Hanoi John

[Ned]

OK. I do not criticized Kerry for his service in Vietnam even though he himself criticizes his service as being of the war criminal nature. I criticized him heavily for what he did after he returned from Vietnam and began his activities in support of the North Vietnamese. Those activities have continued throughout his Senate tenure and continue even to this day as exhibited by the topic of this thread.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ask the Tibetans.

What about them?

[Hueij]

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.

Ouch!

[Ben Kenobi]

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

So let's get this straight.

The leader of the party that is supposed to be liberal values trade over human rights?

Kerry had an opportunity to stop genocide as it is happening in Viet Nam. Rather than taking advantage of his opportunity, he chose to kill the bill before it came up in the Senate. Now, would a proper liberal, rather than what Kerry is pulling, actually endorse the bill as a supporter of human rights?

[Imran Siddiqui]

There is an unwritten rule that any senator can put a "hold" on a bill.

Where?

The leader of the party that is supposed to be liberal values trade over human rights?

How was he the 'leader' of the party? He was never Majority Leader. And yes, look at Clinton's dealings with China. The 'liberal' party very much likes capitalism.

Now, would a proper liberal, rather than what Kerry is pulling, actually endorse the bill as a supporter of human rights?

Depends on other considerations. Such as me and Mad Monk were looking at the timing and wondering if 9/11 had anything to do with shelving it.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Kerry had an opportunity to stop genocide as it is happening in Viet Nam. Rather than taking advantage of his opportunity, he chose to kill the bill before it came up in the Senate. Now, would a proper liberal, rather than what Kerry is pulling, actually endorse the bill as a supporter of human rights?

In other words, this action debunks the claim that Kerry is an extreme liberal and shows that even Republicans should be voting for Kerry...

[Ben Kenobi]

Nah.

It shows how little liberal is in Kerry in the first place.

How was he the 'leader' of the party?

He is the leading Democratic nominee, is he not?

if 9/11 had anything to do with shelving it.

It might delay the bill from being revived, but not so much absolving Kerry's actions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It shows how little liberal is in Kerry in the first place.

That's bad for the general election how?

He is the leading Democratic nominee, is he not?

Until he wins the nomination, he's still just a candidate.

It might delay the bill from being revived, but not so much absolving Kerry's actions.

And what were his actions. I mean you don't even know if he 'killed' it, if it was tabled, if it was put on the bottom of the list or what. You have no idea!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

There is an unwritten rule that any senator can put a "hold" on a bill.

Where?

Imran, trust me on this. I had been involved with enough legislation on Capitol Hill to know that any senator can place any bill on hold just by saying so. I believe this is a lew of conducting a filibuster that would require a cloture vote. So they don't go through the entire formalities of a filibuster, but instead allow every senator an implied filibuster right.

It is a very common practice and is used by both parties.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, trust me on this. I had been involved with enough legislation on Capitol Hill to know that any senator can place any bill on hold just by saying so.

So if a Democrat senator said that he wants to put a hold on the Bush budget (with tax cuts), the Republicans will let him? COME ON!

[Ned]

Imran, Budgets? Probably not. But any legislation like the topic of this thread, yes.

[The Mad Monk]

...so nobody knows what putting a bill under "General Orders" means?

[Imran Siddiqui]

But any legislation like the topic of this thread, yes.

I doubt it. If the Republicans cared about it so much, they'd forget Kerry's objection.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Why can't he be chairman?

He's in the minority party.

The GOP have only than 2 votes avantage go some chairman post went to the other party also.

[chequita guevara]

He's in politics, he's in Washington, he's corrupt. What's the surprise? He's just less corrupt than Bush. Vote for the slightly less criminal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The GOP have only than 2 votes avantage go some chairman post went to the other party also.

BZZZT! Wrong! An advantage in Senate, even of ONE vote, give you ALL the committee chairmenships.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
BZZZT! Wrong! An advantage in Senate, even of ONE vote, give you ALL the committee chairmenships.

¡Sí!

[Ben Kenobi]

have only than 2 votes avantage

In 2002.

Though, I believe they were deadlocked after the defection in 2000, so that the Dems retained the Senate majority leader, by virtue of inertia.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Once again... doesn't matter. It's been a year since the Republicans held power. If they wanted it through, it'd have happened by now.

[The Mad Monk]

How many of those Republicans are running for President?

[Ben Kenobi]

If they wanted it through, it'd have happened by now.

Which does nothing to excuse Kerry for his actions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Which does nothing to excuse Kerry for his actions.

Still have to see proof that he was the person holding it back. Seeing as it hasn't passed yet, seems to indicate to me that perhaps it didn't have the votes and Kerry didn't want to see it go in sub-committee.

So we go in circles... prove to me he was the one who 'stonewalled' it.

[Ben Kenobi]

prove to me he was the one who 'stonewalled' it.

By refusing to allow the bill to come to a vote in the senate, he stonewalled the bill.

If the proof that has already been supplied, of Kerry's complicity, not from our own opinions, but from several independent sources, is not enough, then there is nothing that will convince you that Kerry is guilty of anything other than picking his nose.

Good night Imran.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

But any legislation like the topic of this thread, yes.

I doubt it. If the Republicans cared about it so much, they'd forget Kerry's objection.

I am sure that Kerry held the legislation up through a hold.

Here is a story that confirms it:

http://www.vietquoc.com/news2002/na062902a.htm

"In the Senate, sponsors Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Bob Smith (R-NH) invoked an emergency rule to bypass the Foreign Relations Committee and try to bring the bill directly to the Senate floor. This maneuver failed when Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) put a hold on the bill.

....

"Many Vietnamese Americans argue that although Sen. Kerry has his full power as a ranking member of the responsible senate committee to put a hold on the Human Right Act 2833, he should not do so as far as the ultimate interests of the American people are concerned.

....

"Many groups of the Vietnamese Americans in the United States are launching a campaign to send petition to Sen. Kerry and other U.S. Senators, urging that the Bill should now be at the Senate calendar and should be brought to a vote, and voted "Yes." They are working hard to get full support for the Release of HR 2833, particularly support from the Democrats in the Senate; a large number of Vietnamese Americans are voting for Democrats in every election."

[God, are these Vietnamese who vote Democrat mistaken.]

[Tingkai]

Ned: your comment that Kerry should be shot was way over the line.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Ned: your comment that Kerry should be shot was way over the line.

Over the line, I agree. How far over depends on how one feels about America and about Vietnam. Regardless of our failure there, we paid dearly in lives and gold for freedom and democracy. Kerry switched sides when he returned from Vietnam and began advocating the cause of the enemy. While this may not be a crime, it is a betrayal of his country and of his fellows who fought and died in that war.

[bipolarbear]

Death is a stark inevitability of life! Kerry isn't turning his back on anything but some nationalistic b.s. and a few corpses. You are not bound with any loyalty to your country just becasue you are born within it, that is b.s. And that supposed loyalty is not at all enhanced by joining the military. The argument shouldn't be about American failure in Vietanm, unless it is about the failure to stand up for the supposed American ideals that are sandblasted into our little minds from day one out of the womb. In vietnam we napalmed, bombed, polluted their environment and destroyed our soldiers health with Agent Orange, secretely bombed Cambodia, supported a corrupt puppet dictatorship, and when we lost, we funded two bloody dictators who used genocide to get their way. Is betraying a country that does that such a bad thing?

[The Mad Monk]

Be that as it may, what we're discussing here is

Kerry (D-MA) Inaction Kills Human Rights Legislation

[Tingkai]

Ned linked article contains problems. It claims the bill "passed on September 6 by a 410-1 margin." Then it says "The 450-1 votes for the bill..."

Basic errors like that raise a credibility question.

The article also claims that the bill would have authorized "assistance to democratic forces in Vietnam."

The US screamed bloody murder when China gave money to US politicans. Or was this an attempt to create Contras in Vietnam?

[Ned]

Originally posted by bipolarbear
Death is a stark inevitability of life! Kerry isn't turning his back on anything but some nationalistic b.s. and a few corpses. You are not bound with any loyalty to your country just becasue you are born within it, that is b.s. And that supposed loyalty is not at all enhanced by joining the military. The argument shouldn't be about American failure in Vietanm, unless it is about the failure to stand up for the supposed American ideals that are sandblasted into our little minds from day one out of the womb. In vietnam we napalmed, bombed, polluted their environment and destroyed our soldiers health with Agent Orange, secretely bombed Cambodia, supported a corrupt puppet dictatorship, and when we lost, we funded two bloody dictators who used genocide to get their way. Is betraying a country that does that such a bad thing?

1) We were fighting for democracy.

2) We were fighting to prevent one country from conquering another.

There is no doubt that we may have lost the war the moment we assassinated President Diem, as all successor governments lacked real legitimacy.

The tragedy of our tactics was at the war was conducted in inside Vietnam itself and virtually destroyed that country in order to save it. Early on (1964), we should have mobilized properly and should have invaded North Vietnam. Such an action would have brought a quick peace agreement I believe. Chairman Ho Chi Minh had no reason to agree to a peace treaty so long as there was no chance for him to lose the war, and he had no chance of lose the war so long as we never posed a threat to North Vietnam.