Ok kerry people explain this to me please.

Why is kerry allowing genocide to continue in veitnam unhindered?

http://www.gb4hr.net/Pages/Kerry%20Stalls%20Human%20Rights%20Legislation.htm

WASHINGTON - Despite growing calls from human rights groups, US Army Special Forces veterans, and pleas from homeless refugees fleeing genocide Senator John Kerry (D-MA) has stalled the Vietnam Human Rights Act (Senate Bill HR-2833) since September 2001.



The stalled Bill would have sanctioned the communist Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) against further racially based sterilization, terrorism and genocide of the Christian hilltribe Degar peoples living in the Central Highlands region of the country.



The Degar tribes people, commonly known to westerners as the Montagnards, are ethnically unrelated to the Vietnamese. The Central Highlands region was never a traditional part of Vietnam. The region has been the home of the Degar tribes for at least a thousand years.



With HR-2833 stalled by John Kerry of Massachussetts, Vietnam is free to continue its widely publicized “cultural leveling” program. This means Vietnam will continue without restriction the ethnic cleansing of the Degar Christians in the Central Highlands region in an attempt to gain control of the Degar land and resources.



As recently as 1970 there were an estimated 3 million Montagnards in various tribes living in the region but as a result of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam’s ongoing campaign of ethnic terror and extermination, the total population of Montagnards is now below 650,000. Nearly two thirds of the Montagnards have died in only 32 years, including more than half the male population.



This is undisguised genocide.



This is why HR-2833 was passed without delay through the House of Representatives last summer by a margin of 411 to 1 to bring an immediate halt to this tragic situation. The Bill was then rushed to the Senate where immediate passage was expected due to the urgency of the current situation.



But since September 2001 Senator John Kerry of Massachussetts has thwarted all attempts to bring HR-2833 to the floor for a vote. Kerry’s deliberate sabotage of this urgent legislation has caused grave concern in the human rights community, especially because there is no explanation for Kerry’s position. Attempts to contact the Senator on this issue have been ignored by his office.

So now Kerry is responsible for genoicide? lol, what's next - Kerry is responsible for Pearl Harbor?

I'm not going to accuse him for the actions of others, but his fingerprints are on this. Why?

the legislation this article is talking about.

More research is necessary and I think it is a dead end.

See my post below it has a link to the thomas onfo on it.

who knows whats next?

rat bas'tuhd. no WAY would i EVAR vote for him.

You do know that the rightwing have fake groups out there that they use to promote stuff like this. It's intended to keep the left divided. They've been doing it since Nixon.

That's why I'd like to see absolute proof since it also smears Ron Brown.

YOU explain it better to us.

Here is a link to what I have found so far

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR02833:@@@L&summ2=m&

this is from the Thomas archives.

And assorted other pages like these

http://www.crfvn.org/TinTuc/Letter1.htm

However, when this Bill arrived in the Senate, Senator Kerry single-handedly placed an indefinite hold on this bill, denying his 99 fellow Senators the opportunity to vote on the bill. Senator Kerry's hold will practically kill this bill when the 107th Congress adjourns later this year.

http://www.crfvn.org/August19-23-2002-Rally-HR2002.htm

Congressman Chris Smith, Vice Chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, has been joined by 30 bipartisan colleagues in reintroducing the Vietnam Human Rights Act today.

Smith introduced similar legislation during the last Congress. That bill passed the House by a vote of 410-1 but died in the Senate because Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts placed a hold on the bill and prevented it from being brought to the floor for a vote.

http://www.usvtc.org/HR_Religion/smith_introduces_vietnam_human_r.htm

Still looking into it I dont know what this is all about I figured you guys would know.

undoubtedly ginned up in case Gore chose Kerry for VP.

Reincarnated because they want to create an aura of controversy about Vietnam attached to Kerry. Good for the wingnuts to discuss. The left buys into any group labeled as a human rights or peace movement group.

BushInc. knows this and has been running these scams since the Vietnam War. They infiltrated groups then, and would agitate for violence so they could get smeared later. That's when Kerry left VVAW...when some members proposed violent actions.

btw...alot of "religious freedom" groups are disinfo groups that have been funded by Sun Myung Moon for over 30 years now.

tell us that there has never been a conspiracy against Kerry.

The SAME characters from back then have been part of almost everything that's happened in the last 30 years, including almost everyone in this administration.

this bill definately passed the house 410-1

It definately died in the senate.

I cant find any senate documents on the comitee for international affairs.

This bill was introduced in 2001 so the kerry for VP scenario doesnt wash.

Seriously whats the deal with this thing?

that smells. The GOP knows what they are doing. Why hasn't ANY legit source run with this story? The Globe has pounded on Kerry for years, they wouldn't hesitate to write up a scathing piece on him about this.

its over a year old I dont know how you would pull them up from over a year ago.

... *whistling tunelessly*....

If you want the answer look for it yourself. This article isn't going to change my mind on who to support, and refuting it isn't going to change yours, so why bother?

Frankly, I'm tired of having to defend Kerry to the Dean supporters on this board. I shouldn't have to. Kerry is a great liberal and a great man. If some people can't see that, that's their problem, not mine. So, post all the crap you want. My support won't waver.

Kerry chose normalizing relations with Vietnam and getting answers on MIA's and POW's as the best route. Just like we currently think normalizing relations with Cuba is a better route than continued sanctions. He wants to continue to be able to provide economic aid and stay engaged, rather than passing this bill which would remove some aid and alienate the Vietnamese government. People get angry about pandering to the Miami Cubans, this is the same thing in regards to the Vietnamese. Or the Chinese. Move forward to making friends or alienate and make enemies.

I gotta say, I much prefer legitimate debate on issues than whining. What's Howard Dean's position on international relations, sanctions and human rights?

The house votes 410-1 for this bill but kerry knows better so he keeps it buried in comitee.

That about right?

Meanwhile the systematic genocide of a whole class of people goes on?

.

http://www.bigeye.com/jj082502.htm


I had planned on writing about this last fall, after Kerry and McCain were honored at a gala dinner by the World Affairs Council for their role in normalizing relations between Vietnam and the United States. I was going to point out that just a few days earlier, a leader of Vietnam's independent Buddhist church had publicly immolated himself in Danang to protest the government's denial of religious freedom. I was going to urge Kerry, who chairs the Senate's East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee, to take the lead in moving the Vietnam Human Rights Bill through the Senate. That bill, which would link non-humanitarian aid to progress on human rights, had just passed the House, 410-1.

But the dinner took place on Sept. 10, and the next day there were more pressing matters to write about.

Almost a year later, however, the issue hasn't gone away. Although normalization is now a done deal, Kerry still says very little about human rights in Vietnam. Far from taking the lead on the Vietnam Human Rights Bill, he has prevented it from coming to a vote. He claims that making an issue of Hanoi's repression would be counterproductive. "Freedom and democracy in that country will continue to come through engagement," he says, "not through symbolic self-defeating acts in the United States." Any sanctions -- even the mild slap on the wrist allowed by this bill -- would "strengthen the hand of Vietnamese hardliners" and set back the cause of human rights.

But Kerry has it backward. By refusing to make an issue of Vietnam's denial of human rights, he encourages the despots in Hanoi to continue denying them. After all, why should they have second thoughts about jailing people for their beliefs or blocking free elections if a key member of the US Senate is ensuring that there will be no penalties for doing so?

to attack a fellow Democrat is a low blow. And John Kerry is a fellow Democrat, is he not?

This story may have origninally been ginned up to smear McCain on the campaign trail, if it was needed. That way they can use it against Kerry, too, if he is Al Gore's VP. Now they keep up the whole fishy story to smear Kerry.

This is bullshit. It smells. And you want it spread.

Kerry chose normalizing relations with Vietnam and getting answers on MIA's and POW's as the best route. Just like we currently think normalizing relations with Cuba is a better route than continued sanctions. He wants to continue to be able to provide economic aid and stay engaged, rather than passing this bill which would remove some aid and alienate the Vietnamese government. People get angry about pandering to the Miami Cubans, this is the same thing in regards to the Vietnamese. Or the Chinese. Move forward to making friends or alienate and make enemies.

once again, kerry's keen impressive international policy experience and pragmatic diplomatic hand bring us closer to improved relations around the world.

3 million then to 650,000 now. Yep, I guess we should constructively engage the viets until they're ALL dead, huh? Way to go, Sen. Kerry--- I'm sure the Montagnards appreciate your putting a hold on this bill... :eyes:

Are we going to go into Vietnam militarily and stop this? How is this bill going to make a real difference to the Montagnards?

:eyes:

I asked first.

You said Kerry is allowing the killing because he's holding up the bill. If the bill doesn't stop any killing in the first place, then your premise is wrong and there's no way to answer the question. How would the bill have stopped the killing?

Prove that it wouldn't.

You're the one who said holding up this bill is causing people to die. The proof is on you.

I believe that bill would turn Vietnam into another North Korea by alienating them from the world. We have to move these countries forward through economic and cultural exchange, just like we did with the Soviet Union. It's communication and engagement that makes change, not alienation and bullying.

... your interpretation nonwithstanding. What *I* said was that the killing continues, and Sen. Kerry's status-quo stance is not stopping or diminishing it. Why is he holding up the bill?

If you don't know, how can you say holding up the bill is allowing the killing to continue? How will passing the bill stop the killing?

I've already told you why he is holding up the bill. He believes the bill will impede any progress in Vietnam and allow it to turn into a North Korea where there will be MORE killing because we will have NO influence whatsoever.

I believe in engagement with closed-off countries like China, Cuba and North Korea. It's the only long term solution, we've already seen it work with the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries. We know what works, we ought to do it.

Because it still goes on, now doesn't it? Q.E.D.

you assume the killing is going on because that specific bill is being held up. it's the same argument used for cuban embargo and iraq sanctions. has the embargo helped turn cuba into a democracy ? did the sanctions on iraq help in turning iraq into a democracy and stopping human rights violations ? may i ask if you also support sanctions on china ? they commit human rights violations. how about egypt, jordan, saudi arabia, etc ?

How will the bill stop the killing? You won't answer because you don't know. Hell, you don't even know for sure any killing is going on!

have sanctions been proved to yield positive results against dictators and governments that are known to treat their citizens inhumanely?

:eyes:

do you really believe kerry would pat the vietnamese government on the back? if not, what do you think he was doing? you can't ignore the fact that he offered an alternative. well, i mean, you can, if reality is not convenient for your argument.

After all, we were using sanctions against Saddam, weren't we?

it's not really useful if one question is answered with another unrelated question.

So, sanctions are NOT effective, am I correct in understanding your position?

...have another swipe at the question. 's'all good.

See, I support sanctions, and your candidate supports invasions. Since your candidate opposes sanction and supports war, the burden is on you to show why that is good.

Nice bob and weave, though.

i mean, it's like kosovo, right? that was a good idea, right?

And I will ask Gov. Dean about the other when I see him next...:eyes:

and why do you assume just because one opposes sanctions they support "invasion". john kerry opposed the vietnam war and continues to oppose a war with vietnam. but he also opposes sanctions. it's not always one or the other. did you know sanctions on iraq killed many people and caused much suffering ? would you say one who supports sanctions supports that suffering ? and why do you say kosovo was a "great idea" ? why not support sanctions in that case as you said in your other post where you said yous upport sanctions and not invasions ?

The bastard, how dare he stand alone against the entire House of Representatives. This is just one more reason I know Senator Kerry is a man of principles and why I support him. He's doing what he believes is in the best interest of Vietnam and is willing to piss off the entire Congress to do it. He's known for that, by the way.

You support him too?

You bitch because he showed no integrity and voted for the IWR. (Even though that's not true) Then you bitch because he shows integrity and fights the whole damn Congress. You want to hate him and I have no idea why.

Regardless of the merits of this issue I don't like the idea of one Senator being able to hold something like this up indefinately. If he has a good case then let him at least get a filibuster going.

This is what you people say Dean is going to bring to D.C., he's going to fight the status quo. Then you have a Senator who has shown repeatedly that he fights the status quo, and you criticize that too. Like I said above, people want to hate Kerry for whatever reasons that I don't understand. Maybe his principles threaten you and you're afraid he's actually going to ask you to sacrifice and that's just a little more than you really want to do. I don't know, it's crazy.

Don't make me laugh. His 'principles' consist of "John Kerry for President', with appropriate 'nuancing' (not to be confused with 'lying', or 'waffling'). :eyes;

Now THAT'S a man of integrity. A man who will root out corruption.

A man who said he had "mixed feelings" on the greatest subversion of the Constitution in the last century. In Dean we trust.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,464429,00.html
"Such sentiments have been misinterpreted by assorted Beltway savants as a leftward lurch by Democratic Party activists; it seems more a reaction to the rightward lurch of the Republicans. Dean, who has been mischaracterized as the reincarnation of George McGovern, is certainly no traditional liberal or even a traditional dove. "I told the peace people not to fall in love with me," he told me over breakfast in Manchester, N.H., last week. He said he had opposed Vietnam, but he had supported the first Gulf War, the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and the war in Afghanistan. In the 1980s he had "mixed feelings" about Ronald Reagan's support for the contras in Nicaragua and opposed a unilateral nuclear freeze.

between having mixed feelings about supporting the Contras, which was legally done until the Boland Amendment, and having mixed feelings about Iran Contra. A good many supporters of the Contras were appalled at the idea of selling Arms to Iran and using that money to supply the Contras. Your headline is inaccurate and you should fix it.

As to mixed feelings about supporting the Contras I agree that Dean's position on that is in error.

liken it to Kerry's war vote. That outta clear things up a bit. :)

and integrity. Dean never said he was a liberal. Those who chose to think he was an "anti-war" candidate did so at their own peril.
I reiterate that his phrase, "I told the peace people not to fall n love with me" is an indication that he is not a dove and he never tried to mischaracterize himself.

You turn and twist everything Dean says or does while proselytising about Kerry. Nobody ever said that Dean was a liberal. Dean never called himself a liberal. Dean can't be pigeonholed. He is unique and should be judged on his platform and his views, not on some myth others choose to label him with.

But neither is he a hawk. It's called being BALLANCED---whatever the situation calls for.

I supported the first Gulf War too, just like Dean. Bush #I handled it the right way by building a coalition of allies. It was handled completely different than the last Iraq war because it was multilateral.

I also supported getting involved in Kosovo and the war in Afghanistan, just like Dean. There were good reasons to intervene in the Balkans because of the genocide.

I don't give a rat's fanny about what his stance on Iran Contra was back in the '80's. That was then, this is now.

You attack him over a bill that shows he sticks with his principles with an attack that it couldn't possibly be because of his principles. You just want to hate him. I'm sorry you think he betrayed you with his Iraq war vote and that you don't understand it, but that doesn't change who he has been for his entire life. You don't understand, that doesn't mean he was wrong or unprincipled. It just means you don't understand.

I am fortunate enough to have a principled Democrat as my Senator---Dick Durbin; Durbin opposed the IWR vote, even though he was running for re-election in a state where the people supported invading Iraq.

John Kerry isn't fit to carry Dick Durbin's briefcase. 'Principled', my ass!

It's just as legitimate to say voting to ignore Iraq and the worldwide problem of weapons proliferation is a betrayal to this country. All I care is that people voted according to their conscience and I know that Senator Kerry did.

It's a betrayal of his oath of office to 'defend the Constitution'. My Senator said so bluntly, as did Senator Byrd. You can 'nuance' it however you like, but it's an abdication of his Constitutionally-mandated responsibility.

I'm not nuancing anything, I am stating very very clearly. The Iraq issue was one of weapons proliferation around the world and the need for the UN to begin dealing with it seriously. Period. That's what that vote was all about. Kerry voted to allow the President to deal with it, with war only to enforce the UN's resolutions OR protect U.S. security.

Byrd and Durbin and a few others disagreed. It's their right to disagree but it doesn't automatically make them RIGHT on the issue.

What Kerry did was give the pResident the right to make war at his pleasure, and abdication of his duty under the Constitution.

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'" --

--- Congressman Abraham Lincoln, 158 years ago

That resolution gave 2 specific circumstances wherein the President could use military force. One was to enforce UN resolutions against Iraq and the other, as always, was to protect U.S. security. The President has always had the right to use military intervention and it has always been seen as a separate event than a Declaration of War. Our first two wars, the Quasi-War and the Tripolitan War, weren't declared wars. Many military interventions since then weren't declared wars, including Kosovo. Nobody gave Bush authority to make war at his pleasure or to do anything he didn't already have the authority to do. Bush never did declare war on Iraq either, by the way.

Congress, not the Chief Executive, shall have the power to make war. Kerry voted to give that power to *, a clear and unequivocal abdication of his duties a Senator.

'Nuance' it however you like, the fact remains that he did just what I said he did.

No. This is just unreasonable to hold Kerry to a different standard than what has happened in the 200 year of history of this country.

And the complete disconnect between holding Kerry uniquely responsible for this is evident when you look at the primaries as a whole. Democrats by far would support Hillary Clinton and she voted for it. Gephardt is leading in Iowa, has massive union support, so the war vote obviously isn't an issue there. Dean would have supported Biden-Lugar, which gave Bush military powers as well, that's not seen as a position of supporting the abdication of Congressional duties.

This war vote is a made-up excuse to go against Kerry and I have no idea why.

supported Civil Unions in Vermont. To do the equivalent of what Kerry did here he would have named him self dictator for the day and issued a civil unions proclamation. If Kerry's point on this is good, and I have no idea either way, then he should have worked to convince at least 39 of his collegues. That is what Dean did on civil unions he persuaded the legislature to vote for it.

And yes, it would be preferable that Kerry had gotten support. But it ought to be in his favor that he's willing to stick to his guns when he believes he's right. I also don't have any idea how many of these votes would have been different if the Congressmen hadn't known Kerry would never let it go anywhere anyway. McCain is against this bill too, as I understand. A vote like that has got to have more than a little politics going on with it.

you are right sandsea. as i saw in some of your other posts. foreign policy is not so simple. to say kerry supports this discrimination because he opposes sanctions assumes the sanctions would work. it's the same assumption used when talking about cuba and iraq. it's like right wingers saying if you oppose war with iraq then you support saddam, or if you opposed the vietnam war then you supported their communist government.

kerry does not support keeping the policy with cuba in current form. he supports lifting the travel ban.

Why not open it all up?

i don't totally agree with kerry on this issue. although i do like it he would change the current policy.

My point is that regardless of the merits of this I have a problem with how he did it. I tend to agree that in the cases of non democracies sanctions aren't terribly effective but I don't think that just one Senator should be permitted to hold up legislation indefinately single handedly. He should have convinced 39 of his fellow Senators.

then your problem is with the rules of the senate itself. not sure how we can change that. does dean want to do something to change it ?

He clearly thinks its just peachy that he can over rule 410 congressmen.

what is dean's position on this ? since it's so important to you wouldn't you want to know where your candidate stands on the issue ?

it is pretty clear on who gets to write the rules of the Seante (hint it isn't the Governor of Vermont nor is it the President's). It is called seperation of powers.

i never said dean has the power to change rules as a senator does. i asked about dean's position (opinion) on the issue. especially on relations with vietnam. one doesn't need to be senator , president, gov or whatever to have an opinion.

so my assumption is that he would be on the House's side on the Vietnam matter. As to the Senate I don't think his opinion really matters since he can't do anything.

if the issue is that important. why not get a sure answer from dean on his position on relations with vietnam ? and the president does have say in these matters. so as president what would be dean's policy with vietnam be ?

I am not on his campaign staff. It isn't on his site to my knowledge. I honestly don't really care much about the underlying issue.

why post here if you don't care for the issue ? i originally asked about dean's position to the one who created this subject.

and have been crystal clear in that evidently you didn't bother to read my posts, is the use of the hold.

and see that i was responding to sandsea and agreeing. when you said your problem was the "hold" rule , i responded to it as that and accepted it. the other response i made was in reply to evgener when i asked about dean's position. but you responded to it.

in regard to IranContra? It was only the GREATEST crime against the Constitution in the last 100 years.

Exposed by that worthless donothing John Kerry.

but under they way our Republic runs Dean has, and should have, no say about the rules of the Senate. Kerry, on the other hand, can decide whether or not to abuse the rules. I think it is abusive to use the rules in that manner. It is one thing to use the filibuster to require some cooperation with a minority party but quite another to use a quirky rule to require unaminity.

one can't have an opinion on the way they think things should work ? of course he can't have a real say in terms of doing something as a senator, but he sure can have an opinion. maybe dean should come out against kerry on this vietnam issue ?

Hes doing just fine!

thanks for the kerry strategy tips though

this is about the issues. don't you think dean should come out and support this vietnam bill that kerry opposes. it would be on the issues. you seem to think it's very important. don't you want your candidate supporting the bill also ?

does howard dean oppose what kerry and mccain did ? would you stop supporting dean if he supports kerry's position on this ? if the issue is that important to you then wouldn't you want to know where your candidate stands on the issue also ?

Kerry has had quite a bit of time to deal with it.

what's dean's position on our relations with vietnam ? does he want to keep the current policy started by bill clinton with the help of john kerry which have opened relations or does he want to change that in any way ?

I realize their suffering is simply being used on this thread for Kerry smearing, but just in case anyone is interested, here are a couple of links. The HRW pdf is fairly long, but worth reading. Also, and I claim no expertise in this area, there is no mention (at least none that I saw) about genocide. Doesn't mean it isn't happening (after all, genocide is a favorite human activity), but it does suggest the thread needs additional documentation to support the accusations made against Kerry.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA030012002?open&of=ENG-2S3

(London/New York) - Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch today expressed concern over plans agreed by the Vietnamese and Cambodian governments and the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to facilitate repatriation of indigenous Montagnard refugees who have fled from Viet Nam to Cambodia during the past year.

A report of the January 21 meeting in Phnom Penh, signed by all three parties, makes no mention of the fact that any return of refugees to Viet Nam must be voluntary and that the right of individuals to continue to seek asylum in Cambodia must be respected. In addition, while Viet Nam has now agreed to allow UNHCR to visit its Central Highlands to monitor conditions for return, access appears to be very limited and the Vietnamese authorities must approve each U.N. visit.

"We are concerned that this agreement may send a green light to both the Cambodian and Vietnamese authorities that it is now acceptable to forcibly expel Montagnards seeking asylum in Cambodia," said Rachael Reilly, Refugee Policy Director at Human Rights Watch. "There should be no action on repatriation unless there are firm guarantees that any such returns are completely voluntary."

The two rights organizations called for any repatriation to be completely voluntary and for UNHCR to have full and unhindered access to the highlands, both before and after any repatriation, in order to assure the safety of returnees.

more...

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/vietnam/vietrights.pdf

also responsible for holding up the bill. She never struck me as a proponent of genocide, but if she's holding up the bill, I guess she must be, at least if I'm reading the posts above correctly. One learns so much from some of the Dean supporters at DU.

http://64.235.234.29/en/rally_for_2833.html

On September 6, 2001, the House of Representatives of the United States passed Vietnam Human Rights Act HR 2833 with a vote of 410/1. Yet, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and other pro-VC Senators have been blocking this Human Rights Act from going to the senate floor for a fair debate and vote. In addition, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has received over 12,000 petitions asking for her intervention and vote, however she has been silent and refused to respond to her constituents petitions. HR 2833 was introduced to promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam and save American taxpayer's money.

In response to Sen. Boxer and Sen. Kerry, the Committee To Support Vietnam Human Rights Act HR 2833 and other Human Rights organizations/communities will conduct 2 rallies at Senator Barbara Boxer's Offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco to urge her and Sen. Kerry to allow the Vietnam Human Rights Act to go to the senate floor for a fair debate and vote.

more...

Their problem with Boxer, in your very own quote, isn't that she put a hold on this bill, which is what Kerry did, but that she remained silent. Remaining silent means not talking. Putting a hold on something means not letting a vote come up. Boxer remained silent, Kerry put a hold on the bill. Try reading your own posts next time.

who claims kerry is responsible for genocide. you are taking issue with the senate rules rather than the issue itself which is what this person is responding to. since the original poster claimed kerry is allowing genocide by holding up this bill one can say those who stay silent on the subject are also allowing genocide by not taking action and just staying silent. that is not what this person thinks of course. it was just an example and point being made about the argument claiming kerry allows genocide.

is that is her choice. She isn't using a hold which is a what my problem is.

then what kerry is doing is his right also since it's not against the rules. i know what your problem is, and i'm pointing out that the poster was responding to the issue of genocide in vietnam and the person claiming kerry supported it or allowed it to happen and not to the problem you have with whether senators should be allowed to hold bills or some other senate rule. perhaps you should start another thread on this specific senate rule if it bothers you that much.

n/t

according to the article you wrongly accuse me of not reading, Boxer is accused of blocking the bill (the part regarding her silence refers to her lack of response to the petitions). If she's blocking the bill, according to the brilliant logic of this thread, she must be guilty of supporting genocide, just like the Master Demon, John "Satan Is My Motor" Kerry.

and apparently thriving at DU.