JOINT RESOLUTION ON IRAQ - October 11, 2002

[adios]

For the history buffs:

Text of Congressional Joint Resolution Authorizing the War in Iraq (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/joint_resolution_10-11-02.html)
I'll highlight a few things and post the entire resolution.

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;


and

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

and

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;

and before the usual crys of this being Bush propaganda I point out the following:

Congress passes a bipartisan resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force, acting alone if necessary, in order to ensure that Iraq disarms any weapons of mass destruction.

I know Bush tricked the Democrats in Congress.

The entire text of the 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 Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 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';

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 resolution 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 United States 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 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) 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 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress 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 Resolution 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 of 1998 (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 interests 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,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) 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 regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) 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--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) 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 thereafter 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 joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist 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 joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- 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 3 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 the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- 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 the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (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 such resolution.

[andyfox]

This generation's Tonkin Gulf Resolution. As in the Clinton impeachment debacle, the Democrats have more to be ashamed of themselves for than the Republicans.

[[censored]]

good post

[Broken Glass Can]

Well that does it, I'll never vote for Hillary or Kerry, those darn warmongers.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Yes,
It can be used to illustrate McCarthyism.

[BCPVP]

Could you elaborate, please?

[Cyrus]

Text of Congressional Joint Resolution Authorizing the War in Iraq (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/joint_resolution_10-11-02.html)

Why the surprise ? The Democrats in Congress allowed themselves, and their party, to be bamboozled by the Republican bluster and the threat of being denounced as "un-patriotic", or worse. Short-term, egotistical considerations (i.e. getting re-elected in the next election) and closed-minded objectives prevailed in the Dems' camp.

I, for one, never claimed that the Iraq folly was started by the fault of the GOP alone!

As to the text of the Resolution itself, I trust we can all agree that if the stated (and much trumpeted) reason for invading Iraq had not been the alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction, but "Qaeda terrorists" instead, no Congress and no U.N. would even listen to the sales pitch!

As you may recall, perhaps, Secretary of State Powell argued in the Security Council almost exclusively the case for the existence of WMDs in Iraq. And not of bin Laden and his Network.

[lehighguy]

What Democrats signed 3 years ago:
"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"

What Democrats said yesterday:
There is no link between Al-Qaida and Iraq.
There is no link between Iraq and 9/11.
There were no terrorist in Iraq before the invasion.
It is wrong and criminal of Bush to suggest these things.

I find the "flip-flop" if you will rather funny.

[superleeds]

So they have changed their position as new evidence has come to light.

Or are you maintaining that there is a link between Al-Qaida and Iraq, that there is a link between Iraq and 9/11, that it is right and proper to continue to imply this things because they are true?

I'll give you the terrorist in Iraq thing before the invasion but I submit you are over simplfying.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
Short-term, egotistical considerations (i.e. getting re-elected in the next election) and closed-minded objectives prevailed in the Dems' camp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this almost always true of the Dems political positions?

[player24]

A true "gotcha" moment. Hypocrits are so pathetic...

[Triumph36]

The link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq was tenuous at best. Sure it's in the document, but if pressed I don't think the Democrats would have agreed with it.

As for the rest, Bush's flip-flop is just as amusing. Now it's not about WMDs, it's about spreading liberty. If that's our principle to go on, why are we not in Liberia, Rwanda, the Sudan, etc. cleaning up these regions and promoting democracy?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

That many did not dare to vote against a text they knew were inaccurate, since they would be viewed as America-haters.

[HtotheNootch]

If I remember correctly, only 3 or so memebers of the hou (I heard it in a speech given by Rep. Ron Paul so I don't remember exactly) voted against the resolution.

This was the perfect scenario. There was almost no way for just about any elected official to vote against it. As was said above, they would be perceived as un-patriotic, appeasement mongers, or whatever else you want to call them.

Finally, it still amuses me that so many people assume there's an actual difference between most of the republican and democratic parties. They are both globalist, and statist. They're just selling the same thing with a different paintjob.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

On a side note I was at a business seminar where there was a speaker speaking about courage. One speaker had a two hour speech which was very good. He showed a picture of a woman and said: "When you reach her couragelevel you will be very successful". He said in a Iraqi-war vote (I don't know which) she was the only one to vote against. She was a big example and encouragement for me.

Also some inspiration to keep fighting manipulation and power abuse.

[PorscheNGuns]

<Finally, it still amuses me that so many people assume there's an actual difference between most of the republican and democratic parties. They are both globalist, and statist. They're just selling the same thing with a different paintjob. >

I'll pretend for now that I used to agree with this statement until MoveOn took over the Dem party.

And make no mistake about it, its their party now.

-Matt

[lehighguy]

I'm not trying to make any claims. I just find it funny that they agreed with Bush before the war, now they are saying he shouldn't have said the exact same things they said.

When they talk about it today, they don't use the present tense. They act as if they knew before the war that it would turn out this way. Clearly, this was not the case.

[lehighguy]

If it's tenous at best, Dems shouldn't have signed it. I don't sign things if I don't agree with them.

I actually never read this document before today. When I read it I burst histerical laughing because it was the complete contradiction of what I was hearing Dems say on TV. Now they have lost all credibility. They're like fish who go all-in when they are behind and outdraw and then act like they knew it was the right move.

[lehighguy]

If you vote for things you don't believe in, you don't deserve to be elected.

[lehighguy]

NH

[lehighguy]

Do you think MoveOn is really a good thing for the Dems

[Triumph36]

What? Do you know how irrational that sounds? If Democrats didn't sign it, they were finished politically. You can't vote against a war that's easily winnable, like this one was. Not to mention that any equivocating or debate would've looked like 'stalling' and 'letting the terrorists win'.

Plenty of politicians sign plenty of things they don't agree with. Principled stands and black-and-white issues are for those who fail to understand political manuvering.

BOTH parties look incredibly foolish with this document.

[lehighguy]

I disagree. Political manuevering is what is destorying this country. More people should stand up for what they believe in.

[Triumph36]

That sounds nice, but is completely untenable. Democracies have always existed with political manuevering and quid pro quo.

Apparently George Bush was unwilling to stand up for what he truly believed in, for he is willing to spread liberty wherever it needs to be spread. So let's invade Liberia, Sudan, Rwanda, and any repressive regime or dictatorship.

[lehighguy]

I don't think standing up for what you believe in is untenable at all. People are just afraid to do it.

[Triumph36]

Just ask John McCain about how the Straight Talk for President campaign worked out.

If they had found the WMDs which everyone said were there, do you understand that every television ad for the Republicans would feature a black and white shot with red letters about how the Democrat candidate voted to keep terrorism alive in the Middle East?

Voting against the war is like calling an all-in with a small pair - you're even money or a huge underdog.

[lehighguy]

So what your saying is Dems actually believed that there were WMD/terrorist links at the time of signing that document (or at least believed it enough they were not willing to gambool).

[tolbiny]

Deserves got nothing to do with it.

[tolbiny]

What do you think that Move on will do differently?

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
<Finally, it still amuses me that so many people assume there's an actual difference between most of the republican and democratic parties. They are both globalist, and statist. They're just selling the same thing with a different paintjob. >

I'll pretend for now that I used to agree with this statement until MoveOn took over the Dem party.

And make no mistake about it, its their party now.

-Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain please.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

Anyone else find it a little funny that some here are trying to argue that the Dems should have signed something that (according to these posters) they knew was incorrect out of fear of being called names? What is this, 4th grade? Wouldn't most of you agree that part of the problem with politics is that too many politicians simply want to stay in power instead of representing their constituents?

[adios]

Dubya, who is often portrayed as dumber than a post, bamboozling the sophisticated and intellectually oriented Democrats is what you're claiming? Absolutely hilarious.

[ QUOTE ]
Short-term, egotistical considerations (i.e. getting re-elected in the next election) and closed-minded objectives prevailed in the Dems' camp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Implying that the Democrats bare no responsibility. Typical and also very laughable.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Short-term, egotistical considerations (i.e. getting re-elected in the next election) and closed-minded objectives prevailed in the Dems' camp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Implying that the Democrats bare no responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, my implication is quite straightforwardly heaping a ton of blame on the cowardly, politicking, short-sighted Democrats in Congress, who bear as much responsibility as any accessory to murder.

...You sure you didn't get it the first time? I think you enjoy seeing this repeated.

[Triumph36]

The problem with democracy in general is that constituents are incredibly fickle. They want more services and lower taxes. They love wars when things are going great, but they hate the slightest setbacks. Often they don't have much of an idea what they want.

Perhaps it's a Faustian bargain, but I believe politicians are quite capable of claiming that they are better able to serve their constituents by doing whatever they feel as necessary to stay in power. The war resolution was going to pass no matter what they did, and the war was very popular at the time. If candidate A votes against the war and they find WMDs, he's finished if he runs for re-election, so now candidate B, a Republican, gets to come into Congress and vote for things the Democrat would not. It is an unfortunate state of affairs that results from our two-party system, but clinging to naive slogans like 'standing up for what they believe in' is exactly what will get the other party elected.

There should be term limits so that politicians can serve out their terms without this kind of manuevering. But somehow I don't see a group of career politicians voting themselves out of the possibility of a job.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
He said in a Iraqi-war vote (I don't know which) she was the only one to vote against. She was a big example and encouragement for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy used Maxine Waters as an example to look up to?!?!?!?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

She's probably the biggest buffoon in Congress - look at her record and look up some of her quotes.

This is a woman who excused the 1992 Los Angeles riots as a "rebellion."

This is a woman who called the violence in L.A. "a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice and a lot of alienation and frustration."

2 quotes on the looting that went on in the LA riots:

"There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. Maybe they shouldn't have done it, but the atmosphere was such that they did it. They are not crooks."

"One lady said her children didn't have any shoes. She just saw those shoes there, a chance for all of her children to have new shoes. Goddamn it! It was such a tear-jerker. I might have gone in and taken them for her myself."

I'd want my money back.

[Triumph36]

"This is a woman who called the violence in L.A. 'a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice and a lot of alienation and frustration.'"

You disagree with this?

[BCPVP]

How is the attitude of "do anything it takes so long as the other guy doesn't win" any better than "I won't stand up for what I believe in because I'll lose my job". This just further illustrates my point that one of the problems with politics today is career politicians who will do/say anything to get reelected. Besides, if your party has enough support from your constituents, you shouldn't have to worry about forever losing them to "the other guys". You could just resign and let another from your party run. But that's probably unthinkable for career pols.

[lehighguy]

I'm noticing more and more the line "if they found WMD i was finished". Are you telling me Dems has the exact same doubts the president did before the war. If so, then they did stand up for what they believed in, they just don't want to admit it now.

[lehighguy]

I've always wondered how breaking into stores and stealing things was politically motivated. It always seemed to me that there are better ways to react to "a lot of alienation and frustration".

If they had marched that would be one thing. Hell even burning the goods in the store would be better. But stealing them for personal gain cheapens the entire movement. They immediately go from revolutionaries to common thieves.

[PITTM]

okay, so both parties were wrong in signing that resolution, the democrats say so and theyre idiots? i dont get it. isnt that much much better than continuing to make up lies after these lies were discovered?

rj

[lehighguy]

The Democrats don't say so. They get on TV today and act like they never signed that document. They act like they KNEW there were no WMD. Like they KNEW there was no link between Iraq and Al-Qaida.

These claims are clearly false. They were apparently so afraid that they might have been true that they were willing to sign this document to protect themselves.

[Triumph36]

And the Republicans claim this war is to liberate Iraqis.

You have failed to address why this is any different.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats don't say [this was wrong]. They get on TV today and act like they never signed that document.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you provide us with one example of a Democrat going on TV and claiming he or she never signed "that document", while he or she actually did?

Shouldn't be too hard to find such an example, since they all do it.

[ QUOTE ]
[The Dems] act like they KNEW there were no WMD. Like they KNEW there was no link between Iraq and Al-Qaida.

[/ QUOTE ] The war's opponents, including some Democrats, have always maintained that the evidence for the existence of WMDs or aa link between Qaeda and Saddam were flimsy and unconvincing, at best. Being forced to make a choice, and irrespective of the political pressure extant at the time, a lot of the war's opponents signed on the "document".

(Having only Yes or No as choices, a person who faces two questions will answer Yes or No, even if the probabilities are vastly different each time. Here's where true courgae should have come in, from the war's opponents' side: They should have refused to sign on and then adopt a third platform of political/military policy regarding the war on terror.)

[ QUOTE ]
[The Democrats] were apparently so afraid that [the claims about WMDs and al Qaeda] might have been true that they were willing to sign this document to protect themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, this is too far fetched, really, (if they knew the claims might've been true, they would've handled things differently) but say anything you want about those cowardly Dems, I'd agree with ya!

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
They act like they KNEW there were no WMD. Like they KNEW there was no link between Iraq and Al-Qaida.

These claims are clearly false. They were apparently so afraid that they might have been true that they were willing to sign this document to protect themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most republicans knew the claims probably were false too, and signed as well. The information about its lack of credibility was available before this joint resolution was signed and would be within reach of every congressman.

It was available here, 6,000 kilometres away, in non-intelligence circles for xxxxxxx's sake.

All informed people who signed it were either cynical or cowards.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Maxine Waters ...She's probably the biggest buffoon in Congress

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't know about you, but anyone who has the courage to stand up against such a vast majority in Congress (or elsewhere) has my admiration. And I would be careful before calling him or her names.

[ QUOTE ]
This is a woman who excused the 1992 Los Angeles riots as a "rebellion."

[/ QUOTE ]
What was the cause of those riots?

Was it only an attempt by criminals to overthrow the government?

Or was it something else (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_civil_unrest_in_Los_Angeles) which deteriorated someplaces in mob violence and looting?

[lehighguy]

I don't have to defend republicans to know democrats are trash. I don't like either.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
And I would be careful before calling him or her names.

[/ QUOTE ]

O.K. how about this:

Maxine Waters is one of the most hate filled racially bigoted people in congress. She has accomplished nothing in 10 years in the House besides obstruction except for forcing one of the House committees to hire 2 black staffers.

She’s the one who went to Damian Williams’s house (the guy who hit Reginald Denny in the head with a slab of concrete then did a victory dance over his unconscious body) and called him a hero.

Lots of compromise and understanding here.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Maxine Waters ... went to Damian Williams’s house (the guy who hit Reginald Denny in the head with a slab of concrete then did a victory dance over his unconscious body) and called him a hero.

[/ QUOTE ]
If she did that (I truly do not know), then that was extremely short-sighted, stupid and irresponsible of her.


[ QUOTE ]
Maxine Waters is one of the most hate filled racially bigoted people in Congress. She has accomplished nothing in 10 years in the House besides obstruction

[/ QUOTE ]
You piqued my curiosity about her background! Here's some info on Ms Walters:

[ QUOTE ]
In 1973 Waters went to work as chief deputy to City Councilman David Cunningham. In 1976, she quit her job and successfully ran for election to the California State Assembly. After serving for fourteen years in the California State Assembly, in 1990 Waters successfully ran for a seat in the 29th Congressional District of California.
<font color="white"> . </font>

In November 2002, she was elected to her seventh term in the House of Representatives with an overwhelming 77.6 percent of the vote.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't sound like a run-of-the-mill poltico to me! And that's certainly no "10 years" of service! But there's more:

[ QUOTE ]
Maxine Waters brought national spotlight to the allegations of CIA involvement in the Contra cocaine drug trafficking in South Central Los Angeles[/b]
in the mid-1980s.
<font color="white"> .</font>
She has called for redirecting the resources of the so-called war on drugs to prevention and treatment, and for repealing mandatory minimum sentencing laws for minor drug offenses.
<font color="white"> .</font>
She was responsible for ... the nation’s first statewide Child Abuse Prevention Training Program; the prohibition of police strip searches for nonviolent misdemeanors; and the introduction of the nation’s first plant closure law.
<font color="white"> . </font>

She was instrumental in ... creating a “Center for Women Veterans,” among others.
<font color="white"> .</font>
In the mid-80s, she also founded Project Build, working with young people in Los Angeles housing developments on job training and placement.
<font color="white"> .</font>
Following the 1992 civil unrest, she founded Community Build, the city’s grassroots rebuilding project.
<font color="white"> .</font>
Rep. Waters was a key figure in Congressional efforts to restore to power Haiti’s democratically-elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. She also was arrested in front of the White House urging justice for Haitian refugees and the restoration of democracy in Haiti.


[/ QUOTE ]

Although this was taken from Congress web pages, it seems like she is more than a "racial bigot" or an obstructionist.