qualifications to be President, Senator, or dog catcher. Over 3 million people were in 'Nam. Doesn’t make any of them Presidential material.
Wait a minute Posters, you forgot to post what this Kerry guy actually said. He said…
"What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States," Kerry said.
Apples to apples, huh Kerry? Ha!
Don’t cha just love this goofy guy with his goofy assoications?
Well, at least Kerry is blunt about it, and didn’t try to spare anyone’s feelings. 
It’s no different from saying vote Bush out in '04. That’s how we change regimes here.
And theres the fact that, you know, he’s right. Our current administration has shown to excell only in disregard for the Constitution and the wishes of our allies overseas. I don’t usually vote for one of the two major parties- I prefer to vote for someone I actually believe in, which for me vacilates between Brown and Nader - but this next election, I’m going to campaign hard for the Democrats.
Some people are so destructive it’s worth voting for the lesser evil.
-C
Bush is the first president that I know of to invade a foreign country with the intent to conquer it without first having been attacked by that country’s military.
If anyone knows of another, I’ll be glad to retract the above, but I’ve thought long and hard about that one, and I really can’t find another instance in our history.
On top of that, he’s holding American citizens without the right of habeas corpus being extended to them, and holding a bunch of guys on Guantanamo as “enemy combatants”, which sounds a helluva lot like a POW to me, but of course they’re not being granted that status so therefore the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to them.
In other words, he’s shredded international law, Constitutional law, and the long tradition of the U.S. respecting international borders unless directly provoked, a tradition which has allowed us to speak with special moral authority up until the day Bush started beating up on Sodamn Insane because his boils started acting up, or whatever reason he pulled out of the crack between those piles. He’s as dangerous as they come, far more so than I credited to him even just a few months ago, which is saying something considering he had to sue to get up there, using goons down in Florida to intimidate the recount at the same time as he was bringing his case to the Supremes. I remember all that, and it’s noted.
I’m through with underestimating how dangerous to our liberties he is. Bush has got me seriously spooked.
I may even send money to a Democratic Presidential candidate, which would also be a first. Don’t know which one yet, but if Kerry keeps it up, it could be him.
I’d love to get rid of the left wing Republican/Democrat regime and get some real Constitutional Conservatives in there.
George probably has a summary of John’s remarks regarding Saddam Hussein from 1990-1998 tucked away in preparation. Too easy.
pantom: During WW2, the United States invaded Vichy France’s territory even though the two countries were officially neutral and enjoyed good relations. Sources: Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe and Winston Churchill’s history of WW2.
The US also occupied Iceland.
When Reagan held office, the US invaded Grenada.
Vichy I can see, and I forgot Grenada.
But Iceland? Wow. What was the reason?
Not really relevant, what he is criticizing is the President’s blatant flouting of international law in carrying out the invasion of Iraq, not the invasion intself.
Panama and the Dominican Republic were invaded without direct provocation.
Iceland was not exactly invaded. The Icelanders weren’t an Axis nation and didn’t fight the U.S. It was occupied basically to keep Germany from occupying it first. Then, as now, Iceland did not maintain an armed forces.
pantom: I think, and I may be wrong on this as I’ve read little about the Icelandic forces, it was to secure air bases for protecting convoys and harassing the German Navy, and to also prevent the Germans from taking it over.
Here is a website with more information: http://www.sonic.net/~bstone/history/iceland.shtml
My god, I split an infinitive. It’s time to head for bed.
Rick: Frankly, I see little difference between occupying a country and invading it. I think the Allies had some pretty good reasons for acting as they did and it seems to have been done in a humane fashion, but I also don’t think England, America & Canada asked the Icelanders “pretty please with cream & sugar, may we come into your country.”
I know of at least one Icelander, an SDMB member, who indicated several years ago that he viewed the Icelandic occupation as being inconsistent with America’s professed ideals.I shall not name this person on the grounds that one does not say or write the names of evil spirits lest they appear. Long-time dopers know who I’m talking about.
And don’t forget Nicaragua, no, not in the 80’s but back in 1927!
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1986/jul-aug/jennings.html
You are not mistaken, that was just the second intervention/invasion that showed the level of commitment to democracy that the US showed to the locals. (This being a military history cite, notice the lack of any collateral damage in the record (This is pre-presition bombing), AFAICR several of those counted as Sandino’s men were peasants that lived there.)
I think recently America was getting better, but this current president has a record of appointing “diplomats” of the old school to deal with the backyard nations.
As for the matter at hand: I see also in other reports that after the GOP jumped to criticize Kerry, he has not done the typical democrat maneuver: to curl up and backtrack after being call upon, he essentially has said: “bite me” to the republicans.
So far, this guy has my vote.
I liked Kerry’s stand, but I wish he hadn’t used the word “fight.”
He should keep his cool and attack a little more intelligently. Anger and indignation are not the best friends for the camera.
Blaron: That’s what Kerry will have to do, stick to matters of how this was handled ever so terribly through the UN. He’ll be answering to Howard Dean on war issues before either of them faces GWB.