Hanoi John

[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

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.