The final roll call for the war supplemental, which passed the House yesterday without key domestic spending, is here. 102 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted against the bill, and while a few of those Republicans probably voted no because of the meager non-war spending in there (because nobody needs Gulf Coast disaster and flooding relief, or long-overdue medical treatment and compensation from Agent Orange exposure), overall there are probably well over 100 votes firmly against the war now. Obviously that’s not enough, but it’s about three times as many Democrats as last year, when only 32 came out against the supplemental. And the statements from some of these House members, who weren’t in the list of 32 before but are there now, do show a change in attitude about the war. Here’s John Garamendi (D-CA):

“Today the House of Representatives voted to lead our great nation down the wrong path in Afghanistan and Iraq. For at least another year, we will continue to spill brave American blood and spend tens of billions of dollars in the longest war in American history. I do not think a large scale military presence in Afghanistan or Iraq is in the best interests of our economy or national security. I want our troops home [...]

“$32 billion is a lot of money. It’s enough to pay for the health care of 12 million children for a year. It’s enough to keep 500,000 police officers patrolling our streets for a year. It’s enough to employ 500,000 teachers for a year. It’s enough to provide 20 million households with renewable energy for a year.

“I am deeply disappointed by the deficit hawks who say that we can’t afford jobless benefits, we can’t afford to keep teachers in our classrooms, we can’t afford the infrastructure investments needed to continue our climb out of a recession, yet we can afford more war.”

And Judy Chu (D-CA):

“Today I voted against extending and expanding the Afghan War because I’m tired of seeing investments in American jobs, education and security become the victims of friendly-fire,” said Chu. “The vote to finance this war on the backs of future generations, while cutting programs to increase those same generations’ earning power and educational attainment is a tragic one. Removing almost $17 billion in paid-for, budget-neutral investments in teachers, students and border security, while pushing through over $37 billion in war spending that only adds to the debt without making us more secure is a mistake. If we continue down this path, this war’s biggest casualty will be our children’s futures.”

And here was John Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, yesterday:

I also want to emphasize that the events covered in these documents occurred before last December, when the President announced a new Afghanistan strategy clearly designed to address some of the very issues that are raised by these documents. Obviously in many cases, many of us have raised the issues in these documents with the Pakistanis and with the Afghans. And I’ll say a word more about that in a moment.

All of us, however, are concerned that after nearly nine years of war, more than 1,000 American casualties, and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars, the Taliban appear to be as strong as they have been. And to successfully reverse that trend, it is going to be very important for us to depend on our partners in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Those are strong statements, and something to build on for the anti-war movement for the future. Especially from Kerry, who could be reaching a tipping point.

That could come during or after the December review by the President. I’d expect the relevant committees to hold hearings around this and really grapple with the policy. Nine years in, we can no longer afford to pretend Afghanistan doesn’t exist.