The final vote on the war supplemental in the House is expected in the next hour or so, and while it may have the 289 votes needed under suspension of the rules to pass, because Republicans are likely to support it strongly, a growing number of Democrats are expressing second thoughts. For example, Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey will vote against the measure:
Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, announced Tuesday he will oppose a bill providing $33 billion to fund troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Obey introduced the original version of the war funding legislation and voted for it in March, but expressed his skepticism over the progress of the Afghan war in a floor statement.
”I have a double, and conflicting, obligation. As chairman, I have the obligation to bring this supplemental before the House to allow the institution to work its will,” he said. “But I also have the obligation to my conscience to indicate — by my individual vote — my profound skepticism that this action will accomplish much more than to serve as a recruiting incentive for those who most want to do us ill.”
Five House progressives have submitted an open letter decrying the seemingly endless amount of money available for war, with no corresponding money available for teachers or domestic concerns. The letter makes the point that all the domestic money stripped from the bill was offset – fully paid for – while the $37 billion for war consists of emergency deficit spending. And with the revelations today that almost $9 billion in Iraqi reconstruction money literally cannot be accounted for, the implication here is that it makes more sense to throw money down a hole than use it to save teacher positions or summer jobs for teenagers.
The statement by Raul Grijalva, Barbara Lee, Alan Grayson, Lynn Woolsey and Dennis Kucinich (and in a late addition, Rep. Mike Honda) alludes to the Wikileaks controversy as well:
After the dramatic revelations of this week, it is clearer than ever just how daunting a task our troops face in Afghanistan. We are trying to build a modern, democratic state in an area divided by tribal and ethnic identities that has successfully resisted foreign powers for centuries. We are fighting for one side in a civil war, killing civilians, building resentment toward the United States, and making it nearly impossible to gain the popular support that could make success possible.
As multiple reports have shown, pervasive corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan siphons resources so that even worthwhile projects are doomed to fail. This is not how we want to spend borrowed money. Our people at home are facing a difficult job market, lower funding for education, and a shattered Gulf economy that needs significant attention. We need to prioritize and make the right choices, not continue as before out of inertia or a lack of urgency. We urge the president to consider how this spending really improves the lives of Americans and how it can be spent in more productive ways.
The President alluded to the Wikileaks release today as well in prepared remarks, but vowed to move ahead with his policies, and urged members of the House to fund the war. We’ll see a final vote on this today.
UPDATE: The full list of signers to that strong anti-war statement at this point:
Danny Davis, Yvette Clarke, John Conyers, Donna Edwards, Bob Filner, Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva, Mike Honda, Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson Jr., Sheila Jackson-Lee, Barbara Lee, Chellie Pingree, Jared Polis, Pete Stark, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey



47 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Revolving villians. Revolving heroes.
What role did your rep play in today’s performance?
Vote is going on right now and there’s already enough ayes to pass it…! 8-(
I wonder if anyone remembers Obama’s promised timeline, or his promise that his first war supllemental in office would be his last…
Some frontpager at DKos made the point that since this bill was on the suspension calendar, requiring 290 votes, leadership probably didn’t want it to pass.
I simply do not understand what passes for logic over there anymore.
46 Billion Dollars leaving a broke American nation for war and the continued certain death of dedicated American GIs? Bullshit!
“We have all been here before, we have all been here before…”
I am at least happy to see my congress critter’s name on that letter. Thank you Ms. Woolsey.
With $46 billion dollars I could liberate America from oil whores…..
This is retarded. The epitome of dysfunction.
Its not dysfunctional if your “function” is to further serve the corporate monsters, which in this case are the defense contractors and oil barons. $46 Billion is a lot of gas, guns, ammo, and private soldiers!
The democrats are WAR WHORES ALSO
Now these pricks will pass it with just enough votes while giving traitors cover in tight races to vote against it, making them war whores and two faced bastards.
obama war president and his fucking foot soldiers got his lucre and the fucking LOSERS mantle.
But these democratic war whores scum are above the republican scum, right.
He’s a FUCKING liar in case you didn’t notice.
A god damn fucking liar, but we can believe the change is coming soon.
The “function” should be terminated… Al Queda has been routed from Afghanistan and the cluster fuck continues. How long till we find US money buys arms for Taliban that kills US GIs? The wicked web come back to fuck US
“But these democratic war whores scum are above the republican scum, right.”
Would you prefer to be perpetually “tazed,” or shot dead?
So, it wasn’t 33 billion, after all. This is where the aid to the states, including Medicaid and Medicare went. I think the writings on the wall for Social Security.
Obama doesn’t care, he’s just in there to fool US long enough to do these things. If he gets “elected” to another term, I’ll be a monkey’s auntie.
See, how “bipartisan” war is?
once again, Barbara Lee speaks for
meus.Should read a 102 democrats were allowed to pretend to be against the war but if their votes were needed they would be counted on to vote with warmonger obama.
obama has to murder children so his children are safe, What a man.
Great. Wonderful.
Now let’s watch the rightwing scolds come here to chide us for wanting our socialistnazicommie Social Security entitlement because we middle and working class folks are a giant sucking drain on the MIC, the OilWhores, the Elitist Obscenely Wealthy Pigs of this once great nation.
Who’s asking for a “nanny state” now? Citizens who pay for Soc Sec & are against a useless “war” – or – the Pentagon & the MIC??
For each Republican that votes for it, one lucky democrat gets the opportunity magically morph into a person of conscience, you know, one of the Kabuki roles some of them prefer to play. The “serious pragmatist” role gets stale you know.
This is a great vote for democratic politicians. All this wiggle room to play with within the realm of it still wont change the result. Freestyle Kabuki. I bet thats good fund raising Kabuki. Oh who are we kidding look at Grayson’s coffers. Its great fund raising Kabuki.
Is there a site currently listing who voted which way for this supplemental?
Aren’t you going to post the roll call vote?
Final roll call for all to have their eyes burned:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll474.xml
Endless insanity!
What will it take to awaken the hardened warhawk hearts and soul-less provocateurs of untold suffering to change their infantile infatuation with pain,misery,and death, and rejoin the human race?
Is anyone surprised by this decision, given the nature of this country’s political discourse these days? I don’t think so…
A wise voice from the recent past:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPZydAotVOY&feature=related
148 scum bag democrats
Personal shout out to PATRICK MURPHY(R) PA-08 fucking turn coat WAR MONGER, you damn POS
The ONLY reason Woolsey’s name is on that letter is because the supplemental had ZERO chance of failing. Had it really been in jeopardy, Woolsey would have gotten in line and voted FOR it, just like she did on the health insurance bill. It’s called kabuki. And Woolsey does it all the time.
Oh, but he’s a progressive HERO nowadays for his maybe-someday-compromise on DADT, don’t you know that? Mustn’t be critical of the new progressive HERO.
Exactly right. For those who vote against, this is a cosmetic vote. Their votes couldn’t actually stop passage. If they were serious, they could have promised to vote with Republicans to stop FinReg or on other bills. You see that way they could have exacted a cost for crossing them on this. Instead they get to vote “no” when it doesn’t count and nothing changes.
Some of the people who voted against the bill would have voted against it under any circumstances. Some of the people who voted against the bill do not routinely barter their votes with Nancy Pelosi (blessed be Her name). Some of the people who voted against the bill have taken and maintained firm, unyielding positions against the wars and war-funding. In particular, I am referring to he whose name must not be spoken for fear of
bringing down the wrath of the piranhas, for whom perfection may not even be good enough.
Please tell me you’re not talking about “I’ll change my vote if I get a plane ride” Kucinich.
There is not a single Democratic member of Congress that will hold even a microscopic speck of progressive ground as a matter of principle. Not. One.
Lovely analogy.
It’s only because you and everyone else haven’t tried hard enough. It is all your fault why there isn’t a more progressive Congress. Didn’t you hear them at NN10?
Mea culpa, guilty as charged ; ) I lost my wishful thinking hat awhile back and now look where we are. I haven’t been able to find a new one, but I’ll keep looking. I’m sure with the right hat and a proper attitude on my part, all will be well ; )
Well, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I am. And let’s further say, for the sake of argument, that I think he fucked up very badly on that one (although I’m not altogether comfortable with your pissy characterization). I don’t believe you’ve addressed or dealt with my question about maintaining a position against wars and war funding. And I can’t imagine for the life of me why.
Ok, what pissy characterization would you be comfortable with? Kucinich was actually rewarded by FDL (including from yours truly) for drawing a line in the sand on HIR. And then he went for a joy ride with O and came back and changed his vote. Maybe you can find a way to pretty that up, but I can’t.
His vote really mattered on HIR. He held all the cards because the vote was so close. He could have demanded a better bill or he could have killed it. Instead, he folded and got zip in return.
I thought my reference to his capitulation on HIR was sufficient without my having to make the explicit connection to the war vote, but since you asked here goes…
Lets imagine that today’s vote was close. Lets say that Kucinich held the deciding vote. Do you expect me to believe he would have stood up to the pressure and voted no, after his disgraceful about-face on HIR? I find that highly doubtful.
Oh and one other thing — I voted for that contemptible rat when he ran for President, so it’s not like I think he digs aliens and looks funny and whatnot. I just think he is a lying two-faced weasel, a standard characteristic of Democrats in federal elected office these days.
In fairness to Dennis Kucinich — and I was among those very angry at his change of heart, and/or vote — he alone among the Congresscritters returned donated funds raised here because of his staunch position, subsequently abandoned after riding in the plane.
Not even Donna Edwards, who suggested the fundraiser to Jane Hamsher as something constructive the site could do to win over incumbents skeptical about our ability to really help, has responded to my constant entreaties: every time I get a solicitation email from her, I write back asking for my refund.
Not.
A.
Peep.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and 11 other Republicans went against their party and voted no. Chaffetz went on MSNBC tonight to say it’s time to bring the troops home. It was a principled stand for him.
The gov. of Penn. apparently said Mr. Bipartisan may face a primary challenge because of the war. That’s one of many reasons why a primary challenge would be justified.
Fair enough Teddy, but I would have preferred he withheld his vote. Or forced a significant improvement in exchange for his acquiescence. He got nothing in return.
The only principled votes cast by Dems in Congress are the ones that don’t count. That just isn’t good enough. My patience is gone and I’m not gonna sit quietly under the bus hoping for crumbs. I expected a lot more from Dems in general and from our so called Progressives, like Dennis, in particular.
It is disgusting to watch Congress roll over liked trained puppies on Presidential command. Maybe that’s why O got the Portugese water dog, so he could practice before talking to Congresscritters. Someone needs to tell them that they are supposed to be a co-equal branch, because from Pelosi on down it’s one excuse after another. And it is shameful.
These hacks promised us during the 2006 campaign season that they would end the wars. Well, evidently, it hasn’t come up on their calendars yet. Maybe if they hung up the phone long enough to stop fundraising, they could look over their campaign-pledge to do list and you know, do some of those things.
How did Pelosi vote? I don’t find her on the roll call. Does the Speaker not vote?
It seems to me that there will certainly be a few Democrats that will want to enter the 2012 primaries, if for no other reason than to draw attention to themselves and stake out a claim for elections further down the road. The Afghan War will be one of the bigger issues in those primaries, don’t you think?
I saw that piece with Chaffetz today.
I was bewildered.
I am so used to seeing Congresscritter weasels and dirtbags on teevee that I was genuinely surprised to see Chaffetz speak intelligently, and with no obvious self-serving agenda.
Grayson didn’t vote. Why?
Grayson’s website has no mention of the 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act on the home page, and no hits on a search for “2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act”
Well, actually, yes.
That doesn’t look like sellling out. That looks like being had.
Hardly ever.
That’s why I proposed in my last Sunday Late Night post from San Franciso that she retain the Speaker’s gavel but resign her seat, so The City can elect a real progressive leader who isn’t constrained by the Speaker’s national role. The Speaker, as defined by the Constitution, needn’t be a Member of the House of Representatives.
I agree with everything you said.
I wanted to give Dennis credit, alone among his peers, for returning money.
I began asking ‘critters for money back soon after we elected Chris Carney from Pennsylvania in 2006. He *promised* in a Blue America chat, and on his campaign, to vote for the Mathew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill. At his earliest opportunity, he voted NO.
I still occasionally write to his campaign, asking for a refund of my wee pittance. Never got an answer, ever. Chris Carney is a schmuck of the first order.
According to David Swanson, he had pressing personal business…probably picking up Nancy Pelosi’s dry-cleaning. But he left word that he would have voted ‘no’.
phred: I have as low an opinion of congress as you do (except for Kucinich, who I think has principles and votes them…and who got conned by Dear Leader…because Dennis ain’t always too bright). And I voted for him in the primary two days after he withdrew.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and 11 other Republicans went against their party and voted no.
Wow, that’s a ballsy vote for a House freshman. Good for him.