The real reason: McDermott is a *very* close ally of Nancy Pelosi. No way he was going to buck her on this.Joel Connelly:
Going back, McD's oppositions to war have always been partisan. On the first Gulf War and then during Bushtime, he was great. And between those, he cheerled every one of Clinton's various interventions (Somalia, Haiti, bombing Iraq, Serbia).
I would have put a lot of money that he'd vote yes on this, even when people were putting him in the "leaning no" column. One of the reasons I think he's a lousy Congressperson even tho I like him personally and he usually votes well is that he's remarkably ineffective; and one of the many measures of this is that he's always been a partisan hack (politically speaking) and he STILL has always had remarkably little influence in his caucus relative to his seniority.
Saying that President Obama "needs and deserves" support on the issue, liberal Seattle Rep. Jim McDermott on Tuesday voted in favor of a $106 billion bill to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.Howie P.S.: Can anyone tell me the "real" reason?
The bill narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives with near-unanimous Republican opposition.
About $80 billion from the bill will go to finance U.S. military operations in Iraq, which are shrinking, and the expanding American military commitment to Afghanistan.