Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Joint Resolution (advance copy of markup of Iraq J.Res.)
TheScoop.org ^ | 10.2.02

Posted on 10/02/2002 9:26:55 AM PDT by mhking

Joint Resolution

Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. -
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. - Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. - Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
This is from TheScoop.org:

"The text of the use of force resolution as it will be taken up in the House has been released. This has the support of GOP leaders Hastert and Lott and Democratic leader Gephardt."

1 posted on 10/02/2002 9:26:55 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mhking
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

Or in plain English: "LET'S ROLL!"

2 posted on 10/02/2002 9:32:55 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Did Gephardt check with Streisand first?
3 posted on 10/02/2002 9:33:07 AM PDT by ET(end tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking; Poohbah; Miss Marple
Looks good.

And we can say to the UN (with all honesty): "We're going after the al-Qaida mother****ers. Next time, Saddam's folks had best stay outta our way."

Or, better yet, "Oops, wrong targeting info uploaded..."

Poohbah might have a few other good "excuses" for "horrible, terrible accidents" that might befall Iraqi forces... I'll ping him on that.
4 posted on 10/02/2002 9:33:23 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!

VOTE OUT THE DEMS!

DONATE TODAY!!!.
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

5 posted on 10/02/2002 9:33:31 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ET(end tyranny)
Screw Strei...uh...damn. Never mind that...
6 posted on 10/02/2002 9:34:06 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Iraq draft Resolution bump.
7 posted on 10/02/2002 9:38:26 AM PDT by L,TOWM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
I note that El Diablo D'Asshole is missing from the list of supporters. Without that <expletive deleted> on board, we'll have to wait until the Pubbies have 60 Senators AND replace Cave-A-Lott.
8 posted on 10/02/2002 9:39:00 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Just the thought scares me...
9 posted on 10/02/2002 9:39:44 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Poohbah might have a few other good "excuses" for "horrible, terrible accidents" that might befall Iraqi forces... I'll ping him on that.

"Goshdernit, we're having GPS epoch rollover problems again."

"Whoopsie! Didn't realize you mean 'Bud Light!'"

"We're filing a UN protest over the city of Baghdad's unprovoked attack on our Tomahawks. There oughta be a law against erecting tall buildings to obstruct cruise missile flight paths."

"Yo, Kofi, who's yer daddy?"

"Well, shucks! Our campaign planner just upgraded his computer to Windows XP, and the new interface confused him when we told him to prepare a strike plan for al-Qaeda hangouts. Sorry, Saddam, ol' buddy."

"Hey, it's not like we invaded China! This is Iraq! It's like driving to Wisconsin!"

10 posted on 10/02/2002 9:39:45 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I coulda' swore that was Osama. Oh, that was Saddam? I guess he shouldn't have tried growing a beard.
11 posted on 10/02/2002 9:40:14 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"Well, shucks! Our campaign planner just upgraded his computer to Windows XP, and the new interface confused him when we told him to prepare a strike plan for al-Qaeda hangouts. Sorry, Saddam, ol' buddy."

It's just the "blue screen of death" - what's a little screen between friends?

12 posted on 10/02/2002 9:41:31 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"Hey, it's not like we invaded China! This is Iraq! It's like driving to Wisconsin!"

As long as you don't have to go through Chicago, that is.

"You mean those weren't donuts we were dropping?"

13 posted on 10/02/2002 9:42:15 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mhking; Poohbah
"The AH-64 that took out the chemical weapons factory was in hot pursuit of a couple of al-Qaida..."

GI to Iraqi troops:
"So, these are YOUR chemical weapons, and the al-Qaeda guys have nothing to do with them. Well, we'll have to take them anyhow, since there are those UN resolutions..."
14 posted on 10/02/2002 9:44:17 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Hey, unless the Iraqis can provide certified proof of origin and ownership, the exact provenance of those WMDs is open to question.
15 posted on 10/02/2002 9:45:39 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
"They shouldn't have called that complex a base".
16 posted on 10/02/2002 9:46:40 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
Tell 'em "Kulu qa'idatikum namlikuha" and continue mission.

Hey, it wasn't us! Janet Reno was in charge of those troops, and she heard that there was a meth lab and child abuse going on in that "compound!"

17 posted on 10/02/2002 9:48:40 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Oh, here's a good one:
MEMCON between SECDEF and unidentified State Department weenie:
"Look, I told the troops to fire warning shots if Iraqi units came close to units operating against al-Qaida. ... So the warning shot took out the lead T-72..."
18 posted on 10/02/2002 9:49:55 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Further in the MEMCON:

"OK, I found the problem. Seems the reg on warning shots was written by someone less than proficient in English--it says "fire a warning shot into its bow" instead of "across its bow."

"Look, sonny, the grownups have work to do. Changing the reg will be done as soon as we have time. What's that? When? Try 2037 or so. Toodles."

19 posted on 10/02/2002 9:52:11 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
"They shouldn't have called that complex a base".


20 posted on 10/02/2002 9:53:00 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Even further down the MEMCON:

"Yeah, and next time, tell the Iraqi foreign minister that even IF the warning shot takes out their lead T-72, that is NO REASON to start taking shots at American troops!"

...

Another MEMCON:
"Tell those guys from 1st Armored that they did a nice job on those Republican Guard tanks... keep it up."
21 posted on 10/02/2002 9:54:05 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mhking
KULU QA'IDATIKUM NAMLIKUHA
22 posted on 10/02/2002 9:54:59 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; hchutch
Works for me (ROFLMAO).
23 posted on 10/02/2002 9:55:02 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"fire a warning shot into its bow"

"Mr. Worf....Fire."

24 posted on 10/02/2002 9:56:43 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Another MEMCON:

"Look, how do you EXPECT an A-10 pilot to determine if a T-72 is al-Qaida or Iraqi? Do some Special Forces guys need to walk up and ASK them if they are Iraqi military or al-Qaida? Sheesh... next you'll be saying that we're responsible for that accidental explosion at that bio-war factory near Baghdad..."
25 posted on 10/02/2002 9:57:14 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mhking
"Mr. Worf....Fire."

"You may fire wh...ON THE WAY!!!!!"

26 posted on 10/02/2002 9:58:29 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
"Oops, I did it again..."
"Gunner, did you just hit ANOTHER Iraqi tank?"
27 posted on 10/02/2002 9:59:59 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
"Gunner, did you just hit ANOTHER Iraqi tank?"

Britney Spears -- singing the theme song for US forces in Iraq...

28 posted on 10/02/2002 10:01:13 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
"Oops, I did it again..."
"Gunner, did you just hit ANOTHER Iraqi tank?"

"That safety release just slipped out of my hands. Let me try it aga...ON THE WAY!!!!"

29 posted on 10/02/2002 10:02:17 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
"Look sonny, it was a biowar facility. How many 'Baby Milk Factories' are surrounded by SAM sites, triple barbed wire fencing, and attack dogs? Heck, how many 'Baby Milk Factories' generate a massive anthrax epidemic downwind after the blow up?"
30 posted on 10/02/2002 10:03:43 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Well, the song was appropriate...

"Now, now, Mr. Iraqi, we'll need to check in here about this plutonium. Are you sure it's yours?"

;)
31 posted on 10/02/2002 10:04:02 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"If you'd told us it was a bio-weapons facility, we'd have used something to make sure NO downwind epidemic would occur. ... What? Oh, try a 40-kilton candygram..."
32 posted on 10/02/2002 10:05:48 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
"Oh, boy..."
"What now, gunner?"
"I think that was a Mercedes limo I hit..."
"Someone just won a Darwin Award, then..."
33 posted on 10/02/2002 10:12:35 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Mercedes limos blw up REAL nice
34 posted on 10/02/2002 10:13:32 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Was laughing too hard to type properly (I really should maximize the posting window so I don't read the rest of the thread and lose my concentration). BLOW up REAL nice.
35 posted on 10/02/2002 10:14:58 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mhking
HAHAHAHAHAHA
The RATS have bent over and are being serviced by Dubya. So much for the loons and their hopes that any action be dependent on any UN garbage resolution. Not that there was any questions RATS did nto want to be the antiwar party, but they just pissed off their LW base. Baghdad Jim wont like this one.

Saddam, you better start moving around several times a day.
36 posted on 10/02/2002 10:15:36 AM PDT by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
That's some seriously-deadly milk.
37 posted on 10/02/2002 10:15:41 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
No, it's "Mercedes Limos blowed up good. It blowed up REAL good."
38 posted on 10/02/2002 10:16:02 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

39 posted on 10/02/2002 10:17:10 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
You're right; what was I thinking?
40 posted on 10/02/2002 10:18:09 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
I do have to remind you that El Diablo D'Asshole hasn't even come close to signing on.
41 posted on 10/02/2002 10:19:22 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"Aircraft getting away!"
"Fox One! Fox One!"
"Uh-oh..."
"What's wrong, Two?"
"Lead, have you ever heard of Tom Lanphier...?"
42 posted on 10/02/2002 10:20:26 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
"Lead, did we hit anything?"

"Don't worry, Two, ain't nothing but Homers up there anyway."

43 posted on 10/02/2002 10:22:10 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mhking
And we have been struggling with what to do with post-gulf Saddam since before Sept 11, 2001. These democrat-socialists who side with North Korea, Saddam, half of europe, and the old-timer politicos of China and Russia will be the enemy in the coming war. What did we fight for in WWII?? What did General MacArthur say was our responsibility?

"Only the knowledge that the victory, which these sacrifices have made possible, will be wisely used, can give them any comfort. It is our responsibility-ours, the living-to see to it that this victory shall be a monument worthy of the dead who died to win it. "

What were we talking about regarding Saddam in the year 2000? -

U.S. War Crimes Ambassador Reviews Saddam Hussein's Criminality

The Case for Justice in Iraq
By David J. Scheffer
Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues
Monday, September 18, 2000
Middle East Institute and the Iraq Foundation
National Press Club, Washington, D.C.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm

The threat to our hard earned peace is a real and present danger.

44 posted on 10/02/2002 10:22:54 AM PDT by thunderdome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking

45 posted on 10/02/2002 10:24:20 AM PDT by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Overheard snippet of conversation between SECDEF and UN weenie:

"Look, these al-Qaida guys shoot it out as opposed to surrendering. And in any shoot-out, you're going to have stray rounds that will hit someone or something. ... Look, you're making Saddam's death sound like a bad thing. How can that be the case?"
46 posted on 10/02/2002 10:27:38 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
Uh oh, Gebhardt evidently got the polling data from
Missouri voters showing their displeasure that their
congress critter takes political advice from Babs Streisand!
47 posted on 10/02/2002 10:28:23 AM PDT by MamaLucci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MamaLucci
And here I thought that El Loco Poco Little Dick Gimphardt's consitutency WAS Babs.
48 posted on 10/02/2002 10:31:28 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MamaLucci
Oh, and speaking of slimeballs, McShame is speaing now, and President Bush doesn't look too happy.
49 posted on 10/02/2002 10:34:30 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Bush needs to be full power to attakc any and all of our enemies! We are at war. There is no time to have haggle each time Bush needs to attack terrorists!
50 posted on 10/02/2002 10:37:39 AM PDT by adam stevens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson