Hanoi John

[Imran Siddiqui]

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]

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]

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

[The Mad Monk]

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

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

No. It hasn't been voted down.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

Perhaps.

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]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c107:3:./temp/~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]

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

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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]

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]

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.