0
   

Should DeLay resign

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:17 am
To give aid and comfort, one must determine to whom one refers by the word enemy. Let's see, was a war declared? Well, no, not exactly, but there was the Golf of Tonkin Resolution . . . i see, and the War Powers Act which was subsequently passed in response to the aftermath of that Resolution, can that be considered to have ratified Johnson's action . . . weellll, once again, not exactly, you see, it's all more complicated than that . . .


Uh-huh . . .
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:45 am
Oh, we all have our opinions. Another of my opinions is that it is to the overall good those who's opinions tend Kerrywards proved to be not in the majority.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:47 am
I have no brief to support Kerry, i am just highly amused by the volume and tenor of conservative vituperation all over these boards this morning . . . woke me up faster than coffee . . . and a great deal of it is high-larious . . .
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:52 am
I've been pretty amused myself this mornin' - though from perhaps a somewhat different ideologic perspective than yours, Set - Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 10:07 am
parados wrote:
Timber, that is an opinion that seems to be getting close to being expressed as if it was fact. "Aid and comfort" is your opinion vs the 200 years of legal precedence. As long as you keep it as opinion, I'll refrain from hitting you over the head with the constitution. ;-)


Setanta wrote:
To give aid and comfort, one must determine to whom one refers by the word enemy. Let's see, was a war declared? Well, no, not exactly, but there was the Golf of Tonkin Resolution . . . i see, and the War Powers Act which was subsequently passed in response to the aftermath of that Resolution, can that be considered to have ratified Johnson's action . . . weellll, once again, not exactly, you see, it's all more complicated than that . . .


Let's determine that the "enemy" was the North Vietnamese, since that is who we were primarily killing and being killed by.

The actions of Kerry, as well as Jane Fonda, emboldened Hanoi. His 1971 testimony and anti-war protests created the appearance of a disunity that caused Hanoi to not surrender as they would likely have done had they not lead their protests. This is not mere opinion, but based upon the statements of POW's experiences, and comments of North Vietnamese military leaders.

Quote:
Gen. Giap Thanks Kerry & Co. for Anti-war Protests

Celebrating the 29th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, the North Vietnamese general who led his forces to victory said Friday he was grateful to leaders of the U.S. anti-war movement, one of whom was presidential candidate John Kerry.

"I would like to thank them," said Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, now 93, without mentioning Kerry by name. "Any forces that wish to impose their will on other nations will surely fail," he added.

Reuters, which first reported Giap's comments, suggested that the former enemy general was mindful of Kerry's role in leading some of the highest-profile anti-war protests of the entire Vietnam War.

Before the British wire service quoted Gen. Giap, it noted:

"The Vietnam War, known in Vietnam as the American War, has become a hot issue in the U.S. presidential race with Democrat John Kerry drawing attention to his service and President Bush's Republicans disparaging Kerry's later anti-war stand."

North Vietnamese Col. Bui Tin, who served under Gen. Giap on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, Col. Tin explicitly credited leaders of the U.S. anti-war movement, saying they were "essential to our strategy."

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement," Col. Tin told the Journal.

Visits to Hanoi by Kerry anti-war allies Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and others, he said, "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

"We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war," the North Vietnamese military man explained.

Kerry did much the same thing in widely covered speeches such as the one he delivered to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971.

"Through dissent and protest [America] lost the ability to mobilize a will to win," Col. Tin concluded.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 10:09 am
Tico, you are free to assume what you like, it doesn't in any way bind my thought . . .
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 10:46 am
Quote:
The actions of Kerry, as well as Jane Fonda, emboldened Hanoi. His 1971 testimony and anti-war protests created the appearance of a disunity that caused Hanoi to not surrender as they would likely have done had they not lead their protests. This is not mere opinion, but based upon the statements of POW's experiences, and comments of North Vietnamese military leaders.


You really have to wonder about it when the "mere appearance of disunity" is enough to claim treason. Does that mean we can hang every Republican that didn't agree with Clinton's actions in Bosnia and Kosovo?

I'm sorry Tico, but the constituton specifically says "aid and comfort" to the enemy and then requires that such aid and comfort have 2 witnesses. Your statement is nothing but "mere opinion". And not well supported opinion at that. The constitution also requires that it be an "overt act".

I loved the opinion piece that used INNUENDO to try to claim that Kerry was thanked by anyone in Vietnam. Not much evidence of any actual statement by them to cite Kerry. Makes as much sense as those that claim McCain blamed Kerry in his 1973 US World and News article. A lot of smoke blowing and no facts. It all dissappears when you look at the REAL statements by the person quoted and not just the selected quotes with a lot of made up stuff about what they meant.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 11:07 am
Fund-Raising: Take It to the (West) Bank

Money meant for the inner city went to fight the intifada. What donors to Jack Abramoff's charity didn't know.


Quote:
May 2 issue - The pitch from superlobbyist Jack Abramoff was hard to resist: a good way to get access on Capitol Hill, he told his clients a few years ago, was to contribute to a worthy charity he and his wife had just started up. The charity, called the Capital Athletic Foundation, was supposed to provide sports programs and teach "leadership skills" to city youth. Donating to it also had a side benefit, Abramoff told his clients: it was a favored cause of Rep. Tom DeLay.

The pitch worked especially well among a group of Indian tribes who, having opened up lucrative gaming casinos, had hired Abramoff to protect their interests in Washington. In 2002 alone, records show, three Indian tribes donated nearly $1.1 million to the Capital Athletic Foundation. But now, NEWSWEEK has learned, investigators probing Abramoff's finances have found some of the money meant for inner-city kids went instead to fight the Palestinian intifada. More than $140,000 of foundation funds were actually sent to the Israeli West Bank where they were used by a Jewish settler to mobilize against the Palestinian uprising. Among the expenditures: purchases of camouflage suits, sniper scopes, night-vision binoculars, a thermal imager and other material described in foundation records as "security" equipment.The West Bank security payments are not the only foundation expenditure being eyed by investigators. The bulk of the foundation's money, about $4 million, was used for a now-defunct Orthodox Jewish school in suburban Maryland that two of Abramoff's sons attended. Buffalo says his tribe had no idea its donations were being used for this purpose, either. A spokesman for Abramoff vigorously defended all of the expenditures. Abramoff, says spokesman Andrew Blum, "is an especially strong supporter of Israel and has tried to find ways to help Israelis and others to be less susceptible to terrorist attacks." Still, the increasing attention from the news media and investigators is causing even old friends like DeLay to back away. A spokesman last week vigorously disputed that DeLay had anything to do with Abramoff's charity. Although he had been scheduled to attend a planned gala fund-raiser for the foundation two years ago, DeLay never went. As for the security shipments to the West Bank, DeLay knew nothing about it, the spokesman said.

With Dan Ephron in Jerusalem


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7446492/site/newsweek/

Quote:
"Those S.O.B.s," Abramoff said last week about DeLay and his staffers, according to his luncheon companion. "DeLay knew everything. He knew all the details."


Hoo boy. This just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 11:12 am
parados wrote:
I loved the opinion piece that used INNUENDO to try to claim that Kerry was thanked by anyone in Vietnam. Not much evidence of any actual statement by them to cite Kerry. Makes as much sense as those that claim McCain blamed Kerry in his 1973 US World and News article. A lot of smoke blowing and no facts. It all dissappears when you look at the REAL statements by the person quoted and not just the selected quotes with a lot of made up stuff about what they meant.


Quote:
North Vietnamese Col. Bui Tin, who served under Gen. Giap on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, Col. Tin explicitly credited leaders of the U.S. anti-war movement, saying they were "essential to our strategy."

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement," Col. Tin told the Journal.

Visits to Hanoi by Kerry anti-war allies Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and others, he said, "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

"We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war," the North Vietnamese military man explained.

Kerry did much the same thing in widely covered speeches such as the one he delivered to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971.

"Through dissent and protest [America] lost the ability to mobilize a will to win," Col. Tin concluded.


That don't strike me as opinion-piece innuendo; seems pretty explicit, fact-based, straight reportage from where I sit - direct quote from an interested, knowledgeable, credible party, with verifiable attribution (the WSJ interview article was derived from a taped interview with Col. Tin) , and all.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 11:22 am
As Parados pointed out, Big Bird, there is no direct attribution of this "aid and comfort" on the part of the North Vietnamese spokesman to Kerry . . .

. . . don't let that stop ya, though, have at it . . .
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 11:44 am
mysteryman wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
The examples mysteryman brings up are superfluous. Ed Kennedy? Settled long ago, whether or not one agrees with the resolution. Clinton? He has already been punished/harrassed and is beyond the fray. Byrd? He recognized the error of racism many years ago, confessed his wrong-ness and changed his ways. DeLay continues with his shady activities and refuses to recognize his crimes, at least publicly.


I bring Clinton up because he was the last President,and a known base of comparison.

Tell me,exactly what crimes has DeLay been CONVICTED of?
What legal authority brought him to trial,and what were the charges?
Since all of you are saying he is guilty,what was he found guilty of,and when was he convicted?


nothing yet. but there are allegations. that's the whole point of the investigation, to see if there was any wrong doing.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 01:48 pm
Setanta wrote:
As Parados pointed out, Big Bird, there is no direct attribution of this "aid and comfort" on the part of the North Vietnamese spokesman to Kerry . . .

. . . don't let that stop ya, though, have at it . . .


OK - I see - My bad. I thought " ... explicitly credited leaders of the U.S. anti-war movement, saying they were "essential to our strategy." referred to leaders of the US anti-war movement. Uhhhh .... waitaminnit - it did, didn't it? Well then, obviously, the thrust of your objection is that Kerry wasn't a leader of the US anti-war movement. Yeah, that's it, sure. Oh .... waitaminnit again here .... oh, never mind.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 02:02 pm
Given that i was both a veteran of the Army, and an opponent of that war, and never heard Kerry's name once, i'd take it as ludicrous to contend that he was an "explicity credited leader" of the anti-war movement. I was active in anti-war demonstrations and newsletters both in and out of the Army--having enlisted and voluntarily done my national service duty, i felt entitled, and didn't care then and don't care now who disagrees with me.

If Kerry was so important to the movement, and was such a prominent leader of the movement, why was there no nation-wide comment on the subject then? That was certainly in the case with Jane Fonda.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 02:02 pm
Quote:
"We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war," the North Vietnamese military man explained.

Kerry did much the same thing in widely covered speeches such as the one he delivered to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971.
Kerry wore a red dress? or did Kerry visit Vietnam? This is innuendo. Col Tin never once mentioned Kerry but it didn't stop the author from claiming Kerry did the "same thing."

Quote:
Visits to Hanoi by Kerry anti-war allies Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and others
Innuendo, The author makes it seem like Kerry was part of the statement. Tin never mentioned Kerry.

Quote:
Kerry did much the same thing in widely covered speeches such as the one he delivered to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971.

I find it rather amusing that you think a speech to the Senate is "treason." Especially considering the fact that the Senate was pretty divided on the issue and that is why they held the hearings at which Kerry spoke.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 02:51 pm
One thing can be said about our leaders in Congress. They aren't shy about using the system to protect themselves when they break the law.

When leaders in the house like Tom Delay or Dan Rostenkowski break the rules their first step it is to cover it up and try to prevent the House ethics committee from investigating. In 1992, the Ethics committee refused to take up Rostenkowski's alleged violations because there was an ongoing legal investigation. Then in 2004, the house ethics committee decided to not take up one of the charges against Delay because of an ongoing legal investigation in Texas. One can't help but claim that Delay and Rostenkowski are "the same" when it comes to trying to hide their misdeeds. The following year for both of them led to a different conclusion. For Rostenkowski, he couldn't stop the Ethics committee from ruling on him the following year and a short time later was convicted and sent to jail. Delay however, prevented the ethics committee from meeting by getting his party to change the rules that govern the committee to keep them from investigating him.

Why on earth should we let Congressmen guilty of a crime prevent the ethics committee from ruling on them?



I love it when the other side says "innuendo" is just fine. Thanks Timber.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 07:43 pm
This is interesting...
http://tinyurl.com/9pof7

Members of Congress are rushing to amend their travel and campaign records, fearing that the controversy over House Majority Leader Tom DeLay will trigger an ethics war that will bring greater scrutiny to their own travel and official activities.

In another case, an aide to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had not reported a 2004 trip to South Korea until a Washington Post reporter asked her office about it. Eddie Charmaine Manansala, Pelosi's special assistant on East Asian affairs, filed a disclosure form for the $9,087 trip a few hours after the newspaper's inquiry and sent a note to the ethics committee saying, "I did not know I was supposed to file these forms and I apologize for its lateness."


Did Nancy Pelosi and her staff just join congress?
Does anyone really believe that this aide "didnt know"?

And here we have a congressman ADMITTING he lied about a trip,and he wants to be investigated..."Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) even asked the ethics committee to investigate him after a reporter for the newspaper Roll Call pointed out that a travel disclosure form from 2001 listed the lobbying firm Rooney Group International as paying for a $1,782 trip to Boston, which would be a violation of House rules."

Even if DeLay didnt do anything wrong,maybe ALL of these people should be investigated.

BTW,this is a Washington Post article.
0 Replies
 
NobleCon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 10:02 pm
Investigate them all- we pay for it, no? Background checks, records checks, bank accounts, income taxes, overseas accounts, condom preferences, morning cereal, and so on. The works...

They "represent" us, so I believe it is fitting.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2005 12:53 am
NobleCon wrote:
Investigate them all- we pay for it, no? Background checks, records checks, bank accounts, income taxes, overseas accounts, condom preferences, morning cereal, and so on. The works...

They "represent" us, so I believe it is fitting.


appoint an independent council. preferably a middle aged curmudgeon that hasn't voted in quite a while.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2005 06:29 am
Independent Counsel? Too late.

In the wake of the Starr-Run-Amok disaster, the House got rid of the office of Special Prosecutor.

Remember, these are Republicans who did this.

The next time one of these Republican True Believers goes off into the ozone about Bill Clinton and Monica, ask them this: If what Clinton did was so bad-get some nookie on the side and then lie about it when put on trial-then why did the Republican House eliminate the position that brought that affair to light?

I mean, if the Starr probe was so legit and beneficial to the country, why did the Republicans themselves immediately get rid of the Special Prosecutor position so that such a thing can never happen again?
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2005 06:35 am
You have to admit, that is really the conclusive evidence of what a disaster the Whitewater investigation was.

It is one thing to be so bad that the company fires you.

It is quite another thing to be so bad that the company not only fires you, but after you're gone they immediately undertake a major restructuring so that nobody remotely like you can ever be hired again.

That's what they did with Starr. That's how bad even the Republicans admit his investigation was.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Should DeLay resign
  3. » Page 12
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 04:38:35