Hanoi John - Page 2

Imran Siddiqui · February 22, 2004, 05:46

Quote:

Well, either the Dems were the majority back in December 2000, or one of you is wrong.

He may have been chairman of that sub-committee then (Dems weren't the majority though), but that ain't the point. Why? Because the Republicans have been in charge since Jan 2003. How is it that it STILL hasn't gone through? How can he be holding it up since 2001 when he hasn't been the chair of the committee for an entire year so far? Could it be because Kerry wasn't 'holding it up'? Could it rather be that there aren't enough votes for it in the Senate?

Ben Kenobi · February 22, 2004, 05:50

Quote:

Because the Republicans have been in charge since Jan 2003. How is it that it STILL hasn't gone through? How can he be holding it up since 2001 when he hasn't been the chair of the committee for an entire year so far?

When a bill dies, how long does it usually take for the bill to return?

Wouldn't a new bill need to be drafted, and passed in the House of Representatives?

Regardless, the fact that a replacement bill has not been put in place in no way absolves Kerry for obstructing the bill in the first place.

At least let the Senate vote on the bill, rather than killing it in committee.

The Mad Monk · February 22, 2004, 05:51

Could it be that it was buried under so many other bills it hasn't re-surfaced yet?

The Mad Monk · February 22, 2004, 05:53

Imran, how many 411-1 house bills don't even get voted on in the Senate?

Imran Siddiqui · February 22, 2004, 05:55

Quote:

When a bill dies, how long does it usually take for the bill to return?

Dies? The only way to totally kill a bill is to vote it down. If Kerry obstructed passage, he just put it down on the list. The new chair can move it all the way to the top from the bottom, if he so wishes.

Quote:

Wouldn't a new bill need to be drafted, and passed in the House of Representatives?

No. It hasn't been voted down.

Quote:

the fact that a replacement bill has not been put in place in no way absolves Kerry for obstructing the bill in the first place.

It casts serious doubt that Kerry was solely to blame for the bill not passing. If everyone else in the Senate wanted it. Hell if a majority of the subcommittee (plus the new chair) wanted it, it'd have passed by now.

Quote:

At least let the Senate vote on the bill, rather than killing it in committee.

There is a reason that committees exist. So the Senate doesn't get bogged down in bills.

Quote:

Could it be that it was buried under so many other bills it hasn't re-surfaced yet?

No... if it was important, it could be moved to the top of the list.

Ben Kenobi · February 22, 2004, 06:00

Again, if Kerry had not obstructed the bill, it would have been voted on.

You still need to come up with a good reason why Kerry would do something like that.

Imran Siddiqui · February 22, 2004, 06:03

Quote:

Again, if Kerry had not obstructed the bill, it would have been voted on.

It's been a YEAR since Kerry could have been chair! If it was only Kerry who blocked it then it would have been passed by now.

Quote:

You still need to come up with a good reason why Kerry would do something like that.

All evidence seems to show that it wasn't only Kerry (if it was his fault at all).

Secondly, a good reason is easy. Why do we not sanction China for its human rights abuses? Because it is better to trade with them. What, because this is 'Vietnam', it's somehow worse?

The Mad Monk · February 22, 2004, 06:05

http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/vn1/wwwhwf010907.html

That's the press release from the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi, includes the full text of HR-2833.

Note the dates.

Ben Kenobi · February 22, 2004, 06:07

Quote:

Why do we not sanction China for its human rights abuses? Because it is better to trade with them. What, because this is 'Vietnam', it's somehow worse?

Do you believe that this would be the rationale for Kerry?

Secondly, for all of their flaws, can one properly charge the Chinese with outright genocide, as occurring in Viet Nam?

Imran Siddiqui · February 22, 2004, 06:14

Quote:

That's the press release from the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi, includes the full text of HR-2833.

Note the dates.

So do you think that it was done so we could get Vietnam on our side during the War on Terror?

Otherwise, the dates don't matter. It's been a year since Kerry could have served as chair and it hasn't been passed by the Senate.

Quote:

Do you believe that this would be the rationale for Kerry?

Perhaps.

Quote:

Secondly, for all of their flaws, can one properly charge the Chinese with outright genocide, as occurring in Viet Nam?

Ask the Tibetans.

The Mad Monk · February 22, 2004, 06:19

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...c1075YvAdW:e0:

This is the Senate Calendar record for the bill (I think); it was received September 10 and read (twice) September 13 and 14.

Not sure where to go from here.

Imran Siddiqui · February 22, 2004, 06:21

Could have been lost after 9/11. Or perhaps the administration told Congress it wants Vietnam for the WoT, who knows?

The Mad Monk · February 22, 2004, 06:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

That's the press release from the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi, includes the full text of HR-2833.

Note the dates.

So do you think that it was done so we could get Vietnam on our side during the War on Terror?

Otherwise, the dates don't matter. It's been a year since Kerry could have served as chair and it hasn't been passed by the Senate.

I'm not even close to drawing that conclusion. I do think they were...distracted, and matters came up that were more important at the time.

I went over to Christopher Smith's official page, no mention of the bill is made in the news archive for September 2001 -- I found that rather odd.

Imran Siddiqui · February 22, 2004, 06:26

Quote:

I went over to Christopher Smith's official page, no mention of the bill is made in the news archive for September 2001 -- I found that rather odd.

I'm telling you.. Bush told 'em to drop it because Vietnam was going to help against terrorists

.

Ted Striker · February 22, 2004, 06:31

I can't speak for this current bill, but I recenlty heard the testimony that Kerry gave before Congress on the US problems in Vietnam, and I have to say, it's one of the best speaches I've ever heard. You would have never guessed that he was 27 at the time, he sounds like a man of immense wisdom.

I was really impressed and gathered that Kerry was a man of solid character. However that was over 30 years ago so it's interesting to see where he may be today.

The Mad Monk · February 22, 2004, 06:37

Also found the House Committee report:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...107&maxdocs=1&

...but no coresponding Senate committee report.

Anyone know what "Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders" means?

The Mad Monk · February 22, 2004, 06:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I went over to Christopher Smith's official page, no mention of the bill is made in the news archive for September 2001 -- I found that rather odd.

I'm telling you.. Bush told 'em to drop it because Vietnam was going to help against terrorists

.

Bah!

Ned · February 22, 2004, 06:41

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Explain to me how one Senator (from the minority party, so he's not even a committee chairman) can actually kill a bill?

There is an unwritten rule that any senator can put a "hold" on a bill. That is how Kerry, by himself, can kill a bill.

Ned · February 22, 2004, 06:49

MTG, stop trying to excuse Kerry's inexcusable conduct by reference to China and other groups the Vietnamese kill off by the tens of thousands. You mentioned the Hmong, for example, here is a description of their extermination:

http://home.earthlink.net/~laohumrights/98JUN3.html

I actually remember seeing the news reports of the aftermath of one such Vietnamese chemical weapon attack in Loas back in the 70s.

Since we left Vietnam, we have stopped reporting on the attrocities of that nation. They were butchers during the war. They continue to be butchers after the war.

Kerry is slime. He has the AUDACITY to call Americans war criminal and to protect the real war criminals, the Vietnamese, from criticism. He should be shot!!!!

Mordoch · February 22, 2004, 07:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Kerry is slime. He has the AUDACITY to call Americans war criminal and to protect the real war criminals, the Vietnamese, from criticism. He should be shot!!!!

I'd imagine you would have expressed the same sentiment about the last Presidential candidate with the initials JFK if you had been around then...

Ned · February 22, 2004, 07:17

Mordoch, absolutely not. JFK was someone I could enthusiatically vote for. Zel Miller recently published a book about the Democrats and point out how different they are today from the party they were when Kennedy was elected.

Kennedy ran the right of Nixon in '60. Yes, you read that correctly. To his right. Kennedy was highly critical of Eisenhower for not doing enough on defense and for keeping taxes to high!

Kennedy would even have been to the right of Bush. If it were Bush vs. JFK, I would vote for JFK, and I do not mean Kerry, the bastard, but Jack Kennedy.

Monk · February 22, 2004, 07:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Kerry is slime. He has the AUDACITY to call Americans war criminal and to protect the real war criminals, the Vietnamese, from criticism. He should be shot!!!!

Your hate is outrageous.

Ned · February 22, 2004, 07:23

The reason for it is that I was here in America at the time. For any American, Vietnam was traumatic. The people like Kerry were the enemy.

Ned · February 22, 2004, 07:25

Monk, as I said, the one person that the Dems could nominate that would make me truly angry is Kerry. I would do everything in my power to seem that evil bastard defeated.

Monk · February 22, 2004, 07:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Monk, as I said, the one person that the Dems could nominate that would make me truly angry is Kerry. I would do everything in my power to seem that evil bastard defeated.

I understand that but that's not the problem here. Rather, the problem is that you - who allegedly reported another poster to the proper authorities for wishing death upon Bush - are explicitly saying somebody should be shot. I understand there are probably special rules regarding the president that don't apply to the rest of you, but when it comes to measuring people's degree of hate, I don't really think this matters much.

(edit: my spelling sucks)

notyoueither · February 22, 2004, 07:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
The reason for it is that I was here in America at the time. For any American, Vietnam was traumatic. The people like Kerry were the enemy.

The guys who were there bleeding for the US were the enemy?

Are you sure you're not a subversive of some sort?

Ned · February 22, 2004, 07:42

NYE, are you trying to be stupid?

notyoueither · February 22, 2004, 07:46

You answer my question first. How could a 'person like Kerry', who went there, fought, and sometimes died, be the enemy?

Ned · February 22, 2004, 07:48

How could Benedict Arnold, who fought for our country be a traitor?

Same answer for both Arnold and Kerry.

notyoueither · February 22, 2004, 07:56

Your rant just read funny, Ned. That's all.