Here's why John McCain can't be Kerry/VP! On eve of Iraq Invasion.....

[KoKo]

Senate passes Iraq War Resolution
The Senate passed Bushs war resolution. The vote was 73 to 23. Only 6 Republicans in the House and 1 in the Senate voted against the resolution. Democrats were somewhat divided (21 out of 50 in the Senate voted against the resolution). The votes in both the House and Senate were stronger than Bush Sr. received 11 years ago to use American troops to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, (52 to 47 in the Senate, 250 to 183 in the House). (SNIP)


Sen. Byrd Puts up a Fight

Senate action on the resolution was slowed by 84-year-old Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., a master of parliamentary procedure and an implacable defender of the constitutional powers of Congress. "Let us not give this president, or any power, unchecked power," he said.But his resistance was undercut Thursday morning when the Senate voted 75-25 to stop Byrd's delaying tactics and move the measure toward a final vote. At about the same time, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who had objected to what he said was giving the president overly broad authority, announced he was supporting the resolution.

"I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice," said Daschle. "It is neither a Democratic resolution nor a Republican resolution. It is now a statement of American resolve and values."

Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., offered similar alternatives committing the United States to working with the United Nations in disarming Iraq and requiring the president to come back to Congress for a second vote if he decided that unilateral action was the only recourse. Those proposals went down, 270-155 in the House and 75-24 in the Senate.
Emphasizing Need for Diplomatic Efforts

The resolution emphasizes the need to work with the United Nations and exhaust diplomatic measures before resorting to force but allows the president to act with or without the United Nations. There was a sense that war was inevitable.

"Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

http://129.110.23.73:7000/18749/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds vote


WASHINGTON (CNN) --In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

Resolution sharply divides Democrats

The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.

Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."

Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse."

(SNIP)

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote.

Byrd had argued the resolution amounted to a "blank check" for the White House.

"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."

"Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows," McCain said.


http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Dufaeth]

1. No worse than the democrat idiots

that voted for it too.

[wryter2000]

4. I have to agree, Dufaeth

Lots of Dems went along. McCain isn't my choice, for sure, but not for this reason.

[dennis4868]

2. It was is...

really sad how so many dems sold themselves out by voting to give dumbshit the power to start an illegal war...why even bothering having dems in the congres (besides Sen. Byrd of course).

[blm]

3. McCain is NOT going to be VP. People shouldn't waste time worrying

about it.

I think McCain will head up some commission that pushes true campaign finance by taking out ALL donations and financing elections publically as Wellstone and Kerry intended. He would make a good spokesperson and pointman for the media on that issue.

I see public financing of campaigns in place before the 2008 election.

[surfermaw]

6. You got that right

We should leave the V.P. spot up to Kerry and start trying to get the House and Senate to go democratic...

[KoKo]

7. It keeps getting posted on DU, blm. (I'd finally had enough of it!)

:D....But, seriously it's important to look back and remember that time and what has happened since.

[blm]

9. Oh, I understand WHY it gets bandied about...because

there are people in the media interested in it.

I just don't want us to fall for it and take the focus off of exposing BushInc.

I think this is a defining moment for both sides now.

[surfermaw]

5. Please tell me why you want to defeat Bush and elect MCCain another rep.

[handywork]

8. Wouldn't vote for McCain

But you have to give it up to the fact that he stands up for what he thinks regardless of who it pisses off. Not to mention he's funny as shit.

[KoKo]

10. ???

[handywork]

11. ok not on everything

but my point is that in the interviews i have seen recently he talks about bush's lies and how Kerry would not be weak on terror and i dont think that is a popular stance among most repubs. and especially bush co.

[KoKo]

12. John McCain is a very skillfull politician. He's so skillfull he can

appeal to both sides when he wants to. But at his core, he is a Repuglican, and when they snap the whip he will always obey. He's not someone who should be considered as Kerry/VP if one is a hard core Democrat. And "especially" if one was against the Iraq Invasion as many of us were.

[no name no slogan]

14. He's also the biggest recipient of media PAC money

McCain is the largest recipient of media PAC money in the US Senate. He's in their back pocket, and has consistently sided with them on their issues, like the 1996 Telecomm Act.

Make no mistake about McCain-- he's a slick politician who knows how to play to the crowd. He'll talk like a reformer, but when it comes time to cut the nutz, he's nowhere to be seen.

There's no good reason why Democrats should feel a need to use his words to defend our candidates. IMHO it just shows how pathetic this party is, depending upon the words of a Republican to show how "credible" our candidates are.

[handywork]

13. i agree

Thats why i said i would never vote for him, but i do think the country would be much better off if he had won the nomination rather than bush

[MAlibdem]

15. yes, if you all found kerry tough to swallow

mccain would be a bigger pill. Like a horse tranquilizer...

but we would win...tradeoffs, tradeoffs

[KoKo]

17. NO to "Tradeoffs!" We've "traded" enough the last more than three years!

"Winning" isn't "everything." It's how you "play" the game. An old saying. And, it's still rings true.

[waldenx]

16. McCain and Kerry agree on the war

both shit on the constitution.

[TomSeaverr]

18. McCain is a two faced Repug

Enough of this talking about him.

[KoKo]

19. Kick, for the reminder of how we got into Iraq. On the Anniversary.

[Moderator]

20. KoKo01

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you.

DU Moderator

[w4rma]

21. McCain said that he is not going to be *anyone's* VP in 2004. (n/t)