Announcement

**Ben Kenobi** · February 21, 2004, 20:37

Mr.Kerry prevented the Vietnam Human Rights Act (HR2833) from coming to a vote in the Senate.

So my terminology was not accurate.

**Ben Kenobi** · February 21, 2004, 20:40

Kerry used his power as Chair of the Senate Foreign Affair sub-committee to prevent the Vietnam human Right Bill from getting to the Senate's floor, despite the please from the Vietnamese American community, and many other concerned citizens.

There we go, MtG.

**MichaeltheGreat** · February 21, 2004, 20:40

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You're the American...

I have to go now so I don't have time to go over the Senate constitution, as to what would be required to press this bill forward over Kerry's delays.

Actually, it's in the Senate's own rules, and generally, all that is needed is a simple majority committee vote to get a bill on the floor. The other parliamentary tactic is simply to add this bill or it's major substance to another bill that is bound to go through committee. That one is done all the time for pet pork projects.

Given that the sources seem to be repeating from one original source, and seem to be from the "hardon for Hanoi" crowd, I'm not surprised if they have a little creative interpretation of reality.

I'm just curious why anyone is interested in this absent a consistent stance in opposition to human rights abuse by dictatorships, which means China trade apologists need not apply.

**chequita guevara** · February 21, 2004, 20:56

Green Berets for Human Rights!?!

**Capt Dizle** · February 21, 2004, 21:49

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Actually, it's in the Senate's own rules, and generally, all that is needed is a simple majority committee vote to get a bill on the floor. The other parliamentary tactic is simply to add this bill or it's major substance to another bill that is bound to go through committee. That one is done all the time for pet pork projects.

Given that the sources seem to be repeating from one original source, and seem to be from the "hardon for Hanoi" crowd, I'm not surprised if they have a little creative interpretation of reality.

I'm just curious why anyone is interested in this absent a consistent stance in opposition to human rights abuse by dictatorships, which means China trade apologists need not apply.

People are looking for chinks in the candidate's character.

**Imran Siddiqui** · February 21, 2004, 21:53

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

Indeed I was wondering this myself. Since he can't be chairman there is NO WAY he can prevent this bill from being voted on. Unless he is leading a group of Senators who are filibustering? In that case, the support isn't as overwhelming as thought.

Something in this story stinks, and it ain't Kerry.

**GePap** · February 21, 2004, 22:43

INterestingly, having gone to the site of the green berets, and having looked at the article from the Boston Globe, it jumped out that Kerry and John McCain were both mentioned as senators trying to stall the bill becuase they see it as an impediment to trade with Vietnam..

Now, note first, of course, how BK and his little articles fails in it's entirety to mention good old John...but maybe because he supports BUsh and is a republican? Nah, that could not be...second, MtG and Imran are correct, in the current senate, unless the senator had the full sopport of the party, no single dem. senator could block anything...

**notyoueither** · February 22, 2004, 01:29

Kerry used his power as Chair of the Senate Foreign Affair sub-committee to prevent the Vietnam human Right Bill from getting to the Senate's floor, despite the please from the Vietnamese American community, and many other concerned citizens.

Is that true, or not?

**The Mad Monk** · February 22, 2004, 04:33

GePap, Ben is Canadian.

Canadians don't have Republicans.

**The Mad Monk** · February 22, 2004, 04:41

Maybe McCain isn't mentioned because he's not the one running for President this time around, so it isn't worth broadening the focus. The original article, an opinion piece, was written in August 2002, so it's not like it was written just to snipe Kerry during his election bid.

**The Mad Monk** · February 22, 2004, 04:50

After visiting New Delhi in December 2000, Senator Kerry addressed the Senate on the importance of U.S. relations with India, the world’s largest democracy. He spoke about the importance of U.S. humanitarian assistance to the Indian people in the aftermath of devastating earthquakes in the western state of Gujarat, and he emphasized the great potential for the United States and India to develop a strong, cooperative relation across a broad range of issues.

As the senior Democrat – now Chairman – of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, Senator Kerry continued his leadership on the question of U.S. relations with China and Taiwan. Following up on a major speech on U.S.-China relations in 2000, Senator Kerry addressed the question of U.S. relations with Taiwan. In a speech on the Senate floor, he reiterated the importance of the long-standing U.S. “one China” policy to maintaining stability across the Taiwan Strait. While emphasizing the U.S. national interest in preserving democracy in Taiwan, he outlined the dangers of abandoning the strategic ambiguity that serves both to deter a cross-Strait attack by China as well as a precipitous declaration of independence by Taiwan that could provoke a war.

http://kerry.senate.gov/text/congress/foreign.html

It appears he was chairman of the appropriate sub-committee in December 2000, which implies that continued through 2001; still looking, though.

**Dis** · February 22, 2004, 04:56

Kerry is starting to make me sick. This guy has some serious problems. His voting record is horrible. This guy is the worst politician. I almost wish Howard Dean had won. I'm still rooting for Edwards to pull a miracle- although this guy is just as bad. He made a living suing people and companies with "junk science".

*sigh* But I hate George Bush.

What should I do?

**Ben Kenobi** · February 22, 2004, 05:31

Since he can't be chairman there is NO WAY he can prevent this bill from being voted on.

Why can't he be chairman?

how BK and his little articles fails in it's entirety to mention good old John...but maybe because he supports BUsh and is a republican?

I just report 'em. I don't edit 'em.

**Imran Siddiqui** · February 22, 2004, 05:35

Why can't he be chairman?

He's in the minority party.

**Ben Kenobi** · February 22, 2004, 05:40

It appears he was chairman of the appropriate sub-committee in December 2000

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

Remember the Senate deadlock?

Announcement

Hanoi John

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment